She's essentially saying that "we need to find a way to let all of these people in in a safe, orderly, and humane way." "She still wants to let them in, but she wants it to be safer for them, not for you."
News:
SMF - Just Installed!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
#42
General Chit Chat / It's Thanksgiving Weekend in Canada
October 08, 2023, 01:38:46 AM
I got my boy his old lady and my two grandkids here. I slaughtered a turkey today. Gonna roast it up tomorrow.
#43
News & Current Events / Amtrak
October 05, 2023, 01:01:32 AM
I am all for paying folks a living wage. But, Amtrak is not a real company because it would go broke without big taxpayer subsidies.
The US aint Europe. Folks prefer to fly. Investing billions more in something that is already losing billions does not make any sense.
Amtrak pays workers big salaries despite never turning a profit, relying on taxpayers to cover losses: Report
https://www.theblaze.com/news/amtrak-pays-workers-big-salaries-despite-never-turning-a-profit-relying-on-taxpayers-to-cover-losses-report?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Blaze%20PM%20Trending%202023-10-04&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement
Amtrak pays its employees large salaries despite never having turned a profit since its creation in 1971 and relying on taxpayers to cover its losses, according to Open the Books.
Documents obtained by Open the Books via a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the national railroad company paid its 19,000 workers an average salary of $121,000 for fiscal year 2022.
Amtrak pays its employees large salaries despite never having turned a profit since its creation in 1971 and relying on taxpayers to cover its losses, according to Open the Books.
Documents obtained by Open the Books via a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the national railroad company paid its 19,000 workers an average salary of $121,000 for fiscal year 2022.
"Without significant taxpayer support, Amtrak could not operate," the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stated. Despite government funding, the railroad company estimates it will lose approximately $1 billion annually. Those losses are "largely covered by the taxpayers," the committee noted.
Open the Books found that Amtrak lost $566 per passenger on its rail route from New Orleans to Los Angeles and $288 per passenger on its route from Los Angeles to Chicago. Amtrak's Washington, D.C., to Boston route was previously earning the company $95 per mile but now costs it $2 per mile, the DCNF reported.
In 2021, the Biden administration pledged to make "the largest federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak."
"The deal invests $66 billion in rail to eliminate the Amtrak maintenance backlog, modernize the Northeast Corridor, and bring world-class rail service to areas outside the northeast and mid-Atlantic," the White House stated.
The US aint Europe. Folks prefer to fly. Investing billions more in something that is already losing billions does not make any sense.
Amtrak pays workers big salaries despite never turning a profit, relying on taxpayers to cover losses: Report
https://www.theblaze.com/news/amtrak-pays-workers-big-salaries-despite-never-turning-a-profit-relying-on-taxpayers-to-cover-losses-report?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Blaze%20PM%20Trending%202023-10-04&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement
Amtrak pays its employees large salaries despite never having turned a profit since its creation in 1971 and relying on taxpayers to cover its losses, according to Open the Books.
Documents obtained by Open the Books via a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the national railroad company paid its 19,000 workers an average salary of $121,000 for fiscal year 2022.
Amtrak pays its employees large salaries despite never having turned a profit since its creation in 1971 and relying on taxpayers to cover its losses, according to Open the Books.
Documents obtained by Open the Books via a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the national railroad company paid its 19,000 workers an average salary of $121,000 for fiscal year 2022.
"Without significant taxpayer support, Amtrak could not operate," the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stated. Despite government funding, the railroad company estimates it will lose approximately $1 billion annually. Those losses are "largely covered by the taxpayers," the committee noted.
Open the Books found that Amtrak lost $566 per passenger on its rail route from New Orleans to Los Angeles and $288 per passenger on its route from Los Angeles to Chicago. Amtrak's Washington, D.C., to Boston route was previously earning the company $95 per mile but now costs it $2 per mile, the DCNF reported.
In 2021, the Biden administration pledged to make "the largest federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak."
"The deal invests $66 billion in rail to eliminate the Amtrak maintenance backlog, modernize the Northeast Corridor, and bring world-class rail service to areas outside the northeast and mid-Atlantic," the White House stated.
#44
News & Current Events / How today's global anti-fossil-fuel agenda is crippling American small businesses
September 30, 2023, 08:24:37 PM
Another excellent reality article written by my buddy Alex Epstein.
Because energy is a major input in every business, the lower cost and more reliable energy is, the lower cost and more reliable everything is. The higher cost and less reliable energy is, the less efficient and less competitive US businesses, including small businesses, are.
Today we're hearing how irrational policies are crippling one crucial area of the energy business: offshore oil production, which provides almost 1/6th of our domestic oil production—production without which gasoline would be far more expensive and far, far less secure.¹
What I would like to do today is put the irrational attack on offshore drilling in its broader context, which is that it is just a tiny piece of today's rabidly irrational global anti-fossil-fuel agenda—an agenda that poses as rational and scientific but is actually the opposite.²
The dozens of discrete attacks of the Biden Administration on the fossil fuel industry are not isolated incidents; they are all attempts to impose today's global anti-fossil-fuel agenda, which says that fossil fuel use must be essentially eliminated by the year 2050.
At the beginning of his administration, President Biden announced a US "whole of government" approach to "climate change"—which in practice means an overarching commitment to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels. Every agency was told to figure out new ways to attack fossil fuels.³
The Biden administration is systematically committed to attacking fossil fuels on 4 fronts, every one of which drives higher cost and lower reliability:
1. Fossil fuel investment
2. Fossil fuel production
3. Fossil fuel transport
4. Fossil fuel use, e.g. electricity generation
The costs of punishing fossil fuel investment
Fossil fuel investments are long-term commitments that require confidence in a payoff. Our government, often colluding with activists, incessantly discourages fossil fuel investments directly and by threatening the industry's future.
The Federal government has been a major driver of ESG anti-fossil-fuel climate policies, with regulators pressuring financial institutions to declare their commitment to getting off fossil fuels. The SEC's recent "climate disclosure rules" are taking the damage to the next level.⁴
The costs of punishing fossil fuel production
Punishing restrictions and onerous taxes specifically on fossil fuel production are common in developed countries, suppressing supply from the freest nations on the globe.
One of the many punishments President Biden has inflicted on the supposedly-preferred fossil fuel industry was his early moratorium on issuing oil and gas leases on Federal lands. And the Biden administration continues to delay and decline holding lease sales.⁵
The costs of punishing fossil fuel transport
One of the most effective ways of punishing the fossil fuel industry has been attacking critical transport infrastructure, including pipelines and export/import facilities, with delays, regulations, and lawsuits.
Biden's destruction of the Keystone XL pipeline inhibited Canada from bringing oil to market, which prevented Canada from using its vast oil deposits to their full potential—meaning lower global supply and higher prices for oil.⁶
Perhaps our most destructive way of singling out fossil fuel transport for punishment has been killing natural gas pipelines.
We have a virtually limitless supply of gas and an incredible ability to ramp up production.
But we're blocking pipeline after pipeline.⁷
The costs of punishing fossil fuel use
Our government's "whole of government" attack on fossil fuels seeks out every way it can to punish fossil fuel use.
Perhaps the most destructive form of this is punishing reliable, fossil-fueled electricity generation and thereby destroying our grid.
