Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Consuming more of this Ultra-Processed World is not a path to “the good life,” it’s a path to the destruction and derangement of an Ultra-Processed Life.

The digital realm, finance, and junk food have something in common: they’re all ultra-processed, synthetic versions of Nature that have been designed to be compellingly addictive, to the detriment of our health and quality of life.

In focusing on the digital realm, money (i.e. finance, “growth,” consuming more as the measure of all that is good) and eating more of what tastes good, we now have an Ultra-Processed Life. All three– the digital realm, money in all its manifestations and junk food–are all consumed: they all taste good, i.e. generate endorphin hits, and so they draw us into their synthetic Ultra-Processed World.

We’re so busy consuming that we don’t realize they’re consuming us: in focusing on producing and consuming more goods and services as the sole measure of “the good life,” it’s never enough: if we pile up $1 million, we focus on piling up $2 million. If we pile up $2 million, we focus on accumulating $3 million. And so on, in every manifestation of money and consumption.

The digital realm consumes our lives one minute and one hour at a time, for every minute spent focusing on a screen is a minute taken from the real world, which is the only true measure of the quality of our life.

Ultra-processed food is edible, but it isn’t nutritious. It tastes good, but it harms us in complex ways we don’t fully understand.

This is the core dynamic of the synthetic “products and services” that dominate modern life: the harm they unleash is hidden beneath a constant flow of endorphin hits, distractions, addictive media and unfilled hunger for all that is lacking in our synthetic Ultra-Processed World: a sense of security, a sense of control, a sense of being grounded, and the absence of a hunger to find synthetic comforts in a world stripped of natural comforts.

In effect, we’re hungry ghosts in this Ultra-Processed World, unable to satisfy our authentic needs in a synthetic world of artifice and inauthenticity. The more we consume, the hungrier we become for what is unavailable in an Ultra-Processed Life.

We’re told there’s no upper limit on “growth” of GDP, wealth, abundance, finance or consumption, but this is a form of insanity, for none of this “growth” addresses what’s lacking and what’s broken in our lives, the derangements generated by consuming (and being consumed by) highly profitable synthetic versions of the real world.

Insanity is often described as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So our financial system inflates yet another credit-asset bubble and we expect that this bubble won’t pop, laying waste to everyone who believed that doing the same thing would magically generate a different result.

But there is another form of insanity that’s easily confused with denial: we are blind to the artificial nature of this Ultra-Processed World and blind to its causal mechanisms: there is only one possible output of this synthetic version of Nature, and that output is a complex tangle of derangements that we seek to resolve by dulling the pain of living a deranged life.

We’re not in denial; we literally don’t see our Ultra-Processed World for what it is: a manufactured mirror world of commoditized derangements and distortions that have consumed us so completely that we’ve lost the ability to see what’s been lost.

Ultra-processed snacks offer the perfect metaphor. We can’t stop consuming more, yet the more we consume the greater the damage to our health. The worse we feel, the more we eat to distract ourselves, to get that comforting endorphin hit. It’s a feedback loop that ends in the destruction of our health and life.

Once we’ve been consumed by money, the digital realm and ultra-processed foods, we’ve lost the taste for the real world. A fresh raw carrot is sweet, but once we’re consuming a diet of sugary cold cereals and other equivalents of candy, we no longer taste the natural sweetness of a carrot; it’s been lost in the rush of synthetic extremes of salt, sugar and fat that make ultra-processed foods so addictive. To recover the taste of real food, we first have to completely abandon ultra-processed foods– Go Cold Turkey.

The idea that we can consume junk food and maintain the taste for real food in some sort of balance is delusional, for the reasons stated above: junk food destroys our taste for real food and its artificially generated addictive qualities will overwhelm our plan to “eat healthy” half the time.

Just as there is no “balance” between ultra-processed food and real food, there is no balance between the synthetic Ultra-Processed World and the real world. We choose one or the other, either by default or by design.

Credit–borrowing money created out of thin air–is the financial equivalent of ultra-processed food. The machinery that spews out the addictive glop is complicated: in the “food” factory, real ingredients are processed into addictive snacks. In finance, reverse repos, swaps, derivatives, mortgages, etc. generate a highly addictive financial product: credit.

