The Equal Time Doctrine is not new. But the national press corps, always ready to pounce on Donald Trump and Republicans, has suddenly declared it a censorious abomination. In the process, they have also shown their willing ignorance about the medium so many of them are in. //

the Fairness Doctrine is not the the Equal Time Doctrine, the latter of which is actually federal law.

47 U.S.C.A. § 315 requires that any “broadcasting station” that gives a candidate for office air time, must give that candidate’s opponents equal time on the air. There are four exceptions: a bona fide newscast; a bona fide news interview; a bona fide documentary wherein the candidate’s appearance is incidental to the subject matter; or on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news events. The law applies “during the forty-five days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate.” The law does not apply to cable channels.

This is not some new thing. The candidate’s opponents must actively seek the equal time. It is not just given, but has to be asked for. But if it is asked for, it will not be denied.

Non hushkitted DC-8 and rare hushkitted Boeing 707 Sounds still great ! Ostend Airport 2001

So many Christian leaders want their ministries to become more sustainable. How can we get there? Join EMI staff member and Creation Care series host Rob Quail for a webinar on how we apply creation care principles and sustainable design to EMI Projects. Rob will walk us through the research done by the EMI creation care working group on various holistic sustainability assessment tools already in existence, how we have applied some of them on previous projects and the application of a new tool, developed in-house by EMI, on a recent project trip to Belize.

The sustainability appraisal is intended to inform strategic planning, particularly as it relates to long-term cost efficiency, energy use, and the expansion of campus facilities. Join us to learn how the sustainability assessment can serve your ministry or how you can partner with EMI in this service.

Together we design and build projects that bring hope to communities around the world.

Intro to Creation Care - EMI Series #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7h4j63HTfk

Landscape Architecture - EMI Creation Care Series #4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugNcG4clSKs

The Senate rules provide two ways to break a filibuster. The first is the mechanical way, by invoking cloture (the Senate’s term for ending debate), which requires 60 votes. The second, which has existed within the Senate’s rules since its inception, is by making senators talk — the “talking filibuster.”

The talking filibuster is a strategy that, first and foremost, imposes a physical and psychological cost of obstruction on filibustering senators. Second, it forces a public political process that has implications for those who oppose the bill. In other words, it doesn’t allow them to hide behind a single vote. If Democrats want to oppose securing the vote from the interference of noncitizens, they should have to explain why — at length and in public.

Strassel has provided several reasons for opposing this strategy, challenges she calls “false promises and huge problems.” But her essay leaves out critical details, makes some key factual errors, and is based on unwarranted assumptions. I’ll respond to each of her objections one by one. //

Demanding an airtight guaranteed result before bringing a bill to the floor began roughly 20 years ago and is an aberration of the modern Senate. For 200 years before that, Senate leaders would bring bills to the floor with a degree of uncertainty, and the momentum created by debate, amendment, exhaustion, and negotiation usually (but not always) resulted in passage of the bill. Bringing a bill to the floor when you already know the outcome is not fighting, leading, or even legislating. It’s just scheduling. //

When former Democrat Majority Leader Mike Mansfield brought the Civil Rights Act to the floor in 1964, he didn’t have the votes necessary for cloture on either side of party lines. According to the Senate’s historian, while his Democrat caucus had 67 members, “barely 40 expressed strong support for cloture.” He spent 60 days forcing southern Democrats to filibuster the bill. During that time, a public political process put immense pressure on the opponents, allowed proponents to execute an ongoing strategy and build bipartisan support, forced both sides into a legislative negotiation, and the result was the filibuster being broken with 71 votes.

A talking filibuster forces a process. A specific outcome is never guaranteed — that’s the legislative process! — but the first step toward getting any kind of outcome at all, besides ignoring the bill entirely, is to try. //

Or, to put it in the words of Sen. Robert C. Byrd when he forced a talking filibuster in 1988: “There is no point of having an easy gentlemen’s filibuster back in the cloakrooms. Let’s have it right here on the Senate floor where the American people can see it.”

Americans want to see the Senate rise to the level of their expectations: to tangle with hard questions and deliberate with skill and strategy. The talking filibuster has been a tool in the Senate’s arsenal for 200 years, and returning to it could unlock the majesty of the institution, which has for too long been dormant and increasingly irrelevant.

The Flying Bulls GmbH (Red Bull) | OE-LDM | Douglas DC-6B | Callsign: OELDM | Built: 1958 | Flight: Zürich-Salzburg

a unexpected arrival , due to some engine problem , subsequent starting attempts to get airborne , and ultimately did some test flights ( Part 2 ) a wonderful memory year 2000 EXTENDED footage , the sound conditions were excellent first flight of this iconic design 1946

dismal weather but good sound ( haze and rain ! ) rare footage of the last Lockheed Tristar departure from Ostend , some 24 years ago 30/06/1999 CKS N104CK American International Airways CKS 358 to Gander 9.24AM

impressive speed , fast , noisy , rolling take off , in a hurry !! NOISY !! TMA 707 OD-AGO departure , runway 26 Exhilarating show !! Quality Airport Ostend Year 2001 ( June )

Why clean power is about people, not sacrifice //

We tend to talk about energy as if it’s a niche technical problem; something for engineers, utilities, and climate wonks to argue about at conferences. I’ve been guilty of this myself, spending time discussing reactor designs when I should have been talking about the people and institutions that actually do the reacting. Megawatts, grids, emissions targets, and levelised costs all matter, but they’re not the whole story, and simply not part of the broader story that appeals to most people. Energy isn’t just an input into the economy; it’s the thing that sets everything else in motion. It’s the backbone of civilisation. It’s the foundation of modern human flourishing. Hence, energy is life.

This becomes obvious the moment you look at the data. Wherever reliable electricity shows up, a familiar pattern follows, of higher literacy, lower child mortality, higher incomes, better health outcomes, and more education for women. That’s not ideology, but correlation after correlation, across countries and decades. Energy access doesn’t always guarantee prosperity, but the absence of it certainly guarantees poverty.

It’s also worth remembering something that news headlines rarely emphasise: by almost every measurable metric, including life expectancy, child survival, poverty reduction, and education, the world is far better than it was a century ago. That progress didn’t happen by accident, but because we learned how to produce vast amounts of cheap, reliable energy, and because human societies reacted by building everything else on top of it. The mechanism isn’t mysterious. Energy powers clean water systems, hospitals, vaccines, heating, lighting, refrigeration, agriculture, and the internet. Take energy away, and modern life quickly starts to fall apart.

And yet. Hundreds of millions of people still have no access to electricity at all. Billions cook with solid fuels that damage their lungs. Even in rich countries, people die every winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly. These aren’t lifestyle choices, but the consequence of political choices that enable energy shortages.

Psychologists have known for decades that humans are bad at judging risk. We overestimate dramatic, low-probability dangers and underestimate slow, high-probability harms, through a mix of availability bias and negativity bias. This bias has real consequences. Nuclear accidents loom large in the public imagination, even though, measured per unit of electricity produced, nuclear energy is far safer the alternatives.

As I have said before, the uncomfortable consequence is that fear of nuclear energy has often caused more harm than nuclear energy itself.