'Sugar Kills Everyone,' Screamed the Headline

   "Sugar Kills Everyone," read the 72-point headline at the top of the front page.
   "Doctors, scientists and national leaders meeting Tuesday in an emergency session declared sugar to be the leading cause of disease in the world," read the article. "Although mankind has long acknowledged sugar has harmful effects, the world has never thought it to be anywhere near as devastating a substance as it turns out to be. Tuesday's announcement shook the world."
   Okay, okay, hold those presses. Such a news story might seem wildly insane. Though you have known me to use fiction to make a point, you might think that this time I certainly overstepped the bounds of reason.
   I won't say I fully believe sugar is as bad as all that. But, I will say I wonder. Does it kill "everyone"? I would not be surprised at all if it reduces the life expectancy of everyone who takes it -- which would be just about everyone who dies a natural death.
   Sugar has been linked to a host of diseases. If you would would list them all, and grant that if sugar plays a role in all these diseases, then it should not seem improbable that sugar might be the leading cause of disease.
   So, while no newspaper has ever run a banner headline proclaiming it, I am not so sure but what sugar, indeed, doesn't kill everyone and isn't the leading cause of death and disease,

How was it Overreach to Give Moon House Ruin Monument Status?

   If you wanted to give those saying you exceeded your authority a good argument when they take you to court, you did it about as well as could be done by carving Moon House Ruin out of monument status.
   Of all the archaeological sites on Cedar Mesa, Moon House is often considered the best. It has been called, "literally a vast outdoor museum of Anasazi ruins and rock art." (hikingwalking.com/destinations/ut)
  Doll House Ruin, a building believed to have been a food processing and storage facility, is also among the sites losing monument status.
   When you come arguing that Bears Ears National Monument was an overreach by the Obama Administration, saying Obama stretched to include land the Antiquities Act never intended to protect, you are going to have a hard, hard time making your argument that Moon House and Doll House are not textbook cases of sites that The Antiquities Act was created for. That act gives authority to designate as monuments, "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest." How does that not include Moon House and Doll House? How is it that you say Obama exceeded his authority by placing them in a monument?
   What are the other comparable sites being removed from monument status that qualify for it? One can see a lawyer, arguing the case in court, listing site after site as qualifying for monument status.
   When you trimmed back the size of Bears Ears, you should have left them in one of the monuments -- or made them each a monument of their own. It seems clear to me that protecting such sites with monument status is exactly what the Antiquities Act was created to do.

(Note: Edited and changed 12/5/17)

The Message Should be More Important than the Messanger

   What if what was said was more important than who said it? What if a new insight on an issue received news attention regardless if the person behind it was a nobody. If the media got wind of a powerful argument that hadn't already made the rounds, they would interview the common person and quote him (or her) for front-page news, just the same as they interviewed presidents, governors and senators.
   Then, they would bring in people to counter the point, and to discuss it -- again quoting from those having good arguments rather than necessarily from established political figures.

Truth, Ideas, and Goodness should be News Values

   For those in the news business, and those who have studied what makes news, and those who care what makes the news, I give you three new news values.
   Truth should be a news value. Ideas that will make the world better should be a news value. Goodness should be a news value.
   When journalists are trained, they are given a list of news values. I word search, and find this listing from a website call digitalthirdcoast.net: Impact, timeliness, prominence, proximity, the bizarre, conflict, currency and human interest.
   And now, our three new members.
   Truth: Truth is the brightest gem, to be valued more than diamonds. Why, then, not make it a news value? "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it," Jonathan Swift once said. Often, those who yell loudest gets their messages out, instead of those who have the truth. News people should make sure those with the truth do not get slighted. Sometimes, they are humble and do not seek the limelight, so news people should seek them out.
   Ideas -- Things that make the world better: Inventions, innovations, great ideas, great thoughts and great thinking and great philosophies, solutions to issues and political problems -- all of these have great news value. Though not traditionally listed as a news value, inventions are played well in the news. Great thinking is not always so fortunate.
   Goodness: If you parade goodness before the world, the world will follow in goodness, at least to some extent. We are copycats. So, if you would make the world a better place, tell the stories of those who do good.
   (Note: Material added and headline changed 12/4)

We Should Look into Britain First

   These days, knowing the Russians wage a propaganda war of providing false and inflammatory information, we should look to see if they were involved when we see false and inflammatory memes, videos and such.

