Healthcare is a human right, not a privilege. Every major country on Earth guarantees healthcare to
all of their people. The United States should do the same.

The current system is broken. We pay twice as much per capita as any other country, and we get worse
results. Why? Because we have a profit-driven system instead of a healthcare system.

Medicare for All will save this country money. Study after study shows this. We will save money by cutting
out the insurance companies and their massive profits and overhead.

Yes, we will raise taxes. But your total healthcare costs will go down. No more premiums, no more
deductibles, no more co-pays. Comprehensive healthcare for everyone.

The insurance companies will fight this. The pharmaceutical companies will fight this. They're making
billions in profits. But we will take them on and we will win, because the American people are on our side.

We are not enemies. We are Americans. We need to remember that we have more in common than what divides us.

I'm running as a Democrat, but I will be a president for all Americans. Whether you voted for me or not,
I will fight for you. I will be a president who seeks to unite, not divide.

We've been through tough times before as a nation. We've overcome greater challenges. We can do it again,
but only if we work together.

This election is about more than Democrats versus Republicans. It's about who we are as a nation.
It's about our character. It's about our values.

We need to lower the temperature in our politics. We need to see each other as fellow Americans,
not as enemies. We need to reject the politics of division and embrace the politics of unity.

We need to build back better. We can't just go back to the way things were. We need to build a new
economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.

My plan will create millions of good-paying jobs. We're going to invest in infrastructure - roads,
bridges, broadband. We're going to invest in clean energy and create millions of jobs fighting climate
change.

We're going to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Nobody working full-time should live in poverty.
We're going to make sure workers can organize and join unions.

We're going to make healthcare more affordable. We're going to protect and expand the Affordable Care Act.
Everyone deserves quality, affordable healthcare.

And we're going to pay for this by making sure corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
The tax code has been rigged in favor of the wealthy for too long.

We are in a battle for the soul of America. Character is on the ballot. Decency is on the ballot.
We need to restore the soul of this nation.

I'm running to rebuild the middle class, the backbone of America. The middle class built this country,
and unions built the middle class. We need to support working families.

We face four historic crises: the pandemic, the economic crisis, racial injustice, and climate change.
We can overcome these challenges, but only if we work together.

Science is going to win over fiction. We're going to beat this pandemic. We're going to get the virus
under control. We're going to listen to the scientists and the doctors.

This is not a partisan moment. This must be an American moment. We have to come together. We need to
heal as a nation. We need to bring people together, not divide them.

Mexico is not our friend. They're sending people that have lots of problems. They're bringing drugs,
they're bringing crime. Some, I assume, are good people.

We need to build a wall, and it needs to be a big, beautiful wall. And Mexico will pay for that wall.
They may not know it yet, but they're going to pay for that wall.

We have to stop illegal immigration. We have millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Nobody knows
how many. Some say 11 million, some say 30 million. We don't know because we don't control our borders.

Sanctuary cities are a disaster. They're protecting criminals instead of protecting law-abiding citizens.
We're going to end sanctuary cities. If they don't cooperate, we'll cut off their federal funding.

We're going to create the biggest tax cut since Ronald Reagan. We're cutting taxes for businesses from
35% to 15%. That's going to bring trillions of dollars back to America. Companies are leaving because
our taxes are too high.

We have the highest business tax rate in the world. That's why companies are leaving. They're going to
Mexico, they're going to China, they're going to everywhere but here. We're going to bring them back.

I've created thousands of jobs. I know how to create jobs. The politicians don't know how to create jobs.
They've never created a job. They're all talk and no action.

Regulations are killing business. We have so many regulations. For every one new regulation, we're going
to eliminate ten old regulations. That's going to unleash the American economy.

Tonight, I want to talk about the future of our country. We need to bring jobs back to America.
We've lost millions of jobs to other countries. China is taking our jobs, Mexico is taking our jobs.
We need to make America great again by bringing those jobs back.

I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. Believe me. We're going to build a wall,
and Mexico is going to pay for it. We need strong borders. Without borders, we don't have a country.

Our military has been depleted. We need to rebuild our military and make it strong again. We need to
take care of our veterans. Our veterans have been treated very badly, and we're going to change that.

The establishment politicians have failed you. They've made terrible trade deals. NAFTA was a disaster.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership would be even worse. I will negotiate better deals for American workers.

