GASLIGHTING THE EFFECTS OF TARIFFS

President Donald Trump continues to "gaslight" the country about the effects of his ever shifting tariff policies. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation designed to intentionally mislead someone. When used over a considerable amount of time, we begin to doubt ourselves, believe an alternate truth, and we even start to wonder if we are losing our mind. President Trump's repetitive enunciation of his mantra that "billions of dollars are flowing into America" as a result of his policies, and his claim that tariffs will restore jobs and cut trade deficits, are attempts to manipulate public perception and downplay the negative economic effects of his tariff policies, and seem self serving and substantially without merit. Tariffs are taxes governments impose on imported goods. They are traditionally used to protect domestic industries by making foreign products more expensive, and encourage consumers to purchase locally manufactured commodities. However, if a country lacks competing merchandise, for instance coffee, these taxes only increase their costs without available alternatives. Besides, Mr. Trump's persistent declarations that foreign governments pay his tariffs is either naively or deliberately off the mark. U.S. importers, not foreign governments pay these tariffs. They generate the revenue for our government. The higher cost of imports create trade barriers which increase prices, which reduce the available quantity of goods and services for U.S. businesses and consumers. According to the largest and most complex financial institutions in the country, J.P. Morgan Chase, tariffs not only raise prices, they slow economic growth, cut profits, increase unemployment, worsen inequality, diminish productivity and increase global tensions. Aside from his, however naive misplaced pursuit of traditional trade objectives, President Trump has used tariffs as a tool to advance various policy goals. He threatened to use tariffs to influence countries on issues like immigration and deportation policies. For example, he linked tariffs on Colombian goods to that country accepting deported migrants; he threatened increased tariffs on Mexico and Canada to pressure them to curb the flow of migrants and fentanyl; and he issued a 50% tariff on Brazil because he was unhappy about that country's trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro. And there are other examples of this questionable use of economic policy. What is true is that tariffs are generating tens of billions of dollars each month. In July, the government collected nearly $30 billion, a 242% increase over the same month last year. However, this increase in revenue does NOT come foreign exporters, it is paid by domestic importers. Aside from threatening the continued viability of many small businesses that are unable to absorb the effects of these ill-advised policies, they will predictably end up significantly increasing annual expenses for the average American household. The Yale Budget Lab, a non-partisan policy research center which provides in-depth analyses of federal policy proposals for the American economy, estimates that this increase could be between $2,400 and $3,800 in 2025. Since current tariff policies seem to result overwhelmingly in higher prices for goods and services, we, at a minimum, ought to stop believing the propaganda coming out of the White House. In the mean time, let's tighten our belts. Theo Wierdsma

