Both Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have been playing the “Christian nation” card every chance they get lately, emphasizing the idea that the United Sates was established as a Christian nation.

That contention is inaccurate. In fact, it’s dead wrong. While the majority of the Founding Fathers were “Christian” in background, the vast majority insisted on keeping religion out of government, as demonstrated by their support of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

All of the Founding Fathers had experienced or seen the abuse created by state religions or state-supported religions, and not just in England or elsewhere in Europe, and even in the American colonies. Nine of the thirteen original colonies authorized established churches – the Congregational Church in New England and the Anglican Church in the middle and southern colonies – with the result that personal freedoms were restricted.

In the 1700s in colonial Virginia, government legally and financially supported the Anglican Church and opposed other faiths, including other Christian denominations. Preachers without a license from the Anglican Church faced fines, jail, and physical punishment (whipping). Quakers were forced to move to Maryland. New York excluded Catholics from guarantees of the liberty of conscience. In the late 1600s and early 1700s, the Maryland government adopted laws depriving Catholics of their previously held civil rights and ultimately established the Church of England as the only authorized faith. Jews were denied voting rights in most colonies.

Today, even fewer Americans think of themselves as “Christian.” According to Pew Research Center surveys conducted since 2020, the “Christian” share of the adult population has been between 60% and 64%, while the religiously unaffiliated share has ranged from 28% to 31%. Adherents of religions other than Christianity have consistently accounted for 6% or 7% of U.S. adults.

Given the shift in the belief structure of Americans, and the prohibition of religious interference in government enshrined in the Constitution, why are Trump and Vance pushing the idea of a Christian nation?

Might it just be to obtain political support for a religious authoritarian state? The Founding Fathers would have been appalled, as most Americans should be today.

Some time back, I wrote that the Republicans were “the party of no.”

Events have proven that description all too true. While Republicans have been accurate in noting weaknesses or errors in law-making and Presidential decision-making by Democrats, the vast majority of Republican “solutions” have largely failed to improve the problems they addressed, and even when they have partially succeeded, as in reducing the number of aliens attempting to enter the United States, the overall costs in other immigration areas have increased.

From what I can glean from reports, as many as twenty to thirty percent of the people picked up by ICE sweeps are either U.S. citizens or individuals here in the U.S. legally, and very few ICE raids actually result in the capture of habitual thieves or hardened criminals, which was what Trump claimed was the objective.

In a similar fashion, the Trump tariffs have so far had little impact in increasing U.S. manufacturing output, while raising the cost of raw materials for U.S. manufacturers. In addition, foreign reaction to those tariffs has been to create huge losses to U.S. farmers, so much so that Trump is now proposing massive subsidies.

Almost random cutting of federal employees hasn’t measurably reduced federal spending, not with massive increases in defense spending.

Negotiations with Putin have failed to result in peace between Russia and Ukraine, unsurprisingly, given that Putin only respects force, and the only people Trump likes to use force against are immigrants, U.S. citizens, particularly women and Democrats, and purported drug-runners in small boats.

The Republican majorities in the House and Senate have yet to pass any significant legislation offering positive steps in any field, only significant cuts in programs designed to help poor and low-income individuals and families. Almost ten years have passed since Trump promised a better national health plan, and there’s no sign of one yet.

Pretty much the only significant “yes” coming from Trump and the Congress has been a large tax cut for the very wealthiest Americans, but that’s about all Americans should expect from the party of no, because merely finding faults in your opponent’s policies is almost never sufficient to significantly improve anything.

Data center energy demand is skyrocketing, primarily driven by AI and digitalization, with global consumption projected to double by 2030 from 2024 levels. In the U.S., demand could triple by 2028, with forecasts showing substantial growth from 4% to over 10% of total U.S. electricity by 2030.

Behind these forecasts is an assumption that public utilities and other power generating facilities will be able to build the systems to deliver such power. For almost a decade, until the last year or so, power generation facilities showed minimal growth, but to meet data center and other demands will require an expansion of power output/generation of more than 25%, according to studies by the Deloitte Research Center and others.

Data center demand alone is projected to take a fivefold jump from 2024. Industrial electrification from increased manufacturing facilities will increase power demand by 2030, on top of growth in household and commercial consumption.

At the same time, new supply is not coming online fast enough. The energy mix is shifting toward renewables, which accounted for 93% of new capacity through July 2025, with solar and storage making up 83%. But the pace of connecting these new energy sources has lagged. Two terawatts of capacity are stuck in interconnection queues, almost twice the currently installed capacity.