We need law and order in our country. Crime is rising. We need to support our police officers who put
their lives on the line every day. And we need to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.

We are the only democracy - the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation that allows
such hardship for millions of its people.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will
go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage.

Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer
system. Though I understand the appeal, given the problems with our current system, I don't believe that's
the answer.

And then there are those on the right who believe that the answer is to give Americans even fewer
protections. I don't believe that's the answer either.

My guiding principle is that consumers should have choice and competition. That's why I believe we should
create a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to
shop for health insurance at competitive prices.

Insurance companies will be required to cover, at a minimum, essential medical services. And by the way,
they'll no longer be allowed to deny coverage because of a preexisting condition.

By Anthony Watts For years, Dr. Michael Mann has strutted across the climate stage with the air of an untouchable figure — a self-proclaimed champion of “science” who never missed an opportunity to brand his critics as “deniers,” drag them into court, or bask in the limelight of a sympathetic press. But now, at long last, reality has tapped him on the shoulder. After less than a year as the University of Pennsylvania’s first Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action, Mann has been forced to resign. The reason? His own mouth. According to The Daily Pennsylvanian, Mann stepped down after his partisan behavior clashed with Penn’s new policy of “institutional neutrality. ” His resignation came on the heels of controversy surrounding his social media posts — including a since-deleted comment about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. That was enough to draw the attention of Sen. ), who publicly pressed the university to act. Recently, Mann reposted comments calling Charlie Kirk the “head of Trump’s Hitler Youth. 29 announcement made on his personal website, Mann stated that his scientific advocacy work conflicts with Penn’s ‘established institutional neutrality policy. ’ … Particularly at this moment in time, I don’t feel that I can forsake the public scholarship and advocacy that I am doing and have thus decided to step down from the VPC role. ” — Michael Mann, quoted in the Daily Pennsylvanian In other words, Mann wanted the perks of authority without the restraint of responsibility. When the university reminded him that administrators are supposed to represent everyone, not just his chosen cause, Mann packed up and left [the provost position, but he will stay on as professor at Penn. ] Edited for clarity – Anthony The great irony of Humpty’s, er, Mann’s Great fall Mann’s entire career has been one long exercise in not practicing neutrality. From the infamous “hockey stick” graph that put him on the map, to his endless courtroom brawls against critics, Mann has thrived on confrontation. He branded anyone skeptical of his graph as a “denier. ” He launched lawsuits against writers and scientists who dared to question him. He relentlessly blurred the line between advocacy and science, portraying every disagreement as an attack on Truth itself. Now, the man who spent decades accusing others of undermining science has been undone by his own inability to separate activism from scholarship. The irony is delicious. To understand why this happened, you have to know about Penn’s new “institutional neutrality” policy. Announced in late 2024, the policy was simple: university leaders won’t issue public statements on political or global events unless they directly impact Penn. That became Mann’s kryptonite. That’s not censorship — it’s common sense. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas compete, not where administrators dictate political orthodoxy from above. But for Mann, neutrality was never an option. As he admitted in his resignation: “My commitment to climate advocacy at times feels in conflict with the nonpartisan role of serving as a University administrator. ” Translation: I refuse to stop being an activist, even if my job requires it. This wasn’t Penn pushing him out — Provost John Jackson went out of his way to insist Mann wasn’t “fired” or “driven out. ” But Mann’s resignation reveals exactly the problem: when you can’t keep your politics out of your professional role, you eventually run into walls. Mann has spent decades