As a Californian, I am well aware of the costs of punishing fossil fuel electricity generation. Prematurely shutting down vital fossil fuel plants led to devastating statewide blackouts in 2020.⁸
And 5 days after pledging to go all-EVs, Newsom told us there wasn't enough power to charge our EVs.⁹
Nationally, we're in an electricity crisis, with reliable power plants shutting down far faster than they are being built.¹⁰
And yet the Biden EPA plans to make things much worse with 7 policies that gravely threaten 10-20% of our reliable capacity in the next 7 years.¹¹
Every one of the hundreds of actions that the Biden Administration takes in the name of its "whole of government" anti-fossil-fuel agenda is harmful to American businesses, including small businesses, who have to struggle with higher energy costs and lower reliability.
Because energy is a major input in every business, the lower cost and more reliable energy is, the lower cost and more reliable everything is. The higher cost and less reliable energy is, the less efficient and less competitive US businesses, including small businesses, are.
Today we're hearing how irrational policies are crippling one crucial area of the energy business: offshore oil production, which provides almost 1/6th of our domestic oil production—production without which gasoline would be far more expensive and far, far less secure.¹
What I would like to do today is put the irrational attack on offshore drilling in its broader context, which is that it is just a tiny piece of today's rabidly irrational global anti-fossil-fuel agenda—an agenda that poses as rational and scientific but is actually the opposite.²
The dozens of discrete attacks of the Biden Administration on the fossil fuel industry are not isolated incidents; they are all attempts to impose today's global anti-fossil-fuel agenda, which says that fossil fuel use must be essentially eliminated by the year 2050.
At the beginning of his administration, President Biden announced a US "whole of government" approach to "climate change"—which in practice means an overarching commitment to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels. Every agency was told to figure out new ways to attack fossil fuels.³
The Biden administration is systematically committed to attacking fossil fuels on 4 fronts, every one of which drives higher cost and lower reliability:
1. Fossil fuel investment
2. Fossil fuel production
3. Fossil fuel transport
4. Fossil fuel use, e.g. electricity generation
The costs of punishing fossil fuel investment
Fossil fuel investments are long-term commitments that require confidence in a payoff. Our government, often colluding with activists, incessantly discourages fossil fuel investments directly and by threatening the industry's future.
The Federal government has been a major driver of ESG anti-fossil-fuel climate policies, with regulators pressuring financial institutions to declare their commitment to getting off fossil fuels. The SEC's recent "climate disclosure rules" are taking the damage to the next level.⁴
The costs of punishing fossil fuel production
Punishing restrictions and onerous taxes specifically on fossil fuel production are common in developed countries, suppressing supply from the freest nations on the globe.
One of the many punishments President Biden has inflicted on the supposedly-preferred fossil fuel industry was his early moratorium on issuing oil and gas leases on Federal lands. And the Biden administration continues to delay and decline holding lease sales.⁵
The costs of punishing fossil fuel transport
One of the most effective ways of punishing the fossil fuel industry has been attacking critical transport infrastructure, including pipelines and export/import facilities, with delays, regulations, and lawsuits.
Biden's destruction of the Keystone XL pipeline inhibited Canada from bringing oil to market, which prevented Canada from using its vast oil deposits to their full potential—meaning lower global supply and higher prices for oil.⁶
Perhaps our most destructive way of singling out fossil fuel transport for punishment has been killing natural gas pipelines.
We have a virtually limitless supply of gas and an incredible ability to ramp up production.
But we're blocking pipeline after pipeline.⁷
The costs of punishing fossil fuel use
Our government's "whole of government" attack on fossil fuels seeks out every way it can to punish fossil fuel use.
Perhaps the most destructive form of this is punishing reliable, fossil-fueled electricity generation and thereby destroying our grid.
As a Californian, I am well aware of the costs of punishing fossil fuel electricity generation. Prematurely shutting down vital fossil fuel plants led to devastating statewide blackouts in 2020.⁸
And 5 days after pledging to go all-EVs, Newsom told us there wasn't enough power to charge our EVs.⁹
Nationally, we're in an electricity crisis, with reliable power plants shutting down far faster than they are being built.¹⁰
And yet the Biden EPA plans to make things much worse with 7 policies that gravely threaten 10-20% of our reliable capacity in the next 7 years.¹¹
Every one of the hundreds of actions that the Biden Administration takes in the name of its "whole of government" anti-fossil-fuel agenda is harmful to American businesses, including small businesses, who have to struggle with higher energy costs and lower reliability.
#45
News & Current Events / Nagorno-Karabakh(Republic of Artsakh)
September 29, 2023, 11:20:13 PM
The Background
The Republic of Artsakh, also known as Nagorno-Karabakh, is a region in the Caucasus Mountains that lies within Azerbaijan's borders. While internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan — whose close ally Turkey, formerly the Ottoman Empire, killed 1.5 million Armenians in what is regarded to be the first genocide of the 20th century — the region's largely Armenian population does not recognize Azerbaijan's territorial claims.
The region became autonomous in 1923 while Armenia, whose population is over 93% Christian, and Azerbaijan, whose population is 97.3% Muslim, were still both members of the former Soviet Union.
Today
Deteriorating relations between Armenia, the world's oldest official Christian country, and Russia, its protector over three decades, appear to have provided Azerbaijani nationalists with a window of opportunity.
In December 2022, Azerbaijan-backed militants blockaded the Lachin corridor, the only road connecting the enclave to Armenia, preventing food, fuel, and medicine from getting in.
This and other provocative measures brought tensions to a boiling point this year.
Claiming that a mine had killed two Azerbaijani soldiers without specifying precisely where, the Muslim nation launched a blitzkrieg on Artsakh on Sept. 19.
The Associated Press indicated that the Artsakh government indicated Thursday it would dissolve itself and abandon its decades-long fight for independence.
"The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) ceases its existence" as of Jan. 1, 2024, according to a decree from Artsakh President Samvel Shakhramanyan.
Exodus
Shakhramanyan noted that per the terms of a Sept. 20 agreement, Azerbaijan would permit the "free, voluntary and unhindered movement" of ethnic Armenians back to Armenia.
Ethnic Armenians began their exodus Sunday, some 50 miles from the city of Stepanakert, Artsakh, to Armenia.
As of Thursday, over 78,300 people had fled to Armenia, accounting for over 65% of Arsakh's population. KABC-TV indicated Friday that an Armenian border town had witnessed the influx of closer to 100,000 migrants.
This is a direct act of an ethnic cleansing and depriving people of their motherland. If Muslim Azerbaijanis were being persecuted and driven out of their homeland by Christian Armenians, Jim Crow Joe and Justine would be losing their shit.
The Republic of Artsakh, also known as Nagorno-Karabakh, is a region in the Caucasus Mountains that lies within Azerbaijan's borders. While internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan — whose close ally Turkey, formerly the Ottoman Empire, killed 1.5 million Armenians in what is regarded to be the first genocide of the 20th century — the region's largely Armenian population does not recognize Azerbaijan's territorial claims.
The region became autonomous in 1923 while Armenia, whose population is over 93% Christian, and Azerbaijan, whose population is 97.3% Muslim, were still both members of the former Soviet Union.
Today
Deteriorating relations between Armenia, the world's oldest official Christian country, and Russia, its protector over three decades, appear to have provided Azerbaijani nationalists with a window of opportunity.
In December 2022, Azerbaijan-backed militants blockaded the Lachin corridor, the only road connecting the enclave to Armenia, preventing food, fuel, and medicine from getting in.
This and other provocative measures brought tensions to a boiling point this year.
Claiming that a mine had killed two Azerbaijani soldiers without specifying precisely where, the Muslim nation launched a blitzkrieg on Artsakh on Sept. 19.
