Independent Gubernatorial Candidate David Hatley Pledges to Donate $1 Million to Charity if Marsha Blackburn Agrees to Debate

 

Top Stories

The President’s Ban on Journalists Is Disgraceful and Illegal

by Dan Greenberg, CATO Institute, Sept. 22, 2026 - President Trump’s White House has repeatedly attempted to deny journalists access to presidential press conferences. This time, the White House has excluded several journalists because their coverage was allegedly “one-sided” and “negative.” Such efforts by the White House are illegal; they have failed in the past, and they will fail in the future.

The reasons the Trump White House has given in the past for its attempts to pick and choose which journalists are allowed to cover it have varied, but all of them have one thing in common: they cannot be reconciled with the law. Jim Acosta’s press pass was revoked because he continued to ask questions and refused to yield his microphone to another journalist. Brian Karem’s press pass was revoked essentially because he made remarks that were understood as rude and confrontational. The Associated Press was excluded because it used the label “Gulf of Mexico,” rather than “Gulf of America.” 

But these justifications for exclusion—like the more recent White House complaints about negative news coverage—fail, because they are empty and unworkable under the law.

To be sure, the president may choose to selectively exclude journalists from relatively small or secluded spaces, even if they are spaces where presidential communication occurs—for example, the Oval Office, Air Force One, or Mar-a-Lago. But there is no lawful basis to keep politically disfavored journalists out of places like the Brady Briefing Room, where major press conferences are held, and the journalists who are suing for access there – CNN, MS NOW, and Politico – will shortly prevail. These journalists are just as entitled as anyone else with a White House press pass to attend press conferences​at such locations.

The right of journalists to attend press conferences in White House briefing rooms is something like the right of the public to use an unmarked dirt path on private property: after those with control of the property have historically allowed the public access to it, then such public access can become legally protected. Of course, the analogy is not perfect; more technically, once the White House opens up some particular room to journalists generally, that room becomes a non-public forum—and the exclusion of journalists from such fora on the basis of viewpoint is impermissible. (Getting a press pass to the White House involves clearing other hurdles—a background check, a residency requirement, congressional media approval, and so forth; the holder of a White House press pass thus acquires certain privileges that cannot be arbitrarily stripped away.) 

But to repeat: The standards that govern the universal access that such a non-public forum must provide are quite different from those that govern (say) a president’s practice of beckoning a few reporters into the Oval Office or calling up a favored journalist on the phone. In these latter categories, the White House has every right to pick and choose who the president talks to, and presidential picking and choosing that takes journalists’ particular viewpoints into account is entirely protected.

Again, though, the president cannot pick and choose which journalists are allowed access to a non-public forum based on a journalist’s viewpoint. Regrettably, when Donald Trump was asked why he was denying access to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, his remarks demonstrated that viewpoint discrimination animated his choices:

Because they’re fake news. Uh, you get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. Uh, when you look at CNN, it’s just fake. That’s why their ratings are no good. When you look at MS NOW, which used to be MSNBC, which some people call MS DNC, Democratic National Committee, it’s fake news. It’s fake news … And when you look at Politico, I mean, they got a government—the government under Biden gave them like $8 million to keep them afloat. Uh, and the stories they wrote are fake „, You know how fake their reporting is. It’s one-sided. It’s never good. I’ve done many, many—look at this story today about, uh, favored nations on drugs. We lowered the drug costs by 50, 60, 70 percent. They won’t even put it—if they put it on, it’ll be—they will find a reason why that’s a negative … They’re smart people, but they purposely write negative news. And they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.

The president’s subsequent explanation of his powers and the media’s rights is particularly revealing:

I mean, there’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories. Now, if they want to write them, that’s fine, but I don’t have to let them into my—into the people’s house.

Public officials are sometimes under the mistaken impression that the powers and perquisites they acquire in government function like their own private property—that, for instance, Donald Trump can control every inch of the White House in the same way he can control every inch of Mar-a-Lago. Eventually, these public officials discover that they are mistaken and that they cannot use public property in the same way they use their own private property. 

It is a pity that Donald Trump has evidently not yet learned this important lesson, and it is unfortunately an open question what he will learn when he loses the lawsuit that CNN and others filed yesterday. 