Just as with ultra-processed food, the more credit we consume, the more it consumes us. I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.

The derangements of synthetic food, digital realms and finance have yet to fully play out. Consuming more of this Ultra-Processed World is not a path to “the good life,” it’s a path to the destruction and derangement of an Ultra-Processed Life.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.  Subscribe to my Substack for free

Shares of the Las Vegas Sphere (officially the MSG Sphere), owned by Sphere Entertainment Co (SPHR), have plunged into a vicious bear market this year amid fears that its subsidiary, MSG Networks—a regional sports network—faces potential bankruptcy. Nevertheless, Goldman Sachs analysts Stephen Laszczyk and Antares Tobelem have initiated coverage with a “Buy” rating, arguing that the upside potential for the Las Vegas Sphere is solid and that the market has overstated the risks tied to MSG Networks. 

MSG bankruptcy fears have sent SPHR shares tumbling 36% since peaking at around $48 in mid-February. Short interest has surged to 7.7 million shares—approximately 29.5% of the total float.

On Thursday, Laszczyk and Tobelem provided clients with a detailed note about their decision to initiate a “Buy” rating on SPHR: 

1. We initiate on Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) with a Buy rating and a $42 price target (12-month), representing 24% potential return. At $33.80 a share (off ~20% YTD through 3/26), we believe that the market is currently under-appreciating two key aspects of the company’s growth story and over-estimating a potential risk.

The analysts explained more about their bullish call, outlining three bullish reasons: 

1. Specifically, we believe that the market is under-appreciating the opportunity for the Las Vegas Sphere to continue to reinvent itself with new content and improve execution to grow Revenue and AOI (GSe is ~5% above consensus for Sphere segment AOI),

2. under-appreciating the opportunity to add additional Sphere franchises around the globe (see addressable market analysis inside), and

3. over-estimating the likelihood that a workout of the MSG Networks debt will be value destructive.

The value in SPHR is based on the Las Vegas Sphere, the world’s largest spherical structure—equipped with a 16K resolution LED screen that wraps around the audience for a fully immersive visual experience, which surpasses even legacy venues like Madison Square Garden. 

Org Chart Overview across the MSG Complex

The analysts expect increased operational improvement through increased utilization of show days, better programming cadence, and higher ticket and hospitality pricing. Their model forecasts the Sphere segment AOI to increase significantly, from -$20M in 2024 to $158M in 2027E, outpacing the average analyst estimates on Wall Street. With premium experiences, flexible scheduling, and continued demand for immersive content, the analysts believe the Sphere is positioned for multiple years of continued growth despite “newness” fading fears. 

“While we appreciate the argument that The Sphere has benefited from its “newness” in its first year of operation, we believe concerns that the venue is a fad and will have difficulty reinventing itself to drive continued interest are exaggerated. We see opportunity for The Sphere to add content, optimize show count and timing, and improve operations in a way that translates into continued growth,” the analysts said. 

We believe SPHR is currently trading at a value that only captures the visible revenue streams from the LV and AD Spheres

Las Vegas Sphere Lifetime Foot Traffic

Each additional Sphere build in a new city could generate low tens of millions in AOI for SPHR through royalty fees alone

The Las Vegas Sphere show count should be near that of the entire 5-venue MSGE footprint by ~2027 due to improved utilization

The event count for Sphere Experience has stabilized at ~60-70 shows per month…

Capacity of the 10 Most Comparable Las Vegas Venues to the MSG Sphere

Meanwhile, the MSG Networks segment faces secular headwinds from cord-cutting and unfavorable carriage renegotiations. The analysts expect that “successful renegotiation of MSG Networks’ debt terms, without the need from Sphere Entertainment to inject significant capital, would be a net positive for Sphere’s stock, which we believe appears to be pricing in some risk that Sphere Entertainment uses its own capital to bail creditors out.”

All in all, the analysts have a $42 price target, which reflects a blend of current positive Sphere performance, potential franchise expansion, and a low probability of value destruction from MSG Networks’ debt issues. 

