'A loss is not final'

South Sudan will reap the benefits of cultural enrichment afforded by migrants. Imagine the restaurants

'The whitewashing of Louella'

'Such conduct is cruel, unsportsmanlike, and damages Wyoming’s reputation'

From Pensacola comes the story of an improvised rescue that saved the life of a teenage girl who was caught in a riptide. A seizure-prone fisherman used his specialized drone to lower a life-preserver into the water, allowing her to rest and recover enough to fight the tide and stay above water. The girl’s father […] The post Seizures Bar Him from Swimming: So He Saves a Drowning Girl with His Drone appeared first on Good News Network.

Thar's Gold In Them Thar NGOs!

Often called the Red Planet due to iron oxide on its surface, Mars features striking geological diversity—from the Solar System’s largest volcano, Olympus Mons, to Valles Marineris, the canyon system that would stretch across the United States. Though currently inhospitable with its thin atmosphere and freezing temperatures, evidence of ancient riverbeds and polar ice caps suggests Mars once hosted flowing water and potentially simple life forms, writes universetoday.com. The concept of terraforming Mars—making it hospitable for Earth life—stems from a range of motivations: ensuring humanity’s future, restoring a planet that once had flowing water, creating self-sufficient settlements beyond isolated outposts, and expanding scientific exploration. While some argue Mars should remain pristine, the ethical debate around terraforming requires first addressing the practical question: “Can we actually do it?” Surprisingly, comprehensive research on Mars terraforming feasibility hasn’t been updated since 1991 but a new paper published in Nature Astronomy casts fresh eyes on the possibility. The team led by Erika Alden DeBenedictis from Pioneer Research Labs have highlighted that there are recent advances in three key areas which should revitalise interest in Mars terraforming research: improved climate modelling and engineering techniques, breakthroughs in understanding extremophilic organisms and synthetic biology, and significant developments in space technology like SpaceX’s Starship that could reduce payload costs to Mars by 1000×. These advances suggest a three-phase approach to making Mars habitable. The red planet Mars showing its atmosphere. In the short term, Mars terraforming research has advanced significantly since initial proposals thirty years ago. Despite Mars’ current hostile environment it possesses sufficient ice reserves and soil nutrients to potentially support life if temperatures rise by at least 30°C. New warming methods—including solar mirrors, engineered aerosols, and surface modifications using materials like silica aerogels—appear more efficient than earlier proposals. Combined with available greater launch capacity, these techniques could potentially warm Mars enough within this century to permit liquid water and support the first extremophilic organisms. The mid-to-long term vision involves introducing pioneer species engineered to withstand Mars’ unique stressors (low pressure, oxychlorine salts, extreme temperatures, radiation, and low water activity). These organisms would initiate ecological succession, gradually transforming the planet’s chemistry and potentially producing oxygen. While initial habitation would require protective environments, the ultimate goal could be a 100 mbar oxygen atmosphere—created entirely from in-situ resources—sufficient for humans to breathe outside without pressure suits. This transformation presents both scientific opportunities and ethical questions, particularly regarding potential indigenous Martian life, which should be thoroughly investigated before large-scale terraforming begins. The research presents a sustainable, ecologically minded vision for Mars with terraforming that could benefit Earth through technologies we could use here like desiccation-resistant crops and improved ecosystem modelling. Such an endeavour will take hundreds of years to complete full transformation of Mars but rather than diverting attention from our own environmental challenges, Mars terraforming research could provide valuable insights for planetary sustainability. The post Terraforming Mars Could Be Within Reach appeared first on Anomalien.com.

  As NewsBusters was first to report, in April, the Associated Press was sued for defamation by U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young with combined damages possibly reaching $453 million. In a Monday filing obtained by NewsBusters, the AP via their lawyer Charles Tobin (who also represented CNN during Young’s successful defamation trial against them) requested that the court dismiss the case. Throughout the filing, the AP referred to Young’s accusations as “meritless defamation claims” and asked Judge William Scott Henry of Florida’s 14th Judicial Circuit (who also oversaw the CNN trial) to “dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute, which protect ‘the rights of free speech in connection with public issues.’” Arguing that “Florida courts have long favored early adjudication of meritless defamation claims in order to protect First Amendment values,” the filing further pressed for a dismissal saying: The Anti-SLAPP statute provides that no person may file any lawsuit against another “without merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue . . . as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution.” Section 768.295(3), Florida Statutes. The statute grants defendants the “right to an expeditious resolution” of such claims, and allows them to challenge the claims at the outset of the case, through either, or both, a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits. The filing framed the suit against the AP as hinging on one word in one sentence of their article: “Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan, but he said he worked exclusively with deep-pocketed outside sponsors like Bloomberg and Audible.” Young’s initial complaint suggested that it’s similar to how CNN used language against him that implied criminality; the word was “black market” in the CNN case. “The clear and unmistakably message of the Article is positive toward Young,” the AP said (emphasis used in the filing). “The Article not only conveyed that he prevailed in his defamation lawsuit against CNN by winning a multi-million dollar jury verdict, it also made clear that he specifically received vindication on his contention that CNN falsely ‘implied he was involved in something illegal.’ The Article also, in its very first sentence, characterized the business activities of Young’s that were addressed in CNN’s reporting as involving ‘help[ing] rescue endangered Afghans.’” As NewsBusters previously reported, Young’s initial complaint against the AP argued that their reporting suggested that he had committed a felony under United States law: Describing Mr. Young’s lifesaving evacuations as “smuggling” is not only grossly misleading, it charges Mr. Young with a serious crime. Human smuggling is a grave felony under U.S. law (8 U.S.C. § 1324), and it is condemned as a serious crime under international law (the U.N. Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants). By accusing Mr. Young of human smuggling, AP effectively branded him a criminal. In a Facebook post from February 6 2019, the AP Stylebook wrote this about human smuggling: “Human smuggling or people smuggling typically involves transporting people across an international border illegally, with their consent, in exchange for a fee.”