DEMONIZING IMMIGRANTS THREATENS OUR CORE VALUES

A foundational aspect of our national identity is the widely regarded notion that the United States is a nation of immigrants. While the country has also seen periods of restrictive immigration policies, our history is deeply intertwined with the movement of people from other nations. No other state has as large an immigrant population as does the United States. With the important exception of those descended from native peoples and/or enslaved Americans, few people in this country cannot trace at least part of their ancestry to an immigrant either recently or centuries ago. Today, almost 15% of our population is foreign born. Nevertheless, immigration has persistently remained one of the most contentious social and political issues in our history. The policies and activities initiated by the Trump administration serve as a case in point. Historically, from roughly 1607 to around 1830, immigration into this country began with colonial patterns shaped by diverse motivations, including religious freedom, economic opportunity, and the forced migration of Africans through the slave trade. Early settlers predominantly arrived from England, followed by waves of Germans, Scottish and Irish. The second wave of immigrants, of over 10 million people, arrived during the period dominated by the idea of "Manifest Destiny," the belief that the United States was destined to expand its territory and spread its political, social and economic influence across the North American continent. This idea fueled a westward expansion, which required a constant flow of reinforcements to expand, secure and defend the frontier. Immigrants filling this need consisted predominantly of Anglo protestants, later followed by Northern and Western Europeans. Around the mid 19th century, immigration was influenced by multiple foreign and domestic events. The potato famine suffered by Ireland, around 1846, brought almost one million new immigrants from that country. The California Gold Rush of 1849-1855 prompted an infusion of fortune seekers. And the Homestead Act, signed into law by President Lincoln in 1862 allowed any citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S., to claim 160 acres of surveyed government land, drew millions of settlers and shaped the demographics of the American West. The introduction of Irish Catholics challenged the dominance of native Protestants, spurring the rise of an anti Catholic "Know Nothing" movement in Massachusetts and elsewhere. During the 1860s and 1870s opposition to Chinese migrants culminated in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned the entry and reentry of Chinese immigrants for more than 70 years. And the Immigration Act of 1924 added literacy tests and country specific quotas. The motivation behind these restrictive measures was mostly cultural, the fear that allowing foreign cultures would increasingly dilute and pollute the demographic make-up of the native population. However, much of cultural prejudice was converted to expressions of economic concerns, suggesting that new arrivals would give the native population disadvantageous competition. The "Immigration and Nationality Act" of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, eliminated the national origins quota system that had favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe. It opened the door for new immigrants seeking better economic opportunities and escaping political turmoil. As a consequence, over 70 million immigrants arrived in the U.S., 18 million from Mexico alone. Although not all stayed, and many were ultimately reclassified, by 2023 more than 48 million foreign born individuals lived in the U.S.. Not unexpected, the volatility of the issue has proven to be fertile political fodder for our elected representatives. The racist, draconian and selectively demonizing policies of the Trump administration, spearheaded by Stephen Miller, the president's Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, has been decisively one sided feeding into a manufactured anti-immigrant frenzy. Unsurprisingly, the administration has ignored the beneficial impact and positive contribution provided by adding new immigrants into our cultural mix. An often overlooked statistic is generated by the reality that our population is rapidly aging. This trend is driven by increased longevity and lower birth rates. By 2030, adults over 65 are expected to outnumber those under 18. This poses significant complications for the economy, health care and social security systems. The accepted population replacement level is 2.1 births per woman. And this would only result in zero population growth. Our current fertility rate is just 1.7%. Immigration can help rectify this situation. Foreign born women tend to have much higher birth rates than those born in the country. Immigrants, including those who are undocumented, help businesses fill positions vacated by retirees. Their taxes help fund the governmental social security programs upon which retirees depend. In their totality, in 2022, immigrants contributed $382.9 billion in taxes. Of this $59.4 billion came from the undocumented segment of this population. (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.) Immigrants posses skills that are complimentary to those of natives, who end up specializing in jobs that have higher earnings prospects. They are also more mobile than U.S. born workers. They move to areas of relatively high labor demand. Besides, immigrant labor keeps prices low, while immigrant demand for goods and services stimulate growth in the economy. Moreover, the foreign born start new businesses at significantly higher rates than U.S. born individuals. The question remains: Are we a nation of immigrants, or should we be? History established the relevance of immigrants during the development and growth of our country. We actively recruited them when we needed help during our post colonial westward expansion, as a necessary supply of labor during the period of rapid industrialization, and as fieldworkers for our agricultural production. Besides, in the famous words of Emma Lazarus, inscribed on a plaque connected to the Statue of Liberty, we have taken in many of the millions of "tired and poor" refugees passing through Ellis Island, which, in many ways, cemented welcoming immigrants as one of our core values. Independent analyses convincingly established the significant net benefit immigrants contribute to our economy. While nativist expressions of discomfort with the influx of immigrants have surfaced periodically, the current administration's approach appears unnecessarily mindless and demonic in concept and execution. Immigrant contributions to our history and culture should be celebrated and revered, not trivialized and vilified. Theo Wierdsma