. . . 

lol 

Grateful Dead played the Las Vegas sphere—imagine tripping balls and looking up and seeing this. There’s no way I’m coming back from that pic.twitter.com/o1D9dWXYeW

— ØSØ (@OsoBlanc0) May 30, 2024

Don’t do drugs and then go to the Sphere in Vegas. You will have a bad time. pic.twitter.com/tjm9Q9bbFr

— Alpha Liger (@AlphaLiger) January 16, 2025

Jerry Garcia would’ve liked the Sphere pic.twitter.com/IFPKbzD4eM

— Las Vegas Locally 🌴 (@LasVegasLocally) March 22, 2025

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive.

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe.

What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech.

In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.”

That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation).

The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.

This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the world’s most notorious anti-free speech figures went ballistic.

Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”

The EU has long been one of the most aggressively anti-free speech bodies in the world. It has actively supported the evisceration of free speech among its 27 member states. The EU is not “agnostic” when it comes to free speech; it has long championed a type of free-speech atheism.

We have faced EU officials engaging in Orwellian doublespeak for years. Nevertheless, Virkkunen’s letter to Jordan stands out for its sheer mendacity.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

There’s been another reported attack on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova conveyed to journalists a Russian military assessment saying a metering facility was “de facto destroyed” in a Ukrainian HIMARS attack. 

But unlike some of the prior Ukrainian attacks on the area, the Kremlin is directly blaming the West, going to far as to say that orders for the new strike came directly from European capitals.

We “have reasons to believe that targeting and navigation were facilitated through French satellites and British specialists input [target] coordinates and launched [the missiles],” Zakharova said, as cited in national media.

“The command came from London,” she emphasized, describing it as part of a West-backed “terror” campaign meant to degrade and destroy Russia’s energy infrastructure. 

The Kremlin has concluded this demonstrates that Kiev is “impossible to negotiate with,” she explained. The Ukrainians have done nothing to actually uphold the energy ceasefire put forward by Trump, despite that Zelensky “publicly supported” it, she said, suggesting it was all an empty game.

“Over the past 24 hours, the Kyiv regime continued its attacks on Russian energy infrastructure using various types of drones and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers,” the Russian military had also described.

Russia has alleged Ukraine launched rockets on the Sudzha facility, which had already been damaged in an earlier attack this week, along with nearly 20 drones launched at an oil refinery in the southern Saratov region.

Ukraine is meanwhile denying the Russian allegations, instead suggesting it’s a false flag orchestrated by Moscow:

On Friday, Ukraine denied claims that its forces fired on the gas metering station Sudzha and accused Russia’s military of striking the facility.

“Russia has again attacked the Sudzha gas transmission system in the Kursk region, which they do not control,” Andriy Kovalenko, an official who is responsible for countering disinformation, said on social media.

The two sides have traded blame for violating the energy ceasefire on basically a daily basis since it was proclaimed. It seems to have barely held, if at all, despite ongoing pledges from both sides to uphold it.

Large fire at the scene of the metering station attack…

Kiev has launched another assault on the Sudzha gas metering station, signaling that Zelensky has no desire at all to reduce tensions with Russia or pursue Trump’s peace plan. pic.twitter.com/H4fe75lU5u

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 28, 2025

The US has claimed that it is not providing intelligence for long-range attacks inside Russia by Ukraine, but only intelligence which is defensive in nature. However, Europe is still in maximum support mode, as President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer put together a ‘coalition of the willing’ to defend Ukraine.

By Stefan Koopman, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

The Trump administration’s decision to slap a 25% tariff on imported cars and parts is yet another move in America’s ongoing trade battles. Following the global steel and aluminum tariffs, this latest escalation puts pressure on the EU to respond. As we noted in a special report released yesterday, we believe the European Union prefers to make a deal and prevent a full-blown trade war. However, we argue that Brussels’ decision-making procedures are designed in such a way that escalation is ‘technically’ the path of least resistance. Therefore, absent an agreement, or a clear prospect thereof, European leaders will most likely strike back to any tariffs imposed by the US, even if not fully and with some delay.