The Associated Press indicated that the Artsakh government indicated Thursday it would dissolve itself and abandon its decades-long fight for independence.
"The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) ceases its existence" as of Jan. 1, 2024, according to a decree from Artsakh President Samvel Shakhramanyan.
Exodus
Shakhramanyan noted that per the terms of a Sept. 20 agreement, Azerbaijan would permit the "free, voluntary and unhindered movement" of ethnic Armenians back to Armenia.
Ethnic Armenians began their exodus Sunday, some 50 miles from the city of Stepanakert, Artsakh, to Armenia.
As of Thursday, over 78,300 people had fled to Armenia, accounting for over 65% of Arsakh's population. KABC-TV indicated Friday that an Armenian border town had witnessed the influx of closer to 100,000 migrants.
This is a direct act of an ethnic cleansing and depriving people of their motherland. If Muslim Azerbaijanis were being persecuted and driven out of their homeland by Christian Armenians, Jim Crow Joe and Justine would be losing their shit.
#46
News & Current Events / Net Zero is Nuts
September 22, 2023, 08:21:11 PM
By my buddy Alex Epstein.
Myth: The best policy toward CO2 emissions is "net zero by 2050."
Truth: Net-zero policies have been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented and would be apocalyptically destructive if fully implemented.
They should be abandoned in favor of energy freedom policies.
How to think about the right policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions
What are "net zero by 2050 policies"?
Government (coercive) actions whose primary and binding goal is the net-elimination of CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, whose number one source is fossil fuel use, by 2050.
In practice "net zero" means: rapidly eliminate most fossil fuel use.
One "net zero" policy is an extremely high "carbon tax," like "$1000/ton."
This would mean, in practice:
3-4 times higher prices for gasoline in Texas
9 times higher electricity prices in West Virginia
4-5 times higher prices for heating with natural gas
What are "energy freedom policies"?
Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don't engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.
Energy freedom policies include:
Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., "decriminalizing nuclear."
Interesting: the 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the "green" movement virtually criminalized it.
Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.
Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn't warn us of.
Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:
US: Frequent power shortages (and some disastrous blackouts) after shutting down fossil fuel power plants. E.g., CA
EU: Deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting domestic fossil fuel industry
Poor nations: Can't afford fuel due to global restrictions¹
The root problem with "net zero by 2050"
It violates a basic principle of rational thinking, which is that when evaluating what to do about a product or technology—e.g., prescription drug—you need to carefully weigh the benefits and side-effects of your alternatives.
Myth: If there are negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use we should get them to net-zero as soon as possible.
Truth: We should carefully weigh them against the benefits that come with them, including positive climate side-effects, climate mastery abilities, and many broader benefits.
It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives.
E.g., more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, infrastructure-building, etc.
Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: Drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.²
An irrefutable method for thinking about policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions
1 Factor in broad benefits
2 Factor in climate mastery benefits
3 Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects (from rising CO2)
No net-zero advocate has refuted it, yet none follow it.
How net-zero advocates fail to weigh benefits and side-effects of fossil fuels
Factor in broad benefits – Deny or trivialize
Factor in climate mastery benefits – Deny
Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects – Deny or trivialize positives, Catastrophize negatives = Overstate, Deny mastery
If we follow the irrefutable principles of weighing benefits and climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use, using undeniable facts and mainstream science, it is obvious that "net zero by 2050" would be apocalyptically destructive and that the right path forward is energy freedom.
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Every "net zero by 2050" myth, refuted
In preparation for a "net zero by 2050" debate that my opponent failed to show up for, I created refutations of every myth in support of net-zero that I've every encountered.
ALEX EPSTEIN
SEP 21
READ IN APP
For the last several months I have been eagerly anticipating a scheduled debate I had at the University of Syracuse on "net zero by 2050" with climate catastrophist and net-zero advocate Tom Rand.
Unfortunately, due apparently to some sort of weird contractual issue between Tom's agent and the university, Tom did not make it to the debate. He took no responsibility for the situation, despite the fact that he signed the contracts that caused the problem. Much worse, he did not apologize to me at all, even though he knows that preparing for a specific debate opponent takes a lot of time. Here's my exchange with Tom over the issue (warning, he uses profanity).
Since I was supposed to be in a debate, but there was no one to debate, I thought the best I could make of the situation would be to give a speech refuting every single argument for "net zero by 2050" that Tom and others make. It ended up being one of my favorite speeches ever; you can watch it here.
Below I have included all the "net zero" myths I covered last night, and then some. I think you'll find them, along with the positive points about energy freedom, very valuable.
Myth: The best policy toward CO2 emissions is "net zero by 2050."
Truth: Net-zero policies have been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented and would be apocalyptically destructive if fully implemented.
They should be abandoned in favor of energy freedom policies.
How to think about the right policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions
What are "net zero by 2050 policies"?
Government (coercive) actions whose primary and binding goal is the net-elimination of CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, whose number one source is fossil fuel use, by 2050.
In practice "net zero" means: rapidly eliminate most fossil fuel use.
One "net zero" policy is an extremely high "carbon tax," like "$1000/ton."
This would mean, in practice:
3-4 times higher prices for gasoline in Texas
9 times higher electricity prices in West Virginia
4-5 times higher prices for heating with natural gas
What are "energy freedom policies"?
Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don't engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.
Energy freedom policies include:
Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., "decriminalizing nuclear."
Interesting: the 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the "green" movement virtually criminalized it.
Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.
Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn't warn us of.
Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:
US: Frequent power shortages (and some disastrous blackouts) after shutting down fossil fuel power plants. E.g., CA
EU: Deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting domestic fossil fuel industry
Poor nations: Can't afford fuel due to global restrictions¹
The root problem with "net zero by 2050"
It violates a basic principle of rational thinking, which is that when evaluating what to do about a product or technology—e.g., prescription drug—you need to carefully weigh the benefits and side-effects of your alternatives.
Myth: If there are negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use we should get them to net-zero as soon as possible.
Truth: We should carefully weigh them against the benefits that come with them, including positive climate side-effects, climate mastery abilities, and many broader benefits.
It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives.
E.g., more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, infrastructure-building, etc.
Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: Drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.²
An irrefutable method for thinking about policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions
1 Factor in broad benefits
2 Factor in climate mastery benefits
3 Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects (from rising CO2)
No net-zero advocate has refuted it, yet none follow it.
How net-zero advocates fail to weigh benefits and side-effects of fossil fuels
Factor in broad benefits – Deny or trivialize
Factor in climate mastery benefits – Deny
Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects – Deny or trivialize positives, Catastrophize negatives = Overstate, Deny mastery
If we follow the irrefutable principles of weighing benefits and climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use, using undeniable facts and mainstream science, it is obvious that "net zero by 2050" would be apocalyptically destructive and that the right path forward is energy freedom.
Applying fossil fuel policy principle 1: Factoring in the broad benefits of continuing fossil fuel use
Myth: The benefit of continuing fossil fuel use is trivial at best.
Truth: The benefit of continuing fossil fuel use is a world in which 8 billion people have the energy they need to survive and flourish—vs. an energy-starved world in which most of the world's 8 billion people suffer from poverty and premature death.
Myth: There are no real benefits of continuing fossil fuel use because it can be rapidly replaced by mostly solar and wind.
Truth: fossil fuels are and for decades will remain uniquely cost-effective: affordable, reliable, versatile—on a scale of billions of people in thousands of places.
