As World Cup travelers experience the modern marvels of everyday life in the United States, the headlines are replete with appreciation for Buc-ee’s, Bass Pro Shops, and bottomless chips and salsa. With summer’s arrival, here’s another one for that list not getting attention but should: air conditioning. Roughly 1 in 5 homes in Europe have air conditioning, compared to an estimated 90% in the United States. While we may take it for granted, the implications mean more than tossing and turning during sleepless nights: it’s a matter of life and death, literally. A comparison of heatwave-related deaths between the United States and Europe from 2020 to 2025 is alarming. In our country, 9,436 people died. In Europe, 248,875 died, an increase of more than 2,500%. In any other circumstance, the preventable deaths of a quarter of a million people would demand a United Nations condemnation. Heat takes the lives of the vulnerable: the sick and the elderly, those trapped in higher floors in government housing, those convalescing in windowless hospital beds or nursing homes. So why the relative silence from the French, still a first-world destination despite their economic stagnation? Because in their country, air conditioning is not a convenience or even a necessity — it’s a controversy. Sacrifice your citizens in the name of battling climate change, and those deaths are an acceptable casualty for the green cause. During a brutal stretch of heat last summer, one left-leaning French newspaper described air conditioning as “an environmental aberration that must be overcome.” Since 2007, the government has mandated that air conditioning be set at no lower than 79°F in public spaces. And France accepts it. The great American economist Thomas Sowell made famous a profoundly complex, yet common-sense, quote: “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” The lack of air conditioning in France is not a solution, but a trade-off. The most extreme of the tradeoffs is death. The cold is even more deadly. Annually, nine times as many people die from the cold as from the heat, though it gets much less attention. This past winter, the East Coast endured brutal conditions. The climate protesters were nowhere to be found when large swaths of the country were buried under 18 inches of ice and snow for weeks. No one was glued to the George Washington Parkway, headed to Reagan Airport at -15. The heat makes us ornery and angry, explaining the undercurrent of every Tennessee Williams play.    Just like the heat, death by cold is a trade-off. If you think this is just a French or blue state problem, think again. Texas, the oil capital of the world, has an enormously powerful green lobby that has pushed for state-subsidized, unreliable, expensive wind power. When a 2021 ice and snowstorm crippled the entire industry, plunging several million people into weeks without power, more than 700 people froze to death. No one rioted or looted. No one built them a statue. Just as in France, they are an acceptable casualty for the green cause. Even red Texas can be as blind as France when it comes to going green. There are very few solutions; there are only trade-offs, and the more one digs into opportunity costs, feasibility, and scalability of energy, the more Sowell’s genius quote dissects the conundrum. To be sure, fossil fuels are not perfect, but neither is the world. Yet the benefits of fossil fuels are documented and real. As U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright put it, they have contributed to “doubling human life expectancy, lifting almost all of the world’s citizens out of grinding poverty, launching modern medicine, telecommunications, planes, trains, and automobiles too.” The trade-off is “going green,” and when placed side-by-side in comparison, very few are willing to take the trade-off. Ask any climate-change-concerned parent about “going green” with cloth diapers, beating them clean against a rock in the river, and using that same water source to bathe and make soup. Without fossil fuels, there are no disposable diapers, washing machines, or laundry detergents. Our American quality of life is the trade-off we never eschew. Even if we pretend we can power our current lifestyle with solar or wind, the fact is, we are still using fossil fuels, just differently. There is more oil, gas, and coal in the sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, installation, and maintenance of wind and solar than wind and solar will ever offset in their lifespans. Going green is no solution to our climate “problem.” It is a trade-off, and a losing one. It is tragic to see France accept death as a trade-off for a faux crisis. Our country should not follow their lead, or Texas’ terrible lead, to go green and live miserable, unhygienic, unhealthy, and uncomfortable existences. If we do, the next time our country hosts a World Cup, all those foreign travelers experiencing the amazement of everyday life in the United States today may as well stay home. *** Daniel Turner is the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs. He also runs a sheep and cattle farm in rural Virginia. Contact him at daniel@powerthefuture.com and follow him on X @DanielTurnerPTF

