Category: Uncategorized

Part and parcel with EVs is that they need to be charged.

From Real Clear Investigations:

“California is at the vanguard of the nation’s EV transition, with more than 1 million electric vehicles among the state’s 31-million-plus registered vehicles, and EVs accounting for about 25% of new car sales in the second quarter.”

This sounds pretty good for the future of EVs, however there are a few practical problems as EVs need to be charged.

In California, which is slated to ban sales of new gasoline-powered cars in just 12 years, government estimates indicate the state may need to install at least 20 electric chargers for every gas pump now in service to create a reliable, seamless network. California now has about 11,000 gas stations, convenience stores, and other businesses that sell gasoline, which roughly converts to about 110,000 individual gas nozzles, according to an estimate by Jeff Lenard, vice president of Strategic Industry Initiatives at the National Association of Convenience Stores. That means the transition from fossil fuels to electrons will require California to install at least 20 EV charging ports for every gas nozzle by 2035.

According to my calculations … 20 x 110,000 = 2,420,000 charging stations! … another practical problem.

Despite California’s massive infrastructure investment, now totaling nearly 94,000 public chargers, the state has fallen behind its goal of 250,000 public chargers by 2025 – and potentially 10 times that number by 2035, when the ban on new gasoline-powered cars takes effect. 

California has plenty of sunshine, and consequently there are many, many solar rooftop panels. However practically speaking these solar panels are for the most part restricted to the homes of the more affluent. And this leads to another practical problem. Namely, a “net zero” society inherently favors the haves over the have-nots. Renters and low-income families aren’t as likely to own private chargers, and electricity purchased from public chargers can cost five to 10 times as much as charging privately in a garage at home. To avoid penalizing the little guy, federal EV mandates require that 40% of benefits pay for public chargers in disadvantaged areas, while California requires that at least half go to such “equity” communities, where relatively few people currently drive EVs.

If the power for the EVs is not coming from solar rooftop panels, it most come from public charging stations. According to a California Energy Commission assessment, California will need more than 2.4 million public chargers to accommodate about 15.5 million electric cars, trucks, and buses by 2035. That breaks down to 2.11 million chargers (including 83,000 fast chargers) to support 15.2 million electric cars, as well as 256,000 depot chargers and 8,500 public chargers for 377,000 trucks and buses.

The sheer scale of a charging infrastructure means recruiting retailers and businesses to install and maintain chargers that are expected to lose money in the near future, with some likely to be written off as economic losses.

Massive public subsidies will be a crucial part of this effort because private industry is not willing to take the financial risks of betting on an uncertain future. Government subsidies mean complying with recordkeeping and reporting mandates and making sure chargers are online 97% of the time, while bearing the financial risk of vandalism, mechanical malfunctions, daily fluctuations in electricity pricing, and cashflow unpredictability.

Another issue with charging stations is, “how often do they not work?” Perhaps, another practical problem.

A University of California, Berkeley, study last year found similar results: only 72.5% of chargers in the Bay Area were functional. A newspaper columnist in California described the charging experience as miserable. “The misery was meted out in several ways,” he documented. “Charging stations were hard to find. Maps that locate stations were not reliable. Paying for a charge with a credit card often proved troublesome, sometimes impossible. Worst of all, way too many chargers were broken or otherwise out of order.”

12/26/23

On Sundays I identify individuals who we can all complement and praise.

On Dec. 3, at about 3:34 p.m., deputies and St. Francis Police officers arrived on the scene, located along Garnet St., north of Minneapolis, and found the men and pet stranded, having fallen through the ice.

A passerby who saw them struggling had managed to push a canoe out to keep them afloat while they awaited help. They had been immersed for an extended period and were hypothermic, as temperatures hovered just over freezing. The overly-thin ice and warmer temperatures were likely contributing factors in the incident.

From Epoch Bright:

After officers arrived, while they awaited marine rescuers, Deputy Chris Fjeld recognized the serious danger the men were in and took decisive action, placing his own life at risk. Cooperating with officers ashore, he secured himself to a rope held by his colleagues on the dock and crawled out onto the thin ice to fetch the men and dog.