Myth: Fossil fuels are being rapidly replaced in an "energy transition" to solar and wind.
Truth: Fossil fuel use is 80% of the world's energy and still growing despite 100+ years of aggressive competition and 20+ years of political hostility and massive solar and wind favoritism.³
Myth: Fossil fuel use will soon rapidly decline because countries know "green" energy will be cheaper.
Truth: Countries that care most about cheap energy are pro-fossil fuels.
E.g., China, which uses mostly coal to produce "green" tech, has over 300 planned new coal plants designed to last over 40 years.
Myth: Solar and wind are growing fast by outcompeting fossil fuels with superior economics.
Truth: Solar and wind are growing fast only when given massive government preferences—mandates, subsidies, and no penalty for unreliability—along with crippling government punishments of fossil fuels.
Myth: Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels.
Truth: For the overwhelming majority of the world's energy needs, solar and wind either can't do what fossil fuel can—e.g., non-electricity energy uses such as airplanes or cargo ships—or are far more expensive.
Myth: Solar and wind electricity is getting so cheap that will lead to rapid electrification of the 4/5ths of today's energy that is not electricity.
Truth: When you factor in the full cost of the 24/7 life support that unreliable solar and wind electricity need, they are far more expensive.⁴
Myth: Solar and wind plus batteries will inevitably be super-cheap because of efficiency increases driving lower production costs and higher performance.
Truth: Their cost is astronomical today and has a large mining component whose costs will increase if scaled artificially quickly.⁵
Even relatively mild increases in demand for critical minerals in recent years have led to scaling issues and cost increases—reversing a trend of falling prices that solar and wind advocates pretended would last forever.
What will rapid scaling plus anti-mining policies do?⁶
Myth: Rapidly eliminating fossil fuels will make us more energy-secure.
Truth: We'd be far less energy secure because 1) we'd have drastically less energy, period, and 2) we're far more dependent on China for key components of solar, wind, and batteries than we are on Russia for fossil fuels.⁷
Myth: Reliable alternatives to fossil fuels, such as nuclear and geothermal, can rapidly replace fossil fuels.
Truth: While these industries have potential that we should unleash, they are generations away from providing, on a global scale, energy that's affordable, reliable, and versatile.
Myth: The best policy toward CO2 emissions is "net zero by 2050."
Truth: Net-zero policies have been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented and would be apocalyptically destructive if fully implemented.
They should be abandoned in favor of energy freedom policies.
How to think about the right policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions
What are "net zero by 2050 policies"?
Government (coercive) actions whose primary and binding goal is the net-elimination of CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, whose number one source is fossil fuel use, by 2050.
In practice "net zero" means: rapidly eliminate most fossil fuel use.
One "net zero" policy is an extremely high "carbon tax," like "$1000/ton."
This would mean, in practice:
3-4 times higher prices for gasoline in Texas
9 times higher electricity prices in West Virginia
4-5 times higher prices for heating with natural gas
What are "energy freedom policies"?
Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don't engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.
Energy freedom policies include:
Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., "decriminalizing nuclear."
Interesting: the 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the "green" movement virtually criminalized it.
Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.
Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn't warn us of.
Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:
US: Frequent power shortages (and some disastrous blackouts) after shutting down fossil fuel power plants. E.g., CA
EU: Deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting domestic fossil fuel industry
Poor nations: Can't afford fuel due to global restrictions¹
The root problem with "net zero by 2050"
It violates a basic principle of rational thinking, which is that when evaluating what to do about a product or technology—e.g., prescription drug—you need to carefully weigh the benefits and side-effects of your alternatives.
Myth: If there are negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use we should get them to net-zero as soon as possible.
Truth: We should carefully weigh them against the benefits that come with them, including positive climate side-effects, climate mastery abilities, and many broader benefits.
It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives.
E.g., more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, infrastructure-building, etc.
Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: Drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.²
An irrefutable method for thinking about policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions
1 Factor in broad benefits
2 Factor in climate mastery benefits
3 Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects (from rising CO2)
No net-zero advocate has refuted it, yet none follow it.
How net-zero advocates fail to weigh benefits and side-effects of fossil fuels
Factor in broad benefits – Deny or trivialize
Factor in climate mastery benefits – Deny
Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects – Deny or trivialize positives, Catastrophize negatives = Overstate, Deny mastery
If we follow the irrefutable principles of weighing benefits and climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use, using undeniable facts and mainstream science, it is obvious that "net zero by 2050" would be apocalyptically destructive and that the right path forward is energy freedom.
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Every "net zero by 2050" myth, refuted
In preparation for a "net zero by 2050" debate that my opponent failed to show up for, I created refutations of every myth in support of net-zero that I've every encountered.
ALEX EPSTEIN
SEP 21
READ IN APP
For the last several months I have been eagerly anticipating a scheduled debate I had at the University of Syracuse on "net zero by 2050" with climate catastrophist and net-zero advocate Tom Rand.
Unfortunately, due apparently to some sort of weird contractual issue between Tom's agent and the university, Tom did not make it to the debate. He took no responsibility for the situation, despite the fact that he signed the contracts that caused the problem. Much worse, he did not apologize to me at all, even though he knows that preparing for a specific debate opponent takes a lot of time. Here's my exchange with Tom over the issue (warning, he uses profanity).
Since I was supposed to be in a debate, but there was no one to debate, I thought the best I could make of the situation would be to give a speech refuting every single argument for "net zero by 2050" that Tom and others make. It ended up being one of my favorite speeches ever; you can watch it here.
Below I have included all the "net zero" myths I covered last night, and then some. I think you'll find them, along with the positive points about energy freedom, very valuable.
Myth: The best policy toward CO2 emissions is "net zero by 2050."
Truth: Net-zero policies have been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented and would be apocalyptically destructive if fully implemented.
They should be abandoned in favor of energy freedom policies.
How to think about the right policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions
What are "net zero by 2050 policies"?
Government (coercive) actions whose primary and binding goal is the net-elimination of CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, whose number one source is fossil fuel use, by 2050.
In practice "net zero" means: rapidly eliminate most fossil fuel use.
One "net zero" policy is an extremely high "carbon tax," like "$1000/ton."
This would mean, in practice:
3-4 times higher prices for gasoline in Texas
9 times higher electricity prices in West Virginia
4-5 times higher prices for heating with natural gas
What are "energy freedom policies"?
Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don't engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.
Energy freedom policies include:
Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., "decriminalizing nuclear."
Interesting: the 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the "green" movement virtually criminalized it.
Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.
Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn't warn us of.
Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:
US: Frequent power shortages (and some disastrous blackouts) after shutting down fossil fuel power plants. E.g., CA
EU: Deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting domestic fossil fuel industry
Poor nations: Can't afford fuel due to global restrictions¹
The root problem with "net zero by 2050"
It violates a basic principle of rational thinking, which is that when evaluating what to do about a product or technology—e.g., prescription drug—you need to carefully weigh the benefits and side-effects of your alternatives.
Myth: If there are negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use we should get them to net-zero as soon as possible.
Truth: We should carefully weigh them against the benefits that come with them, including positive climate side-effects, climate mastery abilities, and many broader benefits.
It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives.
E.g., more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, infrastructure-building, etc.
Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: Drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.²
An irrefutable method for thinking about policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions
1 Factor in broad benefits
2 Factor in climate mastery benefits
3 Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects (from rising CO2)
No net-zero advocate has refuted it, yet none follow it.
