To include your event in the Briefing and Live Calendar, please fill out this form.
Weather: Sunny. Highs in the lower 70s. North winds around 5 mph, becoming east around 5 mph in the afternoon. Thursday Night: Mostly clear. Lows in the mid 50s.
- Daily weather briefing from the National Weather Service in Jacksonville here.
- Drought conditions here. (What is the Keetch-Byram drought index?).
- Check today’s tides in Daytona Beach (a few minutes off from Flagler Beach) here.
- Tropical cyclone activity here, and even more details here.
Today at a Glance:
Drug Court convenes before Circuit Judge Dawn Nichols at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 401 at the Flagler County courthouse, Kim C. Hammond Justice Center 1769 E Moody Blvd, Bldg 1, Bunnell. Drug Court is open to the public. See the Drug Court handbook here and the participation agreement here.
Model Yacht Club Races at the Pond in Palm Coast’s Central Park, from noon to 2 p.m. in Central Park in Town Center, 975 Central Ave. Join Bill Wells, Bob Rupp and other members of the Palm Coast Model Yacht Club, watch them race or join the races with your own model yacht. No dues to join the club, which meets at the pond in Central Park every Thursday.
‘Crimes of the Heart’ at St. Augustine’s Limelight Theatre, 11 Old Mission Avenue, St. Augustine. 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Friday and Saturday, 2 p.m. Sunday. $25. Book here. The three MaGrath sisters are back together in their hometown of Hazelhurst for the first time in a decade. Under the scorching heat of the Mississippi sun, past resentments bubble to the surface and each sister must come to terms with the consequences of her own “crimes of the heart.”
Babylonian Craptivity Day 10: It was unintentional, and at first I didn’t get the coincidental cleverness, the perfection of it. I had just liked the cartoon in last weekend’s Le Temps, the Swiss newspaper and its cartoonist’s sum-up of our dear felon’s executive order on gender. It helps to remember this irony: Unlike American, there are two ways to refer to Americans in French: males are Americains and females are Americaines (I haven’t kept up with Left Bank jargon enough to know how LGBTQ Americans and French and Brits are spelled, but no doubt language has evolved enough for it). So you get the joke without translation. The paper on page 30 had a review of the first novel by Laure Federiconi, a 30-year-old Swiss, La vie juste (which would translate to what? The Just Life? The Correct Life? Something around there.) The novel’s opening lines: “I am naked and eating guacamole. I am lying down in a corner of shade, staring at the workers who are busy in the small park opposite. I don’t care what they look at. My neighbors must be getting tired of me walking back and forth naked to the kettle to get tea. I am not showing off–I am just dissociating.” That’s Laure Federiconi on the front page, above left, dressed, looming above Trump. It’s about right: we are all disassociating. We haven;t gotten the heart yet to get naked.
—P.T.
View this profile on Instagram
The Live Calendar is a compendium of local and regional political, civic and cultural events. You can input your own calendar events directly onto the site as you wish them to appear (pending approval of course). To include your event in the Live Calendar, please fill out this form.
Flagler County Commission Workshop
Flagler Woman’s Club Forum for Flagler Beach City Commission Candidates
St Thomas Episcopal Rummage Sale
Flagler County Commission Morning Meeting
Beverly Beach Town Commission meeting
Nar-Anon Family Group
Flagler Beach Library Writers’ Club
Flagler Beach Planning and Architectural Review Board
Palm Coast City Council Meeting
Bunnell Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board
Random Acts of Insanity Standup Comedy
For the full calendar, go here.
As I left the hospital that day, I looked forward to the ordeal that my phantom illness had interrupted. Mean corporals with taut shiny scalps and bulging eyes would be at me again, poking their swagger sticks into my solar plexus, ramming their knees up my butt, calling me a cocksucker and a motherfucking sack of shit, terrorizing me with threats and drenching me with spittle and hatred, making my quotidian world such a miasma of fright that each night I would crawl into my bed like an invalid seeking death, praying for resurrection in another life. After that, there was the bloody Pacific, where I would murder and perhaps be murdered. But those were horrors I could deal with; in that gray ward I was nearly broken by fears that were beyond imagining.
–From William Styron’s “A Case of the Great Pox,” The New Yorker, Sept. 10, 1995.
Ed P says
Before the Dems can construct a strategy they must come to grips with their failures and get an understanding of the why. The how they failed is obvious. I’m not suggesting I speak for anyone but myself.
The name calling and shaming did not work. It’s like fat shaming someone. It’s not socially acceptable nor do you need to tell a fat person they are fat. Everyone in world is aware of Trumps faults. The chronic whining about them has sent the right to a position of indifference.
Compare it to the brain surgeon who saves your infant child’s life, giving her a chance to live a normal productive life. Did you ask if the surgeon had ever been convicted of anything, sexually abused anyone, or filed any bankruptcy, been divorced 3 times or slept with Stormy Daniels? No, personal faults didn’t matter. Saving your child meant more.
Dems need to spend more time in the Midwest instead of the east and west coast. The Midwest is were hard working people are real. You get what you see. The pace of life and values are different than the coasts. People know their neighbors, they greet strangers on the street and live a common sense existence. No they aren’t better, just different. They tend to live “realville”
Once you actually understand the daily concerns and struggles of raising a family or just surviving, the concept of tampons in men’s rooms or transgenders in sports appears ridiculous. You can’t shame people into believing otherwise when they have to decide on $5.00 worth of gas today or a gallon of milk.