using his academic credentials as a shield for political crusading. Let’s review: The Hockey Stick Graph (1998): Mann’s claim to fame, a reconstruction of past climate temperatures that conveniently erased the Medieval Warm Period. Critics shredded the statistical methods, but Mann doubled down and cast all skepticism as denial. Mann’s claim to fame, a reconstruction of past climate temperatures that conveniently erased the Medieval Warm Period. Critics shredded the statistical methods, but Mann doubled down and cast all skepticism as denial. The “Denier” Label: Mann turned debate into heresy, branding dissenters as enemies of science itself. Instead of addressing criticism with transparency, he weaponized rhetoric. Mann turned debate into heresy, branding dissenters as enemies of science itself. Instead of addressing criticism with transparency, he weaponized rhetoric. The Media Darling: Mann cultivated his role as the go-to scientist for alarmist headlines. His op-eds and TV spots were less about data and more about messaging. The pattern is unmistakable: Mann has never been able to separate science from politics. Mann’s courtroom crusades — and failures No retrospective of Michael Mann is complete without revisiting his infamous courtroom battles. Mann often portrayed himself as the embattled defender of science, forced to sue critics to protect his reputation. In reality, the lawsuits revealed his thin skin and his appetite for censorship. The most famous of these was his drawn-out battle with author and columnist Mark Steyn. Back in 2012, Steyn mocked Mann’s “hockey stick” graph and compared his tactics to those of a “fraudulent” Penn State figure. Rather than brush it off, Mann sued for defamation — a decision that trapped him in more than a decade of litigation. The result? A debacle. After years of delays, appeals, and mounting legal costs, Mann’s case collapsed in embarrassment. The courts ultimately did not grant him the vindication he sought, and the spectacle only amplified Steyn’s critique: that Mann was more interested in silencing opponents than in defending science. And this wasn’t his only legal misstep. Mann has a pattern of reaching for the courts as his first line of defense, whether against journalists, satirists, or fellow academics. These lawsuits rarely ended in clear victories — but they succeeded in painting Mann as combative, arrogant, and unwilling to tolerate dissent. Now, with his resignation at Penn, Mann once again finds himself exiting not on a note of triumph but of failure. The episode at Penn is just the latest example of Mann’s arrogance catching up with him. His ill-judged social media behavior — in this case, gloating or politicking over a death — was the spark. But the tinder pile was his broader refusal to acknowledge limits. Universities can tolerate eccentric academics, but administrators are supposed to embody restraint. Mann never understood that distinction. His activism is his identity. And when forced to choose, he predictably chose himself. For once, the consequences landed on his own desk. Why this matters Some might shrug and say, “So what? One professor lost an administrative title. ” But this story matters for two reasons: It reveals the rot in climate science: Mann’s career exemplifies how climate science has been overtaken by advocacy. The data is secondary to the narrative. Neutrality is impossible when the goal is political transformation, not understanding nature. It shows that accountability still exists: Even in academia — a world that often shields its star activists — Mann’s antics finally crossed a line. Institutional neutrality was the one principle he couldn’t bulldoze. In short, Mann’s fall from grace is a small but significant reminder that scientists-turned-activists don’t get a free pass forever. My final thought Let’s not forget that Michael Mann once tried to sue people for joking about him. He fought for years in the courts, claiming his reputation was irreparably harmed by comparisons to cartoon characters. And yet here we are: his downfall wasn’t the result of a clever critic or a devastating exposé. It was his own toxic behavior. You have to wonder what sort or pressure Penn administration put on him and how he reacted. I would have loved to be “a fly on the wall” in that meeting. As Penn’s Provost gently put it, Mann simply found it “more and more difficult … to do the kind of public intellectual work he wants to do while also being a University administrator”. That’s a polite way of saying: he couldn’t keep his mouth shut. For once, the system worked. And for those of us who’ve watched Mann’s antics over the decades, there’s only one thing left to say: it’s about time