How net-zero advocates fail to weigh benefits and side-effects of fossil fuels
Factor in broad benefits – Deny or trivialize
Factor in climate mastery benefits – Deny
Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects – Deny or trivialize positives, Catastrophize negatives = Overstate, Deny mastery
If we follow the irrefutable principles of weighing benefits and climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use, using undeniable facts and mainstream science, it is obvious that "net zero by 2050" would be apocalyptically destructive and that the right path forward is energy freedom.
Applying fossil fuel policy principle 1: Factoring in the broad benefits of continuing fossil fuel use
Myth: The benefit of continuing fossil fuel use is trivial at best.
Truth: The benefit of continuing fossil fuel use is a world in which 8 billion people have the energy they need to survive and flourish—vs. an energy-starved world in which most of the world's 8 billion people suffer from poverty and premature death.
Myth: There are no real benefits of continuing fossil fuel use because it can be rapidly replaced by mostly solar and wind.
Truth: fossil fuels are and for decades will remain uniquely cost-effective: affordable, reliable, versatile—on a scale of billions of people in thousands of places.
Myth: Fossil fuels are being rapidly replaced in an "energy transition" to solar and wind.
Truth: Fossil fuel use is 80% of the world's energy and still growing despite 100+ years of aggressive competition and 20+ years of political hostility and massive solar and wind favoritism.³
Myth: Fossil fuel use will soon rapidly decline because countries know "green" energy will be cheaper.
Truth: Countries that care most about cheap energy are pro-fossil fuels.
E.g., China, which uses mostly coal to produce "green" tech, has over 300 planned new coal plants designed to last over 40 years.
Myth: Solar and wind are growing fast by outcompeting fossil fuels with superior economics.
Truth: Solar and wind are growing fast only when given massive government preferences—mandates, subsidies, and no penalty for unreliability—along with crippling government punishments of fossil fuels.
Myth: Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels.
Truth: For the overwhelming majority of the world's energy needs, solar and wind either can't do what fossil fuel can—e.g., non-electricity energy uses such as airplanes or cargo ships—or are far more expensive.
Myth: Solar and wind electricity is getting so cheap that will lead to rapid electrification of the 4/5ths of today's energy that is not electricity.
Truth: When you factor in the full cost of the 24/7 life support that unreliable solar and wind electricity need, they are far more expensive.⁴
Myth: Solar and wind plus batteries will inevitably be super-cheap because of efficiency increases driving lower production costs and higher performance.
Truth: Their cost is astronomical today and has a large mining component whose costs will increase if scaled artificially quickly.⁵
Even relatively mild increases in demand for critical minerals in recent years have led to scaling issues and cost increases—reversing a trend of falling prices that solar and wind advocates pretended would last forever.
What will rapid scaling plus anti-mining policies do?⁶
Myth: Rapidly eliminating fossil fuels will make us more energy-secure.
Truth: We'd be far less energy secure because 1) we'd have drastically less energy, period, and 2) we're far more dependent on China for key components of solar, wind, and batteries than we are on Russia for fossil fuels.⁷
Myth: Reliable alternatives to fossil fuels, such as nuclear and geothermal, can rapidly replace fossil fuels.
Truth: While these industries have potential that we should unleash, they are generations away from providing, on a global scale, energy that's affordable, reliable, and versatile.
#47
News & Current Events / One RCMP Officer Shot Dead, and Two Officers Wounded in Suburban Vancouver
September 22, 2023, 07:41:11 PM
COQUITLAM, B.C. — British Columbia's police watchdog says an RCMP officer has died and a suspect and two other officers have been injured while police were serving an arrest warrant in the Metro Vancouver suburb of Coquitlam.
The Independent Investigations Office says police had an altercation with a man, resulting in officers being hurt and the suspect being shot.
The City of Pitt Meadows says in a statement that Ridge Meadows RCMP lost an officer on Friday, saying its heartfelt condolences go out to the families of the victims as well as local officers.
The Integrated Homicide Investigation Team has taken over conduct of the investigation into the death of the officer and the injuries to their colleagues, while the Independent Investigations Office will probe the actions of police.
The Independent Investigations Office says police had an altercation with a man, resulting in officers being hurt and the suspect being shot.
The City of Pitt Meadows says in a statement that Ridge Meadows RCMP lost an officer on Friday, saying its heartfelt condolences go out to the families of the victims as well as local officers.
The Integrated Homicide Investigation Team has taken over conduct of the investigation into the death of the officer and the injuries to their colleagues, while the Independent Investigations Office will probe the actions of police.
#48
News & Current Events / DemocRATs and Republicans are Full of Shit
September 20, 2023, 11:39:51 PM
This is an editorial by Auron Macinture of the Blaze. Both parties quote misleading stats that mean shit to working folks.
The media have been covering for Joe Biden's disastrous presidency by running comically propagandistic headlines about the success of "Bidenomics." The average person may be struggling, but nothing can stop the American Politburo from publishing stories about new record harvests with the kind of fervor that would make a Soviet commissar blush.
While the media's shameless partisanship for the Biden administration makes their distortions more obvious, this denial about the true quality of life in the United States is hardly new. Both parties have prioritized the victory of their ideological preferences over the well-being of the American people. Narrative victory has become far more important to our ruling class than understanding the real condition of the average citizen.
In his essay "Chartism," Thomas Carlyle raised what he called the "Condition of England Question." Carlyle was watching as the Industrial Revolution radically transformed the lives of the working class in Brittain. He was particularly concerned with the ruling elite's new obsession with data collection and economic theories.
Carlyle referred to economics as the "dismal science" because it attempted to quantify everything about human experience and solve all of society's ills through statistical analysis. The human experience is incredibly complex, nested in a thick web of traditions and folkways that are not easily displayed on a spreadsheet. Carlyle warned that this focus on impersonal and cold measurements would allow economists to lie about the true condition of the people by manipulating data. The reign of quantity, data, and experts would not free people from governance but would instead make them subordinate to inhuman forces which would act in their own interests.
The current leftist push to portray America's tenuous economic position in a cheerful light only demonstrates the truth of Carlyle's concern. Spending has run rampant, inflation is out of control, and the only answer that Democrats have to offer is even more government programs and outrageous deficits. As evidence, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently boasted how the Inflation Reduction Act allowed for the planting of nearly $75 million in trees across New York. Democrats have no interest in how inflation impacts the average American; politicians only care about how the situation can be used to further their ideological goals, and they are more than happy to manipulate data to ensure that outcome. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman went so far as to claim that if you remove housing, cars, food, and energy, it appears that inflation has been largely defeated.
Yes, as long as you remove everything humans need to live, the average American is doing just fine!
While it is easy to focus on the absurdity of the current leftist regime, Republicans are just as guilty. For decades, conservative commentators told middle Americans whose jobs were being shipped overseas that economic conditions were improving because new and better jobs would arise from the creative destruction of the free market. Young families who could not afford to purchase a home due to skyrocketing residential prices were told to get an extra job and stop eating avocado toast. Young married couples who could not afford to have children due to prohibitive health care costs were told that everything was fine because flat-screen televisions from China were very cheap.
Free trade, mass immigration, and cheap money were supposed to allow the nation to innovate its way out of any problem. The party of family values did not seem to care if family formation was increasingly out of reach as long as the GDP line went up.
The Republican Party has been a cheerleader for corporations that worked hard to destroy American culture, push a woke agenda, and make the dream of raising a family on one income impossible. The conservative establishment might talk about the importance of the church or community, but it eagerly endorses the economic forces that regularly tear apart those same communities.