Remember the Wolf Of Wall Street? “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor, I choose rich every time” ? Millions and millions of American believe the American dream is beyond their grasp, Trump provide a glimmer of hope. That chance outweighs any of his personal faults because a regular person can admit their life is filled with mistakes and faults. Seems like the libs deny the same.
You can’t tell them that open borders are a great strategy. They instinctively know it’s gone too far. Common sense. 3 years ago you could get away with shaming the right into believing the border situation was actually a good thing, until it wasn’t. You could make the right shut up when you said” what do you want to do, fling the wet backs back over the rio grand”(PT) Not today.
Both political parties have brought us to this fork in the road. Why not quietly fasten your seatbelts, put on your sunglasses and let the right take the helm. If you are so sure and absolute that you are correct in the path forward, just wait for their failure.
The left forgets that there are an infinite number of ways to traverse the continental United States. The right has decided we don’t want to meander in our EV on US Rte 66 but rather take the jet. Get out of the way. It’s our turn.
Laurel says
Ed P: I’m mostly in agreement with what you wrote, but about half way down, you lost me. I agree that the left didn’t figure out that sounding alarms deafened people, that did happen. But then you went to “Get out of the way. It’s our turn”? No, I don’t think so. You continue the divide. Keep in mind that President Clinton balanced the budget with far less crazy town. Without being a felon. Without lying about minorities. Without freeing convicted criminals. Without deserting the Capital Police. Without putting targets on the backs of good people, without stealing earned income the middle class to provide more income to those who don’t need it.
For a long time now, we heard more and more crazy crap from Trump. Trump supporters dismissed it, telling us what he “really meant” and it’s all “bluster.” How’s that “bluster” now? He does cut taxes to the rich, and favors the rich. Now, he is going after veteran’s benefits. They are getting letters in the mail, right now, telling them their benefits will be cut, they must show up to the office (even though they are working) or get fired (where is desk now?), if they make over a certain amount it will be cut back (means testing) and take a small buy out. Maybe they will get fired if they don’t take the buy out? So, why would anyone join the military if the benefits promised/earned could be cut back, or removed, at any time? Where is the trust?
He is going after the veterans. The paintings of our Generals are coming off the walls in the Capital. Promises made, promises denied. The very men and women who keep us free with their bodies and their lives. So, if he has no problem going after our veterans’ benefits, he will have no problem going after our earned Social Security and our earned Medicare. His “bluster” will becoming really real, really soon.
Hail to President Bone Spurs. He could never be the man Four Star General Milley is. He could never be the man Senator, and war hero, John McCain was. So the portraits come off the walls. Baby.
Now, Trump is blaming the last night’s air crash on Obama, Biden, and DEI hires.
He disgusts me.
This is your turn? Keep your “bluster.”
Pogo says
@Word of the day
https://www.google.com/search?q=arrogance
…and frequent companion of kochsuckers.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kochsucker
“It comes the very moment you wake up each morning. All your wishes and hopes for the day rush at you like wild animals. And the first job each morning consists simply in shoving them all back; in listening to that other voice, taking that other point of view, letting that other larger, stronger, quieter life come flowing in. And so on, all day. Standing back from all your natural fussings and frettings; coming in out of the wind.”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Hope springs says
Only way to stop Nazis we learned 80 years ago. Now the Nazis have internet and nuclear weapons. Need a very well armed militia and bunch of tech bros to create ways to communicate without Nazi interference. Once it’s all burnt to the ground and the maga Nazis removed we can rebuild something better.
Ray W, says
Yes, Laurel, less than 24 hours after a deadly air crash, President Trump has announced causation as based on a DEI hire by the FAA.
At a press conference, Trump said: “I put safety first. Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first. … They actually came out with a directive: ‘too white.’ And we want people who are competent.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Is there any better evidence of the existence of a professional lying class at the top of the Republican Party? No investigation into the crash is anywhere near complete. The black boxes have yet to be recovered. Trump, bereft of facts, claims that if the FAA hired only white people the crash would never have occurred.
Ed P. says liberals need to get out of the way. Perhaps, that is so. Since I am more conservative than most of today’s Republicans, I do not have to get out of the way. But I will always oppose the vengeful among us. As an aside, Ed P., spreading garbage about the positive impact immigrants have on our economy does not reflect well on you. Economist after economist says immigrants are an asset to our economy. Please stop wandering through life fooling yourself. This issue is nowhere near as clear cut as you claim.
However, after more than 30 years of prosecuting and defending people, I long ago came to accept my father’s admonition: Sometimes, the only thing you can do for a person is stand back and watch as he drowns in his own spit.
Pogo? Thank you. I am well aware that I haven’t had a day in quite some time when there were no problems to be solved. Some people think problems are bad things to be avoided. I accept that most of our daily problems offer opportunities for growth that are to be embraced. Yes, many quotes attributed to Lincoln are not really his, but he is said to have commented that all great problems are insolvable. If a problem solvable, it cannot be deemed a great problem.
Laurel says
For the DEI haters out there: so, only white males are competent? Gee, I have come across several who were not, but, they ate lunch with the boss, kept their family pictures aimed outward for the incoming to see, and jumped leaps and bounds over those who actually were competent.
Ah MAGAs, bring back the good ole days, right? The white boys club.
Ray W: Thanks for your support, and I’m glad to see you back again! :)
Pogo says
@Ray W
Hi, sure is nice to see your contribution to light and reason return. I blame you (and thank you) for introducing me to The Cool Down — now it’s must reading.