Top Stories

Congress Did Not “steal” From Social Security

 by Rod Williams, Sept. 20, 2026 -  It is so frustrating to see the same memes or read comments about Security that are simply false. They pop up in my Facebook feed again and again. In talking to people, I hear them repeat lies about what is wrong with Social Security.

People will say that if we would cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse, the problem with Social Securityy would be solved. No doubt there is someone somewhere who is getting Social Security who is not entitled to it. But cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse would not solve Social Security's problem. The waste, fraud, and abuse is insignificant. I am for catching as many cheaters as we can find, but that is not what is wrong with Social Security.

Sometimes people get more specific and say what is wrong with Social Security is all of the illegal immigrants getting Social Security. Illegal immigrants in the United States are ineligible to receive Social Security retirement, disability, or survivor benefits. There are a handful of non-citizens, such as green card holders, who do qualify for Social Security, but they are also paying into the system. Their participation in Social Security is no more of a drain on the system than anyone else. Illegal immigrants who are working and using a fake Social Security card actually help the system. They pay in and never receive Social Security benefits.

One of the biggest lies about Social Security is that the reason it is going broke is that the government borrowed from Social Security and left the trust fund with worthless IOU's, or simple claims that Congress stole from Social Security. Absolutely untrue.

When Social Security collects more in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits, the excess is invested in Treasury bonds issued specifically for the trust fund. The cash from these bond purchases flows into the Treasury’s general fund, which can be used for any federal purpose. 

What do people think happens to money that is in the Trust Fund? Do they think it just sits untouched in a vault or is under someone's mattress?  We should be glad that it is drawing a little bit of interest. That is the way the system works.  In fact, it is a legal requirement, and it’s the same thing that happens when any investor buys U.S. government bonds.  When the trust fund redeems its bonds, the Treasury pays the principal and interest from general revenues. Because these bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, the bonds are legally obligated to be honored. People take what is rational and legally required and somehow turn it into the claim that the government stole from Social Security.  Congress does not “steal” from Social Security. Surplus revenues are legally invested in Treasury bonds earning interest.

What is wrong with Social Security is demographics. People are living longer, and because people are having fewer children, there are fewer people paying into the system. Social Security is a transfer program. When you pay Social Security taxes, that money does not go into an account with your name on it. When you pay your Social Security taxes, it goes right out the door to pay someone else's current benefit. It has always been that way. Any excess of what is received over what is paid out goes into the Trust Fund, but most of the benefits one receives is money that someone else is paying in.

Social Security is in trouble, with the trust fund projected to be depleted by late 2032. When it is depleted, benefits will be cut by about 22%. I suspect Congress will not allow that to happen and will pay the Social Security deficit out of the General Fund, which means borrowing with Treasury bonds sold on the open market or by borrowing from the Federal Reserve. Issuing more debt will hasten the day of reckoning for running up massive debt. Borrowing from the Federal Reserve is "printing money," is inflationary, and reduces the purchasing power of the dollar.

Some things could be done to put Social Security on a sounder footing. I have explored these elsewhere in posts on this blog. All solutions have consequences and a downside. Solutions should be explored and debated. Unfortunately, any talk of reform is met with images of pushing grandma in a wheelchair over a cliff. 

What does not help address the future of Social Security is repeatedly telling people that the reason there is a problem is that Congress stole the money. 

.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Bill Frist: Clean Air Standards Save Lives.

From Senator Bill Frist, M.D., Sept. 17, 2026- Clean air standards save lives. Weakening them is a step backward for public health and the environment.

This week, the EPA proposed eliminating all remaining greenhouse gas emissions rules for coal and natural gas power plants. Many of these regulations have a history of bipartisan support, grounded in the Clean Air Act of 1970 that was authored by my mentor, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-TN).

As a heart and lung transplant surgeon and former Senate Majority Leader, I see clean air protections as preventive medicine.

Fine-particle air pollution can trigger inflammation, impair blood-vessel function, and promote abnormal clotting, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. The original power-plant carbon standards were projected to deliver additional health benefits through measurable reductions in air pollution.

Any serious assessment of regulatory costs must also account for the costs of preventable illness: hospitalizations, lost productivity, and lives cut short.