A giraffe is on the loose in Texas after escaping from a breeding facility a week and a half ago. Gracie, a 4-year-old reticulated giraffe with rounded ears, fled Cedar Hollow Ranch in Real County, Texas, the facility’s manager Vick Jones told NBC News. Cedar Hollow Ranch is a private exotic animal breeding facility that is home to hundreds of animals, including Nubian ibexes, antelope, impalas, and other animals native to Africa and the Middle East. The giraffe reportedly vanished after feeding on an isolated hillside and finding an unfenced area opposite an 8-foot-tall gate. Jones said the giraffe would walk around the ranch “like none of the others did,” adding that Gracie would go to secluded areas and “eat on the tree limbs.” The last official sighting of the giraffe was taken on a hunting camera west of Leakey, Texas, which sits about 100 miles northwest of San Antonio. Jones stated that the animal is likely in the “rough terrain” that surrounds the southern Texas area, and that she most likely is still safe and healthy. “There’s a lot of food out there for her to eat. There’s plenty of water,” Jones said.   Reticulated giraffes around Gracie’s age are about 14-16 feet tall and can run up to 35 mph in short bursts, according to the Denver Zoo. The species of giraffe is listed as endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’ Red List. The disappearance of the giraffe made waves on the internet, with many users creating fake AI-generated videos of sightings of Gracie, My San Antonio News reported.  In one AI-generated photo, a giraffe is seen surrounded by police while trying to cross a Texas highway at dusk.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Juan Pablo Rios (@jprios18) “No, she has not been found. That’s just people having fun with the internet, getting their little one minute of fame,” Jones said as of Wednesday morning. Jones added that the giraffe is still missing, with no new clues on her location. Gracie’s owner is offering a $5,000 reward for tips leading to the giraffe’s capture and safe return, Real County officials said. People who see the giraffe are asked to report it to the sheriff’s office at 830-232-5201.

'The English historically struggle here in Massachusetts'

'I'm trying to do everything I can to get my mind right and take the right next steps'

'Catastrophic'

The state of Nebraska allows U.S. citizens who have never lived in the state and who currently reside overseas to vote in its elections, prompting a lawsuit from the Republican National Committee. The RNC is joined in the lawsuit by two Nebraska voters, Jack Riggins and Pamela Dingman, who filed the complaint in Lancaster County District Court alleging the 2010 law allowing non-residents to vote is a violation of the state constitution. The law was passed to enact protections for service members and other Americans living abroad. Lawsuits such as this one could play out in state courts across the country. The RNC successfully challenged a similar law in North Carolina, and 38 states have some form of voting eligibility for citizens living abroad who never lived in the respective states. Article VI, Section 1, of the Nebraska Constitution specifies that those eligible to vote in the state must be U.S. citizens who are at least 18 and “have resided within the state and the county and voting precinct” in which they are casting a vote. The Nebraska law says, “A person who is the age of an elector and a citizen of the United States residing outside the United States, who has never resided in the United States, who has not registered to vote in any other state of the United States, and who has a parent registered to vote within this state shall be eligible to register to vote and vote in one county in which either one of his or her parents is a registered voter.” The 2010 state law was passed to implement the requirements of the federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which President Barack Obama signed the year prior to provide more voting protections for American citizens, including but not limited to members of the military. Three dozen states allow some form of voting eligibility for people born abroad who have never lived in the United States but have parents living in that particular state, according to the Federal Voting Assistance Program. This includes a mix of red and blue states. Earlier this month, a North Carolina court ruled “never residents” are not eligible to vote in state elections, siding with the RNC, which was also a plaintiff in the case. The lawsuit names Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen, a Republican with oversight of state elections, as the defendant. A spokesman for Evnen’s office did not respond to inquiries from the Daily Signal by publication time. The RNC stressed that the lawsuit does not affect service members or overseas voters who previously lived in Nebraska and remain legally eligible to vote under state and federal law. “Nebraska’s Constitution is clear: voters must live in Nebraska,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement. “This law tries to get around that requirement by allowing people who have never lived in the state to vote. The RNC is fighting to stop it and ensure Nebraska elections are decided by Nebraska voters only.” However, Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb accused Republicans of seeking to disenfranchise eligible voters. “Nebraska Republicans are so afraid of voters—because of their radical, failed policies—that they’re now trying to deny Americans the right to vote,” Kleeb said. “Military families and Americans working overseas have children who are, per our Constitution, Americans too. This lawsuit says those young people wouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