“Where are you going?” one officer is heard saying. “Chris, I don’t like it.”“Either do I, but these guys are hypothermic,” Deputy Fjeld said.

The selfless deputy was able to reach the stranded party and help them crawl across the ice back to shore one by one. First responders then helped them onto dry ground.

“Deputy Fjeld made the decision to begin the rescue before the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office’s Marine Unit equipment and resources arrived,” the Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. “We are thankful all involved are ok and are proud of Deputy Fjeld’s selfless actions to help others in need.”

Deputy Fjeld recognized the gravity of the situation, and acted. He did not hesitate. He did not wait. He knew what needed to be done, and he did it without concern for his own safety. Truly a Minnesota hero!

12/24/23

As many of you are aware there is no doubt in my mind that that the 2020 election was fraudulent.

From BlazeMedia:

One in five voters who cast mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election admit to participating in at least one kind of voter fraud, according to a new poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute.

The national poll of 1,085 likely voters was conducted between November 30 and December 6, with a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points and a 95% level of confidence.

Specifically, 21% of mail-in voters admitted they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member; 19% of mail-in voters admitted that a friend or family member filled out a ballot on their behalf; 17% of mail-in voters admitted they voted in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident; and 17% of mail-in voters said they signed a ballot for a friend or family member with or without his or her permission.

Each of these instances constitutes voter fraud.

Taking only the first instance, this means that 21% of all mail-in ballots were fraudulent in 2020. It is important to note this number was likely much higher because the survey questions were not mutually exclusive. Though there is certainly some crossover between categories, some voters committed fraud by filling out a ballot for a friend or family member, while an entirely different subset of voters committed fraud by casting mail-in ballots in a state in which they were no longer permanent residents.

Using a conservative estimate, it appears likely that more than 14 million ballots cast in 2020 were fraudulent.

“There are many reasons why mail-in voting is less reliable than in-person voting.

State voter rolls are notoriously inaccurate. In 2012, the Pew Center on the States analyzed state voter registration rolls and found that “approximately 24 million — one of every eight — voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”

The survey indicates that the percentages of voter fraud among Republicans, Democrats, and unaligned voters were largely similar. It is vital to note, however, that this does not mean these fraudulent ballots simply canceled each other out.

According to the survey, 38% of Biden voters submitted mail-in ballots, compared to only 23% of Trump voters. As such, Biden received a much larger overall share of likely fraudulent ballots.”

Despite all of these concerns, only 0.80% of all absentee and mail-in ballots were rejected in 2020, according to Ballotpedia. Clearly, nearly all fraudulent ballots made it through our country’s gaping sieve of an electoral system.”

In view of these multiple “irregularities,” I am even more convinced that the 2020 election was FRAUDULENT!

12/23/23

Just as  marijuana has an increasing number of slang terms there is an increasing number of adverse consequences that are now being attributed to its use.

I have recently pointed out a California study indicating that since it’s legalization, there has been increased ER use for those over 65 attributed to marijuana. Similarly a recent Canadian study documented increased psychosis due to cannabis use. 

And today I read about a recent study originally published in Psychiatry Advisor that demonstrated increased cardiovascular disease in cannabis users. More specifically,  individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) have an approximately 60% higher risk of experiencing incident adverse cardiovascular disease (CVD) events relative to those without CUD. The investigators examined longitudinal data, collected between January 2012 and December 2019, from multiple databases maintained by the Alberta Ministry of Health. Patients with CUD were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes and control patients were matched on age, gender, and time of health service utilization. The primary outcome of the study was an incident CVD event over the course of the study period. The investigators included acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, other ischemic heart disease, ischemic stroke, heart failure, cardiac dysrhythmias, or peripheral vascular disease as eligible CVD event outcomes. Patients with a previous history of CVD events were excluded.

A total of 29,764 patient pairs (n=59,528 individuals) were included in the analysis, with a 0.8% prevalence of CUD overall for Alberta. The proportion of participants experiencing at least one incident adverse CVD event was 2.4% in the CUD group vs 1.5% in the control group (risk ratio [RR], 1.57).