In this week’s Myth Diagnosis, I address the claim that clean air standards are “just more red tape.”

My diagnosis? Prevention reversed.

Prescription? Protect the safeguards that protect our health.

We have made real progress toward cleaner air. Now is the time to build on it.

Clean air protections are health protections. Because the world around us shapes the health within us. 

Top Stories

MAGA is More socialist Than DSA Supporters

by Rod Williams, Sept. 16, 2026 -Under Trump, the government has taken an ownership stake in over 30 large companies. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Even a lot of people who align with the DSA do not really support socialism.

Government ownership of the means of production, DSA’s defining program and actual textbook socialism, draws support from just 11 percent of voters, with 79 percent opposed and 63 percent strongly opposed. Even among Democrats favorable to the DSA, it nets out at 59 percent opposition.

The DSA’s defining program, public ownership of businesses, is underwater four to one even among those supporting the DSA. Nor is this the only sign of confused beliefs about socialism among today’s supporters. Other polls of voters under 25 showing 77 percent thought their paycheck should be based on merit, 70 percent wanted to own their own business, and 63 percent saw America as the land of opportunity led Mark Penn and Andrew Stein to remark earlier this month that “today’s young adults must be the most entrepreneurial socialists in history.”

Even socializing only utilities and railways — socialist bread and butter — failed to command majority support among any group polled by The Argument, even though those are exactly the two sectors DSA identifies as pivotal for socialists to nationalize. That proposition is only supported by 48 percent of Democrats who view the DSA favorably, with 38 percent actually opposed. In other words, while support for the socialist label is rising alongside the DSA’s success, apparent support for the key tenets of socialism remains fringe. (Do DSA Supporters Really Want Socialism? | Cato at Liberty Blog)

Of course, while the DSA actually calls for socialism and they accurately define it, most people don't really want socialism. They favor policies more aligned with Social Democracy policies. They want a regulated capitalist economy and strong social welfare programs to promote what they see as equality and social justice. They do not actually want to nationalize Amazon and Kroger. If you think your paycheck should be based on merit and you someday want to own your own business, you are not really a socialist. 

It seems the only people in America who want socialism are Trump supporters. I haven't found any polling to confirm this, but Trump supporters still enthusiastically support Trump and his policies, and I hear no voices on the new right condemning Trump's policy of taking ownership interest in American companies.

If a Democrat administration had taken an ownership interest in over 30 companies, Republicans would have their hair on fire and be screaming bloody murder. Of course, Republicans have abandoned most of what they once believed and now believe whatever Trump is doing is correct. They blindly follow Trump wherever he leads, and he can lead them to accept socialism as long as he doesn't call it socialism. Federal corporate ownership is becoming routine under this Republican administration. Don't tell me that it is not the Republican Party that views socialist policies more favorably.

Top Stories

Trump Says Don't Worry About AI, the Only Guardrails Needed is a Strong and Smart President

by Rod Williams, Sept. 14, 2026- It seems most people who pay attention are concerned about the danger of AI. Not the President, of course. Here is what he had to say on his Truth Social today. 

I, of course, don't know what should be done about AI. I do not think doing nothing and assuming there is not a problem is the answer.

"Ban it" is not a solution but a slogan. I have no way of knowing whether the dire warnings expressed by researchers and industry leaders are warranted, but enough people are expressing concern that the issue should be taken seriously. The risk of a new wave of biological weapons and autonomous warfare is a serious concern. 

Of course, if the US calls a halt to technological advancement and China and other countries are not restrained, then nothing is accomplished. Unilateral disarmament is not a solution. That is not a reason for despair and doing nothing, however.  We have lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation since 1945 yet we cooperated with an enemy sworn to destroy us and avoided nuclear Armageddon. The arms race was dialed back by things like the Test Ban Treaty and SALT. I think such an approach should be pursued regarding AI, assuming of course, that the threat is real, which I tend to think it is but have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty. 

Since Trump has turned much of the world against us and we have lost much of our soft power and Trump has been destroying alliances and the world order, America would have a more difficult time exerting leadership in the world to address this issue than in the past.  However, we should attempt to rally the world to deal with this issue, again assuming it is as serious as some think it is. 

