Lots of luck with that idea. Israel is the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. military aid and is in no position to take on the responsibility to fill such a void in the event of scaling back aid packages. Netanyahu proposes a transformation of the Israel-U.S. relationship from one of reliance to one of partnership, insisting Israel take up a role as a source of military aid for the United States. Israel is advanced in weapons systems. But it’s hardly ready to be a mutual source of military aid to the United States.

Yet whereas Netanyahu’s idea of Israel being the source of military aid for the United States is laughable, the context in which he announced it is galling. Netanyahu implied that the Biden administration is responsible for casualties suffered by Israel in the Gaza war, specifically to casualties in the southern region of Gaza where swaths of Palestinian refugees were situated.

It’s true that former President Joe Biden called a pause in military assistance regarding Israel’s mission in southern Gaza. The truth is that Israel’s target in southern Gaza was human, as opposed to strategic. Scarcely any observer of the conflict disagrees with the assessment that Israel’s retaliation in Gaza has been excessive, notwithstanding the clear act of war Hamas had initiated in the attack on the Jewish state in 2023.

Irony is too tame a word to describe Netanyahu’s ingratitude. But it’s certainly ironic that Netanyahu would implicate Biden for the spectacle of Israeli casualties when there are those within Israel itself who blame Netanyahu for Israel not being prepared for the 2023 Hamas attack.

These dynamics are not unprecedented in Israel. In the wake of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, during which Egypt and Syria launched a devastating attack on Israel which exposed the Jewish state’s vulnerability, inquiries were conducted in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) blaming Prime Minister Golda Meir for an intelligence breakdown.

And there was an intelligence breakdown. It would be revealed that King Hussein of Jordan had provided information to Israel that Egypt and Syria were planning an attack. In 1967, King Hussein had only joined Egypt and Syria with reluctance during the Six Day War (which left Israel with expanded control over the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights). His tacit alliance with Israel was the worst kept secret in the Middle East.

But notwithstanding the intelligence breakdown in 1973, Israel had been doing its best in trying to read Egyptian and Syrian intentions. What the Yom Kippur War exposed was not Israel’s negligence, but its vulnerability. Meir had no choice in accepting blame for an intelligence breakdown lest the surrounding Arab states would figure the Jewish state to be vulnerable again for yet another combined attack. It was essential that Israel’s neighbors not grasp that Israel’s vulnerability was eternal.

This same eternal vulnerability was exposed by the attack on Israel by Hamas in 2023. To blame Netanyahu for the attack is a matter of politics more than principle. But Netanyahu, who has a well earned reputation as a shameless politician, is just as irresponsible (if not more so) for implicating Biden (in an obvious effort to endear himself to President Donald Trump).

In his years in the U.S. Senate, as vice president, and finally as president, Joe Biden proved himself to be a good friend to the Jewish state. He was especially supportive in the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023, having visited Israel at the time and declaring himself a Zionist in solidarity with the Jewish state.

To blame Biden for casualties suffered by Israel in the Gaza war is treacherous on Netanyahu’s part. Were Trump an honorable leader, he would denounce Netanyahu’s unwarranted attack on Biden. But Netanyahu and Trump are kindred spirits. Neither extends a high priority to honor.

John O’Neill is an Allen Park freelance writer and a graduate of Wayne State University.

The Clintons will be put under oath as is the usual practice with such depositions. Given their record of shading the truth and telling outright lies, why would anyone believe what they say?

Here are just a few examples of what is known about the two of them.First, Bill. Who can forget that scene in the White House after the story broke about Monica Lewinsky? With Hillary standing by her man, Clinton pointed his index finger for emphasis and said:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

That statement came while Clinton was being investigated for perjury, leading to his impeachment by the House but acquittal in the Senate. He later admitted the statement was false. His many defenders, including Cabinet members, made excuses for him, only to be humiliated when the truth emerged.

During his Aug. 17, 1998, grand jury testimony regarding the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton engaged in a parsing of words that made me laugh. In videotape testimony Clinton was asked to justify his earlier claim that there was no sexual relationship between himself and Lewinsky. Clinton responded: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” This was the kind of stuff that earned him the title “Slick Willie.”

Remember Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and others who accused Clinton of rape, sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct? Clinton denied all the charges while his supporters tried to smear the women. James Carville famously said: “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you will find.”

