Astrophysicist‚ best-selling author and People Magazine’s “Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive‚” Neil deGrasse Tyson‚ has made a long career educating people about the universe and helping us make sense of its seemingly infinite mystery.But in a recent “Dropouts” podcast interview‚ Tyson focused on a subject closer to home: man’s best friend‚ the dog. During the interview‚ he discussed how dogs have an incredible lust for life that may somehow be tied to an understanding that their time on this Earth is far too short.He also discussed how a dog's joyous nature is something we should all aspire to because life is far too short for all beings. His words were set to beautiful imagery by the Lunas_Golden_Life Instagram page.[Video] See on Instagram “Every time you come back from wherever you went‚ your dog is happy‚ and it’s jumpy‚ and it wants to lick you in the face. Even if you just went to get the mail from the mailbox‚ they delight in your return‚” Tyson says in the video. “If you wanna take them out on a car ride‚ they are the first one in the car. They don’t care where it’s going‚ but they’re there.”He then put the lifespans of dogs and humans in perspective.“If they only get one day for every week you’re alive‚ they make every day count. Their lives have already factored in their mortality‚” he continued. “When I look at a dog‚ I use that as a reminder of how I should live every day of my life.”“Every time you come back from wherever you went‚ your dog is happy‚ and it’s jumpy‚ and it wants to lick you in the face. Even if you just went to get the mail from the mailbox‚ they delight in your return‚” Tyson says in the video. “If you wanna take them out on a car ride‚ they are the first one in the car. They don’t care where it’s going‚ but they’re there.”He then put the lifespans of dogs and humans in perspective.“If they only get one day for every week you’re alive‚ they make every day count. Their lives have already factored in their mortality‚” he continued. “When I look at a dog‚ I use that as a reminder of how I should live every day of my life.”

A personal connection to a Dylan outtake. The post Laurie Anderson’s favourite Bob Dylan song first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

As thousands of Americans prepare to attend the annual March for Life this week in Washington‚ D.C.‚ the topic of abortion is top of mind for many. And now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned‚ a pro-life president could have a more significant impact than in past years. So‚ where do former President Donald Trump‚ former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley‚ and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis stand on the issue? Donald Trump Shifts Focus During his presidency‚ Donald Trump worked closely with pro-life leaders and became the first president to speak at the March for Life in 2020. During that speech‚ he said he would “defend the right of every child‚ born and unborn‚ to fulfill their God-given potential.” Attendees of that march could be seen carrying red signs of Trump’s face with the words: “Most pro-life president ever.” Trump made three key Supreme Court nominations that allowed for the overturning of Roe in 2022. He also decreased funding to Planned Parenthood and signed an executive order protecting infants born alive after failed abortions. (READ MORE from Liliana Zylstra: Meet Terrisa Bukovinac‚ the Democrat Standing Up to Biden’s Abortion Extremism) However‚ Trump has shifted his focus recently. In a September interview‚ he stressed the importance of compromise on abortion and strongly criticized DeSantis for signing a law banning abortions after six weeks’ gestation. Trump called that law a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” Trump declined to say whether he would support a national 15-week limit and instead asserted that he would be “almost like a mediator” on the issue. He would‚ he said‚ “come up with a number of weeks or months … that’s going to make people happy.” The former president also asserted‚ “I think both sides are going to like me.” In an Iowa town hall event last week‚ Trump echoed his previous comments by criticizing earlier abortion limits. He said‚ “[A] lot of women don’t know if they’re pregnant in 5 or 6 weeks.” Nikki Haley’s Abortion Realism Nikki Haley has called herself “unapologetically pro-life.” She boasts of her record when she was governor of South Carolina‚ as she signed a bill during her tenure to protect babies in the womb at 20 weeks. During her Jan. 10 debate with fellow candidate DeSantis‚ Haley criticized both Republicans and Democrats‚ saying: “These fellas don’t know how to talk about abortion.… The Democrats put fear in women‚ and Republicans have used judgment.… We’re not gonna demonize this issue anymore.” She added‚ “[O]ur goal should be how do we save as many babies as possible and support as many moms as possible.” During her time in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 2004 to 2010‚ Haley supported two bills that would have protected life from fertilization. Now‚ as a presidential candidate‚ Haley has different priorities. As she said in a November debate: There are some states that are going more on the pro-life side. I welcome that. There are some states that are going more on the pro-choice side. I wish that wasn’t the case‚ but the people decided. But when it comes to federal law … be honest‚ it’s going to take 60 senate votes‚ a majority of the house‚ and a president to sign it … so no Republican president can ban abortion. Instead‚ Haley has argued for more realistic goals. “Let’s find consensus‚” she said. “Let’s agree on how we can ban late-term abortions … encourage adoption … [and] make contraception accessible.” Ron DeSantis: ‘Pro-Life for the Whole Life’ Ron DeSantis was praised by pro-lifers for signing a bill to protect the unborn at six weeks in Florida. In an interview in July‚ he called the move the “most significant pro-life protections that we’ve ever done in the state of Florida” and assured voters that he would “always come down on the side of life.” Similarly to Haley‚ DeSantis expressed a lack of confidence in the ability of the federal government to end abortion: I think there is a federal interest‚ but I think the reality is … the country is divided on it.