I am a little suspicious when industry leaders call for government regulations of their industry. I have to ask if this is to lock in an advantage and suppress competition or if it is genuine.  I don't know, so while I am skeptical of the motives of industry leaders, I am not prepared to simply dismiss the industry's expressed concerns. 

There are a lot of questions about the threat of AI and, as of yet, not a lot of answers. In my view, the threat should be taken seriously. The last thing we need is for the President of the United States to say all is fine because I am in charge and I am strong and smart. Oh, and if you think there is a reason to be concerned about AI you are a conspiracy theorist, treasonous, and a traitor. 

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Never Have so Many People Known so Little and Been so Imbued With the Confidence of Their Intellect

by Rod Williams, Sept. 13, 2026 - 

One finds fame on platforms like Twitter by being the lamest, the angriest, the least amenable to thoughtful pushback or open debate or introspection. And Zeus forbid that someone reject tribal orthodoxy. The biggest stars of the Twitter age . . . well, let’s just say that rarely have so many people who knew so little been imbued with so much confidence in their intellect. (Democracy in Silos, by David Earsany, NR)

I came across the above the other day, and it expresses well what I have observed and that of which I am persuaded.  People are getting dumber and dumber, and they think they are informed and intelligent.  I think there was a time when people who were ignorant kind of knew they were ignorant. On certain topics, they would defer to experts and better-informed people. Now, many seem to think an uninformed opinion is just as valuable as an informed one, and they distrust experts. There is a certain pride in having "common sense," and a belief that common sense and a passion are all one needs to argue a case for some proposition or to govern.

I think the rise of new media is a major reason for this.  There are "influencers" with no experience and no credentials who are followed by millions. On the right, there is an explosion of podcasters at the junction of the manosphere and Trumpistan. People take them seriously and think they have discovered the truth and that everyone else has been lying to them.  Of course, this is not only true of right-wing political podcasts, but you see the same certainty of one's views about healthcare topics, alien encounters, and other topics. 

In addition to this certainty of having discovered the truth, those who are promoting unorthodox views are able to reach people who in the past, they would never have reached. Sure, before the widespread use of the internet, one could publish anything one wanted. People had the same right to spread untrue or hatefull or just wrong information, but you can only reach so many people by handing out xeroxed copies on the street, and to found and publish a magazine is a big undertaking. Then, one could only reach a small fraction of the population. In the past, there were gatekeepers. A TV discussion panel was not going to program a person of really fringe views or people who just spread wrong information. Letters to the Editor did not get published if they were too outlandish. Now the gatekeepers are gone.

One thing that led to our current state of political illiteracy is the rise of Donald Trump. Without any evidence and despite over 60 court rulings against the stolen election myths and despite the millions paid in settlements for defamation, about a third of Americans still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Another example of people believing things that are obviously not true is that tariffs are paid by the exporting country. They refuse to believe that it is the consumers who pay the tariffs. This should not even be debatable. The importer pays the tariffs, and he passes them on to the retailer, who passes them on to the consumer.  That is a fact, yet many don't believe it. People not only feel entitled to their wrong opinion but also to their own "facts."

Of course, this raises the question: did Trump spread political illiteracy, or is political illiteracy what led to Trump? I think it is a little of both. At some point in the last thirty or so years, schools began focusing on STEM and had to cut other things, like civics and history. Generations of people grew up without an understanding or appreciation of how government works and the conflicts that led to our democracy. People had to wrestle less with competing and complex ideas.  Not only did civic education suffer, but other critical thinking skills suffered, with there being less emphasis on literature, reading, and composition. 

This decline in critical thinking skills and the ability to reason is greater than just what happens in the political realm. I think it is a general dumbing down of society. There are two articles published in The Atlantic that explore this. One is The Post Literate Age published in the October 2025 issue. This article by George Packer, makes the case about people's failure to read and why it matters:

For one thing, did anyone still read fiction? I mean literary fiction, the kind that aspires to complex characters, subtle themes, and careful attention to prose style. Those novels are gone from the best-seller lists—it’s all sexy dragons now. The novel ceased long ago to occupy the cultural center, giving way first to movies, then TV series, video games, social-media posts, and AI content. The novelist as voice of a generation no longer exists. Literary fiction has become more like classical music—the eccentric taste of a diminishing set of the devoted.