“Bimbo eruptions” was a phrase coined by Betsey Wright, a deputy chair of Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. Its purpose was to attack Clinton’s female accusers. Hillary Clinton joined in the effort. So much for female solidarity.

There’s plenty more on the list of lies told by Bill Clinton dating back to his time as Arkansas attorney general and governor, but let’s move on to Hillary.During her 2008 presidential campaign, First Lady Hillary Clinton claimed she landed in Tuzla, Bosnia, in 1996 “under sniper fire” and had to “run with our heads down.” Video footage and news reports revealed she was greeted on the tarmac by a group of officials and an 8-year-old girl, with no immediate sign of sniper fire. She later acknowledged she “misspoke” and that it was a “false memory.”

Then there was the business about her emails on government and private servers while she was secretary of state. During and after her time in that office Hillary Clinton made several claims regarding her use of a private email server for official business, many of which were contradicted by an FBI investigation. “I never received nor sent any material that was marked as classified,” she testified. But the FBI investigation found 110 emails in 52 chains contained classified information when they were sent or received, some at the highest levels, even if they were not explicitly marked as such at the time they were sent on her server. Then-FBI Director James Comey called her handling of classified information “extremely careless.”

Space does not permit listing more of their lies and dissembling but anyone can find them with a Google search. If the Clintons lie again or parse words before the House Oversight Committee will there be consequences? That’s something the Clintons have mostly avoided throughout their public careers and private lives.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

I suffer from tinnitus.

Not a ringing in my ears, but more like the “hiss” we used to get on cassette tapes before that Dolby switch came along.

It’s become my invisible — and annoying — friend over the years.

Yes, I’ve been checked and given some options for help, but I simply try to ignore it most times (and use the hiss to ignore some people, too).

Still, it IS there all the time, always in the background, always nagging me, always struggling to bust through and ruin my interaction with the world around me.

My tinnitus came to mind when I read more about the battle in Allen Park over the data center being proposed for a site along I-94 — about 500 feet south of the “Big Tire” on the expressway.

The center also would be about 1,000 feet from nearby housing and 1,000 feet from Melvindale High School.

(I measured both on Google maps.)

Two weeks ago I wrote about this issue: “Now I don’t know about you, but I can hear the train whistles from a mile and a half away (Gibraltar and Fort Street) — and I can certainly hear the noise from the Ford assembly plant across I-75, which is 2,270 feet away.”

But here’s the thing: while Solstice Data officials say the facility would not create noise above the level of a “normal conversation” for nearby Allen Park neighborhoods, it would be a CONSTANT noise.

Like tinnitus.

Loud?

Maybe, maybe not.

Because also as I wrote two weeks ago, “various sources agree that data center noise falls in the 85-to-100 (and more) decibels range — considered ‘very loud to dangerous.’”

But let’s take Phil Harvey’s word for it; that the sound won’t be more than 50 dBAs.

Harvey is the CEO of Solstice Data who said his company’s preliminary study not only showed the facility’s noise would be “conversation” level, but also that the noise from the facility would be directed toward the I-94 freeway rather than at residential areas.

(Note to self: start directing that tinnitus toward my worst enemy and away from me.)

Well, I did some investigating and such a guarantee is problematic to say the least.

You see, I checked an online site devoted to physics to explore the dynamics of sound — and guess what?

“Sound tends to emanate from sources in roughly all directions,” the site’s experts wrote.

“Some goes towards the listener, some goes away from the listener, and some shoots up into the sky.”

(Duh!)

The question then is “does more sound go into the sky or to the listener?”

The answer? “It will depend on where you stand with respect to the wind.”

Yep, the wind.

There was a lot more detail in the explanation, including concepts of sound propagation, the mechanics of sound waves and “an effect known as refraction that’s a direct result of Snell’s law.”

What’s Snell’s Law, you ask?

Well the shorthand is that it describes “how light bends (refracts) when passing between media with different refractive indices.”

Got that?

Yep, it governs the fundamentals of optics “for designing lenses, fiber optics, and understanding phenomena like mirages.”

But its formulae ALSO governs the movement of sound in the wind.