Regards. be well.
Ed P says
Ray W,
It may not be clear cut to you that the voluminous illegal migration is a positive or negative because reporting is spotty at best. The most recent “expert” estimates are that they are a net fiscal drain. After 4 years the true costs are being revealed. Many of the immigrants that do work are low skilled. Many are not working.When “all the costs” of all the programs necessary for them and their families, it’s a net drain. The talking points that they “add” to the economy has fallen apart. Too many, too fast. Over whelmed the system.
I’m not declaring that normal or controlled immigration is not a good thing, it is. Because we need skilled immigration too.
Finally, name calling or velvet gloved criticism such as going through life fooling myself or allowing one to drown in his own spit is unproductive.
Just prove me wrong or lump my posts into your “ group” of crazies that you just roll your eyes when you read. Maybe we can’t disagree without being disagreeable. I’m an acquired taste.
If I crossed those lines since our early days when crossing swords, I apologize.
Jim says
Ed P says: “Get out of the way. It’s our turn.”
You are absolutely right; the Republicans have the House, Senate and White House so it is definitely your turn. However, this isn’t just about which party is currently in power. There are serious concerns about the character, honesty, ethics and morals of many in leadership of the Republican party.
Clearly you do not think that Trump installing loyalists into key positions that, in many cases, have absolutely little to no qualifications for the job is an issue. It’s just the spoils of victory.
Clearly you do not think that removing National Security employees who were sent home while Waltz determines whether they are in alignment with Trump’s desires is an issue. Your team values “loyalty to Trump” over loyalty to the Constitution. And it seems you want to justify that by saying you must be loyal to Trump to be loyal to the Constitution which makes no sense. Much like your comment about what the physicians background is, it does matter where loyalty lies and when it’s President first, it’s a dangerous slope.
I guess it doesn’t bother you when the president goes on national TV and states that “DEI” caused a Army helicopter and an airplane to collide. And this is before any cause has been determined or investigation held. How are any normal thinking people supposed to interpret this kind of behavior? Is the the leader you want?
And let’s make note of the fact that career employees are being fired for their part in investigating Donald Trump. These people were assigned to do that job and they did it. And now they are fired. I see no ethical or moral defense of this action. All I see is a petty man taking vengeance on anyone he can. And his base, of which you are part, take great glee in this.
Not to miss the fact that General Miley’s security team has been removed. The reasoning? He wasn’t loyal enough to Trump. Miley was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His life has been threatened by the Iranians. He served this country honorably. But he crossed Trump so he must pay. This is just fine with you.
Let’s not forget that 1500 or so people who have been convicted or were under investigation for the January 6 attack on the capitol were pardoned on “day 1”. This included all the violent offenders who sprayed bear spray on police, used tasers on police, beat and bloodied police and did significant damage to the capitol building. All in support of a false claim by Trump that the election was “stolen”. Yet not a single court case (60+, I recall) was won by Trump and some of his lawyers have been disbarred and worse for the lies they told in support of that false claim. That’s okay with you as well.
I won’t go down the full list of questionable cabinet nominees Trump has submitted because we all know them and it’s a waste of time to rehash it. But you think that they represent “change” and are “disruptors” and that’s a good thing. Well, I’m fine with change in the federal (and state and local) governments but where you and I differ is on how change is done. I’d like my change agents to have the best interests of this country ahead of loyalty to Trump. I’d like my change agents to have some knowledge and experience in the job they will be taking. I’d like to think they are honest people (think Kennedy and Gaetz) who, though not perfect, will be truthful in their endeavors. For you, that’s not necessary.
And don’t forget that the path to better government includes firing the Inspector Generals of a multitude of agencies. That was necessary to assure there is as little oversite into what is going on as possible. Much like our so-called “sunshine laws” in Florida, our federal government is pulling the curtains and making sure what gets done is in darkness. After all, shouldn’t we just trust them?
I’ll stop there because I really think I’m wasting my time. It’s your turn; you are in charge! For all of our sakes, I hope this turns out well. But I wonder, if it doesn’t, will you and people like you ever admit to it? I think not.
Ed P says
Jim,
The reality is there isn’t anything you or I can do to change the course of action taking place in the federal government. You error in thinking I agree with all the radical changes occurring. In a previous post I stated that it’s time to fasten my seat belt, resist relying on the government and playing the cards I’m dealt. I don’t complain, name call, or shame anyone into any belief. I try to explain possible rationale and correct obvious factual errors. Complaining is a waste of time.
I was as surprised as you were when Trump mentioned DEI as a strong possible cause of the airline crash. My first reaction was he was suggesting that a particular ATC on duty was to blame.
Later, The NY Times released a story that the normal staffing during the crash was actually 11 ATCs short, 19 on duty instead of 30. Does Trump believe DEI caused some 1100 qualified applicants being rejected because they were not diverse enough?The FAA didn’t hire enough trainees trying to create more inclusion? A staffing shortage was caused by DEI?
True or not, I agree that still doesn’t justify early speculation. Then I thought, he probably has some reliable inside information and it was probably accurate that 2 people should have been doing the work of the 1 ATC handling the jet and helicopter.
At one point in my business career, I was responsible for 7300 employees, I unequivocally believe loyalty paramount to the success of any organization. Trump is not an idiot.
We are Washington outsiders and if we really knew the truth of how dysfunctional and incompetent government really is, we would all be huddling in our basements with flack jackets and helmets waiting for the end to arrive. I think it’s best we don’t really know.