We also show in this report that the use of the EU’s (so far never used) Anti-Coercion Instrument is an option open to the European Commission, especially if the US tops up this week’s measures with its already infamous reciprocal tariffs on April 2. This approach, however, would take more time, face more internal hurdles in the EU, and could provoke an even more severe counter-response from the US, one that may extend beyond economic statecraft to political or military actions. This complicates an already complex situation. Therefore, at least initially, we expect the EU to bundle its response in rebalancing measures, i.e., rebalancing tariffs. This enables the EU to react as quickly as possible. Additional countermeasures, such as quotas, will only be considered if the US implements tariffs so high that the EU cannot match the economic impact.

In our baseline scenario for the economy, we have long included a 5% tariff hike on all US imports. The current measures announced still fall within this range, so there is no immediate reason to adjust our projections for growth and inflation. However, as Trump’s tariffs continue to accumulate, and as other countries retaliate, the risk of a more significant stagflationary shock has increased. A plausible scenario for such a backdrop would be if Trump follows through on his threat of an additional 25% tariff on other selected goods, such as pharmaceuticals and chips, or, even worse (but less likely), a 25% universal tariff.

Fittingly, the US reported another astonishingly high trade deficit number for February. The deficit in goods amounted to USD 147.9 billion, on top of January’s USD 155 billion deficit. This averages to a whopping USD 1.8 trillion annualized, over 6% of US GDP. The widening deficit reflects efforts by US companies to secure goods and materials in advance of higher tariffs. In fact, much of the widening in the deficit since December 2024 can be traced to imports of gold bars, predominantly from Switzerland and the UK. The (advanced) February data suggests strong imports of industrial supplies – which not only includes gold, but also steel and aluminum – were still a key driver. But even if industrial supplies are excluded, the trade deficit would be at record levels.

US gold imports pic.twitter.com/5RpaN5DaQX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 6, 2025

Obviously, this front-running of tariffs caused quite a scare earlier in March when the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model plummeted to -2.8% annualized for 25Q1. This prompted the modelers to introduce a “gold-adjusted” version. After all, given that substantial portions of these industrial metals are likely being invested in inventories, the direct impact on GDP should be relatively neutral. However, even with gold excluded, net exports remain a considerable drag on GDP. The gold-adjusted estimate currently stands at +0.2% q/q annualized, which is not pretty.

Across the border, Banxico cut the policy rate 50bp to 9.00%, in line with our expectations. Notably, in its statement, Banxico said that “looking ahead it could continue calibrating the monetary policy stance and consider adjusting it in similar magnitudes.” As such, we now expect a 50bp cut at the next meeting in May and have added an additional 25bp cut to our forecasts. This brings us to five more cuts in 2025 to a terminal rate of 7.50%. Interestingly, Banxico notes that the risks to its inflation outlook remain skewed to the upside. However, the risk of persistence in underlying core inflation has been downgraded, now ranking below the risks of peso depreciation and tariff uncertainty. So, tariffs are leading to rate cuts.

It is worth noting that on Wednesday, the Bank of Canada also revealed in its deliberations that it would have maintained its policy rate at 3.00% instead of cutting it to 2.75%, if not for tariff uncertainty and the perceived need to alleviate concerns among consumers and businesses as the trade war impacts the economy. So here too: tariffs -> rate cuts. Of course, an extra cut here or there doesn’t address the bigger problem. Canada’s caretaker PM Mark Carney, who faces a federal election next month and has flipped the polling landscape by pushing back against Trump, has just said: “The old relationship we had with the US –based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation– is over.” That said, Canada hasn’t retaliated on the auto tariffs yet, as the US says if Canada joins up with the EU, both will see far higher tariffs.

With all the insufferable quirkiness of a drunken liberal wine-mom, EU Commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management, Hadja Lahbib, explains the “essentials” of an emergency go-bag in a video designed for the average European facing epic disaster should NATO (minus the US) go to war. 

The European Union has prepared a survival advisory for a 72-hour bug out bag in preparation for war against Russia.

