Commentary

I recently took my 11-year-old minivan in for an oil change and asked the mechanic to please turn off all the idiot lights on the dashboard because the reddish glare was becoming quite annoying. Imagine my surprise when I got a call sometime later from the same fellow with the news that they could put the vehicle in fine working order for $3,250. I assumed I had misheard. Who pays that kind of money to repair something that hadn’t actually been in a crash? “You mean $32.50? or maybe $325.00?” No, the caller patiently explained. He then went on to list all that was wrong with the van. I think he mentioned axles or steering or possibly struts. I think there were bald tires and some kind of leak as well. (Frankly, I had kind of mentally tuned out at that point. Where was I going to come up with that kind of money?

The future of plant-based meat was supposed to be cooked to perfection. In recent years, corporate and venture capital funds poured into the space. Fast-food giants such as KFC and Burger King raced to roll out offerings. The meme stock crowd rallied around Beyond Meat. Sales were growing. It would appeal to vegans missing meat! Even better, it would find a following with meat-eaters looking to cut back! It’s now clear that the hype got ahead of a sometimes less than tasty reality. Sales of plant-based meats in the United States are down by more than 10 percent from this time last year. The issue is basic: The problems fake meat were meant to solve — from the climate impact of industrial farming to the health impacts of meat — are all too real, but the solution it offers appeals to far fewer consumers than expected.

NASA announced last month that its new panel to study unidentified aerial phenomena — i.e. UFOs — was staffed up and ready to get working. The panel is impressive, including planetary scientists, astrophysicists, experts from the Federal Aviation Administration, data scientists and a celebrated astronaut. I have worked with a few of these scientists, and the group represents a stellar collection (pun intended) of smart, creative people with high scientific integrity. But what, exactly, are these scientists supposed to be doing in the contentious domain of UFOs? More importantly, is this really something that NASA should give time and money, potentially risking the agency’s credibility?

First, let me say this. I LOVE SOCIAL MEDIA. Here’s a few reasons why: 1) anyone with a smartphone can find their niche and create a name for themselves. 2) There is a new and catchy trend every week (most of them I can’t keep up with but I still love them). 3) Validation. I love to see people — especially underdogs — climb their way to the top and grow their audiences. 4) The money. There is money to be made through social media. A lot of it. But living in the age of social media might be hurting us more than it is helping us. And what I came to recently discover may have confirmed that.

Thanks to President Biden’s leadership, the selection of a location for the new FBI headquarters is again moving forward after plans were stalled in 2017 under President Donald Trump. However, I am deeply concerned with recent developments in the site-selection process that undermine the Biden administration’s commitment to advancing equity. The process for selecting a new FBI headquarters dates back to 2012, with 35 sites under initial consideration now down to three finalists. Prince George’s County has two of the three sites under consideration, in Greenbelt and Landover; the third site is in Virginia, in Springfield. Throughout the past decade, the General Services Administration (GSA) has said it would focus on access to transit, cost and environmental impact when selecting a new site.