Let’s stop pretending the government can fix the health care system it wrecked — by wrecking it even more. For years, Americans have endured rising health care costs, shrinking access, and mounting frustration. Now, senators from both parties, the Federal Trade Commission, and several states want to blame pharmacy benefit managers. Before they do, it’s worth asking: Who actually caused this mess? It wasn’t PBMs. It was Washington, D.C. I’ve spent decades studying health care and economic systems. Central planning always fails. Yet here we go again — federal regulators scapegoating private players for a system government distorted over generations. PBMs aren’t flawless, but they’re not the villains. They emerged as one of the few market-based responses to a government-created crisis. They operate within a system twisted by 80 years of policy failures — starting with World War II wage controls that incentivized employer-sponsored insurance. That led to the third-party payer model, which removed patients from pricing decisions. Layer on Medicare, Medicaid, and a blizzard of mandates, and the result is clear: Government made sure health care would never again resemble a functioning market. If we’re serious about fixing health care, we must stop repeating the failed policies that broke it in the first place. PBMs didn’t invent this system. They were born into it. Congress established Medicare Part D, which subsidized prescription drugs without fixing the underlying distortions. PBMs stepped in to negotiate with manufacturers, manage formularies, push generics, and introduce cost controls into an otherwise bloated and opaque drug market. They’re not perfect. But they didn’t start the fire. Government did. Here’s the kicker: PBMs work better than almost anything else in the health care system. University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan recently published research for the National Bureau of Economic Research showing PBMs create $145 billion in net annual value. Even after accounting for their costs, PBMs lower drug prices, help patients stick to medications, reduce hospitalizations, and cut non-drug health costs by about $40 billion each year. They also drive pharmaceutical innovation — improving uptake of new treatments and adding another $13 billion annually in future drug development. Now compare that to the government’s record. Medicaid and Medicare leak hundreds of billions through improper payments, bloated administration, and price manipulation. Mulligan doesn’t put a figure on the waste, but other studies estimate government health care inefficiencies cost more than $1 trillion every year. Still, no one talks about that. Instead, the FTC is grandstanding, blaming PBMs for prices the government made uncontrollable in the first place. Washington’s real problem? It keeps designing a health care system around bureaucrats instead of patients. PBMs aren’t the issue. Bureaucracy is. The solution isn’t more scapegoating — it’s restoring freedom and responsibility to the people who use and deliver care. RELATED: Congress must resist Big Pharma’s scheme to dismantle drug cost watchdogs zhuweiyi49 via iStock/Getty Images That’s why we need unlimited health savings accounts, especially for low-income Americans on Medicaid. Don’t micromanage their health care. Give them agency. Pair it with work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients — not to punish them, but to promote responsibility and reduce dependency, while still supporting those in genuine need. The result: smarter decisions, stronger competition, lower costs, and fewer true middlemen — starting with the federal regulators and compliance officers who helped create this mess. In a real market, PBMs will sink or swim based on value. If they deliver, they’ll thrive. If not, they’ll fail — and be replaced. That’s the beauty of market discipline. And right now, PBMs are one of the only players in health care remotely subject to it. This assault on PBMs isn’t about health care. It’s about power. Regulators and politicians want a scapegoat for a system they helped break. But facts still matter. PBMs reduce costs, improve access, and drive innovation. Government programs promise the same — and deliver the opposite. If we’re serious about fixing health care, we must stop repeating the failed policies that broke it in the first place. Scrap the mandates, cut the bureaucracy, and shift power back to patients and providers. Real reform means transparency, personal responsibility, and the freedom to choose what’s best — not what Washington prescribes.