Very delusional stuff. War will either go on for years or end within a matter of hours. pic.twitter.com/XAxtfj7Gzx

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 28, 2025

“In the EU we must think different because the threats are different, we must think bigger because the threats are bigger too,” Lahbib told reporters.

Roxana Mînzatu, the Commissioner for preparedness, added that the bloc is “not starting from scratch”.

“The COVID pandemic has shown that the added value of acting together in solidarity, in coordination, in the European Union framework is absolutely crucial, This is what makes us more efficient, makes us stronger,” she said.

Keep in mind, these are the same people that ridiculed the preparedness movement only ten years ago and then accused survivalists of being “hoarders” during the covid lockdowns.  Suddenly the EU elites claim to be concerned about the survival pantries of the citizenry and this may be a signal of expanding hostilities between Europe and Russia.

The advice given, however, is not useful and one can only conclude that the EU is only trying to make it look like they care should the geopolitical situation go sideways.  Hadja Lahbib’s video is not tongue-in-cheek parody – She is quite serious.  She claims that in her travels around Europe she gathered perspectives on emergency survival that were eventually applied to the EU go-bag recommendations.  

A true 72 hour survival kit (which is not what the EU is actually promoting here) would only be useful for short term natural disasters as a means to get to a safe place with the assumption of extensive government aid.  It could also be used to shelter in place, but again, relying on government aid and emergency services to arrive swiftly.  A long term widespread crisis like a near-peer war would require extensive preps well beyond a few days.

For example, the bare minimum standard for a survival food supply is three months.  Why?  Because that’s how long it generally takes government agencies to show up and start repairing damage to essential services (Think about what happened with FEMA in North Carolina after Hurricane Helene – That response took a whole election and a new presidential administration).  Also consider the fact that what little government aid is available during a broad spectrum crisis will end up being consumed quickly as public desperation grows. 

Beyond slow response time, needy citizens with no preps will need to consider the cost of government reliance.  What will emergency agencies demand from you in exchange for their help?  Will you disarm?  Take a battery of experimental vaccines?  Will your political background determine your access to government help?  There’s a lot to consider but the worst possible scenario is that you become a refugee completely reliant on bureaucrats for you and your family’s sustenance.

European governments are currently flirting with the notion of WWIII, yet at no point did they suggest that their citizens purchase radiation treatments like Potassium Iodide or equipment like a Geiger Counter in the event of fallout.  The almost whimsical tone on display is a far cry from the comprehensive Civil Defense efforts of the Cold War era.

In other words, if a legitimate national or international disaster did arise, most Europeans would be screwed.  It’s almost as if they are being deliberately set up for failure by EU officials.

Via Remix News,

The new German government coalition, which is likely to be the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD) is looking to ban “lies,” according to a working paper that emerged from the group “culture and media” between the two parties.

Bild newspaper received a copy of the working paper, which outlines the goal of combating “fake” news on social media, including restrictions on it.

The paper from the CDU and SPD indicates that “disinformation and fake news” threaten democracy.

In fact, the paper argues that freedom of expression does not apply in such circumstances.

Bild contacted a number of constitutional lawyers, and they are highly skeptical of the law.

“Lies are only prohibited if they are punishable, for example in the case of sedition. Otherwise, you can lie,” said Volker Boehme-Neßler, a professor at the University of Oldenburg.

🇩🇪 Extraordinary scenes in Germany as police raid the home of Jürgen Elsässer, the publisher of the right-wing Compact Magazine, and remove various belongings from his residence outside Berlin.

Germany’s interior minister has placed a blanket ban on the entire publication.

It… pic.twitter.com/KsV03IbbSs

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) July 16, 2024

Even determining a lie is a legal complexity.

“It is not an easy question of what a factual claim and what an expression of opinion is. Most courts interpret freedom of expression very broadly,” he added.

He also took aim at a specific part of the working paper, which addresses “hate and agitation.”

He said, “‘hate and agitation’ — these are ‘no legal terms.” He added, “Basically, the spread of hatred in Germany is protected by freedom of expression. An assertion like ‘I hate all politicians,’ does not yet constitute a criminal offense.”