In its ideological push for small government at any price, the GOP forgot what made small government possible in the first place: a robust network of families and community organizations that provide mutual aid for those in need. The drive for a Beltway libertarian version of radical individualism was painted over with a thin coat of family values to disguise its destructive nature, but it was dismantling the very structures on which those values stood.
This obsession with economic ideology did not just damage the country socially but also materially. During the pandemic, many Americans were shocked to discover that the obsession with higher profit and cheaper products had moved production of critical medical supplies such as ventilators and antibiotics entirely offshore. In a time of crisis, the United States was totally depending on very same hostile nation that had fostered that crisis for essential supplies.
Any nation that was thinking about the well-being of its people would understand that having some degree of domestic production for those items is critical, no matter what the cost. But our leaders have learned nothing from this crisis, and little effort has been made to create any emergency production capacity for these essentials.
The condition of the American people is not a cold statistic that can be derived from data. The nation is vast; it contains many different regions, cultures, and traditions that can only truly be understood by living in them. America's gross domestic product or the price of consumer electronics does not tell the story of how people live their day-to-day lives. Man cannot live on affordable flat-screen televisions alone. The Biden administration has been shamelessly rearranging economic indicators in the hope of papering over deep societal problems, but it is far from the first. It is much easier to abstract people into easily manipulatable data points than to actually walk their communities and understand their problems.
Americans are facing a crisis of meaning. The elderly move across the country to die alone in nursing homes. Career strivers suddenly reach middle age and find they have nothing beyond a soulless corporate job to bring purpose to their lives. Young people search for real communities of belonging but find only digital simulations of what was once a central part of human life. Stock values can increase all they like, but none of these problems will ever be solved by robust economic development.
Our modern minds have been trained to trust the quantifiable. We have been trained to believe that the opinions of experts and the authority of data hold priority over all other forms of knowledge. But if we are to solve the social and spiritual problems our nation now faces, we must learn to view our countrymen as humans, not boxes on a spreadsheet. To understand the condition of America, leaders must view the United States as a people with organic needs and ways of being, not as an economic zone which can be optimized through social engineering. Until our rulers see the nation as a people, not a temporary staging area for their pet economic ideologies, they will never be able to truly address what ails the country.
The media have been covering for Joe Biden's disastrous presidency by running comically propagandistic headlines about the success of "Bidenomics." The average person may be struggling, but nothing can stop the American Politburo from publishing stories about new record harvests with the kind of fervor that would make a Soviet commissar blush.
While the media's shameless partisanship for the Biden administration makes their distortions more obvious, this denial about the true quality of life in the United States is hardly new. Both parties have prioritized the victory of their ideological preferences over the well-being of the American people. Narrative victory has become far more important to our ruling class than understanding the real condition of the average citizen.
In his essay "Chartism," Thomas Carlyle raised what he called the "Condition of England Question." Carlyle was watching as the Industrial Revolution radically transformed the lives of the working class in Brittain. He was particularly concerned with the ruling elite's new obsession with data collection and economic theories.
Carlyle referred to economics as the "dismal science" because it attempted to quantify everything about human experience and solve all of society's ills through statistical analysis. The human experience is incredibly complex, nested in a thick web of traditions and folkways that are not easily displayed on a spreadsheet. Carlyle warned that this focus on impersonal and cold measurements would allow economists to lie about the true condition of the people by manipulating data. The reign of quantity, data, and experts would not free people from governance but would instead make them subordinate to inhuman forces which would act in their own interests.
The current leftist push to portray America's tenuous economic position in a cheerful light only demonstrates the truth of Carlyle's concern. Spending has run rampant, inflation is out of control, and the only answer that Democrats have to offer is even more government programs and outrageous deficits. As evidence, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently boasted how the Inflation Reduction Act allowed for the planting of nearly $75 million in trees across New York. Democrats have no interest in how inflation impacts the average American; politicians only care about how the situation can be used to further their ideological goals, and they are more than happy to manipulate data to ensure that outcome. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman went so far as to claim that if you remove housing, cars, food, and energy, it appears that inflation has been largely defeated.
Yes, as long as you remove everything humans need to live, the average American is doing just fine!
While it is easy to focus on the absurdity of the current leftist regime, Republicans are just as guilty. For decades, conservative commentators told middle Americans whose jobs were being shipped overseas that economic conditions were improving because new and better jobs would arise from the creative destruction of the free market. Young families who could not afford to purchase a home due to skyrocketing residential prices were told to get an extra job and stop eating avocado toast. Young married couples who could not afford to have children due to prohibitive health care costs were told that everything was fine because flat-screen televisions from China were very cheap.
Free trade, mass immigration, and cheap money were supposed to allow the nation to innovate its way out of any problem. The party of family values did not seem to care if family formation was increasingly out of reach as long as the GDP line went up.
The Republican Party has been a cheerleader for corporations that worked hard to destroy American culture, push a woke agenda, and make the dream of raising a family on one income impossible. The conservative establishment might talk about the importance of the church or community, but it eagerly endorses the economic forces that regularly tear apart those same communities.
In its ideological push for small government at any price, the GOP forgot what made small government possible in the first place: a robust network of families and community organizations that provide mutual aid for those in need. The drive for a Beltway libertarian version of radical individualism was painted over with a thin coat of family values to disguise its destructive nature, but it was dismantling the very structures on which those values stood.
This obsession with economic ideology did not just damage the country socially but also materially. During the pandemic, many Americans were shocked to discover that the obsession with higher profit and cheaper products had moved production of critical medical supplies such as ventilators and antibiotics entirely offshore. In a time of crisis, the United States was totally depending on very same hostile nation that had fostered that crisis for essential supplies.
Any nation that was thinking about the well-being of its people would understand that having some degree of domestic production for those items is critical, no matter what the cost. But our leaders have learned nothing from this crisis, and little effort has been made to create any emergency production capacity for these essentials.
The condition of the American people is not a cold statistic that can be derived from data. The nation is vast; it contains many different regions, cultures, and traditions that can only truly be understood by living in them. America's gross domestic product or the price of consumer electronics does not tell the story of how people live their day-to-day lives. Man cannot live on affordable flat-screen televisions alone. The Biden administration has been shamelessly rearranging economic indicators in the hope of papering over deep societal problems, but it is far from the first. It is much easier to abstract people into easily manipulatable data points than to actually walk their communities and understand their problems.
Americans are facing a crisis of meaning. The elderly move across the country to die alone in nursing homes. Career strivers suddenly reach middle age and find they have nothing beyond a soulless corporate job to bring purpose to their lives. Young people search for real communities of belonging but find only digital simulations of what was once a central part of human life. Stock values can increase all they like, but none of these problems will ever be solved by robust economic development.
Our modern minds have been trained to trust the quantifiable. We have been trained to believe that the opinions of experts and the authority of data hold priority over all other forms of knowledge. But if we are to solve the social and spiritual problems our nation now faces, we must learn to view our countrymen as humans, not boxes on a spreadsheet. To understand the condition of America, leaders must view the United States as a people with organic needs and ways of being, not as an economic zone which can be optimized through social engineering. Until our rulers see the nation as a people, not a temporary staging area for their pet economic ideologies, they will never be able to truly address what ails the country.
#49
The Octagon / All Fellas Named Joe are Bullshitters
September 15, 2023, 12:54:13 AM
This is CNN calling out Jim Crow Joe's lies.