These findings revealed that adults with CUD had a 60% higher risk of experiencing incident adverse CVD events relative to matched individuals without CUD. Study authors concluded, “Importantly, this evidence suggests that cannabis use may place a healthier population at increased risk of major cardiovascular events.”

I found this study interesting in that CUD appears to be not only a new but also an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Perhaps being a pothead is a prelude to being a deadhead, literally!

12/22/23

Many times in the past I have pointed out that Democrats insist on doing things that do the most damage to those of us who are least able to cope.

Now Biden’s inflation it’s is doing it again in spades

From CNN Business – “US homelessness hits highest level as rents have soared”

As housing in the US has become increasingly unaffordable over the past few years, the number of people experiencing homelessness surged to its highest level on record this year, according to an annual survey taken in January.

The number of unhoused people in the United States jumped by 12% early this year from the year before, an increase of about 70,650 people, according to an annual report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development released on Friday, 12/15/23.”

Now who do you think are most effected by high rents and thus the consequent expected higher rates of homelessness?

Still from CNN Business:

“Homelessness increased nationwide across all household types, the report found, but had an outsized impact on communities of color. While Black people make up about 13% of the US population, they comprise 37% of people experiencing homelessness and 50% of the people who are experiencing homelessness as a member of a family with children.

“The biggest numerical growth in people experiencing homelessness was among Latinos. There were 28% more Latinos who were unhoused in 2023 than the year prior. This population made up 55% of the total increase in US homelessness, with 39,106 additional Latinos without housing this year.

The survey also found a sharp jump in the number of people who became homeless for the first time.”

I do not profess to be an economics expert, but one does not need to be an expert to realize the obvious. The war being waged by Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats on fossil fuel, combined with their massive increase in Federal spending has caused massive inflation. With inflation the cost of everything has gone up significantly and this includes rents. Those in the lower socioeconomic groups are those most apt to be renters. Ergo, it is no mystery that many in this group cannot afford their increasing rents, and, voila! … they are now homeless.

This is not an example of “unforeseen consequences,” as any nincompoop could have predicted that this is a totally expected outcome!

Strong work, Dems!

I have alluded to this issue before, but I just heard and read something by Dr. Pierre Kory that to me was worthy of re-emphasis.

First of all I heard an interview of Dr. Kory by Laura Ingraham on Fox’s Ingraham Angle. (I saw this on YouTube as I do not regularly watch Fox News any more.) For those unaware, Dr. Kory was one of a group of anti-establishment physicians during Covid, and he continues to be a thorn in the side of MSM as well as “those who know best,” namely the CDC and the FDA. On the Ingraham Angle he pointed out and queried as to why there is now an excessive death rate among mostly younger individuals.

This was then followed on 12/12/23 by an article in THE HILL by PIERRE KORY AND MARY BETH PFEIFFER titled:

“This is bigger than COVID: Why are so many Americans dying early?”

From that same article:

“Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf recently took to X to mourn the “catastrophic” decline in U.S. life expectancy. 

But his post, which hit on smoking, diet, chronic illness and health care, ignored the obvious: People are dying in abnormally high numbers even now and long since COVID-19 waned. Yet public health agencies and medical societies are silent. 

“Life insurers have been consistently sounding the alarm over these unexpected or, “excess,” deaths, which claimed 158,000 more Americans in the first nine months of 2023 than in the same period in 2019. That exceeds America’s combined losses from every war since Vietnam. Congress should urgently work with insurance experts to investigate this troubling trend. 

With the worst of COVID behind us, annual deaths for all causes should be back to pre-pandemic levels — or even lower because of the loss of so many sick and infirm Americans. Instead, the death toll remains “alarming,” “disturbing,” and deserving of “urgent attention,” according to insurance industry articles.”

To Dr. Kory, as well as to myself, the question is why aren’t “those who know best” looking into this.

As Dr. Kory points out:

“Therein lies the most pressing question for insurers, epidemiologists and health agency officials. Why is the traditionally healthiest sector of our society — young, employed, insured workers — dying at such rates? Public health officials aggressively oversaw the pandemic response, for better or worse. Why aren’t they looking into this?”