Another law professor from the University of Augsburg, Josef Franz Lindner, said that the “deliberate spreading of false facts is not punishable, not illegal.”

AfD politician @hallofraukaiser has been convicted for publishing gang rape statistic data related to Afghan immigration, with her case now attracting worldwide attention. https://t.co/4iswSMQoNP

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) May 7, 2024

He said that if the new government moves forward with a law against “fake news,” it would represent a grave threat to freedom of speech.

He said he can only warn against a “fake news” offense being created, saying “Ultimately, it would expose any controversial statement to the risk of criminal prosecution.”

It is also worth noting that Friedrich Merz himself, who is likely to be Germany’s next chancellor, openly lied when he said that his party would support an end to the debt brake. Almost immediately after the election, he said the debt brake would be lifted, and that Germany would take on historic amounts of debt.

BREAKING: A 14-year-old German boy had his house raided and searched by police in Bavaria for posting a hashtag “Everything for Germany” on TkTok.

The raid happened on Dec. 6, St. Nicholas Day, which typically sees a Santa-like character bringing chocolates and fruit and putting… pic.twitter.com/TxwesOOOPw

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) December 12, 2024

Lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel, who has a broad range of clients related to internet censorship, says the CDU and SPD’s goal with the new paper is to “intimidate the unpopular social media” content producers. He said that such censorship already lacks a “constitutional basis.”

Read more here…

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

Creating an office of U.S. shipbuilding to facilitate America’s return to being a true maritime power is long overdue and is necessary to counter China’s growing maritime dominance.

At the end of World War II, the United States had over 100 shipyards, and its flagged fleet, the largest in the world, carried  57 percent of U.S. trade, while the majority of world trade was carried in U.S.-built ships.

Today, only about 0.2 percent of global commercial tonnage is being carried in ships built in the United States. Collectively, China, South Korea, and Japan build over 90 percent of the world’s large commercial ships. And with China building over 50 percent of the world’s gross shipping tonnage, it is by far and away the world’s largest shipbuilder, with 232 times more shipbuilding capacity than the United States.

While the lack of commercial shipbuilding capacity is not the only reason we have seen the U.S. Navy decline in size and capability, it has created an environment that makes correcting the issues plaguing the Navy very difficult. Indeed, the lack of commercial shipbuilding is arguably the root cause of our Navy’s decline in readiness, its exploding ship costs, and its inability to hold vendors accountable when they deliver underperforming ships overbudget and years behind schedule.

Examples of underperforming, overbudget ships include the Constellation-class frigate, the Littoral combat ship, the Ford-class carriers, and the massive Zumwalt destroyer. It is the failures in these key shipbuilding  programs that has led to the decline of the U.S. Navy’s size and readiness. Moreover, the vendors associated with these failed and or grossly underperforming programs have at worst received a slap on the wrist and are collectively lined up to receive many hundreds of billions more in U.S. Defense contracts over the coming decades.

Shipbuilders have been able to underdeliver with near impunity, in part due to the fact that they are the only game in town, i.e., if you cancel major defense contracts then the government-dependent companies will go out of business and there will be no shipbuilding capacity. For example, there is currently only one shipbuilder that can build and execute the Refueling and Complex Overhaul work on U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. While there are two firms that can build U.S. nuclear submarines, they are suffering from a lack of skilled labor. In the vast majority of cases, the prime contractors who build the Navy’s ships are almost wholly reliant on military contracts to survive. 

All this means that when contracts are put in place, they are not just put in place to deliver the most powerful ships at the best price, they are put in place to ensure that the company executing the contract can keep its people employed from contract to contract. Thus, contracts are strung out for many years. This makes sense, as having enough people trained up in the skills to rapidly deliver a ship or a number of ships, only to have to let them go when the ships are completed, is not a sustainable business model. Obviously, the Pentagon needs to structure contracts in such a way that defense contractors can stay in business.

However, this leads to the previously mentioned situation where is it well-nigh impossible to hold the defense contractors accountable. This brings us back to the value of having a more robust shipbuilding industry in which major shipbuilders that do business with the Pentagon, also have a robust commercial shipbuilding business. This is the way things were prior to World War II, and for a number of years after the war. For example, while Newport News Shipbuilding has long been the leading vendor when it comes to building U.S aircraft carriers, it also used to also build commercial ships.