#50
The Guest Nest / British Labour Party/Prog's War on the White Working Class
September 11, 2023, 12:40:46 AM
This is true in Canada, Australia, the US, and New Zealand too.
#51
News & Current Events / Violent Prog Extremists
September 10, 2023, 01:13:55 AM
Even in a solid red state like North Dakota you get a slap on the wrist for premeditated murder if you say your victim is a Republican and you as a prog felt threatened. Frickin bullshit.
North Dakota man sentenced to 5 years in prison for running over, killing teen who he deemed to be a 'Republican extremist'
https://www.theblaze.com/news/shannon-brandt-cayler-ellingson-murder-prison?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Blaze%20PM%20Trending%202023-09-09&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement
A North Dakota man was sentenced to prison for running over and killing a teen who he deemed to be a "Republican extremist."
Shannon Brandt, of Glenfield, North Dakota, was initially charged with criminal vehicular homicide. The charge was later upgraded to murder. Brandt, 42, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in May. He was also charged with leaving the scene of the fatality, but it was dismissed in a plea deal.
Brandt was sentenced to five years in state prison for the death of an 18-year-old. A state district court judge gave Brandt credit for nearly a year already served.
Following the prison sentence, Brandt will then serve three years' supervised probation and a yearlong suspension of his driver's license.
In September 2022, Brandt attended a street dance in McHenry, North Dakota. There was an alleged argument that escalated, according to a police report.
Brandt called 911 and informed the emergency dispatcher that he had used his SUV to mow down 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson, according to the affidavit. Brandt allegedly told the dispatcher that he ran over Ellingson because he believed him to be a "Republican extremist," who purportedly felt was threatening him. Police said there is no evidence that Ellingson was a conservative.
Prosecutor Kara Brinster said Brandt's vehicle ran over his torso and legs. An autopsy determined Ellingson was on the ground when he was fatally injured, according to court documents.
Brandt was arrested at his home in Glenfield, and officers found him "visibly intoxicated," according to the affidavit.
North Dakota man sentenced to 5 years in prison for running over, killing teen who he deemed to be a 'Republican extremist'
https://www.theblaze.com/news/shannon-brandt-cayler-ellingson-murder-prison?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Blaze%20PM%20Trending%202023-09-09&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement
A North Dakota man was sentenced to prison for running over and killing a teen who he deemed to be a "Republican extremist."
Shannon Brandt, of Glenfield, North Dakota, was initially charged with criminal vehicular homicide. The charge was later upgraded to murder. Brandt, 42, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in May. He was also charged with leaving the scene of the fatality, but it was dismissed in a plea deal.
Brandt was sentenced to five years in state prison for the death of an 18-year-old. A state district court judge gave Brandt credit for nearly a year already served.
Following the prison sentence, Brandt will then serve three years' supervised probation and a yearlong suspension of his driver's license.
In September 2022, Brandt attended a street dance in McHenry, North Dakota. There was an alleged argument that escalated, according to a police report.
Brandt called 911 and informed the emergency dispatcher that he had used his SUV to mow down 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson, according to the affidavit. Brandt allegedly told the dispatcher that he ran over Ellingson because he believed him to be a "Republican extremist," who purportedly felt was threatening him. Police said there is no evidence that Ellingson was a conservative.
Prosecutor Kara Brinster said Brandt's vehicle ran over his torso and legs. An autopsy determined Ellingson was on the ground when he was fatally injured, according to court documents.
Brandt was arrested at his home in Glenfield, and officers found him "visibly intoxicated," according to the affidavit.
#52
News & Current Events / Maybe Justine's Old Lady Left Him Because He is a Kiddie Diddler
September 10, 2023, 12:48:36 AM
The same reason Melinda Gates left Bill the boy buggerer.
#53
Politics / Pierre Pollivere
September 08, 2023, 09:32:16 PM
The Conservatives are holding their annual convention in Quebec City. Pollivere talks about returning Canada to pre Justine times.
Students walking down safe streets to class. The distant noise of yet another house being built. A young couple sitting on the front porch of their home, soaking up the sun with a cold drink in one hand and a hard-earned paycheque in the other.
For the first time since he became leader, nearly a year ago, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre painted a clear picture of what he means by his go-to phrase "Bring It Home"
Poilievre went on presenting the choice that will present himself in the next election, whenever it may be: a "common-sense" Conservative government or a "reckless coalition" of the Liberals and the NDP that punishes work, takes your money and unleashes crime and chaos.
"It's the choice between a country where people who work hard can realize their dreams or a country where the government divides between good and bad Canadians," he said in French.
Poilievre took the crowd back to the pre-Trudeau times, eight years ago. He said that inflation and interest rates were rock bottom, taxes were low and the budget was balanced. And despite a financial crisis, wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, inflation was low.
"Thank you, Stephen Harper," he said, as the crowd cheered.
Students walking down safe streets to class. The distant noise of yet another house being built. A young couple sitting on the front porch of their home, soaking up the sun with a cold drink in one hand and a hard-earned paycheque in the other.
For the first time since he became leader, nearly a year ago, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre painted a clear picture of what he means by his go-to phrase "Bring It Home"
Poilievre went on presenting the choice that will present himself in the next election, whenever it may be: a "common-sense" Conservative government or a "reckless coalition" of the Liberals and the NDP that punishes work, takes your money and unleashes crime and chaos.
"It's the choice between a country where people who work hard can realize their dreams or a country where the government divides between good and bad Canadians," he said in French.
Poilievre took the crowd back to the pre-Trudeau times, eight years ago. He said that inflation and interest rates were rock bottom, taxes were low and the budget was balanced. And despite a financial crisis, wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, inflation was low.
"Thank you, Stephen Harper," he said, as the crowd cheered.
#54
Politics / Specific media outlets that have been compromised by the CIA according to RFK Jr.
September 06, 2023, 10:03:19 PM #55
General Chit Chat / Dumbass Entertainers
September 02, 2023, 07:36:34 PM
John Cougar Mellencamp says Coloured Americans are worse off today than under slavery.
#56
General Chit Chat / On This Day in History
September 02, 2023, 07:19:02 PM
1945, Japan surrenders, bringing an end to WWII.
#57
News & Current Events / Rep. Clyde lays down gauntlet on defunding Trump prosecutions in DOJ funding bill
August 31, 2023, 07:04:17 PM
This is the best idea yet for blocking the KGBization of the FBI and DOJ.
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-rep-clyde-lays-down-gauntlet-on-defunding-trump-prosecutions-in-doj-funding-bill?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230831SponsoredTrending-RevelationMedia-Thursday&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News
Donald Trump has now been indicted on 91 federal or state criminal charges in four different cities, in three of which it will be impossible to get a fair jury pool. The jury pool in D.C. has already convicted people of offenses carrying years of prison time for simply stepping into the Capitol, and judges have given enhanced sentencing and pretrial holding simply for expressing support for Trump. Thus, the man himself certainly doesn't stand a chance staying out of prison, with hundreds of years of prison time looming over him and an incorrigibly biased jury pool.
There is only one way to stop Trump from going to jail and, more importantly, prevent the cementing of the precedent the DOJ has already established of criminalizing the political views of the opposition. House Republicans must refuse to fund the DOJ for a minute past midnight, October 1, unless that operative appropriation bill contains a provision defunding the prosecutions against Trump and all similar politically targeted FBI and DOJ operations, surveillance programs, and prosecutions that are prima facie aimed at political opponents.