… I don’t have much confidence that Congress is going to do anything meaningful.… You’re going to see different states go in different directions‚ and I understand that. These statements earned DeSantis criticism from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser‚ who responded: “There are many pressing legislative issues for which Congress does not have the votes at the moment‚ but that is not a reason for a strong leader to back away from the fight. This is where presidential leadership matters most.” (READ MORE: DeSantis Must Stay in the Race) DeSantis finally said during a September debate that he would support a federal 15-week abortion limit.  During January’s debate with Haley‚ DeSantis called out Trump for his comments against pro-lifers. “I don’t know how you square that…. [H]e was at the March for Life when he was president‚” DeSantis said‚ adding‚ “He’s given a gift to the Left to weaponize against pro-lifers.”  DeSantis also called on Republicans to “do a better job of lifting up folks who are having children” and cited the need to help with medical care‚ affordability‚ and education choice. “You gotta be pro-life for the whole life‚” he said.  The post GOP Candidates Clash on Abortion: See How Their Views Compare appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Remember when Republicans on the campaign trail would talk about how they would make sure to put the U.S. on a fiscally sane path? I miss that time. While a few of the current crop have paid lip service to the idea of constraining spending‚ no one seems to have a clear plan about how to do it. It’s unfortunate. Letting the spending trajectory we’re on further deteriorate will hinder any plans these candidates have for their presidency. It could even jeopardize the fight against inflation. READ MORE from Veronique de Rugy: Three Economic Myths to Put to Rest This Year As a reminder of our fiscal situation‚ according to the Congressional Budget Office‚ we were running a $1.5 trillion deficit in May 2023. That’s quite a spectacular number whether in a time of full employment‚ economic downturn‚ or emergency. This is in large part due to the spectacular increase in spending to $6.4 trillion. Data compiled by Brian Riedl show that in a little less than two years‚ “President Biden added $4.8 trillion to 10-year deficits.” As a result‚ deficits are now projected to exceed $3 trillion in a decade. Naturally‚ this means lots of debt. Overall debt just crossed over the $34 trillion level with no decrease in sight. Riedl adds that‚ depending on which assumptions one looks at‚ it will equal between 181 percent and 340 percent of America’s annual GDP in the next 30 years. His projections are based on the CBO numbers‚ but I think that’s too optimistic. That’s in part because interest rates are likely to be higher than what’s being projected. That means high interest payments for years to come. This will not necessarily change even if the fight against inflation is really won. In a recent article‚ Jack Salmon of the Philanthropy Roundtable looks back at the path of interest rates and interest payments during the decade following the last major U.S. inflation period. “In the early 1980s‚” Salmon writes‚ “when interest rates reached double-digit percentages‚ exceeding 14 percent‚ and then took some time to subside‚ the nation witnessed a dramatic rise in interest payments‚ peaking in the early 1990s at 3.16 percent of GDP.” This came at a time when the average maturity of the debt was even shorter than ours is today (five years as opposed to our current 5.9 years). We should take no comfort in our slight advantage of longer repayment terms. According to the Department of the Treasury‚ the majority of our debt has a maturity of three years or less‚ and 31 percent has a maturity of one year or less. That’s not a long time. Also‚ while interest rates back in the 1980s were a little over twice our current level‚ the debt-to-GDP ratio was roughly four times lower than where it is today. So even if we assume‚ wrongly in my opinion‚ serious relief from interest rates and inflation‚ we should still count on interest payments staying high for a long time‚ like they did in the 1980s. They are already quite significant as the cost of servicing the debt has gone up from $476 billion in fiscal year 2022 to $659 billion in 2023. It is projected to hit $745 billion this year and $1.4 trillion in 10 years. That’s an important chunk of our budget going on autopilot‚ joining the part already dedicated to entitlement programs. With so much money already allocated‚ the next president won’t have much to use for whatever else he or she wants to do. Of course‚ it would get much worse if interest rates go up again and inflation persists. Sadly‚ if politicians continue with the borrowing and spending‚ there is a good