In addition, the power grid faces other challenges, particularly from extreme weather events. In just 2024, there were a record 27 extreme weather events that cost more than US$1 billion each. Such events have risen steadily since the 1980s, when there were on average 3.3 disasters per year that cost US$1 billion or more (inflation-adjusted).

All this growth will require investment, and investment has to come from somewhere. The electric power sector’s traditional funding avenues – filing rate cases and issuing debt and equity – may not suffice. Customer electricity bills rose 23% between 2019 and 2024, with residential prices climbing by nearly 26%, and state power commissions may be reluctant to allow massive price increases.

Significant additional federal funding is problematic, and additional tax breaks for power companies might have a political downside, especially in the 2028 election.

So… who will pay for the coming AI power-demand… and how?

For some time, I’ve been pointing out the decline of the mass market paperback, and the latest issue of Publishers Weekly contained an article entitled “An Ode to the Mass Market Paperback,” which effectively announced the demise of the pocket-sized paperback book with the decision by Readerlink to discontinue distribution at the end of this year.

So what brought about the decline and pending death of the mass market paperback?

The major factors were a significant increase in production costs combined with the decline and then collapse of the distribution network that fueled the growth of mass-market paperbacks. In the late 1980s, publishers could use a network of more than 600 independent distributor wholesalers to deliver inventory to more than 100,000 outlets where magazines and newspapers were being sold. By the late nineties, that network had been replaced by a few national distributors, who couldn’t or didn’t serve the bulk of the smaller magazine outlets.

Personally, I’ve also noted that book sections in big box stores, such as Walmart, are smaller and hold fewer titles, and especially fewer fantasy and science fiction titles. Grocery stores have reduced or eliminated book and magazine sections. At one time, Anderson Merchandisers supplied books to big-box retailers, but, from what I can tell, after Readerlink purchased the company, the quality and breadth of books provided declined.

According to Publishers Weekly, Circana BookScan recently reported that U.S. mass market sales plunged from 131 million books in 2004 to 21 million in 2024, a drop of about 84%, and sales this year through October were about 15 million units.

Then, add to that the cost. The last book of mine to be issued in a mass-market edition was Contrarian, in July of 2024, and the list retail price was $14.99. The Amazon discounted price was $13.30, but the ebook price after six months dropped to around ten dollars.

The bottom line is that is costs more than $10 to produce and distribute a mass market paperback and only a small fraction of readers are willing to pay more than $10.

After tearing down the East Wing,
Hark the herald angels sing.
Who’s the chump?
You… or Donald Trump?

Last week, on Friday, I mailed a book to a relative in a neighboring state. I sent it priority mail from my local post office well before the afternoon mail is scheduled to be dispatched. USPS gave me an expected delivery date of Tuesday.

I suspected it might take longer, but checked the tracking number on Wednesday. It was still “in transit.” On Thursday afternoon, I checked again. Still in transit, but projected to be delivered by 9:00 P.M. on Friday. On Friday, it finally arrived in mid-afternoon.

These days, over ninety percent of our mail consists of political or charitable solicitations, advertising circulars, and catalogues from companies and merchandizers we’ve never used. The remaining ten percent consists of periodic bills and magazines to which we’ve subscribed (since I read them in bits at times and places where it’s not feasible or convenient to read electronic copies). We now also get Amazon package deliveries on Sunday… from USPS.

So why does it take more than a week for USPS to deliver priority mail to a town on a paved state highway less than five hundred miles away?

A reader recently sent me a book to be autographed and included return postage and a label. I signed the book and took it to the post office to send it. The clerk informed me that the zip code didn’t match the reader’s address. Since I was fairly certain that the reader knew her own address, I told the clerk to send it (priority mail) to the address on the label. When I checked to see if it had been delivered, the tracking software told me it was “delivered to the original sender,” if a day later than projected. Since it didn’t come back to me, I thought it was delivered to the reader, which was confirmed later by the recipient.

When we moved to Cedar City, the mail was processed here. About fifteen years ago, the Post Office decided to process the local mail in Provo, some two hundred miles to the north. Around five years ago, they switched to processing Cedar City’s mail to Las Vegas, so a bill from a company in Cedar City makes a four-hundred-mile circuit to be delivered across town. I have a hard time believing that this is cost-effective.