Ray W, says
Hello, Ed P.
It is quite easy to prove you wrong.
A number of months ago, I commented on an analysis of certain economic studies on this issue
Two economists were commissioned by conservative groups to study the economic impacts of immigrants. The parameter of their commissions was that the two studies were to focus on net contributions against net outflows. Both studies found that on this narrow view, immigrants consumed more in services than they contributed.
If these two studies accurately reflected how economics worked, you would be right. But they didn’t reflect how economics worked, because the studies were purposely limited in scope.
Other long-term studies were released at around the same time that utilized a more comprehensive economic evaluation of the subject. These studies concluded that immigrants are a net positive impact on the economy. When one of the two economists reviewed the other studies, he admitted that the other studies were more accurate than his, saying he had been hired to consider a limited dataset, and he produced a less accurate study as a result. He didn’t say this, but he was admitting that if you focus on garbage, your conclusion will be garbage.
Here is a commentary derived by an economist who compiled the findings of a number of those other more accurate studies.
On September 18, 2024, the Brooking Institute published a commentary titled “The labor market impact of deportations.”
The question raised by the author was: “Would a mass deportation effort improve the U.S. economy and provide more jobs for U.S.-born workers”
To that question, the author answered: “Recent rigorous economics research sheds light on the consequences of increasing the number of deportations on the U.S. labor market. This research consistently points to deportations hurting the U.S. labor market and leading to worse labor market outcomes for U.S.-born workers.”
The plethora of studies that contradict your premise were made possible by a “real-world test of the effects of deportation.”
In 2008, then-President Bush rolled out an immigration enforcement policy known as Secure Communities (SC). The policy was actually quite simple. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials were commanded to engage in county-wide deportation programs all over the country by engaging with local law enforcement agencies. What this meant was that individual counties would coordinate with ICE officials for a set period of time. Whenever a stop occurred and an unauthorized immigrant was arrested, ICE would be contacted and the deportation process initiated. Not all counties were used. But when a county did so, this permitted researchers to study county economic trends when immigrants were deported.
Initially, counties near to ICE offices were solicited for the program. Over time, counties further and further away from ICE offices were solicited.
Over six years, 400,000 unauthorized immigrants were initially arrested and subsequently deported, which is a sufficiently large dataset for statistical purposes.
Because counties could not start an SC program on their own, they couldn’t cherry pick when to start. And, since some counties entered in partnership with ICE in 2008 and others did so in later years, researchers could compare outcomes over a wide location over a six-year period of time.
One of the foundational results of the multitude of county-wide studies of the SC program was that only 4% of the subsequently deported were initially arrested for serious criminal activity. 79% of those arrested had committed non-violent crimes, including traffic violations and immigration offenses. 17% were not convicted of any crime.
Here is an important finding across multiple studies of the SC program: “Once SC is implemented, the number of foreign-born workers in that county declines and the employment rate among U.S.-born workers also declines. One of those studies found that for every 100 unauthorized immigrants deported, 8.8 American-born workers lost their own jobs. An example of this involves roofing. If a roofing company loses laborers to deportation, it has to lay off their supervisors. No laborers, no need for their supervisors. And, since supervisors make more money than do laborers, the economic loss is greater among the native-born.
The reason for this is straightforward. At one time, the prevailing view among economists was that the labor market was a zero-sum game. Under this view, an immigrant accepting a job meant that a native-born American lost a job. But economists have since disproved the old once-prevailing view, i.e., the labor market is not a zero-sum game for a number of reasons. Because immigrants create demand for goods and services, because immigrants take jobs the native-born are loath to take, and because unauthorized immigrants contribute to the long-run fiscal health of the country, the old view was disproved.
I have already mentioned the finding that deporting a roofing crew destroys the job of a supervisor unless other laborers can be found. Poaching laborers from other roofing companies merely shifts the problem. I happen to agree with this line of thinking. About a year ago I commented to FlaglerLive readers of the complaint of a Jacksonville-area roofing company owner. Our stupid state legislature had passed a law making it a felony for anyone to drive an undocumented immigrant anywhere. Whole extended families decided to leave the state. The roofing company owner said before the passage of the law, he had enough workers to run 30 roofing crews. Now, he had enough for fewer than half that many and he couldn’t find additional workers. He said he was putting people to work, paying them money, helping them contribute to the local economy and now they were gone. His capacity to make money had been cut by half.
Another example is that a restaurant cannot operate without cooks. Deporting cooks from county-based restaurants means that the restaurant closes unless it can find more cooks. That means servers and hosts might also see their corollary jobs destroyed.
On the subject of creating demand for jobs and services, unauthorized immigrants buy cars, purchase groceries, get haircuts, among other economic activities, meaning that if unauthorized immigrants are deported, the overall economic product of a county is lessened.
On the third side of the calculus, meaning tax revenue and fiscal health of a local, state or federal government, the author of the Brooking Institute commentary writes that “[a] comprehensive study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that, in a given year, each foreign-born person and their dependents pay on average $1,300 more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits, and, looking over a 75-year time horizon (I read portions of the NASEM study and found the definition of the “75-year time horizon.” It means that if an immigrant arrives at age 43, then her impact is measured on a 32-year window. If an immigrant arrives at age 2, then his impact is measured on a 73-year window.), immigrants are a net fiscal positive at all levels — they pay $237,000 more in taxes over their lifetime than they receive in benefits from federal, state, and local governments.”