PATRIOTIC CELEBRATION AND CONTROVERSY

June 14 is a significant date in our country's history. On June 14, 1777. the Second Continental Congress adopted the "United States Flag Act" resolution. This resolution stipulated that the official American flag should have 13 stripes, alternating between red and white, 13 stars to represent the states in the union, and a blue field to represent the new constellation. In 1949, President Truman signed an act of Congress officially designating the date a national holiday. The Continental Congress was the governing body established in May of 1775 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by delegates from the thirteen colonies. It served as the de facto government during the Revolutionary War, adopting the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. It managed the war effort, which included forming the Continental Army. Per chance, also on June 14, be it two years earlier in 1775. The Continental Army was the army of the United Colonies, representing the thirteen colonies during the Revolutionary War. It was created to coordinate military efforts of the colonies in the war against the British, who sought to maintain control over their American possessions. General George Washington was appointed Commander in Chief. It is perhaps a coincidence that the date of the founding of our first military forces and the certification of the most powerful symbol of the freedoms of our country are one and the same. Traditionally, Flag Day is a recurring event, celebrated across the country with a variety of activities, including parades, essay contests and picnics. It is not a military holiday like Memorial Day, Armed Forces Day and Veterans Day. This year its observance is overwhelmed by the 250th, anniversary of the formation of our armed forces, which is unique because of its scale and historical significance. One would think that the combination of these two commemorations would create a powerful opportunity to celebrate a festive patriotic focus manifested by a planned massive parade in our national capital. So, what is the controversy all about? With the exception of its price tag, the legitimate patriotic celebration was never controversial until our current president decided to infuse the festivities with a celebration of his 79th birthday, which also shares this specific date. The focus shifted. The image of 6600 soldiers, 28 Abrams tanks, 28 Bradley fighting vehicles, 28 striker vehicles, a B-25 bomber, horses, mules and 50 helicopters overhead, in the minds of many of Trump's opponents, conjure up visions of parades pointedly and publicly reviewed by autocratic leaders like Putin, Kim Yong Un, Xi Jinping and others. The price tag for this massive military display, touted as the biggest military parade in American history, is estimated at $45 million, in addition to the cost of repair for Washington D.C.'s streets, which could run an additional $16 million. To some, these costs seem absurd when juxtaposed against the administration's mass firings at federal agencies and it's plans to affect deep cuts to federal programs many Americans rely on. Add significant inconveniences like the suspension of airline operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport for part of the day to accommodate fly-overs and a planned fireworks display, which forces travelers booked to fly from or through D.C. to rearrange their flights, and the total loss of parking at the Pentagon, and more unhappiness sets in. Not unexpected, massive nationwide so-called "No Kings" protests are scheduled to hit the streets in more than 1500 cities that day. More than 100 pro-democracy advocacy groups are reportedly partnering to organize events to run counter to President Trump's military parade in D.C. Given the recent explosion of confrontations in multiple municipalities, it may be too much to hope that peaceful coexistence will prevail. In many locations emotions have become incendiary. Troops are standing by, not just in D.C.. Confrontations may not be avoidable. We ought to aspire to maintain our focus on the patriotic importance of the date, ignore the additional infusion of celebrating a fragile ego, and preserve civil discourse. We can only hope. Fingers crossed. Theo Wierdsma

ARE WE IN THE MIDST OF A CULTURAL REVOLUTION?

Since the 1960s, the U.S. has become a more inclusive country. This necessarily meant that white men lost some part of their privileged positions in education, employment and entertainment. By the 2000s, in the wake of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, anti-racism books were on the best sellers list, major corporations were examining their hiring and promotion policies, and educational institutions were beginning to address structural racism. The backlash has been intense. Using his “Project 2025” blueprint, following his election, President Trump and company have been more than eager to rewind the clock to before the various civil rights movements, back even to before the Fourteenth Amendment that added “Birthright Citizenship” to the Constitution in 1868. The intensity of the administration’s attack on dominant values and structural elements of our society has convinced analysts and observers that its objective is to dramatically reshape our cultural norms – in fact to create a cultural revolution. The term “Cultural Revolution” is most closely associated with China’s Proletarian Revolution, spearheaded by Mao Zedong between 1966 and 1976, and Iran’s Cultural Revolution from 1980 to 1987 – two radical movements that upended institutions, targeted intellectuals and reshaped society to fit ideological purity tests. These revolutions led to the purging of educators, the rewriting of history, and the persecution of those who refused to conform. President Trump is currently involved in executing a cultural revolution as thoroughgoing in its ambitions and potential destructiveness as what Mao unleashed in China during the mid-1960s. During its revolution, China purged its intellectuals, universities were gutted, professors were publicly humiliated, research was shut down, and expertise was replaced with ideological loyalty. Similar patterns are emerging in the U.S. Although from a different ideological angle, we are beginning to observe a resurgence of ideological purges in education. Books are banned in dozens of states, from works on race and civil rights to literature about LGBTQ+ experiences. Universities are being defunded, and research grants are disappearing. Professors are targeted for their political beliefs. Teachers are being dismissed or intimidated for teaching so-called “divisive” subjects like systemic racism, gender studies and the history of oppression. Words like diversity, equity and climate change are erased from curricula. Entire academic fields are under attack for being “woke.” And the Department of Education is likely to be axed. Educators now face losing their jobs for acknowledging historical truths that some find uncomfortable. Federal employees have been directed to report colleagues engaged in D.E.I. initiatives, with warnings of “adverse consequences” for non-compliance. Team MAGA wants a “second American Revolution” that roots out all vestiges of progressivism, liberalism and secularism, which, according to Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, “will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” President Trump and his supporters borrowed some of their strategy from his good friend Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, who turned his country’s political system from being based on liberal principles into a patronage system run along illiberal lines, meaning a system where individual rights are no longer protected. Orban’s compliant legislature allowed him to concentrate power in the executive, deconstruct the Hungarian political system from the inside by stacking the courts, suppressing civil society and controlling right-wing media. The Trump administration is doing an admirable job emulating Orban’s “accomplishments.” During China’s Proletarian Revolution between 1 and 2 million people lost their lives. We are certainly not there. However, many thousands have already unceremoniously lost their livelihood and we are only a little more than four months into this process. Sit tight! Theo Wierdsma