I don't think it matters the topic of the novel so much as exercising the brain the way reading requires. As we read less, we are less capable of rational thought. 

The other article that explores this topic is The End of Reading Is Here, by Rose Horowitch published in the August 2026 issue. It points out that "The decline in reading cuts across age groups, gender, and education levels. Even the demographics that traditionally read the most—retirees, women, and college graduates—have seen a collapse."

Not only are people reading less, but their attention spans are also shrinking and what they do read has been dumbed down. Horowitch points out that New York Times bestsellers today have sentences that are about one-third shorter than they were a century ago.  Nearly 30 percent of American adults cannot paraphrase or make inferences from a multipage text. In 2017, that number was less than 20 percent. Reading scores are plummeting.

Not only is the decline in literacy found in the average American, but the elites are getting less literate also. The article documents this. Some will say that we are getting information from listening to news or podcasts on headphones. The author says that hearing something is no substitute for reading: 

The written word is fundamentally different from oral language. Writing detaches the message from the messenger, allowing for a more dispassionate spread of information than was possible in oral societies. Because writing a phrase takes longer than speaking it, writing forces the author to slow down and reflect. Written language tends to employ more complex sentence structures and vocabulary than spoken language. And unlike speech, it doesn’t disappear into the ether. Readers can return to a text and plumb it for new meaning and understanding. Because writing endures, individuals can temporarily forget what they’ve written but trust that it won’t be lost forever. This frees up the mind to think of new ideas and make new discoveries. ...

Studies have shown that people comprehend less when reading on a digital device than on paper, perhaps because of all these distractions. Devoting extended, undivided attention to a text can now feel like too much to ask. Audiobooks have become a popular alternative to print books at least in part because listening to a book allows for multitasking: You can read while doing the dishes or driving to work.

In this digital age, illiteracy increases: the short-form video and the tweet and the thumbs up and other symbols are replacing reading text and writing text online.  The author points out that as America has become postliterate, Trump is our first postliterate president. 

Trump’s communication style is perfectly suited to an oral society. He employs epithets—“Low-Energy Jeb,” “Little Marco,” “Sleepy Joe”—that are easy to remember and repeat. He contradicts himself as though there is no record of his previous statements. Even his writing is almost indistinguishable from his speech. (It makes sense; Trump reportedly prefers dictation to composition.) His online posts are full of idiosyncratically placed punctuation, capital letters, and exclamation points. Many are memes with little text:

I am pessimistic about the future of America. Trump's policies have weakened America's standing in the world; the world order that kept the peace is falling apart, and America faces an economic crisis. I could think that when Trump passes from the scene, we can restore the old order and reintegrate a fractured world and address our pressing issues; however, I have my doubts.  I fear that an illiterate population, getting dumber by the day, may be incapable of rational thought and discerning the truth from fiction. People want free things and they don't want to pay for them, and they want scapegoats to blame for the problems of the country or their own failings. A post-literate world will be easier to demigod, to manipulate, and to persuade. 

Top Stories

Remembering September 11, 2001

by Rod Williams, Sept. 10, 2026- It is hard to believe that it has been twenty-five years since the terrorist attack of 9-11 and the collapse of the Twin Towers. I am an old man now and have witnessed a lot of historic events in my life. For me, the September 11th attack ranks as the most important historic event I have experienced, overshadowing the Kennedy assassination, the US's humiliating defeat and chaotic exit from Vietnam, the moon landing, the resignation of Richard Nixon, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and other historic events. It seems to be fading into the background now for much of the public. 

About 30 percent of U.S. residents were born after 2001, and about 7 percent of the population were 5 years old or younger. That’s 37 percent of the population that was at least too young at the time of the attacks to be aware of what unfolded. As divided as we are now, it is hard to believe that there was a time when America was so united, even it was united in grief.  I think for those who experienced the attack of September 11, 2001, we will never forget where we were or how we felt. Below is my remembrance written down five years ago. 

 by Rod Williams, Sept, 11, 2020 -  On September 11, 2001 I got up like most days and got ready for work. As I recall, I had the TV on when a program was interrupted, saying a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. I did not think a lot about it at first. No details were available, and I assumed some private small plane had flown off course and accidentally crashed into the building. 