The Brookings Institute author goes on to theorize that since most unauthorized immigrants are in their prime working years, deporting them costs at all levels. Not only is their prized labor lost, but the taxes paid by their supervisors are lost when they lose their own jobs. Unauthorized workers pay into Social Security and Medicare programs. Since they cannot collect benefits from Social Security and Medicare late in life, deporting them undermines the stability of those two crucial programs.
As an aside, I breakfast with a friend on Sunday mornings, as I have done for perhaps a decade or more. Since I cooked my way through high school, college and law school by working in kitchens, including managing kitchen operations, and since I later volunteered to cook in an Elks Lodge for about 15 years, I know what to look for when I walk inside the chain restaurant front door. If I see the store manager working behind the line, I know that my breakfast order will be slow in delivery. The restaurant just can’t seem to find workers. Servers announce when taking my order that the serving will take time. Such was the case this past Sunday. When paying the check, I talked with the hostess/cashier about the cook shortage that day. She commented that there are days in the recent past when an off-duty store manager had to called in and the two managers had to work behind the line because they can’t find cooks.
Let’s face it, Ed P., you and I are both gullible persons. I accept my gullibility, and I then strive to understand my weaknesses. You work hard to reject the idea that you are gullible, which means you will not work hard to understand your weaknesses.
In this case, you refer in your comment above to the findings of economists who were specifically hired by think tanks to study but a limited part of a complex immigration puzzle. The reason I know this is because I, too, found their studies months ago. You stopped when you found the studies. I went further. I sought out studies by other economists who did not limit the parameters of their studies.
The reason I am hard on you is that you are willing to stop at less than the best. It frustrates me to read your comments. I see you throwing away so much talent. Look at your comments on this thread. You cannot understand that “libs” cannot be lumped into one description. You lost your first comment when you insisted on lumping all “libs” together. Then, you demanded that those who disagree with you have to get out of your way. The concept of checks and balances demands of everyone that they stand in your way.
In your second comment, you refer to us as crossing swords early in our interactions. Yet, we almost did not cross swords. I wasn’t going to reply to one of your earliest gullible comments, but you ended your comment in such a way that, after I thought about it and thought about it, I had to reply. It was the same thought process, get with us or get out of the way. You were spouting off about a fake internet meme. We both know what that meme was. It was an untruth, and you built your entire comment on that untruth. In this thread, you have accepted another untruth hook, line and sinker. Immigrants, on so many levels, contribute positively to our national, state and local industry.
To summarize, you challenged me to explain why you were wrong. I just did so. I was better able to do so because I am skeptical about whatever I read. Many months ago, I read the two studies on which you rely. I decided to question the methodology of the two studies. What I learned in that quest, I shared with FlaglerLive readers months ago.
Then I waited.
I didn’t know it would be you who would stumble across the same two purposely limited studies. I didn’t know it would be you who would claim that the studies meant more than they meant. But I was ready for you when you challenged me.
Ray W, says
Hello Pogo.
If you like The Cool Down, then you might like Donut Lab’s latest design for electric motors.
Donut Lab is a subsidiary of Verge Motorcycles, an exotic electric motorcycle manufacturer based in Finland.
Donut Lab displayed a new line of in-wheel electric motors at the January 2025 Consumer Electronics Show.
Its 21-inch in-wheel motor weighs 88 pounds (40 kilos) and generates a maximum of 845 horsepower. Four-wheel drive in a supercar would yield 3,380 horsepower.
But the technology, to me, is more appropriate to the long-range trucking industry. Current trucking standards, regardless of make, utilize diesel engines that produce around 500 to 600 horsepower. Certain heavy-duty applications require more horsepower. The newly released Cummins 15-liter heavy-duty truck engine weighs over 3000 pounds. Add in the weight of the transmission package, complete with drive shafts, differentials and other related drive-train parts and assemblies, weigh somewhere in the range of 4,000 pounds. Two 88 pound in-wheel motors would weigh 176 pounds and produce up to 1,690 horsepower. If one motor failed, the other would provide enough power to keep the tractor-trailer moving normally. Unsprung weight would not be as much an issue as it is for cars.
Donut Lab makes a 17-inch version for motorcycles that makes 200 horsepower and weighs about 47 pounds.
The scooter version of the motor (12-inch) weighs roughly 17 pounds.
Marine and aircraft versions are in the works.
Donut Labs claims its motor design saves up to 50% in manufacturing costs over first-generation EV motors
Donut Labs is not the only entity working on in-wheel electric motors.
Elaphe Propulsion Technologies showcased its Sonic 1 motor that produces 268 horsepower at CES 2025. A BMW-DeepDrive partnership focuses on in-wheel technology. Hyundai announced in 2023 its plans to develop its “Uni Wheel” concept; its announced intent is to entirely repackage EV design, improve battery range, and significantly increase the durability of its electric motors.
Make of this, Pogo, what you will.
Me?
We are in the early stages of a transportation revolution. Electric motors are rapidly evolving in design, efficiency, expense, and application. A motor that costs up to 50% less to manufacture than today’s EV motors and comes in with an absurdly low horsepower to weight ration and reduces drivetrain complexities carries much promise.
We are at an end-stage in the development of internal combustion engines. We are still at the Model T stage in the development of EV battery technology and electric motor design.
EV models are already cost-competitive with ICE models all over the world, except here. Here, we have a 100% tariff to keep inexpensive, powerful, and well-designed Chinese EV models out of our domestic motor marketplace. Trump has commented on plans to raise the tariff even more.