It’s also caused problems with voting, because voting in Utah is by mail, and that means you can’t mail your ballot as late as the day before election because it might not be stamped (in Las Vegas) until after the election. It might not even meet the deadline if you mailed it the Saturday before, according to some reports.

But Amazon packages get here in two-three days.

So… tell me, what’s the priority for the Post Office?

With gala twenties parties at Mar-a-lago
Can a Crash be far to go?
Who’s the chump?
You… or Donald Trump?

Trump rages on about needing to stop drug trafficking, and his Department of Defense/War keeps sinking boats and small ships leaving Venezuela, claiming that they’re drug traffickers.

So why did Trump pardon Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who has been serving a 45-year sentence in a U.S. prison for drug trafficking and who accepted millions of dollars in bribes from drug traffickers connected to the notorious Sinaloa Cartel?

But the pardon of Hernández was scarcely the first pardon of high-profile drug traffickers. Others pardoned include Ross Ulbricht, creator of the dark web marketplace Silk Road a major conduit for anonymous drug trafficking, who had been serving multiple life sentences, and who received a full pardon in January 2025; Larry Hoover, the leader of the Chicago-based Gangster Disciples, who was serving multiple life sentences for crimes linked to his role in a violent, multi-state drug trafficking operation received a grant clemency from Trump in May 2025; Michael Harris (Harry O)the co-founder of Death Row Records, had his sentence for cocaine offenses commuted by Trump in his first term and was fully pardoned in 2025 after endorsing Trump in the 2024 election.

It “might” have something to so with Sunday’s Honduran election, since Trump wrote on Truth Social on administration would be “very supportive” of Nasry “Tito” Asfura’s government if Asfura won. Trump then announced he would be “granting a Full and Complete Pardon” to Hernández. And followed up his words by pardoning him.

But when the ongoing election vote-counting results shifted to favor the centrist candidate, Trump vowed there would be “hell to pay” and immediately claimed “election fraud,” because, of course, any election that doesn’t go the way he wants must be fraudulent.

The situation so far – pardons for convicted drug kingpins and heads of state bought by drug money, but total destruction for boats merely suspected of carrying drugs, and apparently a tight election see-sawing back and forth between the Trump-backed conservative and the moderate centrist candidate while Trump continues efforts to sway the results of the ballot-boxes.

With friends like Victor, Xi, and Vlad
How could Donald be so bad?
Who’s the chump?
You… or Donald Trump?

Over forty years ago, I was a political appointee at the Environmental Protection Agency during the first years of the Reagan Administration, with the position level of deputy assistant administrator for Legislation and Congressional Affairs.

At that time, in a similar fashion to what’s happening in the second Trump Administration, newly appointed cabinet officers – staunch Republicans all – were out to “get control” and “rein in the excesses” of government. And like now, most of them had no idea how the federal government worked or in the worst cases, how it didn’t. Some few of them had worked in state governments, and they thought that the federal government would be similar. Back then, it definitely wasn’t.

Unlike today, at that time, Congress was controlled by the Democrats, and they weren’t in the slightest pleased at the way the Administration was handling environmental matters, and various congressional committees began calling hearings. As the head of Congressional Affairs for EPA at the time, I counted up the hearings, and, as I recall, there were two different hearings every week for a good portion of 1982 – just for EPA-related matters. Virtually all those hearings were civil, yet acrimonious.

I suggested, very politely, to the White House that fighting with Congress over environmental matters was a bad idea and most likely a losing proposition. I was politely told that I had no idea what I was talking about, even though at that time, I’d already spent over ten years as a senior congressional staffer.

In the end, largely because of public opinion and congressional outrage, the EPA Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, and all the Assistant Administrators (the officials in charge of specific programs, such as Water, Air Pollution, Solid and Hazardous Waste, Research and Development, Legal Enforcement, etc.) were removed or effectively required to resign, as was the Secretary of Interior. I got off lightly, in that I was demoted to regulatory review. A year later, I managed to get a job with a Washington, D.C., consulting firm as an environmental and energy regulatory specialist.

The second Trump administration is unlike the first Reagan Administration in two major areas, in that, first, a number of key White House advisors do in fact know exactly how the Executive Branch works (although most of the lower-level MAGA appointees don’t) and, second, Republicans control the Congress. Whether these factors will delay or mute the impact of public outrage, I have no idea, but I do know that, in the past, when Presidents have greatly angered Congress, it often hasn’t gone well with them.

Will this time be different? You tell me.

Ban foreign students by the millions
And pardon criminals with their billions.
Who’s the chump,
You… or Donald Trump?