But just as important, when the United States had a robust commercial shipbuilding industry, the pool of workers with the skills necessary to build both commercial and military vessels was much larger. This larger pool of skilled workers created a much more resilient shipbuilding environment that benefited the U.S. Navy when it came to negotiating contracts and holding shipbuilders/ship designers accountable. 

Currently, China is the world’s largest commercial and military ship shipbuilder. This means China has a whole bunch of shipyards that can build both military and commercial ships. Its massive shipbuilding industry also ensures China has a huge base of workers with the diverse sets of skills and trades necessary to build ships. The U.S. Navy used to be able to count on a large, robust shipbuilding industry that could build both commercial and military ships, but that has not been case since the 1970s.

Today, according to a Congressional Research Service report, three of the 10 commercial oil tankers selected to ship fuel for the Department of Defense (DOD) as part of the newly enacted Tanker Security Program are Chinese-built. As for dry cargo supplies for the DOD, seven of the 12 most recently built ships in the Maritime Security Fleet are Chinese-built. So, the U.S. Navy, along with the U.S. economy, is now highly dependent on ships built in in other countries, including China. This means that not only is the United States no longer a commercial maritime power, but our military is dependent on Chinese-built ships for logistical support. This is not a good state of affairs.

The new office of shipbuilding announced by President Trump earlier this month aims to correct this national security concern, but how?  Well, that is a rather complex question, but it will require streamlining of existing regulations, beefing up our steel industry, and yes, it will require government subsidies to be able to compete with China, South Korea, and Japan who all heavily subsidize their own shipping industries.

But if the United States wants to address a serious security concern, and regain its status as a true maritime superpower, taking such actions are not optional.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

A federal judge has upheld a California law that restricts young adults from buying guns, finding the statute fits within the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations.

California penal code Section 27510 bars federal gun dealers from selling or otherwise giving possession of guns to people younger than 21. The law does allow 18- to 20-year-olds to buy certain types of guns if they obtain a hunting license, are serving in the military, or were honorably discharged from the armed forces.

Some young adults and gun rights groups challenged the law, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, the case has been proceeding through the court system for years. U.S. District Judge James Lorenz said in 2020 that the law did not violate the Constitution, then an appeals court panel said it did. The appeals court later remanded the case back to Lorenz for renewed consideration following the U.S. Supreme Court ordering lower courts to figure out if gun regulations were based on the nation’s history of gun restrictions when deciding whether they are constitutional.

Lorenz on March 26 sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, concluding that even though 18- to 20-year-olds are part of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, the young adults have faced gun restrictions throughout much of American history.

The law “is consistent with the Founding Era common law that curtailed commercial firearm purchases by individuals aged 18 to 20,” Lorenz wrote in a 23-page decision.

He also said the law is constitutional because the young adults can buy guns that are not handguns or semiautomatic centerfire rifles if they receive a hunting license or are in the U.S. military. Tens of thousands of young adults have obtained guns under the exceptions in recent years, including 5,431 in 2022.

The young adults can also acquire guns as gifts from family members, the ruling noted.

“Defendants’ evidence supports a reasonable inference that Section 27510 is a commercial restriction that does not meaningfully impair 18-to-20-year-olds’ access to firearms and is therefore not covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the judge said.

The summary judgment ruling means the case is over, unless the plaintiffs appeal.

The Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said on social media platform X that it is reviewing the opinion.

Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement that the ruling represents a victory in the fight against gun violence.

“This commonsense regulation will continue to protect our young and vulnerable communities from preventable gun violence,“ he said. ”I am proud of the countless hours my team has put in to defend this law and we know the fight is not over. We will continue to lead efforts to defend commonsense gun-safety laws and protect our communities from senseless violence.”

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A 30-year study finds a primarily plant-based diet, with minimal ultra-processed food and low to moderate amounts of animal-based foods like fish and dairy, could raise our chances of reaching 70 without developing chronic disease, according to a new study from Harvard researchers.

