There's a story — I cannot guarantee that it is apocryphal — about a Montana state trooper stopping a pickup on the Interstate in the vast open miles of that beautiful state.
"Why were you driving 120 miles an hour, sir?" the trooper asked calmly.
The Montana rancher replied with equal calm, "'cause it was raining."
Eastern news media think the 225-mile drive from New York to Washington is such a major odyssey trek that it requires a high-speed passenger train with a "quiet" car to protect their delicate minds.
Some years back, I was tasked by Montana's governor with explaining to these dense folks about the state's legendary disdain for the federally-imposed 55-mile-an-hour speed limit nationally. (We reverted to our own "Basic Rule," meaning you can decide for yourself what's a prudent speed given weather and road conditions.)
Montana is the fourth largest state in area, with fewer people than 42 others. High-school football teams charter a plane to reach the state playoffs. For a weekend of games, youth hockey teams can travel 500 miles -- one way.
So, excuse me for not taking seriously the federal government's new instructions on what Americans should be eating every day. I didn't take Michelle Obama's advice on food consumption. And Robert Kennedy Jr. goes on that list, too. I can figure that stuff out by myself. (O.K., my wife and doctor can.)
There are perhaps some NPR listeners who pay attention to what a committee of Washington bureaucrats says Americans should be eating. That way, those earnest folks will know the correct government-recommended items to purchase at exorbitant prices from Whole Foods and obediently serve to their families. (At least until the next administration rewrites what's healthy.)
Judging from the recent coverage by today's generation of national-news media nabobs, they found the administration's adjustments to dietary food guidelines (and alcohol consumption) shocking. I said, shocking.
I found them chuckle-worthy. That's the topic of this week's audio commentary. As always, Comments are open for your take. Click here to listen:
Keeping in mind Republicans' traditional blase attitude toward participation in midterm elections, this week's Sunday column examined a serious danger looming within results of the balloting by Nov. 3.
If Democrats capture the House, we're surely in for some more of those show-trial impeachment stunts like the ones they staged during Trump's first term, to no effect. But this time, if the voting results produce a blue-wave that captures both congressional chambers in sizable majorities, as Democrats hope, the impeachment stuff could be chillingly for real — and historic.
The most recent audio commentary was about the ongoing internal party debate by feuding Democrats over what the theme of their midterm campaign strategy should be, meaning how to tie all Republicans to Donald Trump, even though his name will not appear on any ballot anywhere.
It really is an amazing political phenomenon, how for the last 11 years one man can penetrate and so thoroughly inhabit the minds of millions of Americans. Looking back on these years, I'm surprised Anthony Fauci failed to secretly pay a handsome sum in covert funds to commission some obscure provincial Chinese laboratory to develop a vaccine against Donald J. Trump.
An afterthought on that speeding rancher, who likely hadn't seen another car on the Interstate for a half-hour: I would bet the Montana trooper let him off with a warning, let's try keeping it around 100, shall we?