chance of that happening. After all‚ we got to this point after the pandemic spending splurge. There’s one more reason to take this seriously. The value of owning government bonds is based on the value of the expected future payoff. These payoffs come from primary surpluses (budget surpluses excluding interest payments). The larger the future primary surpluses‚ the higher the projected return for investors‚ and the lower the interest rates they’ll demand for holding the debt. We‚ however‚ only have primary deficits in our future‚ which eventually lead enough investors to worry about repayment that they demand higher interest rates and fuel fear of more inflation. These elevated interest payments should be at the center of all candidates’ presidential plans‚ because they will reduce the ability either to spend money or to cut taxes. In the worst-case scenario‚ it could mean that much of the next presidency will be consumed by beating inflation back … again. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists‚ visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Candidates: Don’t Let Interest Costs Derail Your Presidential Plans appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO — One of my favorite Soviet-era jokes involved a man who was admiring a shiny American car on a Moscow street. Another man approached and also admired it. The first man said: “What a beautiful Russian car. What magnificent‚ magnificent work we do here.” The second man called him a fool: “Don’t you know that that is an American car‚ not a Russian car?” The first man replied: “Yes. I know it’s an American car. But I don’t know you.” READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: Washington Post Blames Conservatives for ‘Housing First’ Disaster The Soviet Union was many things — all of them awful — but it was most obviously a bureaucratic hellscape‚ where endless rules‚ forms‚ lines‚ and fear of upsetting some government informant cast a shadow over every part of life. After taking a trip there in 1982‚ the Cato Institute’s Edward Crane found not just “drabness and grayness” and “rudeness and surliness.” He found it remarkable that “you virtually never see people laughing‚ smiling or just seeming to enjoy themselves.” A bureaucratic society is a humorless society. That’s why Soviet jokes proliferated under the radar — and why authorities punished people for uttering them. So it’s no surprise that as American society has become more rule-bound‚ with our citizens more dependent on dictates from various agencies‚ we’ve become surlier. Bureaus attract rule-followers and devotees of conformity. I suspect humor punctures the pointlessness of the whole enterprise. The latest example is a minor one‚ but it’s instructive. “In December‚ the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]‚ an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation‚ issued new guidance on traffic-safety messages: Signs should avoid language that uses pop-culture references or humor‚” reports the Wall Street Journal. Many state road agencies‚ it notes‚ post messages on electronic signs such as “Driving basted is for turkeys” and “Get your head out of your apps.”  Those signs are silly but harmless and funny in a corny way. The transportation bureaucrats claim the signs are distracting‚ but a 2020 Virginia Transportation Research Council study cited by the Journal found that “[m]essages about distracted driving‚ messages that include humor‚ and messages that use word play and rhymes rank high among multiple measures of effectiveness.” Maybe federal highway officials might focus their wrath on misspent highway funds instead‚ but that would take serious effort. One light-hearted local freeway sign has been raising eyeballs since the 1980s‚ when the head of maintenance for Caltrans installed a sign at the beginning of Highway 50 west of Sacramento: “Ocean City‚ MD 3073.” It’s a reference to the end point of the same highway. It has received much attention over the years and has been stolen twice‚ according to the Sacramento Bee. I hope no scold at the FHWA notices‚ or it might be replaced by a mileage marker for Carson City.  There’s no sense analyzing the pros and cons of humorous road signs because‚ well‚ the brouhaha isn’t really about public safety. It’s about the nature of bureaucrats and bureaucracies — their determination to exert control and conformity and quash anyone who gets a little silly. I’ve been doing a deep dive on transportation planning and urbanism lately and have found that people who fixate on these issues tend to be among the most self-serious types one will find. They’re all about ending Americans’ “car addiction” and helping “car-brained suburbanites” abandon their “murder mobiles” and replace them with bicycles‚ e-bikes and transit trips. (RELATED from Steven Greenhut: Yes‚ They’re Coming for Your Cars) One would think that in our federalist system‚ state road planners would have the authority to determine the specific nature of trivialities such as sign messaging. But federal funds always come with strings attached. Just as academics and activists have been consumed by a philosophy of road-diets‚ climate change‚ and light rail‚ so‚ too‚ have transportation bureaucrats. I often refer to the “Congestion Lobby‚” which sees heavy traffic as a way to prod us into car alternatives. Some state agencies are pushing back. “Florida state officials have turned down an influx of $320 million of federal dollars to address infrastructure and emissions‚ claiming the money is politicized because it’s meant to address