The Center for Christian Virtue is celebrating last week’s decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allows an Ohio law on age verification and parental consent for those under 16 using social media to go into effect. Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, signed into law in 2023, was supposed to go into effect in January 2024, until NetChoice, an association of social media sites, challenged the law in court. The group claimed the law presented an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and was unconstitutionally vague. Although the law was blocked in the 2024 ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley, the federal appeals court last week in a 2-1 decision directed Marbley to vacate his ruling after ruling that “NetChoice has failed to establish that the Act is facially unconstitutional.” “[The parental consent requirement] constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the opinion. The Center for Christian Virtue has been involved in the law since it was originally introduced. “This ruling is a major victory for Ohio parents and children,” Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer told the Daily Signal. “CCV was proud to advocate for this law because parents—not Big Tech companies—should decide when their children are ready to use social media.” Baer’s statement also referenced the court’s reasoning, noting that the “court rightly recognized that protecting children online and empowering parents is not only constitutional, but necessary.” Clay wrote that parental consent “works here because the nature of the harm itself is that children’s unsupervised use of social media puts them at risk of the adverse effects of prolonged and unregulated exposure.” He also addressed NetChoice’s arguments, noting that “NetChoice has not shown that the Act’s parental-consent requirement violates its Members’ First Amendment rights, let alone that the Act violates the First Amendment on its face.” Earlier in the opinion, the court’s decision also made reference to Ohio’s concerns, including growing evidence that social media is linked to eating problems, poor mental health, and poor academic performance among youth. “The state further worries about the prevalent use of social media among child sexual predators to target minors, deficient data privacy for minor social media users, and exploitative contract terms that social media operators impose on them,” the opinion reads. The law had not been able to go into effect due to Marbley’s ruling. Baer said his only disappointment is that the delayed enactment means many kids failed to have protection. “The only disappointment is that this law was tied up in court for years while countless Ohio children were exposed to the harmful effects of social media without commonsense protections,” he said. We’re grateful this safeguard can finally take effect and help parents do what they do best: protect their kids.” NetChoice did not return the Daily Signal’s request for comment. However, Paul Taske, the director of their litigation center, previewed a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, “We are currently reviewing our options on how best to move forward.”