From Epoch Health:

What’s more this excess death phenomenon isn’t isolated to the United States. Australia saw more than 14,000 excess deaths in the first 34 weeks of the year, according to OECD data. Canada saw 22,808 excess deaths in 28 weeks while the UK registered 46,654 excess deaths in 41 weeks. Sweden was an outlier with fewer deaths.

We all know that the biggest thing that happened over the last few years was Covid. During Covid older individuals died at an increased rate for a variety of reasons. Ordinarily that would mean that in the years following the deaths of older individuals, the overall number of deaths in the population at large should have gone down. However, the opposite is happening … the overall number of deaths in the population at large is increasing! 

And worse a lot of this increase is in relatively younger individuals. A Sept. 21 report by the group Insurance Collaboration to Save Lives cited data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to point out a 20 percent excess mortality rate in the U.S. working-age population of people aged 15 to 45.

Is this increase in overall death stats a consequence of the forced lockdowns or perhaps something else that was unnecessarily mandated on young healthy people. Hmmm!

12/20/23

Hmmm! There are apparently those who do not agree with my anti-Green “Tuesday truths.” More specifically some do not agree with my positions on Electric Vehicles (EVs). Before I go any further, let me be clear. My position on EVs is that they are not a future remedy for the general populace, especially for the general populace that reside north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

I recently received a communique from a friend that pointed out to me what a wonderful experience he had with his EV … “I leased a Leaf for 3 years-zero gas, zero maintenance and high reliability; range fell off significantly.”

(I am happy that he was pleased with his EV. Furthermore I am happy that he is one of the more affluent among us that can afford an EV.)

He continued:

“I now have two hybrids which get excellent mileage; one is a plug in. The plug in gives me some “Free” miles because I have solar panels.” 

(Getting “free” miles is always good. If the solar panels were free, then the miles would be “free,” but we know that buying solar panels is far from free. I realize that his solar panels are also probably supplementing partially, if not totally,  his electric bill. Good for him! However, as we all know, only the more affluent among us can afford solar panels.)

For individuals EVs can be wonderful, but for the general populace they are just unaffordable. Likewise, not only is the EV itself unaffordable, but also accompanying rooftop solar panels are also unaffordable for the general populace. In the more northern parts of our country for months during the winter the sun often may shine very little, and the performance of an EV in cold weather is not what it is during spring and fall. So in approximately one half of our country, an individual’s EV is not a full time car.

Furthermore whereas in suburbs the housing is more horizontal, in cities the housing is much more often vertical. Having a solar panel on a single family home in the more affluent suburbs is doable, but not doable in cities that have many many more vertical apartment buildings.

In conclusion, whereas EVs and solar panels have many benefits for certain individuals, EVs will not work for the general populace for a variety of reasons, and those who will be inconvenienced or punished the most with these EV mandates will be the least affluent among us.

12/19/23

Those who are consistent readers of my opinion pieces know that I am a big fan of Ronald Reagan. Who can forget one of his most prophetic sayings: 

“I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.’”

And after about forty years the terror of the government knowing best and helping keeps recurring again and again. For instance with the recent Covid pandemic many nurses, after hearing horror stories related to the vaccine, were reluctant to be vaccinated.

From the Epoch Times:

Noticing the reluctance within the health care industry to take the vaccine, the Biden administration imposed a vaccine mandate on health care workers on Nov. 5, 2021. (Government-> helping!)

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, stated that “in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, participating facilities must ensure that their staff—unless exempt for medical or religious reasons—are vaccinated against COVID-19.” (Government -> helping!)

So what is the result today of all this government help?

A 40-year record high of 100,000 nurses left their jobs in 2021, according to a study published in Health Affairs Forefront in April 2022.

The study noted that the exiting nurses were primarily younger, rather than the expected age group of above 50.

The nursing shortage had long been a problem before COVID-19. When hospitals began operating like corporations instead of as a refuge for the sick, nurses became disillusioned with the occupation, nurse Irene Ricks told The Epoch Times.

“Not only were nurses having to take on a huge load of patients, but they were also being told to do things that they didn’t feel right about,” Ricks continued.