And with Michigan usually dealing with southerly and/or westerly winds, the sound from this facility is going to travel primarily toward the high school and toward housing in northern Allen Park.

(No, I’m no scientist; I only played one in Allen Park High School for one semester.)

Which means the moaning from the data center — tinnitus for the masses — is going to be there 24/7/365 once the site it built.

Which again begs the question: Why Allen Park?

Why not out in the boonies? (No, this isn’t some NIMBY rant.)

Again, Mr. Harvey had an explanation; that this edge data center needs to be located close to where AI and automation technologies will be used.

Why?

Here’s what a Solstice Data spokesman said about that: “If my kid jumps out in the road, we don’t have one second for the sensor on the car to go to a data center 1,000 miles away and come back — it has to be instantaneous.”

“Therefore,” he said, “it has to be close to a data center.

That, he said, is what an edge data center is — something that is less than 2% the size of larger data center projects in the region — and which is what’s being proposed for AP.

“This is the kind of thing that’s going to become critical infrastructure for industries and academic institutions and hospital systems to leverage the latest technology and remain competitive,” he said.

But here’s the thing: the “instantaneous” aspect of data transmission only applies to autonomous vehicles; you know, the ones that don’t need you.

According to the industry itself, “data centers do not have to be close to users, but proximity is critical for applications requiring low latency, such as gaming, streaming, or financial services.”

Not cars.

“While edge data centers are placed near users to improve speed and user experience,” they wrote, “major cloud providers often prioritize locations with reliable, cheap power and robust fiber, even if far away.”

Getting into the weeds a bit, I found that “In the world of autonomous driving, even a 100-millisecond delay can be critical, potentially being the difference between life and death for a pedestrian or car passenger.”

“Therefore, these vehicles must be equipped to respond to changing situations immediately, making swift data processing vital.”

But that DOESN’T mean a nearby data center; it means equipping vehicles with an onboard computer consisting of about 50 processing cores.

This on-board computer actually powers a range of functions, “like blind-spot monitoring, cruise control, automatic braking, obstacle warning, etc.”

In short, the car’s onboard computer does that instantaneous braking, not some data center; it’s true: it can’t wait for information from a data center, no matter how close or how far away it is.

“While cars process immediate, life-saving data on-board in milliseconds,” the site told me, data centers process “big data” to refine safety features and enable communications from vehicle-to-everything.

So, experts write, remote data centers perform “quite well” in providing the “teaching of on-board computers in vehicles.”

In the end, experts say, while “modern vehicle anti-collision systems and Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems heavily utilize data centers,” such activity is primarily for “training AI algorithms, storing massive sensor data, and delivering software updates, rather than real-time braking decisions.”

Nevertheless, Solstice Data’s selection of Allen Park is clearly an attempt to be as close as possible to Detroit’s hopes of being on the cutting edge of self-driving vehicles someday.

In the meantime, though, does Allen Park need a data center?

No, the Detroit auto industry does.

And that’s the balance city officials must evaluate: the benefits of putting a data center in their back yard vs. tinnitus for the masses.

Hummmmmmmm…

To read my essays, check out Substack.com and look for me at “Farrandipity.” It’s free. Craig Farrand is a former managing editor of The News-Herald. I can be reached at craig.substack@gmail.com

One example: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger ” (Proverbs 15:1). It means calm, patient and kind words can de-escalate conflict, while harsh, angry responses provoke further rage. Try it sometime when you are in an argument with someone. Display humility, or say “I can see how you feel that way, but may I share my view?”

The language we use to communicate with one another can heal or wound, producing positive, or negative results.

The latest of many examples is language used by President Trump, members of his administration, Minnesota governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over their differing views on ICE agents seeking to arrest violent criminals.

President Trump has called Walz “Whacked Out” and “Grossly Incompetent.” Asked if he would call the governor, Trump said, “Why would I call him? … The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess.”

He eventually called him. Trump also said Walz and Frey have been “inciting insurrection,” “spreading misinformation” and using “dangerous rhetoric,” such as comparing ICE agents to the Gestapo and Walz comparing children he claimed are afraid to leave their homes to Anne Frank. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called protesters “domestic terrorists.”

Frey said ICE should “get the f—k” out of Minneapolis.

Trump’s use of language, even foul language, to demean and diminish his political opponents is nothing new. Such language diminishes him and the office of the presidency.