WILL POPE LEO ADDRESS A PERENNIAL QUESTION?

With American-born Cardinal Robert Prevost's elevation to the papacy, Pope Leo XIV, elected to lead the 1.46 billion Catholics world-wide, a number of significant reemerging questions are bound to surface. The first, and presumably significant indicator of the new pope's predilection on how to guide the Church's religious and political policy was about the selection of the new pontiff's choice of by what namesake he will be known going forward. Popes are not required to change their name. However, every pontiff for the past 470 years has done so, usually choosing the name of a predecessor to both honor him and signal their intention to emulate his example. Cardinal Prevost's selection of Leo XIV was significant because it indicated that the newly elected pontiff's policies appeared to promise to stick fairly closely to those of his predecessor, Pope Francis. Historically, many observers tend to focus on the reputation of Pope Leo XIII, who was known for producing his 1891 encyclical "Rerum Novarum," translated as "new things," or "revolutionary change." His document addressed the social and economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution, affirming the rights of the poor and obligations for those more fortunate. Pope Leo's adopted namesakes developed impressive historical notoriety for other reasons as well. Pope Leo I - "The Great" - became known for meeting face to face with Attila the Hun in 452, and persuaded him to turn back from his invasion of Italy. Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor of the Romans - a symbolic act that significantly impacted the relationship between the papacy and the emerging Western empire. In 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther as a heretic, excluding him from participating in the sacraments and services of the Church. While this historic legacy will be much to live up to for the new pontiff, one of the contemporary issues that will again confront the new Papal administration is the perennial topic of female priests in the Church. A year or two before my mother passed, she adamantly, and perhaps proudly, pronounced that The Netherlands now had female priests - "priestesses" - running the symbolic rituals of Catholic worship celebrations. I was not terrifically surprised. After all, the Dutch Church had shown its independence for years. One of my brothers had even been appointed to a committee assigned to confirm the suitability of new bishops the Vatican proposed to select for the country. Eventually, my mother's funeral was officiated by this "priestess" who I addressed as "pastor" during my eulogy. When I discussed this turn of events with friends who identified with "Opus Dei," a conservative Apostolate in the Catholic Church, I was told that there existed no such thing as female priests. Upon reflection, it may well be that my mom's "priestess" was essentially a Deacon ordained to serve her bishop and perform multiple procedures, including assisting at Mass, baptisms, funerals, and witnessing marriages, but not intended to lead a parish or religious order focusing on sacramental celebrations. While Pope Leo XIV's predecessor Pope Francis appeared to crack open the door for LGBTQ+ people, allowing them to be baptized under the same conditions as other believers, he continued to reaffirm the "men-only" rule for the priesthood. He confirmed the veracity of the declaration issued after the "Congregation for the doctrine of the faith" was issued in 1976, which for doctrinal, theological and historic reasons, the Church did "not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." This ruling was reinforced by Pope John Paul II in May of 1994 in his apostolic letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." Nevertheless, a growing movement, focused on changing the Vatican's edict on women priests, seems to be very much alive. With the advent of new papal leadership, this movement appears to sense an opportunity to push for their voices to be heard. Just recently, in a podcast, they received support from Swiss Bishop Markus Buchel of Saint Gallen, who openly advocated for the inclusion of female priests, arguing that the Church has a "consecration emergency." More and more women in this movement are defying Catholic Church tradition by actually becoming priests. Many of these are not part of the institutional Roman Catholic Church, but rather subscribe to the Roman Catholic Women Priests (RCWP) organization. On July 29, 2002, a group of seven women from Germany, Austria, and the U.S. were ordained to the priesthood by a Roman Catholic bishop, Romulo Antonio Braschi, on a ship cruising the Danube. The seven women were not recognized as valid by the Vatican, and Bishop Braschi and some of the women were excommunicated. However, the movement continues to ordain women to the priesthood, and it has expanded internationally. The Vatican continues to forbid the process, citing the Bible's record that Jesus only chose male apostles and almost 2,000 years of precedent. Nevertheless, research done by the "New Yorker" and "The Nation" identified almost 200 women that have been ordained in various unauthorized ways, considering themselves legitimate priests. Unless he chooses to hide behind centuries of tradition, Pope Leo XIV will likely, at some point, be forced to address this perennial question again. Theo Wierdsma