   We know the Russians do this kind of thing. And, it is concern to us -- and should be a concern to us. So, we should look into it when there's chance the Russians are involved.

  I think of the videos President Trump retweeted. He got them from Britain First. Britain First, born in 2011, is a British political organization. Now, I don't follow Twitter to know, but how is it that President Trump would have even been aware of Britain First tweets, in the first place? Why would he even be running across them?
   Is it okay to wonder if Britain First has any ties to Russia? Knowing Russia has a propaganda machine, and seeing how pervasive it is, and knowing how it has plugged into influencing politics in so many nations, I think it not wrong. We should be looking to learn whether the Russians are influencing Britain First, and, by extension, President Trump.

Russian Propagandists behind One Source; Are they behind Both?

   Last month, I lifted my eyebrow when I read a news story saying, "Tweets by Russia-backed accounts such as "America_1st_" . . .
   The story was about how Russian agents on Twitter tried to deflect harmful news about Donald Trump just before the election. But, what caught my eye most was the name of one of the accounts the Russians had used.
   America_1st_.
   I thought back to a blog I had written in August, in which I spoke of a meme with the tagline, @_americafirst, that falsely accused Bill Clinton.
   "Now would be a wonderful time to be able to trace the sources of disinformation, propaganda and misleading memes," I wrote in my blog. I argued that false and misleading memes -- disinformation and propaganda, if you will -- are damaging, and we should want to trace down where they come from. "When the investigation into Russian influence in our election was younger," I wrote, "the Intel Community said much of what was done was but disinformation and propaganda. . . . So, doesn't it follow that a share of the false memes might be coming from the Russians? I think we should at least be wary of that, at least be open to the idea and looking to see if it is true."
   Last month, as I read the news story identifying "America_1st_" as a Russia-backed account, I could not help but notice the similarity to the tagline, "@_americafirst"from the meme I had read back in August, as I at that time wondered if such memes were coming from the Russian propagandists.
   Both "America_1st_" and "@_americafirst" were used for disinformation to either help Trump or hurt the Clintons, which falls in line with the assertion that the Russians helped Trump get elected. Both contain the words "America first" (though spelled differently). Both have underscores in their names.
   One has been identified as originating from the Russian operatives. You tell me if there isn't reason for wondering if the other, which I wondered about in August, isn't also from the Russians.
   The Russians used propaganda and falsehoods to influence the election? And the Mueller investigation is looking into it?  There might be some things that we, as the public, can see for ourselves. We don't need to wait for the Mueller investigation to issue a report.

For a Drastic Improvement in Nation's Health, Drastically Reduce Sugar

   If you would make this a healthier nation, perhaps nothing would make a bigger difference than to rid it of sugar.
   It has been said, if sugar were a new product, it would never win FDA approval. And, if you've studied sugar, you surely should believe this statement. Sugar feeds cancer, causes heart attacks, leads to Alzheimer's disease -- and the list goes on.
   Oh, I don't know if we would need to rid our country of sugar. But, drastically reducing the substance would make a world of difference.
   One reason we eat so much sugar, it that it is hard not to. It is everywhere. Even if you didn't drink soda pop and eat cookies, could you escape it? It is hidden in items you would never expect, like hot dogs and tomato soup. It is laced in pizza and cereal and yogurt.
    We could make a far bigger difference in the health of this nation by drastically reducing sugar than by shifting from Obamacare to another such similar plan.