None of this latest exchange of nuclear rhetoric has been helpful in producing a resolution of the tensions or resolving the problem of undocumented immigrants in the city and state. In fact, escalating and using vile rhetoric is guaranteed to make things worse. It can also fire up one’s political base and raise money.

On this latter point I have two stories. One involved a pastor of a large Florida church who had decided to dabble in politics. He told me of criticism he had received for sending out so many negative letters about how he saw the condition of the country. He decided to try a positive letter and described the response this way: “No one sent any money.”

The second story is a corollary to the first. I once asked a top fundraiser for conservative causes why he never sent any positive letters to donors. He replied: “You can’t raise money on a positive.” How cynical is that?

You might make money and shore up your base by denouncing others and using foul language, but the result is a deeper and wider divide and a hatred of fellow Americans.

Ronald Reagan may be the best example of how to lower the rhetorical temperature and not make enemies more than one might expect from members of the opposition. Reagan said things like “Our friends on the other side” and “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Reagan rarely engaged in personal attacks. It wasn’t his nature, but he also believed he would rather win the issue than demean an opponent. The result? He often got Democrats to work with him on issues important to the country.

As some of the ICE agents begin to withdraw from Minneapolis, the left will likely claim victory, but at what cost? The original issue of undocumented immigrants, some of whom may be criminals, who remain in Minneapolis and the fraud involving some Somali immigrants and misspent taxpayer money have yet to be resolved. Using better language would be a good place to start.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. 

Had the election results been followed as laid out, Hamas would have been the voice of the Palestinians. The elections in 2006 were to reflect the combined will of the Palestinian electorate in both Gaza and the West Bank, not to mandate a division of the territories. But the Palestinian Authority never ceded power in the West Bank and Hamas refused power sharing in Gaza.

You know what has followed.

Hamas conducted an operation of terror based in Gaza culminating in its attack of Israel on October 7, 2023. Israel has since waged excessive retaliation on Gaza. In the meantime, the Palestinian Authority has been excluded from the Board of Peace established this past month by President Donald Trump. For understandable reasons, neither the United States nor the rest of the international community was ever going to recognize a Hamas political victory in either Gaza or the West Bank. But while the emirate of Qatar has been granted a seat on the Board, the Palestinian Authority has no say.

Granted, Trump has made room for a group of Palestinian functionaries to participate in rebuilding Gaza. But this Palestinian body has no voting authority (nor any authority). Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel also feels slighted, as Trump did not first check with him as to his agreeability with the establishment of the Board of Peace. On the other hand, Netanyahu is pleased the Palestinian Authority has been denied a role, as its exclusion combined with the twilight of Hamas in Gaza makes a Palestinian state doubtful for the foreseeable future.

Netanyahu never learns. The Hamas which launched an attack on Israel in 2023 is the same Hamas to which he was providing assistance for years to undermine the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank. Though Hamas won the most votes in the Palestinian elections in 2006, the Palestinian Authority under Abbas was still recognized by most of the world community as the future impetus of a Palestinian state, thereby inducing Netanyahu to sabotage Abbas.

The current political dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict long predate Trump. When former President George W. Bush launched war on Saddam Hussein and Iraq in 2003, he had a vision of a new Middle East in which democracy could thrive. The problem was that Bush never considered the scenario (the very real scenario) non-democratic forces might win the most votes.

Not that the Palestinian Authority is a democratic entity. It’s corrupt and authoritarian in nature. Whatever vision Abbas harbors for a Palestinian state, it will have little to do with human rights. Just as doubtful are the democratic prospects for Trump’s Board of Peace. The United States has failed since assuming the role as leader of the free world after World War II to grasp that large pockets of the international community have no interest in peace and even less interest in human rights.

Not that Trump himself exhibits these values. His vision of Gaza in the future is a resort property to enable him and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to reap the profits. His hope is to clear the region of Hamas and continue disenfranchisement of the Palestinians on the West Bank. That’s not democracy and it’s certainly not human rights.

What must be done is for the United States to make clear to Israel that an independent Palestine is a goal. It’s doubtful such a state will be democratic and human rights might not be one of its priorities. But it just might reflect the will of the Palestinians. And as a bonus, the crossroads at which Israel finds itself may induce it to vote out of power the Likud government of Netanyahu.