“Then, they were being told they had to be vaccinated or they would lose their job.” The vaccine mandate “was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” Ms. Ricks said. 

“It made nurses quit or retire in droves.”

Partially as a consequence of “government helping,” we now have a substantial nursing shortage. So what would one now expect the government to do? Obviously … help some more … and right on cue,

legislation was introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). The bill, introduced in April, would establish a maximum number of patients a nurse should juggle on a shift. 

(Government -> helping, again!)

 Common sense here would suggest that a nationwide shortage of nurses is not going to helped by mandating how many patients a nurse can take care of! With many nursing programs impacted, I’d bet that the long term solution should involve increasing the number of nurses trained … Hmmm!

12/18/23

What you are going to read is not meant to represent in any way, shape, or form a scientific study. It is not a scientific study, but merely an anecdotal Covid/Ivermectin experience … my personal Covid/Ivermectin experience.

As background, I am a retired 78+ years old physician with hypertension and prostate cancer, meaning that as far as Covid is concerned, I am not in a low risk group. I am double vaccinated and received one Covid booster before my first Covid infection almost two years ago.

Where I picked up my recent Covid infection is not a focus of this story, but it is rather that Covid is still present among us.

Before I get to my use of ivermectin, as background, my symptoms of extreme fatigue, sleepiness, nasal stuffiness, headache, cough, and no appetite began two days prior (day -2). All of these symptoms progressed significantly through the following day (day -1), culminating in a Covid self test late that evening. The self test was positive.

On the following morning (day 0) I obtained an Ivermectin four-pack and took my first dose at approximately ten a.m. About two hours later I tried and actually held down some sips of coffee. (My prior attempts to ingest some caffeine  had been ineffective because after only a sip or two of either coffee or cola, I would immediately vomit) Within an hour or so my caffeine withdraw headache was gradually alleviated and did not recur. 

By two p.m. on day 0, (four hours after my initial dose of Ivermectin) I felt well enough to drink an entire cup of coffee and eat a small portion of a Cheese Danish. I slept most of that afternoon, but when I awakened at five p.m., I was starting to feel better – so much so that I actually had some appetite and was able to eat a small plate of my wife’s Chinese chicken salad.

Whereas my prior night had been horrific with only short spurts of sleep mainly interrupted by nasal congestion and coughing spells, my sleep on night 1 consisted of two separate but continuous four hour bouts of sleep separated by one plus hour during which I actually read. That was the first time since the onset of my symptoms that I had any interest in reading.

Upon waking up on day 2 I was able to drink my a.m. cup of coffee but then I had to take a nap after being up less than two hours. Before napping I took my second dose (day 2) of Ivermectin. Upon awakening a few hours later my cough was practically gone but I still had continuing nasal congestion and it’s accompanying dripping. Later in the afternoon I noted that my mental alertness was much improved … enough so that I could continue my daily writing. That afternoon (day 2) I was able to take a shower. On the evening of day 2 I had my usual pre-Covid late afternoon beer followed by chili for dinner as my appetite was back to about 80%. That evening I watched college basketball (Kansas vs UConn) on TV, and was able to stay awake until just past 8:30. On night 2 I slept better than usual – uninterrupted for over nine hours. 

On awakening on the morning of day 3 I felt pretty good. Not 100% normal, but close. On this third day I was not scheduled to take any Ivermectin as the dose and the day-to-day schedule was determined by my weight. Coffee followed by a bowl of cereal for breakfast. Watched the a.m. Marquette-Wisconsin basketball game on TV. Had a ham sandwich for lunch, took a forty-five minute nap, and then walked outside at a modest pace for more than five minutes. Other than my shower, that was my first off the couch endeavor for more than thirty seconds since the morning of day -2.

On day 3 my usual late afternoon beer was accompanied by some snack mix, and that was followed by a large plate of Chinese chicken salad. With the cough and nasal congestion pretty much gone, I slept well again that night.