Dismissed as a joke, UK's first rice crop ripe for picking after hot summer 2 days ago Share Save Georgina Rannard Climate and science correspondent Share Save Gwyndaf Hughes/BBC Nadine Mitschunas is the UK's first rice grower Gwyndaf Hughes Climate and science videographer In an ordinary field in a quiet part of east England, a unique experiment is taking root. "When I tell people what I'm doing here, they think I'm joking," says Nadine Mitschunas, the UK's first and only rice-grower. The crops in four small paddy fields are doing well, helped by basking in our hottest summer on record. "We could never have contemplated this would grow here," says farmer Sarah Taylor, whose land the rice is planted on. "Not in a million years," her husband Craig adds. This young crop is part of an ambitious trial to see what foods Britain could grow in the future. The trial is trying to answer big questions about how we can produce enough food and protect farmer's livelihoods in a world being altered by climate change. The BBC got a sneak peek at the rice plants before harvest. Rice plants look a lot like thick grass. But running up the stalks there are small beads - these are the rice grains. They were still brown when we visited, but will be picked when they turn white. Nadine, an award-winning ecologist, is incredibly proud. Gwyndaf Hughes/BBC The UK's first rice paddy field - where nine varieties of the crop have been grown this year "I'm actually amazed because they are big, happy, bushy plants," she says, warning me not to fall over when we step into the calf-deep water. She points out her favourites. "This is Estrella from Colombia, the best one so far," she says. "But I'm least impressed with this," she says, gesturing to a Japanese rice that has not flowered. This experiment is the brainchild of the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH), in partnership with Craig and Sarah Taylor. Dozens of plants were planted in four mini paddy fields dug out and flooded on the Taylors' farm a few miles north of Ely in Cambridgeshire. We often think of rice as a tropical plant, but it does grow in colder climates. Nine varieties are growing, including from Brazil, Colombia, Italy and the Philippines. They include the stars of the rice world - risotto, basmati and sushi. The plants did well in the hot, sunny summer, which the Met Office says was the hottest in the UK since records began in 1884. "Nobody has tried this before, but with climate change, we have crops that, 10 years ago, we wouldn't have thought would be viable. In 10 years time, rice could be a completely perfect crop for us," Nadine says. This is the very edge of where rice can grow at the moment and it would be a risky crop for farmers to plant commercially, says Prof Richard Pywell who is leading the project for UKCEH. But Britain's climate is changing quickly. If annual average temperatures warm by between 2 and 4C compared to pre-industrial levels - a scenario that many scientists say is likely - rice could be grown widely in the UK, according to research. Gwyndaf Hughes/BBC The rice is part of a bigger trial looking at the future of agriculture in the UK But this project is about more than growing British rice for our dinner plates. It could also help the UK tackle climate change. The land in the Fens is some of the most productive in the UK. A third of the vegetables grown in Britain come from here, with a value of around £1. But this has a significant cost for the environment and climate. The farms are on rich peat soil that used to be underwater but is now slowly drying out. That is releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Nationally, peat soils account for 3% of our greenhouse gas emissions. That is also degrading the quality of the soil, a change seen in real time by farmers like Craig and Sarah. They feel deeply connected to the land and its history. "All my ancestors were Fenmen. I love this place, we've been here for 500 plus years," says Craig. The rice field is surrounded by potato, onion and beet crops, which are still the thriving staples here. Digging a healthy clump of potatoes from the rich, black soil, Craig says, "potatoes are an amazing crop. You can't knock that, but we know things need to change. " "We don't want people thinking we're the 'crazy rice farmers' - this is about rethinking the whole system and making it work for everyone," he says. Unpredictable weather patterns in recent years have hit farmers nationally, affecting harvests and crop yields in some cases. "We see that the future isn't stable. We want to be able to write our own destiny and not have it decided for us," says Sarah. "Our legacy for our children and hopefully their children is really important to us and I want them to know that we at least try to make a difference," she says. Gwyndaf Hughes/BBC Craig and Sarah Taylor's families have farmed in Cambridgeshire for generations As well as rice, the team are trialling other crops including lettuce and hybrid willow that grow in waterlogged conditions. By flooding the peat soils in parts of Cambridgeshire, greenhouse gases could stay locked in the wet soil, cutting off that source of greenhouse gas emissions. Even though growing rice produces methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, initial results from the trials so far suggest the rice crop is not producing more emissions than it helps lock away. The government is interested in what happens here too, and officials from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs have visited the site. It could be a radical breakthrough in one of the thorniest questions in the UK - how to protect farming and food supplies, while also addressing the huge impacts they have on the environment and climate. The UK food system, including imports, is equivalent to 38% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, while agriculture accounts for 11. Growing rice on peat soils won't fix that overnight, but it could provide a model. "We're at a critical juncture in climate change and we need to make decisions. We need to understand what sort of crops we could be potentially growing in the future," explains Richard from UKCEH. Gwyndaf Hughes/BBC Rice varieties including risotto and basmati are growing in the trial in Cambridgeshire "It's possible that for certain areas, peatland re-wetting and growing rice may be a viable option. In other areas, we may continue to grow our conventional crops, but under different conditions," he says. Growing rice domestically sounds simple, but this is a complicated project with big ambitions. It will still be some time before we can test taste a UK rice crop - but it's a very real possibility that in the next decade, UK-grown rice could be coming to our dinner plates