Sherry says
Thanks you Jim and thank you Ray W! Thanks you for pointing out the factual wrongdoings of trump in the face of those who are so indoctrinated and ethical that they will never ever see reason.
Jim says
Ed P, I don’t see much up side to getting into a prolonged back and forth with you. We will never agree on Trump and his actions.
What I will say is this:
You appear to completely back Donald Trump regardless of what he says or does. Since you ran an organization with 7,300 people, I would think that you would put a high priority on honesty and integrity as a leader. My experience has been organizations run by liars have low morale and low productivity. Based on my experience, your support of a “leader” who clearly does not have that quality is just impossible for me to accept unless I just ignore common sense and everything I’ve learned in my lifetime.
You said you were surprised by Trump’s response to the helicopter/plane crash. I wasn’t. It falls right in line with his past actions. Remember he recommended bleach, flashlights and ivermectin to fight Covid.
What about all the other recent actions Trump has taken that I pointed out? You ought to respond to those and educate me on how it’s actually “all good” and if I just wait it out, I’ll see the method in the madness?
You say Trump is not an idiot. Okay, then what exactly is he in your mind? A leader. A disruptor? A change agent? America’s best hope for a better future? Maybe something else. I don’t know and I don’t care.
What I do see is that he’s a liar (proven in term #1), he’s vindictive, he’s a felon, he’s been convicted of sexually molesting a woman, he’s a narcissist, and, in short, he’s just about everything bad in a human being that I can imagine. What redeeming qualities he has for you is just a mystery to me. I’d bet if he worked for you in your organization, you’d either isolate him or terminate him. Or maybe you value those traits in your team.
So you say to get out the way – it’s your turn now. So be it. But don’t for a minute think you are somehow above it all and just want all of us to get along. That’s not the Trump way and it can’t be your way. You shrug off his terrible behavior and hatefulness as “that’s just Trump”. You must be someone who believes the end justifies the means. You follow his lead and accept all that he does and you think I’m the one who has a problem. I’ll accept that. I’m quite glad that I have a problem with Donald J. Trump and his MAGAtes. Yes, that’s name calling and I’ll accept your condescending response for that as well.
Ed P says
Jim,
Final word. The choices were grim. Harris vs Trump .
Really? Enough said.
Laurel says
Harris wanted to have in home Medicare help for the aged, keeping those of us who want to stay home a much needed break, and not give all our life’s savings to overpriced, uncaring institutions with dubious histories. Trump doesn’t give two shits for the aged, or anyone else besides his petty self.
Now, that ain’t happening.
Enough said.
Pogo says
@Jim
Thank you.
James says
Does anyone know the cost of replacing a roof?
I’m speaking of the cost of replacement on a square foot basis… in the state of Florida.
My guess, probably not.
Just curious.
Ed P says
Ray W,
Am I supposed to accept your position that the illegal immigration influx over the past 4 years has had a positive financial impact on our country? That it does not cost tax payers- that illegals positively add to our tax base and GDP without costing the estimated net cash outflow of $150 billion dollars a year? Multiple outlets and reports support my claim.
My post was referring the last 4 years not the last decade. You opted to go long before our borders were over run. 59 % of these current visitors are receiving some type of welfare or multiple types. Nearly 100% had received something, even the “got aways”. Every sector of our economy has been stressed by the rapid influx.
You are throwing sand in my eyes with your Brookings institute report. They never gave any estimate of what the actual dollar cost was. They did not.
Here is the actual concluding statement.
“The cost immigrants impose are not zero, but those side-effects pale in comparison to the contributions arising from the immigrants brain gain” Are roofers and restaurant help you reference brain gain?
Nice and fuzzy for a reason because the truth is that the latest influx is a fiscal drain on our economy. It is actually costing tax payers and taking away needed funding from our citizens.
I also believe you cannot prove the real immigration costs with a deportation report.
I stand by my post and reject the premise that you “easily proved me wrong “ you have not. I might be less right but I’m not wrong.
I suspect you will not receive my argument positively either. Being wrong is not in your wheelhouse, because you can be less right as well.
I also stand by another comment, welcome back
Sherry says
Please forgive the typo. . . I meant to say “un”ethical.
Thank you also Laurel and POGO. . . your excellent comments are always well attended by me.
Certainly enjoying our time here in a charming lakeside village in Mexico (you know that country where “Dirtbags” come from, according to Maga). This I can say without hesitation, I feel safer and more at peace here than I did when living in Flagler Beach during the first trump administration and afterwards. During those days, the hate in the energy in Flagler was almost palpable. Seeing people flying flags in front of their own houses and pick up trucks with vulgar words I simply can’t repeat here. What kind of person does that? What does it tell you that at least this part of Mexico is much more peace filled (with smiling. friendly people) than Flagler county, Florida?
Yesterday, during our drive along a North/South highway in the desert wilderness, we saw thousands of migrants walking North. Even they were not angry and at each other. They were helping one another. There were people pushing baby strollers. Most were carrying all they owned on their backs.
There were temporary tented camps. We saw pop up tents with relatively new vehicles parked along side. These were not slums, although we saw some garbage left behind as there was simply no place to put it. Some camps made small fires to burn their trash. All headed North!
My wonderful husband asked me if they really understood the inhumanity they would meet if they ever made it to the US. My quiet reply was “no, I don’t understand it myself”.