climate change‚” reports Business Insider. The Biden administration and U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg seem far more interested in this anti-car agenda than in building the roads‚ bridges‚ and freeways that Americans depend upon. The FHWA recently announced new regulations that force state departments of transportation and metropolitan agencies to track transportation-related greenhouse emissions. Such tracking and other carbon-reduction measures are a prerequisite for receiving their share of $27 billion in new federal transportation funding. It’s reminiscent of California’s approach‚ which dismisses new freeway building in favor of boondoggles such as high-speed rail. The federal measures include programs that promote transit-oriented development‚ electric-vehicle charging infrastructure‚ bicycle lanes‚ and the like. If you want to have a chuckle‚ spend time on social media debating bicycle enthusiasts who earnestly believe Americans should rely on pedal power to get their groceries and commute to work. Because most Americans live in suburbs‚ these folks demand nothing less than the restructuring of our car-dependent communities. All of this is oh-so-serious business. It’s almost too easy to find overwrought pronouncements about the evils of cars or impending doom. This quotation is from Vice President Kamala Harris at recent COP28 climate talks in Dubai: Around the world‚ there are those who seek to slow or stop our progress. Leaders who deny climate science‚ delay climate action and spread misinformation. Corporations that greenwash their climate inaction and lobby for billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies. Normal Americans might want to say‚ “Lighten up.” We live in one of the most prosperous nations the world has ever known‚ with a transportation system that promotes independence and prosperity. We can address climate change without all the hysteria and bureaucratic societal reordering — and perhaps we can even keep our sense of humor in the process. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. The post Biden’s Bureaucrats Outlaw Humor on the Highway appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Last week‚ teaching‚ for Thales College‚ one of the sequences of classes in Western Civilization‚ I and four students‚ by chance all of them young men‚ discussed Machiavelli’s The Prince. It is utterly refreshing when you know‚ from the start‚ that you need not censor yourself‚ not for crude or obscene language‚ but for ideas. That relaxed atmosphere lends itself to intellectual inquiry. When you have to walk a tightrope‚ you don’t walk at all. READ MORE from Anthony Esolen: The Modern Phenomenon of Ignorance to the Third Degree This coming week we’ll be reading Martin Luther’s The Freedom of a Christian‚ which postdates The Prince and‚ in one sense‚ is utterly foreign to Machiavelli’s patterns of thought — for Luther is Christian‚ and that means he must believe in a divine governance of human affairs‚ though neither he nor his Roman opponents would understand that governance in a simplistic way‚ as if every decision made by every earthly ruler were a matter of God’s enforcement‚ for reward or correction or self-punishment as the case might be. Yet the question I will ask — a question almost impossible to ask at any other college not affiliated with a religious body‚ as Thales College is not — has to do with what freedom is taken to mean‚ and what the students themselves assume that it means. I am guessing that they will tell me what they have been taught‚ though they may not put it in these words: that freedom is a negative‚ a license. You are free to the extent that you may do as you please without interference from the church or the state. And the next question will be whether‚ if freedom is so defined‚ there are suggestions of that definition in the works of both men‚ as there will be in the works of Hobbes‚ Locke‚ Rousseau‚ and others we will be reading this term. Or‚ to put it another way‚ we will be talking about a continental divide in human thought‚ with the ancient world and the Middle Ages on one side‚ and modernity on the other. I think that they will be up to this discussion. My impressions after this first week of class are wholly pleasant and optimistic: We can think; we can speak! Such thought and speech as we will engage in are predicated upon the ability to read. I don’t mean‚ by that‚ the ability to decipher the letters on a page and make words out of them. I mean the ability to grasp an author’s train of thought‚ his tone of voice‚ the logical connections he attempts to draw‚ what he soft-pedals and what he hits hard‚ what he brings to bear upon the matter at hand‚ and what he dismisses as impertinent or omits outright. To read a Machiavelli or a Luther‚ then‚ you require the long habit of interpretation‚ and‚ lest everything fall into a confusion of persons and events‚ objects and places‚ books and more books‚ you require also a fund of general knowledge. That doesn’t mean that you need to know who Hiero of Sicily was‚ though that does help. It does mean that you know roughly where Sicily is‚ and where Carthage was‚ and what Carthage had to do with the Romans. And when it came to that knowledge‚ my students — homeschooled or taught at classical Christian schools or both — were in the ballgame. I believe‚ by the way‚ that this definition of freedom is wrong‚ partly because it takes one aspect of freedom and makes it out to be the whole‚ and partly because‚ in never attributing any end or purpose for freedom‚ it mistakes