Healthy aging, as defined by the researchers, means reaching age 70 free of major chronic diseases, with good cognitive, physical, and mental health.

“Our findings suggest that dietary patterns rich in plant-based foods, with moderate inclusion of healthy animal-based foods, may promote overall healthy aging and help shape future dietary guidelines,” senior study author Marta Guasch-Ferré said in a press release.

Two Diets Linked to Optimal Aging

The study, recently published in Nature Medicine, examined the midlife diets and health outcomes of more than 105,000 middle-aged women and men aged 39 to 69 over 30 years.

The team evaluated how effectively the participants adhered to eight different largely-plant-based diets: the Alternative Health Eating Index (AHEI), the Alternative Mediterranean Diet (aMED), the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet (DASH), the MIND diet, the Healthful Plant-Based Diet, the Planetary Health Diet Index, the Empirically Inflammatory Dietary Pattern, and the Empirical Dietary Index for Hyperinsulinemia.

Of the participants, 10 percent were identified as aging healthfully and followed the eight diets. Those who closely followed the AEHI and PHDI diets were linked with optimal healthy aging patterns.

The AHEI diet was found to be especially beneficial. It was developed to prevent chronic disease and emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats while limiting red meat, refined grains, and sugar.

Participants scoring highest on this diet were found to have an 86 percent greater likelihood of healthy aging by age 70 and a 2.2-fold higher likelihood by age 75 compared to those with the lowest scores. The PHDI diet also emphasizes plant-based foods and reduces animal-based food intake.

Other diets researchers looked at that were linked to healthy aging were the aMED which follows the Mediterranean model and the DASH diet. The aMED diet prioritizes olive oil, nuts, whole grains, and moderate fish intake. DASH is known for lowering blood pressure and focuses on fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy.

“Maintaining a healthy diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, unsaturated fats, nuts, and legumes during mid-life is linked to a higher likelihood of healthy aging along with better cognitive, physical, and mental health,” Guasch-Ferré told The Epoch Times.

Conversely, higher consumption of ultra-processed foods, particularly processed meats and sugary beverages, was linked to a decreased chance of aging healthfully.

No ‘One Size Fits All’ Diet

The findings also suggest that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all diet.

“Healthy diets can be adapted to fit individual needs and preferences,” lead author Anne-Julie Tessier, assistant professor at the University of Montreal, stated in the press release.

Shelley Balls, registered dietitian nutritionist for Flawless Bloom in Western Wyoming, told The Epoch Times that ultra-processed foods include many convenience snack foods such as potato chips, candy, cookies, and crackers, as well as sweetened beverages such as soda, sweetened tea, and sugar-laden coffees.

“I’m not saying you should never have these types of foods and beverages, but I would highly recommend limiting their intake in order to promote overall health,” she said.

However, certain ultra-processed foods are healthier than others, she said. Potato chips are high on fats and sodium, making them good once-in-awhile, but sugar sweetened beverage quickly adds up when it comes to sugar and calorie intake.

“Even certain diet drinks, although they might not have the calories, could negatively affect digestive health, which is linked to obesity,” she said.

Healthy animal-based food also should not be avoided.

“Healthy animal-based foods such as Greek yogurt, kefir, salmon, eggs, and other lean cuts of meat provide an abundance of healthful nutrients your body needs to function optimally,” Balls said. “When it comes to promoting overall health, variety is key so excluding certain foods out entirely can make it harder.”

Adequate protein intake is also key to promoting healthy aging as “it’s essential in maintaining muscle mass, strength, and function as you age.”

The study had some limitations, including that the participants were exclusively health professionals. Researchers suggest that replicating the study among more diverse populations could provide deeper insights into the findings’ broader relevance.

However, Guasch-Ferré said that while there may be some differences in overall health, such as access to health care and other factors, “we believe that the biological mechanisms underlying the associations between dietary patterns and healthy aging would be similar in other populations.”

According to Balls, “the earlier, the better” when it comes to disease prevention.

“One piece of advice I give to even younger kids is what you’re eating today, can affect how you age,” she added. “So moderation and variety are key at all stages of life!”