Sherry says
@ Jim. . . Thank you again and again! I feel your complete frustration in trying so very hard to reason with an intelligent person who sadly is completely “unreasonable”. You are truly in discussion with a person who just may be so insecure that in his mind it is impossible for him to be the least bit wrong. Can you just imagine what it would be like to work for him? That is why I have personally decided not to engage with him further. My time is simply worth more to me than he is.
I’m beginning to believe that trump actually could shoot an innocent person on 5th Ave, and such a passionate Maga loyalist would make excuses for him.
I’m thinking that perhaps there is a huge personal disassociation or disconnection with the fact that a fundamental “moral code of conduct” is required for “trusting” one another, especially leaders.
So, I’m sending you a virtual hug. . . one human being to another. I imagine you have loved ones and I’m hoping you receive many more hugs today. Keep the faith in positive humanity Jim!
Sherry says
A cogent and elegantly simple explanation of the inexplicably destructive negotiating process of DJT by Professor David Honig, Indiana University:
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University – Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn’t another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM – HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
David Honig
Laurel says
Sherry: Perfect! Please keep this statement for future articles. Unfortunately, most Trump supporters have no clue about negotiations, and believe he’s just being *tough*. Trump may be destroying our status in the world, to a point where we may never get it back again.
Sherry says
@Laurel, I received this from a Canadian friend who thinks the voters in the US have gone mad. In any case, I learned so much, I hope others will also. It will be interesting to read the comments from other “still thinking” people.
Still enjoying “Magical Mexico”, for just a few more days.
Skibum says
Sherry, excellent article from someone who certainly knows what he is talking about. And many of drumph’s maga hat wearing, barefoot and preggy mid-western supporters would probably be scratching their heads if they tried to read and make sense of that article which had words with too many syllables for them to decipher.
Sherry says
Hi Skibum. . . Very, very sadly, all I can say is you speak the truth about the likelihood that most of the adults in the US would not understand this article at all. The dumbing down of our populace is astounding!
Laurel says
…and disheartening.
Sherry says
@Jim, Ray W., Laurel and others who have gone round and round with a certain unreasonable passionate trump supporter here on Flaglerlive.
Another thought= Consider the possibility that they are so adamant in their defense of trump because they are personally much like him. Perhaps they see themselves mirrored in trump. . . therefore, pointing out trump’s ruthless, corrupt, dishonest, criminal, womanizing, unethical, childish, bullying, megalomania behavior could be hitting much too close to home.
Ruling over thousands of people in business means absolutely “Nothing” if you are not trusted and respected! Human vulnerability, and a good moral compass to find ethics and integrity is the key. There is always help available, if you seek it.
Just a thought from a happily “Woke” woman. As Ray says, make of this what you will. For me, I’ll try to keep compassion in my heart, while practicing Buddhist “detachment” for personal spiritual protection from such toxic people.
Ray W, says
Hello Ed. P.
See how far you have come in just one short comment thread! You started with immigrants are an economic drag and now you are admitting that maybe they aren’t what you thought. Thank you.
You and I are close together on immigration. I have long stated that immigration, like war and crime and famine, is one of the great problems we face as a nation, i.e., it is an unsolvable issue that can never be ignored. There will always be certain societal issues worthy of study and debate.
Your point in your first comment was that people could not be told that open borders was a “great” strategy. I agree with you about the “great” point, but I never argued that the policy of the past four years was a “great” strategy anyway. I argued and continue to argue that a border policy of allowing for the entry of millions of immigrants can be a “positive” economic strategy (and that is has been so for the past four years), mainly because we needed immigrants to keep our economy growing after the economic devastation of the pandemic.
The latest American birthrate figures are out. American women, for the 17th straight year, gave birth to fewer children per 100,000 women than the previous year, setting another new record low. We dropped below replacement rate after 2006. We are way below replacement birthrate right now and our native-born population growth has flatlined over the past several years.
My generation of native-born boomer workers is retiring out of the workforce in great numbers. The overall number of native-born workers in their working-age prime has been dropping for more than five years.
If this is so, then how does the number of workers receiving paychecks each week continue to rise?
Here are some BLS figures for consideration (readers need to remember that for decades, the overall population rise per year has averaged some 3 million more people per year, which skews the below listed figures. We need to create some 120k to 130k new jobs per month just to keep pace with this level of population rise. This scale of population rise mandates that the number of unemployed should rise too. And a 4% unemployment rate 10 years ago should yield a number of unemployed figure relevant to that smaller total population figure. Add 30 million people over 10 years and a larger overall population with a 4% unemployment rate would yield a larger number of unemployed people, even though the percentage rate remains unchanged. After all, 4% of 1 million workers would be 40,000 unemployed. 4% of 2 million workers would be 80,000 unemployed.):
January 2017: 145,636,000 workers receiving paychecks. (Note that part-time workers receive paychecks, too. Also note that for a record 75 straight months, the total jobs figure had grown, so Trump inherited a strong jobs market.)
February 2020: 152,309,000 workers receiving paychecks. The unemployment rate was 3.5% and the number of unemployed was 5.7 million. (Note that 6,673,000 more workers were receiving paychecks some 37 months into the Trump administration, compared to its first month, so it has to be said that the Trump administration was good at creating jobs and filling them with workers. And it also should be noted that BLS records show that over the 112 combined months of jobs added each month between the two administrations, the number of jobs added by Trump per month was just below the average number of jobs added per month by Obama. Many of the additional workers had to have been immigrants, so Trump’s “greatest economy ever” had to have relied on new immigrants entering the country, likely millions of them.)