By the time I got to work, the second plane had hit and it was clear that the U. S. was under attack. My long-time, long-distance girl friend, Louella Ballenger, who is now my wife, worked in Washington DC at the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, located right next to Union Station which is across the street from the back of the US Capitol. I do not recall the sequence of events exactly, but it must have been after the Pentagon was hit and I started wondering what was next. I feared we were under an all out attack. I tried several times to reach Louella. I wanted to see if she was all right and tell her I loved her. I feared the worst. 

After several attempts, I reached her. Chaos reigned at her workplace. People were free to leave work, but the subways were not running and the roadways were jammed. She was waiting out the crisis at her office. We told each other how much we loved each other. 

After getting off the phone with Louella, I just had a sense that I needed to talk to people I love so I next called my daughter. Rachel was in no danger of course. She was in Chattanooga attending college but I just wanted to hear her voice and tell her I loved her. I then called my mother. I remember how everyone at work and everyone I talked to was affected by the event. 

I was working at the Woodbine Community Organization, which was a community-oriented social services agency, neighborhood organization, and a housing counseling agency.  I went to my boss, Cathie Dodd, and said we ought to do something. She agreed. We busied ourselves the next day putting together a program and emailing and calling people to tell them about it. With little advance notice, we had a full house. Co-workers and people from other agencies we work with, friends, agency clients, and people from the community joined in a memorial service at work. We prayed and sang songs and were comforted. All rancor and petty conflicts were put aside as we held hands in prayer and hugged and comforted each other. People cried. It was a healing process. 

After the immediate crisis was over, I asked Louella to quit her job and move to Nashville. We had, had a long-distance relationship for about ten years and were in love and we planned that when she retired, she would then move down to Nashville and we would get married and be together. I think 9-11 made us realize that you don't know what tomorrow holds and that life is short. Louella took early retirement, we bought a house, and on Thanksgiving weekend Louella moved to Nashville. 

This song by Alan Jackson captures that day perfectly for me. Alan Jackson said a day or two after the event, he woke up and this song just poured out of him. He said it was the easiest song he ever wrote.

 

Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning  

Were you when the world stopped turning 

that September day 

Out in the yard with your wife and children 

Working on some stage in LA 

Did you stand there in shock at the site of That black smoke 

rising against that blue sky 

Did you shout out in anger, In fear for your neighbor 

Or did you just sit down and cry 

Did you weep for the children 

Who lost their dear loved ones 

And pray for the ones who don't know 

Did you rejoice for the people who walked from the rubble 

And sob for the ones left below 

Did you burst out in pride

For the red white and blue 

The heroes who died just doing what they do 

Did you look up to heaven for some kind of answer 

And look at yourself to what really matters

I 'm just a singer of simple songs 

I'm not a real political man 

I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you 

The difference in Iraq and Iran 

But I know Jesus and I talk to God 

And I remember this from when I was young 

Faith hope and love are some good things he gave us 

And the greatest is love 

Where were you when the world stopped turning that September day? 

Teaching a class full of innocent children 

Driving down some cold interstate 

Did you feel guilty cause you're a survivor 

In a crowded room did you feel alone? 

Did you call up your mother and tell her you love her 

Did you dust off that bible at home? 

Did you open your eyes and hope it never happened 

Close your eyes and not go to sleep 

Did you notice the sunset the first time in ages 

Speak with some stranger on the street 

Did you lay down at night and think of tomorrow 

Go out and buy you a gun 

Did you turn off that violent old movie you're watching 

And turn on "I Love Lucy" reruns 

Did you go to a church and hold hands with some stranger 

Stand in line and give your own blood 

Did you just stay home and cling tight to your family 

Thank God you had somebody to love?

 

I'm just a singer of simple songs 

I'm not a real political man 

I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you 

The difference in Iraq and Iran 

But I know Jesus and I talk to God 

And I remember this from when I was young 

Faith hope and love are some good things he gave us 

And the greatest is love 

I'm just a singer of simple songs 

I'm not a real political man 

I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you 

The difference in Iraq and Iran 

But I know Jesus and I talk to God 

And I remember this from when I was young 

Faith hope and love are some good things he gave us 

And the greatest is love 

The greatest is love 

The greatest is love 

Where were you when the world stopped turning that September day

Top Stories

Data Center Paradox

by Alex Tokarev, Kristin Tokarev, The Independent, Sept. 9, 2026- It’s easy to fear and hate a giant
windowless warehouse full of computers, sucking up electricity and destroying jobs. Data centers sound at best like a bad deal for the communities that host them. At worst, they could be an existential threat to the human race.