As for the Board of Peace touted by Trump, it has no legs. Peace cannot be attained absent Palestinian participation. And the Palestinian Authority isn’t much more viable than Hamas. Neither Gaza nor the West Bank is at peace. Trump is nothing more than a Pollyanna in pushing his Board of Peace, a pseudo shortcut to a lasting settlement.

John O’Neill is an Allen Park freelance writer and a graduate of Wayne State University.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) rushed to the cameras to promote the “bait” and “kidnapped” narrative. Hillary Clinton said ICE was using children as “pawns” and Kamala Harris also repeated the “bait” label. The women on “The View” echoed the same theme.

Their talking points were wrong. As explained by ICE and Border Patrol, the father of the boy is in the country illegally. They said he had left his son in a car while trying to avoid arrest. ICE officers took the child to a safe place until they were able to detain the father and re-unite the two.

Reporters rarely question the promoters of a false narrative whether they would like to apologize for what they said. That may be because many of them agree that ICE is wrong to arrest people with criminal convictions and previous deportation orders and get them out of Minneapolis and the country. You can’t argue with the results. Some are tying the deportation of violent criminals to the reduction in murders nationwide.

Following the shooting death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse and US citizen, on Saturday, Minneapolis officials were quick to establish a new narrative even though they didn’t have “all the facts.” Homeland Security Kristi Noem later said the man was armed with a gun and two magazines and intended to kill ICE agents, although bystanders’ video contradicts that claim.

False narratives are not new. Recall “Hands up, don’t shoot” (Michael Brown/Ferguson, Mo. 2014), the Russian collusion hoax, Trump is a Russian agent, the Hunter Biden laptop, Black Lives Matter and some of its corrupt leaders, and so many more.

This is the problem with false narratives. If you hate President Trump and everything his administration is doing, you look for anything – whether true or false – to lower his approval numbers. That seems to be working as most polls show voters disapprove of ICE’s tactics and the president. Why wouldn’t they when the media are virtually united in false narratives?Border Patrol and the president have been displaying pictures of some of the worst criminals they are arresting and deporting. The media have largely ignored that important part of the story.

According to a study by the conservative Media Research Center, “In the 10 days following the shooting of Renee Good, ABC, NBC and CBS were overwhelmingly negative about ICE. The study found 68 negative soundbites about ICE, compared to only five positive clips as ABC, NBC and CBS evening newscasts were negative 93 percent of the time.”

I have not seen a reporter ask an anti-ICE protester whether they are OK with rapists, murderers and pedophiles staying in Minneapolis.

The Trump administration needs to do what is known in television as counter programming. This might include allowing some of the victims of these criminals to speak. Bring some of those awaiting deportation before reporters and read off their records. That might be more effective at influencing public opinion than displaying their photographs.

It doesn’t take a soothsayer to predict that the goal of these demonstrations might be to help Democrats regain a congressional majority so they can again impeach the president, even though the likelihood of convicting him would be about the same as the previous impeachments. For them it’s all politics. For Homeland Security it’s about getting bad guys off the streets and out of the country.

Let the Democrats run on a platform of defending violent criminals and see how that works for them. As for the wrong narrative that has been promoted about the 5-year-old boy, it again proves the truth of the saying: “A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its boots.”

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

(It’s nigh impossible to ignore what’s been happening to our neighbor to the northwest: Minnesota…)

In the early 1960s, the violence inflicted on Blacks in the South was hidden behind a Confederate flag of lies and feigned ignorance by those who lived there and new better.

But then something happened:

The dogs sicced on protesters in the Deep South — in Birmingham (1963) and Selma (1965), among other moments — were captured on TV cameras and broadcast on NBC, CBS and ABC.

And the disappearance of three civil rights workers in 1964 —later found to have been murdered by members of the Mississippi Klan — prompted JFK to send the FBI into the South in an investigation dubbed “Mississippi Burning.”

Taken as part of a whole, these moments — captured on film and broadcast across the country, galvanized public opinion against segregation and accelerated political action for civil rights legislation.

Throughout the early and mid-’60s, the violence of Vietnam had been hidden behind government lies of supposed successes in the field, leading to a general public approval of the war.