On 4 and day 5 I took my last two doses of daily Ivermectin as was indicated by my weight. My strength and stamina continued to improve. On day 4 I walked to the neighborhood park and back (1800+ steps). On day 5, I increased my walking to almost thirty minutes (over 2700 steps) with no symptoms and no residual. Day 4 was topped off with an after dinner glass of scotch. I felt back to normal.

As I stated before, this personal Covid/Ivermectin story is not meant to be scientific, however, since I did have Covid once before, is it possible that I could I serve as my personal control. For what it’s worth in January, 2021 when I had my first episode of Covid, I had no Ivermectin. Back then I spent four consecutive days in bed, and it took well over a week for me to feel strong enough to attempt to walk outside. 

In my mind there is no doubt that taking Ivermectin led to a shortened illness, as well as an overall quicker recovery. I felt fortunate that I was able to get my contraband Ivermectin, however this begs the question as to why Ivermectin was not available to everybody. Why did our government do its best to prevent the use of Ivermectin by the general public? For those perhaps unaware Ivermectin has been safely used in Africa in Billions of people for river blindness (onchocerciasis).

Here the emphasis is on Billions with a ‘B’ and “safely.” Likewise in Australia Ivermectin has been used safely in children for epidemic head lice. Here the emphasis  is on “children” and “safely.” During the Covid pandemic many countries, e.g. Peru, Japan, India found the use of Ivermectin to be beneficial for Covid, and in some countries it was available over the counter, e.g. El Salvador. 

Again the question … If Ivermectin has been safely used in very large numbers throughout the world, why was it not available to us common folk in the U.S.? As my recent infection indicates, Covid is obviously still with us. However, how come Ivermectin isn’t readily available? In my mind, based on my personal experience, I feel that the use of Ivermectin during the Covid pandemic would have helped many people, and could possibly have saved lives. … How many? 

I suspect there will never be adequate answers to these questions, and now the use of Ivermectin for Covid is no longer even being talked about. To me, this continued silence is very suspicious, and certainly suggests something very underhanded occurred with respect to Ivermectin and its potential benefit for Covid.

I just read an interesting story out of Illinois. 

New legislation in Illinois would allow individuals receiving blood donations to know whether they’re receiving blood from an individual vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine or another mRNA vaccine.

From Epoch Health:

“Bill HB 4243 introduced on Nov. 29 by Illinois state Rep. Jed Davis, amends the Illinois Clinical Laboratory and Blood Bank Act and would require blood banks to test donated blood for evidence of COVID-19 vaccines and other mRNA components, including lipid nanoparticles and spike protein—and requires a blood donor to disclose during each donor screening process whether they have received a COVID-19 vaccine or any other mRNA vaccine during their lifetime.

Additionally, the bill imposes labeling requirements for blood or blood components that test positive for evidence of a COVID-19 vaccine or other mRNA vaccine component or were obtained from a donor who received a COVID-19 vaccine or other mRNA vaccine.

“HB4243 does not criminalize individuals who donate blood if they’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine. It merely allows people receiving blood products to know whether the blood they’re receiving came from a vaccinated individual and requires blood blanks to add this information to product labels so that patients can make informed decisions.”

Of course the powers that be are against this idea.

The Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies, America’s Blood Centers, and the American Red Cross do not believe COVID-19 vaccines pose a risk to patients receiving blood transfusions. In a joint statement issued on Jan. 26, the three organizations said there is no “scientific evidence that demonstrates adverse outcomes from the transfusions of blood products collected from vaccinated donors and, therefore, no medical reason to distinguish or separate blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccination.”

Only two disagreements with the above proclamations. Is there “no scientific evidence” because none has been looked for? A true scientific study would involve randomization and follow-up. If this has been done, I do not see the highfalutin blood organizations quoting such a study.

Secondly, it has not been nearly long enough to determine if there will be any adverse outcomes from the blood taken from vaccinated donors.

In a practical sense, how big a deal would it be to ask one additional question of donors? … “Have you received a Covid vaccine?”

For the vast majority of us who have been Covid vaccinated, as a blood recipient, this additional question would be of no import, but for some of us, it could be quite important.

What I find especially interesting about the idea encompassed in 

HB 4243 is that it is coming out of Illinois, of all places!

12/15/23