On June 22, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders that, taken together, amount to one of the most consequential technology-security decisions of the decade, and almost no one outside the cybersecurity profession noticed. Executive Order 14409, “Securing the Nation Against Advanced Cryptographic Attacks,” and Executive Order 14411, “Ushering in the Next Frontier of Quantum Innovation,” address the two halves of a single problem: We are racing to build a machine that will eventually break the encryption protecting nearly everything, while simultaneously racing to defend ourselves against it. Here is the threat in plain English: A powerful enough quantum computer will one day be able to crack the digital locks that currently protect our bank accounts, power grid, medical records, and military communications. These are the same locks we trust today precisely because no ordinary computer could ever pick them. That sentence should worry every American, and for a reason that is not obvious. The danger is not only in the future; it is already here. A cryptographically relevant quantum computer does not yet exist. But our adversaries are not waiting for one. They are executing a strategy security professionals call “harvest now, decrypt later.” They are quietly vacuuming up our encrypted data today and warehousing it, betting that within a decade they will own a machine capable of unlocking it. Beijing’s Volt Typhoon hackers have already burrowed into American communications, energy, and water systems, and Chinese operatives have penetrated our major telecom networks. The administration’s own order acknowledges bluntly that adversaries may already be collecting American data with exactly this intent. This is what makes the quantum problem fundamentally different from the Y2K scramble it is so often compared to. Y2K had a deadline we could meet by fixing systems before the clock struck midnight. The quantum threat has no such grace period. Once an adversary has copied our encrypted secrets, there is no taking them back. A diplomatic cable, a defense archive, or a citizen’s health record stolen today is already lost the moment a capable quantum computer comes online. For any information that must stay confidential for 10 or 20 years, the breach has, in effect, already happened. To the administration’s credit, EO 14409 sets hard, dated obligations. Federal civilian agencies must inventory their most valuable systems and migrate them to new, quantum-resistant encryption standards, developed and finalized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, by the end of 2030 for key establishment and 2031 for digital signatures. Every agency must name a migration lead. NIST must run a working pilot by 2027 to show the rest of government how it is done. And critically, federal contractors will be required to meet the same standards, impacting much of the private sector. The companion order, EO 14411, is the offense to 14409’s defense. It commits the nation to building a quantum computer powerful enough for real scientific work at a Department of Energy facility, directs the Pentagon to field next-generation quantum sensors by 2028, hardens our domestic quantum supply chains against foreign dependence, and tasks the FBI with protecting our quantum researchers and companies from espionage. This matters because the same regime that treats America as an enemy is pouring state resources into winning the quantum race outright. EO 14411 initiates a serious, whole-of-government posture, and it builds on the National Quantum Initiative the president first signed into law in 2018. But sound policy on paper is not the same as a secure homeland, and anyone serious about protecting this country should ask the harder question: Will this actually defend the critical infrastructure most Americans depend on? Here the picture is more sobering. The federal government can order its own agencies and its contractors to comply. It cannot simply command the privately owned utilities, water systems, pipelines, hospitals, and financial institutions that make up the overwhelming majority of our critical infrastructure—the very sectors China has been actively pre-positioning inside. For them, these orders offer assistance and encouragement, not a mandate. The gravitational pull is real, channeled through procurement rules and federal technical guidance, but the legal teeth largely stop at the government’s edge. And the deepest challenge is not legal but physical. The new encryption is ready; the math is settled. The problem is the vast installed base of industrial equipment that runs our grid and our water: controllers and sensors built to last 20 or 30 years, with limited computing power and rare maintenance windows. Much of this hardware cannot simply be updated with new software. It must be physically replaced. This capital-replacement cycle will take decades, meaning it does not naturally align with a 2030 federal deadline. If we are not honest about that mismatch now, we will discover it too late. The right response is neither alarmism nor complacency. These orders are a genuine and welcome step. The federal government has finally moved quantum security from aspiration to accountability, with names, dates, and owners attached. That deserves recognition. But Congress and the administration should now do three things. First, treat “harvest now, decrypt later” as an active campaign already underway, and prioritize migrating our longest-lived secrets first. Second, give critical-infrastructure operators a realistic path, clearing the regulatory and rate-recovery obstacles that keep aging equipment in service long past its security life, so that operators can fund replacement through the capital and rate structures that already exist rather than waiting on Washington. Third, insist that every dollar spent buys genuine crypto-agility, so that we are never again locked into a single standard that an adversary’s breakthrough can render obsolete overnight. The quantum era will arrive whether or not we are ready for it. Last week, the nation finally started the clock. The task now is to make sure we are not still standing at the starting line when it runs out.

Remember the Good Old Days When Trump Hatred Unified Democrats?

Testing AI Chatbots for Political Bias