ARE THE INMATES RUNNING THE ASYLUM?

If there was any doubt that the inmates are running the asylum in our administration right now, the group chat on the Signal messaging app about the attack on Yemen should have erased it for all but the most diehard MAGA supporters. The conversation intended for our Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence and other administration principals also, accidentally, included the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, and revealed a precise attack timeline, target surveillance, and shared plans for a bombing campaign 30 minutes before the first planes took off on March 15. Secretary of Defense Hegseth subsequently insisted that no classified information was communicated. "Nobody was texting war plans: "No units, no locations, no routes, no flight plans, no sources, no methods, no classified information." Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Iraqi war veteran took exception: "Pete Hegseth is a f***ing liar. This so clearly classified info he recklessly leaked that could have gotten our pilots killed. He needs to resign in disgrace immediately." As always, President Trump referred to the entire episode as a "witch hunt," and "a hoax." While this example of one of the most ignorant breaches of protocol affecting our national security should concern us, the general lack of focus on relevant, evidence-based substance underpinning policy discussions at the pinnacle of the administrative level of our governing body ought to be disturbing. Much of it might be relegated to willful ignorance, which unfortunately sometimes degenerated to stupidity. Modern-day researchers have identified several recognizable sets of actions embodying stupidity: "Confident ignorance" - involving people taking risks without having the necessary skills to deal with them. President Trump may know what he does not know, but delegated tasks to staff members like Elon Musk or trade tariff architect Pete Navarro. Neither of which appear to possess such awareness. "Absent minded failure" - meaning people knew the right thing to do but were not paying sufficient attention to avoid doing something stupid - like in "signal gate." And, finally, "Lack of control" - in which decision makers compromise their organizations by failing to accept objections from those charged with implementing the leader's preconceived plans. Such decision makers may select biased information to support their proposals, instead of considering factual data. We have seen numerous situations in which consequential decisions were reached "supported" by fallacious interpretations of available facts. Preeminent examples include: Candidate Trump's insistence that illegal immigrants from Haiti residing in Springfield, Ohio, have been eating domestic pets. He claimed this assertion to be factual since he saw it on television. President Trump's declaration that our government sent $50 million worth of condoms to the Gaza strip - a "fact" Elon Musk apparently identified as uncovered by his DOGE group of researchers. In fact, the Gaza in question is a province in Mozambique, in which we supported a fund for prevention of HIV. Mr. Musk also spread the assertion that 9 million 130 year old recipients - many even more than 150 year old - were receiving social security. This bit of "information" exhibited his total ignorance of how the Social Security Administration maintains its records. And then there remains the issue of the administration's preoccupation with colonizing Canada, Greenland and Gaza, changing the "Gulf of Mexico," which received its name during the mid 16th century, to the "Gulf of America," and proclaiming English, which is spoken fluently by 80% of the population, to be our official national language. And these represent only the tip of the iceberg. The list goes on. We can't gloss over the hot topic of the moment, tariffs, a concept the president refers to as "the most beautiful word." It remains difficult to understand how Peter Navarro, the president's point person on the subject, has become so dominant, and yet appears so ignorant about the consequences of blindly pursuing the developing policy. The global economic system that the U.S. has shaped and steered for more than 3/4 of a century was animated by a powerful guiding vision: that trade and finance would be based on cooperation and consent rather than coercion. By provoking a world-wide trade war, President Trump risks abandoning that vision of shared interests and replacing it with one that assumes that sharp economic conflicts are unavoidable. So yes! It's difficult to escape the conclusion that the inmates appear to be running the asylum. If we are to believe the results of the president's most recent physical, he is in great shape for his age. And there is nobody like Donald Trump to communicate this, and to brag about his cognitive abilities. According to him he passed that test with flying colors by repeating the phrase: "Person, woman, man, camera and T.V." Based on the administration's record thus far, we should brace ourselves for significant uncertainty going forward. Theo Wierdsma