man; he is reduced to an instantiation of will or desire‚ colliding‚ as Lucretian atoms do‚ against other instantiations of will or desire‚ with the state left to adjudicate among them. There is then no inner dynamism to freedom: It is not a virtue but an extrinsic condition‚ secured by the mechanism of politics. Jesus — and again I say‚ at what other secular college could I bring him up in such a class‚ and with clear approval‚ without risking my job? — says that he who sins is a slave to sin. Paul continued along this path‚ to which the great wisdom-lovers of Greece and Rome would be amenable‚ and Luther certainly agrees. But if that is so‚ then license is a fine way to make slaves of everybody‚ with the state conniving at the enslavement‚ because genuinely free people are hard to control. A churchman may well say that every heresy gets God wrong‚ usually by taking one strand of truth and detaching it from others‚ thus distorting it and making something silly or pathetic or grotesque or monstrous of it. But what if the assumptions underlying modernity get man wrong‚ via the same kind of oversimplification‚ by the same detachment of one truth from the rest‚ resulting in things similarly silly‚ pathetic‚ grotesque‚ or monstrous? Can you ask that question at a secular school? I don’t know. I’ll be asking it. Now‚ even if we were not a nation full of cowardly informants‚ eager to rat on their professors or their fellow students‚ so that — I am told — classrooms are eerily silent before the professor comes in‚ this question is not a comfortable one. It can’t be. It’s a question about the air we all breathe. It’s a question that turns a mirror upon us‚ and not a mirror of our own devising; or a laser that pierces beneath clothes and flesh to show things we might prefer not to see. Now‚ I am certainly not one of those teachers animated by a desire to debunk and no more: the professorial equivalent of flippancy. I usually do the reverse. I debunk the debunkers. I say that they are foolish to ignore Aristotle‚ and here is why. I say that Kant ought to have read Thomas Aquinas a lot more carefully than he did‚ if he read him at all‚ and here is why. I say that to dismiss a hundred scenes from Shakespeare’s plays as if they were no more than “comic relief” for the groundlings is to be a blockhead yourself‚ and here is why‚ and here is how the glory of Shakespeare’s art of interwoven motifs comes forth in those comic scenes in the most unexpected and enlightening ways. I will not say that Hobbes and Locke were blockheads or villains. Why study what you simply despise or hate? In all but the rarest of subjects‚ studying the stupidity and villainy of Hitler‚ for example‚ nothing good or intelligent will come of that. The definition of freedom as license does reach a part of the truth: Even Pericles‚ in his famous funeral oration at the beginning of the great Peloponnesian War‚ says that in Athens every man lives as he pleases‚ and nobody pays him any mind. That‚ of course‚ was the kind of exaggeration you can engage in at a public event meant to rouse the courage and the patriotism of your fellow citizens. But it is not wholly wrong. It does occur to me‚ with some pain‚ that we are at the onset of another quadrennial national election‚ and that you could hardly have this conversation at any political convention or caucus‚ not to mention with the candidates and their staffs‚ or with the political reporters for our major newspapers and television networks. Why not? I don’t put much stock in the machinery of elections‚ but if you are going to have a machine‚ why must it ferret out all depth of learning and subtlety of thought? Another question for another day. The post Freedom as License Is Slavery in Disguise appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Monday night‚ former President Donald Trump had an unsurprising win in Iowa‚ pulling 51 percent of the vote compared to Ron DeSantis’ 21.2 percent and Nikki Haley’s 19.1 percent. In today’s episode of The Spectacle podcast‚ hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay talk election stats and speculate that Trump’s followers have become less concerned with Trump himself and more concerned with his ability to defeat the establishment types in Washington‚ D.C. Melissa points out that both DeSantis and Haley have received comparatively gentle treatment by the leftist media‚ and Scott lays out the path forward to a successful DeSantis campaign in 2028. (READ Scott’s analysis: DeSantis Must Stay in the Race) Order Scott’s new book‚ Racism‚ Revenge and Ruin: It’s All Obama‚ here. Read Scott’s and Melissa’s writing here and here. Listen to The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Spotify. Watch The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Rumble.    The post <;i>;The Spectacle<;/i>; Ep. 59: Trump Is Inevitable appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Gary Gindler‚ American Thinker: The political adage “If you cannot beat them‚ join them” has been well-known for centuries. So‚ the Left made one extra step and arrived at the “if you cannot beat them‚ lead them.” The Left has been trying (unsuccessfully) various methods to eliminate capitalists and private property. Eventually‚ Leftists learned […]

by J.D. Rucker‚ The Liberty Daily: The New Hampshire primary is next week and corporate media is aflutter over the prospects of Nikki Haley beating Donald Trump. One can argue that the UniParty Swamp and their Deep State puppet masters are betting everything on the state as their last desperate attempt to stop Trump from […]