People are always uneasy when new technology disrupts the old ways of working. At the start of the Industrial Revolution, textile workers feared that machines would replace them and used their wooden shoes (sabot) to break the gears. That may be how we got the term “sabotage.”

Over time, machines improved productivity and safety, increased incomes and living standards. The AI boom will be no different. It is disruptive like all previous innovations. And, as with previous changes, tomorrow’s benefits will vastly outweigh today’s costs.

What about those utility bills? The higher demand will surely put a nasty dent in your family budget, right? Economics often produces counterintuitive answers. Sometimes, adding a gigantic new customer can lower the average cost of electricity for everyone else.

For a couple of decades, electricity demand in the USA was basically flat. We built infrastructure for a certain capacity and then spread those costs across all users. Data centers can utilize the grid more efficiently. Your bill can go down because the average fixed cost declines.

Higher consumption can lower the cost per unit consumed. Between 2015 and 2024, the arrival of data centers was associated with a modest decline in average retail electricity rates. The explanation is economies of scale in generation, transmission, and distribution.

Data centers can also shift computing workloads from expensive peak hours to cheaper off-peak periods. That reduces total grid costs by flattening demand and making better use of the existing infrastructure. The AI boom could make the system more efficient, benefiting everyone.

Here’s where the economist adds, “On the other hand…” Yes, the opposite can also happen. If a data center arrives where the grid is already under strain and the government intentionally sabotages the construction of new power plants, the result will be high bills and shortages.

Rather than imagining a post-apocalyptic world ruined by AI, we should focus on restraining politicians with a knack for making things worse. Our public servants should neither block nor subsidize the development of new data centers. The market can handle that one if left alone.

Unfortunately, at least 38 states compete desperately for data centers with their residents’ money. They waive or reduce sales taxes on essential tech equipment. They offer sales tax exemptions on the electricity consumed. And they grant long-term property tax reductions or abatements.

Data centers are extraordinarily capital-intensive. They also create very few local jobs once construction is over. If governments subsidize them while customers and taxpayers fund the new infrastructure, we are transferring wealth to some of the world’s richest investors.

Of course, a data center isn’t just a building. It is a gigantic piece of infrastructure linked to a vast global network, supporting cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and many industries. Most of the economic benefits accrue elsewhere. And they register much later.

Judging a data center solely by the number of people employed inside its walls is like judging a railroad by the number of people working at the local station. Still, instead of speculating about the net effect of the externalities involved, let the investors pay their costs as the rest of us do.

The data-center boom may turn out to be a terrific economic opportunity. It may also produce some spectacularly bad government deals. If a new facility requires a $500 million transmission upgrade that wouldn’t otherwise be needed, don’t make retirees and small businesses finance it.

It’s a terrible idea to craft our policies based on what Keynes called the “animal spirits”—the public’s overconfidence or anxieties. Current evidence suggests that data centers are neither the economic disaster their critics fear nor an automatic windfall for the communities that host them.

States and counties must end the costly competition to attract businesses at the expense of their taxpayers. A coordinated repeal of all direct and indirect subsidies is a step toward refocusing government action on promoting the general welfare rather than special corporate interests.

Free enterprise means that producers are free to compete for the customers’ money on the value they create, not on how much “free” money they can extract through politics.

Top Stories

Zoolumination Canceled Due to Visa Issues for Chinese Light Festival Group

by Nicolle S. Praino, Nashville Post, Sep 9, 2026 - The Nashville Zoo has canceled its 2026 Zoolumination Festival of Lights due to visa issues for the Chinese company that had crafted the displays.

Inlight Festival Group artisans have traveled to Nashville from Zigong, China, for the partnership since 2019 to create what has been billed as the largest lantern festival in the U.S. 

...  Nashville Zoo provided a statement that visa applications for the Inlight Festival Group artisans were denied. (link)

Top Stories