But then something happened:

The horrors of jungle warfare in Vietnam were captured by TV cameras and broadcast on the nightly news — with Walter Cronkite, the most trusted reporter in America, eventually calling for a negotiated end to the war, almost overnight changing public attitudes.

And probably leading to LBJ’s decision not to seek re-election.

That’s right: two stories in American history, and both forever changed by watershed moments that tipped the scales.

No, history doesn’t repeat itself (although it may rhyme), but there are inescapable parallels.

And the execution of two 37-year-old American citizens on the streets of Minneapolis two and a half weeks apart may well have been the moments that collectively change American history yet again.

First, it was the murder by an ICE agent of Renée Nicole Good — a mother and poet — on Jan. 7.

Then it was the murder by another federal agent of Alex Jeffrey Pretti — an intensive-care nurse — over the weekend.

Individually, their executions are abhorrent enough, but taken in tandem, they now illustrate a complete disregard not only for the truth by Donald Trump and his administration, but a complete disregard for human life.

It’s now clear that his depravity knows no bounds.

How can I say that?

Because of what he and his Heinrich Himmler, his Joseph Goebbels — Stephen Miller (and co-play specialist Kristi Noem) — have said about these two American citizens; that Nicole and Alex were terrorists.

Without proof, without a shred of evidence — but with a burning need to control the narrative.

Even if it means lying to the American public.

Something Himmler and Goebbels knew how to do to perfection 90 years ago in Nazi Germany.

But unlike the 1930s or the 1960s, we have more than cinema newsreels or just the nightly news today; we have iPhones and instant communications and social media feeds — all of which have been sharing the videos that captured the moments in which Trump’s Gestapo executed two innocent people.

Terrorists?

Of course not — unless you’re talking about Trump and Miller and Noem and every other person in a leadership position within Trump’s inner circle of horror.

Because I’d argue that the terrorists we face in this country today wear suits and ties or oversized cowboy hats — and don masks, don’t show identification, claim they have some pretend warrant and swagger with automatic weapons — all hoping to gain traction with the American people.

But after two executions — on video — their hopes to control the narrative are now dashed.

Which leaves it to Congress to respond to the now deafening call for justice; for an independent investigation into both executions — for a start.

And then a complete repudiation of Trump and his authoritarian intents.

Impeachment?

You’re damn right, starting with Noem and Bondi — and then reaching into the Oval Office itself.

No, we may not get Trump’s conviction and removal by the sycophantic Senate; it’s been tried before, and he was protected both times — to the GOP’s eternal damnation.

But the very issuance of articles of impeachment by the House means the practical end of this presidency: It will be impossible for Trump to do any more damage to our nation.

And impossible for his Gestapo to execute any more Americans.

To read my essays, check out Substack.com and look for me at “Farrandipity.” It’s free. (And please share with like-minded individuals — and even those who aren’t.) Craig Farrand can be reached at craig.substack@gmail.com.

Ken Paxton, the right-wing state attorney general of Texas, has defended the display, asserting “America is a Christian nation.” Of course, we are a majority Christian nation. But being a majority Christian nation does not make us an officially Christian nation. The state is barred from favoring any religion over another.

On the other hand, a public display of the Ten Commandments is not an overt endorsement of Christianity over other religions. Indeed, the Ten Commandments are central to Judaism and revered in Islam, as well as a Christian tenet. To this, secularists no doubt counter that religion itself is inadmissible to government facilities.

The argument takes me back to my years as a young writer making the case that Catholicism was very much a part of Quebec nationalism. Part of my case was based on the fact that behind the speaker’s platform in the Quebec provincial assembly building was a Crucifix to make explicit the French speaking province’s Catholic identity. (The Crucifix, first displayed in 1938, was removed in 2019.)

My closest friend, attorney James Schlaff, embraced the conventional wisdom that Catholicism was no longer relevant to Quebec nationalism. And he minimized the fact of the Crucifix on government display in Quebec by noting that our own U.S. Supreme Court has a display of the Ten Commandments. But in response to my point, he admitted that a display of the Ten Commandments wasn’t analogous to a display of a Crucifix.