April 2020: 130,301,000 workers receiving paychecks. (Note that in two months, the labor force paycheck count dropped by 22,008,000 workers.)
May 2020: 133,040,000 workers receiving paychecks. (Note that in one month, 2,739,000 more workers were receiving paychecks. To me, this means that Trump’s first $2 trillion unfunded stimulus bill that was passed in March had to have started kicking in.)
January 2021: 142,916,000 workers receiving paychecks. This means that the final eight months of the Trump administration saw 9,876,000 more workers received paychecks. And this figure sets the baseline for the Biden years.
December 2024 (the latest BLS jobs figure): 159,536,000 with an unemployment rate of 4.1% and a total number of unemployed at 6.9 million. (Note that in 48 months, the total number of workers receiving paychecks grew by 16,620,000 workers. Over the 59 months dating from just before the onset of the pandemic, the number of the unemployed rose by 1.2 million)
Make of this what you will.
Me?
For 75 straight months starting early in the first Obama administration to early in the fourth year of the first administration, we added jobs each and every month. In total, for 46 of Trump’s 48 months, we added jobs each month. During 48 straight months of Biden policy, we added jobs each month. That means that for 169 out of the last 171 months, the nation has added jobs each month.
Some FlaglerLive commenters appear to downplay the role of the pandemic in the economic problems that started in March 2020. Some of them claim that Democrats were the only ones who destroyed an economy that had been humming along nicely for about nine years prior to March 2020.
I think that the evidence supports the argument that the pandemic partially destroyed an entire worldwide economy and that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans had much to do with the destruction. The whole world was turned upside down by a virulent disease that killed millions, and we have yet to fully recover from the economic chaos. Congress voted to throw nearly $6 million at the problem. The Fed threw another $3 trillion at the problem. The effects of the $9 trillion have yet to fully hit our total economy. Our total debt rose by $8 trillion during the Trump years. Our total debt rose by another $8 trillion during the Biden years. Our debt has passed $36 trillion. Fed Chair Powell has repeatedly stated that at some point in time, the service on this level of debt likely will become unsustainable.
Anyone, please answer me this: If our native-born female population has not been having enough babies to maintain our population, much less grow it, and if the native-born prime-age workforce numbers have been dropping for several years as baby boomers age into retirement, and if the total number of unemployed workers grew by 1.2 million during the 59 months since the onset of the pandemic to today, then where did the over 16.6 million workers who the BLS says are now collecting paychecks come from?
It couldn’t have been from the unemployed; they just don’t exist in those numbers. It couldn’t have come from new native-born workers entering the workforce; they just don’t exist in those numbers? Yet, the 16.6 million more paycheck recipients exist, per BLS figures. These 16.6 million more people spend their paychecks. The money from their paychecks circulates throughout their communities, with multipliers of between 3X and 7X (just ask any MLB team owner who seeks public money to build a new stadium; their stadium is going to create jobs; he will tell you that the new money will reverberate through the community and create jobs). The money spent by 16.6 million new wage earners really does reverberate through the communities, which creates even more jobs.
We needed millions of workers to rebuild a severely damaged economy. Trillions of artificially created dollars were pouring into the economy triggering demand, so the money was there to be invested, and we really did have to produce more and more goods and services to meet the increasing demand. We just couldn’t find enough workers here, so we had no choice but to put immigrants to work at all levels of our economy.
Economists who were specifically hired to study limited facets of our economy concluded that immigrants on average are an economic drag on our economy. Economists who performed a more comprehensive examination of our economy concluded that immigrants on average are an economic asset to the community. One of the limiting economists studied the more comprehensive studies and said the more comprehensive studies were better than his limited study. Guess which economic studies caught the fancy of the professional lying class of one of our two political parties?
I can accept an intellectually vigorous debate from you, Ed P. I hope you find a better economic study to support your point and undermine mine. I look forward to that. Just don’t take the position that it cannot be assailed that immigrants are nothing other than a drag on the economy until you have a better study. Find a more complete study somewhere, anywhere, except from the sewer that is pestilential partisan politics. Maybe immigrants are a drag on the economy. Maybe they aren’t. The best, the most recent studies say that that immigrants on average are not a drag on the economy.
You and I may come from the same generation. You have to have learned by now that it has never been hard to find a retired Arkansas state trooper who will swear under oath about personally arranging trysts for a former governor. Maybe the trysts happened and maybe they didn’t. The pestilential among insist they did. And it can’t be all that hard to find an economist who will perform a purposely limited economic study at the request of a pestilential partisan think tank.
But I have never forgotten the Roger Stone attack on McGovern in 1968, when he led a smear campaign founded on the claim that the presidential candidate had been a coward during WWII. McGovern piloted a heavy bomber through 25 combat missions at a time when very few bomber crews survived 25 missions. No one who completed 25 combat missions at that time of the war was a coward. It affected me because my father had been a combat aerial gunner who completed 16 missions out of Italy in a heavy bomber just before the war ended. His two older brothers completed a combined 227 combat missions as combat fighter pilots. If Stone could falsely smear McGovern as a coward, then anyone could falsely smear my father and his two brothers as cowards, too. It is the false smear that commonly draws my ire. I oppose President Trump because he openly promises vengeance and retribution and because he falsely smears people. Yesterday, during a press conference, he blamed the Biden administration for Hamas’ attack on the Israeli people on October 7th. What a despicable falsehood.
Roger Stone is revered today by some for falsely smearing a brave man for political gain. Lying is never a basis for reverence, yet here we are.