CHANGING THE SUBJECT

It is hardly an overstatement to suggest these days that many of us are suffering from information overload. Much of that abundance focuses substantially on aspects of our current political climate, repetitively transmitted by a plethora of social media. It emerges from news media, contentious opinions expressed throughout quarrelsome discussions at family gatherings, or even introduced while engaged in unplanned casual interactions. When you hear the same topic discussed over and over again, messages lose their impact. Our brain begins to filter them out, they become background noise, and the process can lead to cognitive fatigue. Even if repackaged, our brains get tired of hearing the same information coming from multiple sources, to the point that we can no longer think of anything else to talk about. While much remains to be analyzed, dissected, discussed, and alert an audience about, intellectually little appears to remain to captivate the curious mind. I dislike the sensation of stagnation. Consequently, I felt compelled to take a temporary break from the heavy stuff, and reengage with a project I began some time ago. I recognized that there is a lot surrounding us that we should be curious about. The point is that we should reject the inclination to focus all of our sensory energy on the same subset of variables, but that we ought to instead expand our horizon. There are multiple ideas about how to do this. The one I prefer is very straightforward. Develop a list of every question that pops up in your mind, no matter how mundane, and set time aside to research the response to each entry. Many of us regularly wonder about things we are legitimately curious about, but we never satisfy our interest, even though we have a multitude of social media platforms designed exactly for that purpose available to us. This is sad, because being curious is an incredible fuel that keeps life interesting. Years ago I challenged myself to come up with a set number of questions within a limited period of time. It was amazing what we come up with when we focus. Both questions and answers will expand our knowledge. Not only that, the questions themselves could function as conversation starters and expand the variety of topics we might discuss. I am going to reproduce my initial list. Everyone could have fun developing his or her own lineup. The object is to take a break from the dominant discussion topic of the moment, diversify our mental activity and interrupt the monotony of what is thrown at us every waking hour of our day. This was my initial list: - What were the five French republics? - Isn't "Coque-au-vin" really "Poulet-au-vin"? - What are the colors of the rainbow? - Who was Saul Alinsky? - What are the names of the seven dwarfs? - Why do people in some countries drive on different sides of the road? - What is existentialism? - What is the speed of light? - What companies make up the Dow Jones? - What are the highest peaks on all continents? - What American presidents died in office? - Is there a major religion with a dominant female deity? - What is the origin of Valentine's Day? - What does the "stan" in Kazakhstan stand for? - How do we rank on the "poverty index?" - What do the letters "USA" seen on surface areas along the road stands for? - Where is Timbuktu? - Who was the Queen of Sheba? - Ho do you play Cricket? - What is the difference between white and brown eggs? - Why were Communists referred to as "pinkos?" - How long is a generation? - Why do psychics need directions to their conventions? - What is a calorie? - What is vitamin "D" good for? - What is the consistency of Wasabi? - What is a watershed? - Would blood transfusions or donations affect lowering cholesterol levels? - What ingestibles can serve as mosquito repellents? - How come that the majority of spelling bee winners appear to be ESL (English as a Second Language) graduates, or immigrants? - Could we describe the NRA as a terrorist organization? - What is discretionary energy? - What types of unemployment can we identify? - How do you prevent Alzheimer's? - How fast is a "knot"? - What makes Windex clean? - How come my window cleaner in my car never runs out of fluid, even though I never refill it? - Who modeled for Michael Angelo's "David?" - What is a stem cell? - How does a flash flood develop? - What is the calculation of "pie"? - What ethnicity was Buddha? - What is a "Bayou"? - How many stripes are there on the U.S. flag? - What is the national animal of Australia? - Why do we dream? - How does electricity work? - Why can't I remember movies that I've watched? - Who would you choose if you could be friends with a fictional character? Have some fun with this. Theo Wierdsma