Indeed, the Ten Commandments aren’t analogous to a Crucifix. Whereas the Crucifix is specific to Catholicism, the Ten Commandments possess humanistic guidelines as much secular as spiritual. Though a product of the Old Testament and cherished by Jews and Christians alike, the Ten Commandments transcend religion to make up universal guidelines of law. Not just a Charleton Heston movie, the Ten Commandments are embraced as much by earthly values as religious values.

Attorney General Paxton is off-base when he emphasizes we are a Christian nation to defend the Ten Commandments in public schools. It’s a case in which, though his conclusion is the right one, he fails in the development of his argument. Paxton is wrong to lend credence to the notion that a display of the Ten Commandments in public schools infringes on secular principles.

But more important in this case is the conclusion: The Ten Commandments have a place in public schools. Anti-religious bigotry, like that espoused by the ACLU, will weigh in against this reasoning. Still the universal message of the Ten Commandments cannot be denied.

As for Quebec nationalism, it’s still my position that Catholicism plays an important role and with the French speaking province poised to elect later this year a separatist government, you’ll be hearing more from me on this subject.

John O’Neill is an Allen Park freelance writer and a graduate of Wayne State University. He attends St. Mary Magdalen in Melvindale.

I was surprised to find that this is my 900th column for the News Herald since I was asked to return to these pages on Aug. 24, 2011.

And while there’s certainly been a passage of time from 14 and a half years ago, some things never change.

You, “the people.”

Our communities evolve, our roads get bad and then get better (then get bad again), businesses open and close, kids grow up and leave (and then return), classrooms get ever more digital, our finances improve and implode.

But you, “the people,” never really change.

Older? Of course.

Different? Nope.

On the pages of the News Herald and on posts to social media groups, you continue to demonstrate your involvement with your communities, your commitment to your neighborhoods and neighbors.

For example, a week ago, Anne Runkle, reporting on the proposed data center project in Allen Park, wrote there was a “standing-room-only audience” in attendance at the Jan. 8 meeting of the city’s Planning Commission.

Termed a “heated session” in the headline, the meeting was adjourned without action by the commission so its members could get “more information” from the Allen Park Fire Department, as well as conduct additional noise studies about the proposed site — “with an emphasis on how the development could affect nearby neighborhoods in Allen Park and Melvindale as well as Melvindale High School.”

In short, the people in attendance forced a halt to the project until their concerns were adequately addressed.

And what are those concerns?

Among other things, that the 26-megawatt, 45,000 square-foot facility will put an unnecessary burden on the region’s water system, drive up electric bills, create noise pollution and emit radiation, as well as other “harmful substances.”

Of course, the developer, Solstice Data, has consistently told residents not to worry, none of those concerns are warranted.

Phil Harvey, founder and CEO of Delaware-based Solstice Data, said that a preliminary study showed that “Allen Park neighborhoods closest to the proposed data center on Enterprise Drive, south of I-94, would not create noise above that typically created by a normal conversation.”

(Not quite true: read on.)

But here’s where “the people” came in.

According to Anne Runkle’s reporting, those who attended the public hearing said the noise study only contacted those who live within 300 feet of the proposed data center — the length of a football field — but argued that the noise impact will reach far beyond that distance.

Now I don’t know about you, but I can hear the train whistles from a mile and a half away (Gibraltar and Fort Street) — and I can certainly hear the noise from the Ford assembly plant across I-75, which is 2,270 feet away.

Which means 300 feet doesn’t nearly capture the impact of what might come.

But what kind of noise are we talking about?

Well, according to various sources, data centers create a “dominant, continuous, low-frequency humming or droning noise, like a loud vacuum…”

This is caused by the massive cooling fans and HVAC systems needed to keep the heat-generating servers cool and calm.

And every data center has standby generators to jump in when local power supplies don’t quite meet demand.

But how much noise are we talking?

Again, various sources agree that data center noise falls in the 85-to-100 (and more) decibels range — considered “very loud to dangerous.”

Indeed, prolonged exposure to 85 decibels (dBA) is where long-term, permanent hearing damage begins, with hearing protection recommended (at 85 dBA) or required (above 90-95 dBA).

Over 95 dBA and you’re talking the equivalent of standing next to a snowmobile, motorcycle, chainsaw, jackhammer or listening to music through headphones at a maximum volume.

So let’s not be quick to discount noise, OK?