Republican lawmakers from every faction threaten to derail President Trump’s agenda if they don’t get what they want. Some raise valid concerns. Others don’t. But all of them want more. It’s a familiar scene in Washington: a president forced to spend political capital appeasing members of Congress who didn’t — and could not possibly — win a national mandate in 2024. When it’s time to vote, most of them will likely fall in line, take the win, and move on. But if they choose brinksmanship instead — if they blow up the president’s agenda over narrow demands — then there will be hell to pay. The White House is ready to vote — and ready to put every holdout on the record. The holdouts span the ideological spectrum. From blue states, the so-called SALT Caucus is fighting for higher caps on federal deductions for state and local taxes — benefits aimed at wealthy constituents. From red states, the fiscal hawks are demanding deeper spending cuts, Medicaid reforms, and full repeal of what’s left of Obamacare. You will notice not one of these fights aligns with the core message of Trump’s 2024 campaign. Deregulation and rooting out “waste, fraud, and abuse” always make the list, and Trump emphasized them again during Tuesday’s visit to Capitol Hill. But the driving message of rally after rally was clear: Secure the border, deport dangerous criminals, and cement the gains of his first term. Even so, the current budget deal includes major wins for every faction at the table. The SALT deduction cap would now reportedly increase by 400% for those making under $500,000 — a more generous proposal than many in the SALT Caucus ever seriously pushed and one they finally seem willing to accept Wednesday morning. Meanwhile, the threat they’ve consistently floated — that rejecting the deal means they’ll get an even better deal later — is nonsense. If they kill reconciliation, the Trump tax cuts from 2017 will expire. Their wealthy constituents will see a tax hike, even with SALT caps disappearing. That’s not leverage. That’s surrender. Then there’s the spending side. Congress hasn’t enacted a major discretionary spending cut since 1997, when the deal trimmed $138 billion. This legislation would slash more than $1.5 trillion. That figure doesn’t even account for new tariff revenue flowing steadily into the treasury. It’s a serious cut that checks the box on many of the early demands from fiscal conservatives. That doesn’t mean their stand for more has come to naught. The speaker of the House has promised to move up work requirements for able-bodied adult Medicaid users in response to House Freedom Caucus demands. He’s also reportedly quickened the timeline for phasing out some of President Joe Biden’s green energy corporate handouts. There’s no chance we would have a bill this strong without the hard work of the Freedom Caucus. No wonder Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought — arguably the most trusted voice on the fiscal right — is enthusiastically selling the deal in D.C. He sees the value. And that’s not even counting immigration. The reconciliation bill includes funding for immigration enforcement — critical dollars for Border Patrol and ICE. If Republicans want to see real deportation numbers that match the president’s campaign promises, this is how it happens. No amount of bluster or floor speeches will get it done without the budget to back it up. This bill gives the administration the resources to ramp up removals of violent and criminal illegal aliens. It’s a concrete step toward restoring law and order at the border. If Republicans blow it now in pursuit of a perfect bill, they risk squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset the country’s trajectory. Some hesitation is understandable. Many worry this may be the only shot before the midterms — and historically, the party in the White House takes a beating. But this cycle isn’t following the usual script. Democrats have boxed themselves in by amplifying the very issues that alienated voters in the first place. And the 2026 map looks nothing like 2018. This isn’t a moment to play defense. It’s a moment to deliver. Look closer at 2018 for a minute. In that election, 25 Republican House members were defending districts Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, compared to only 12 Democrats defending districts Trump had won. Now jump to 2026, and only three Republicans are defending seats Kamala Harris won in ’24. Meanwhile, 13 Democrats are set to defend Trump ’24 districts. Trump’s new working-class coalition wants real results — measurable changes that help their bottom lines. That means no taxes on tips. No taxes on overtime. And yes, it also means delivering on promises Republicans have already voted for: serious immigration enforcement, permanent tax cuts, deregulation, and a renewed push for American energy dominance. This is how you build a durable majority. By showing people — not just telling them — that you can fight and win on their behalf. Total victory doesn’t come in one vote. Democrats spent over a decade reshaping the country piece by piece, gaining real speed in 2008. Republicans should take the same long view. With only a three-vote margin in the House and a narrowly divided Senate, demanding perfection at the expense of progress is a losing strategy. The budget deal on the table reflects national priorities. It’s backed by a president who won a national mandate — and it requires a national perspective. The time for slicing off niche concessions is over. The White House is ready to vote — and ready to put every holdout on the record. Inside the Beltway, Republicans and conservatives increasingly view this deal as a smart, hard-fought win. Everyone understands that different factions have different priorities. But in the real world, those interests often need to be triangulated to achieve meaningful compromise. The votes are coming. If certain Republicans decide to sabotage the president’s agenda over narrow demands, we’ll find out soon enough. But they shouldn’t expect applause. Not from a base that came to Washington to win. Blaze News: Trump pressures House Republican holdouts as reconciliation talks intensify Blaze News: Majority of voters say economy 'STRONG' for the first time in nearly 4 years, now with Trump in charge Blaze News: Hillary Clinton lets truth slip about illegal aliens and low US birth rates Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.