But then there’s concerns about costs to homeowners: Michigan’s electricity prices already are around 19-20 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), which is higher than the national average of 16-19 cents.

Now, that doesn’t sound like much of a difference based on pennies, but those pennies translate into an average monthly bill of $130-$140 nationally vs. around $207 a month in Michigan

And massive new data centers are anticipated to drive up residential electricity costs in Michigan by 5-10%, which led the state to create new, specific tariffs with long-term contracts and minimum usage fees to ostensibly protect residential customers from bearing the huge new load.

The problem is that there are no guarantees that such steps will protect us from those price increases down the road.

Oh, and get this: Michigan lawmakers already passed sales and use tax exemptions for data centers — on condition that they can’t raise residential rates.

The problem is that the Michigan Public Service Commission doesn’t have the power to enforce those price controls.

Oops.

That means “the people” in attendance at the Allen Park meeting were correct in being concerned.

“The people” who never really change, who continue to remain committed to their communities, to their neighbors.

Yep, over the years, some things never change.

Fortunately.

——

My sincere thanks to all who continue to share their condolences on the passing of former News Herald managing editor — and my wife — Mavis McKinney-Farrand.

Your kind thoughts, posted on Facebook and sent by mail and email have meant the world to me and her children.

Thank you.

To read my essays, check out Substack.com and look for me at “Farrandipity.” Craig Farrand is a former managing editor of The News-Herald and can be reached at craig.substack@gmail.com.

Pahlavi’s prospects are doubtful. Though he has praised U.S. President Donald Trump for making noises about intervention on his behalf, Trump hasn’t really demonstrated any enthusiasm for installing Pahlavi. Trump has said little more than calling Pahlavi a nice guy, hardly a ringing endorsement.

Let me make this clear at the outset: Though a regime change in Iran would be a welcome development, a return to the monarchy would be a mistake. Pahlavi seems to want it both ways. When asked about his father’s repressive and brutal regime, he insists he is looking to the future. But on other occasions, Pahlavi has called for a return to the days of the Shah (which he has praised as free and prosperous).

Truth be told, freedom wasn’t a priority to the Shah (who died in 1980). The Shah deployed Savak, his secret police force, to crush all dissent in unambiguous fashion. Imprisonment and forced deportations, with more than a few executions, were the policies of the Shah. Ungrateful for the support the U.S. had extended to him throughout his reign, the Shah blamed the U.S. for his downfall.

His son, Reza Pahlavi, has implicated Democrats for his father’s demise and the rise of Shi’ite fundamentalism in Iran. No doubt, Pahlavi senses he will endear himself to Trump by using such partisan rhetoric. But all this proves is that Pahlavi has not learned from the mistakes of his father.

Of course, there is some precedent for U.S. intervention in Iran. In 1953, the United States joined British forces to topple the socialist regime of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and re-installed the Shah. It was an arrangement which seemed to have lasted 26 years, though as early as the sixties there were signs the Shah was losing his hold on Iran.

On the other hand, the recent assertion by Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) warning that the 1953 coup in Iran directly led to the rise of the Islamic republic under Ayatollah Khomeini was irresponsible. Political Islam was not on the radar in 1953. The monarchies of the Middle East were then under threat by secular forces such as Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and the socialist Ba’ath movements in Iraq and Syria.

Indeed, though political Islam in the region is very much a factor, it has not been a success in establishing national governments. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt came to power in 2011 only to be deposed by secular forces a few years later. In fact, the current regime in Iran is the only example in which aspirations of political Islam have been realized.

As for Iran, political Islam has very much failed its people, as Iranian society is choked by economic sanctions worldwide. Its people are restless and have grown impatient with the regime’s tired habit of blaming the nation’s ills on the United States and Israel. And Iran’s proxy wars by way of Hamas and Hezbollah are very much in twilight.

But these realities hardly make the case for a return to the monarchy in Iran. In due time, there will be secular options in Iran absent the taint of both monarchy and political Islam. President Trump has indicated a preference for waiting to see further developments in Iran. What is clear is that the people of Iran are anxious for change. Unfortunately, change in Iran will be neither swift nor painless. There is little choice but to accept Trump’s current wait and see policy.

John O’Neill is an Allen Park freelance writer. He is a graduate of Wayne State University.