Bizarrely, Trump himself has not called for this, and surprisingly, he told Glenn Beck on Tuesday that he doesn't see himself going to jail. But should we really leave that to chance? Thankfully, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a Freedom Caucus member of the Appropriations Committee, is proposing two amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that would defund the prosecutions. The pair of amendments would bar funding for federal prosecutions against a candidate running for president in this election, which would include Jack Smith's office, as well as a separate provision barring funding for state prosecutors' offices doing the same.
While this is a good start, such an effort shouldn't be relegated to a backbencher's amendment. Speaker McCarthy and his leadership team should place this provision in the core of any funding bill that is ultimately designed to keep government funded.
Now is the time for those concerned about political targeting and "the end of democracy as we know it" to fish or cut bait. Impeaching Biden, while not a bad idea, will not stop the prosecutions and will obviously get crushed in the Senate, because, unlike a defund fight, it lacks the leverage of the default position of a government shutdown. It will just allow McCarthy to distract from selling us out on the budget and a defund fight, which frankly is needed to defund many other odious practices of the Biden administration anyway. We are simply out of time and cannot go on like this any longer.
Unlike many of my colleagues in conservative talk radio, I actually believe my own talking points. Despite not being an ardent Trump supporter, I actually believe we have crossed the Rubicon – not just with the targeting of Trump but the targeting of his supporters for the past few years. We cannot continue funding an FBI and DOJ that target parents at school board meetings, pro-life activists, and religious Catholics or that hold people for months without bail for public trespassing simply because of their political views.
I actually agree with the talking point that this is about something much greater than Trump and that we are facing an existential threat of government agencies being permanent enemies of political opponents. As such, mug shots, merchandise, and campaign donations are not going to cut it. If we really believe the feds are going to lock him up, which all indications imply, we can't wait for January 2025 to redress this issue.
The fight must happen now, and we must not allow House leadership to kick the can down the road to December. The minute they kick the can down the road, they lose their leverage, because Democrats will rightfully view this new GOP House majority as no less reluctant to use government funding as leverage than the Boehner and Ryan-era majorities.
Trump and his supporters are not behaving in a way that indicates they are serious about their own apocalyptic rhetoric. When asked whether he is concerned that he'd have to campaign from a jail cell, Trump told Beck, "I don't think that's ever happening. We have a great case." He went on to compare it to Russiagate and the Mueller probe that fell apart. The difference here, of course, is that there are 91 definitive charges in front of unfair judges and juries. We all say blue cities are Soviet-style gulags but then don't believe our own talking points when it comes to gaming out Trump's future. The strength of Trump's defense is meaningless in the face of the D.C. gulag. Just ask hundreds of January 6 defendants. There is no logical reason to believe the trial jurors will be any less biased than the members of the grand jury.
Either Trump is aloof to his own peril or is privy to some sort of inside game we are not aware of. But taking his predicament – and our own predicament – at face value, the fiscal year 2024 funding bill is the last chance to force a national debate on the dangerous weaponization of government. Trump might feel he has some magic potion, but the rest of those politically targeted certainly do not and are in need of immediate redress. They will not be able to remain on the golf courses of Mar-a-Lago for the rest of their lives like Trump.
The DOJ has just successfully convicted five pro-life activists on charges carrying 11 years in prison simply for peacefully blocking entry to an abortion clinic. They were not convicted for what they did but for what they believe, because right now there are hundreds of climate activists blocking major roadways, much more dangerously to the public, and none of them is serving time in prison. If this is really about more than Trump, we need to act now, regardless of whether he wants to focus exclusively on tit-for-tat with Biden, slandering DeSantis, or selling merchandise.
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-rep-clyde-lays-down-gauntlet-on-defunding-trump-prosecutions-in-doj-funding-bill?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230831SponsoredTrending-RevelationMedia-Thursday&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News
Donald Trump has now been indicted on 91 federal or state criminal charges in four different cities, in three of which it will be impossible to get a fair jury pool. The jury pool in D.C. has already convicted people of offenses carrying years of prison time for simply stepping into the Capitol, and judges have given enhanced sentencing and pretrial holding simply for expressing support for Trump. Thus, the man himself certainly doesn't stand a chance staying out of prison, with hundreds of years of prison time looming over him and an incorrigibly biased jury pool.
There is only one way to stop Trump from going to jail and, more importantly, prevent the cementing of the precedent the DOJ has already established of criminalizing the political views of the opposition. House Republicans must refuse to fund the DOJ for a minute past midnight, October 1, unless that operative appropriation bill contains a provision defunding the prosecutions against Trump and all similar politically targeted FBI and DOJ operations, surveillance programs, and prosecutions that are prima facie aimed at political opponents.
Bizarrely, Trump himself has not called for this, and surprisingly, he told Glenn Beck on Tuesday that he doesn't see himself going to jail. But should we really leave that to chance? Thankfully, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a Freedom Caucus member of the Appropriations Committee, is proposing two amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that would defund the prosecutions. The pair of amendments would bar funding for federal prosecutions against a candidate running for president in this election, which would include Jack Smith's office, as well as a separate provision barring funding for state prosecutors' offices doing the same.
While this is a good start, such an effort shouldn't be relegated to a backbencher's amendment. Speaker McCarthy and his leadership team should place this provision in the core of any funding bill that is ultimately designed to keep government funded.
Now is the time for those concerned about political targeting and "the end of democracy as we know it" to fish or cut bait. Impeaching Biden, while not a bad idea, will not stop the prosecutions and will obviously get crushed in the Senate, because, unlike a defund fight, it lacks the leverage of the default position of a government shutdown. It will just allow McCarthy to distract from selling us out on the budget and a defund fight, which frankly is needed to defund many other odious practices of the Biden administration anyway. We are simply out of time and cannot go on like this any longer.
Unlike many of my colleagues in conservative talk radio, I actually believe my own talking points. Despite not being an ardent Trump supporter, I actually believe we have crossed the Rubicon – not just with the targeting of Trump but the targeting of his supporters for the past few years. We cannot continue funding an FBI and DOJ that target parents at school board meetings, pro-life activists, and religious Catholics or that hold people for months without bail for public trespassing simply because of their political views.
I actually agree with the talking point that this is about something much greater than Trump and that we are facing an existential threat of government agencies being permanent enemies of political opponents. As such, mug shots, merchandise, and campaign donations are not going to cut it. If we really believe the feds are going to lock him up, which all indications imply, we can't wait for January 2025 to redress this issue.
The fight must happen now, and we must not allow House leadership to kick the can down the road to December. The minute they kick the can down the road, they lose their leverage, because Democrats will rightfully view this new GOP House majority as no less reluctant to use government funding as leverage than the Boehner and Ryan-era majorities.
Trump and his supporters are not behaving in a way that indicates they are serious about their own apocalyptic rhetoric. When asked whether he is concerned that he'd have to campaign from a jail cell, Trump told Beck, "I don't think that's ever happening. We have a great case." He went on to compare it to Russiagate and the Mueller probe that fell apart. The difference here, of course, is that there are 91 definitive charges in front of unfair judges and juries. We all say blue cities are Soviet-style gulags but then don't believe our own talking points when it comes to gaming out Trump's future. The strength of Trump's defense is meaningless in the face of the D.C. gulag. Just ask hundreds of January 6 defendants. There is no logical reason to believe the trial jurors will be any less biased than the members of the grand jury.
Either Trump is aloof to his own peril or is privy to some sort of inside game we are not aware of. But taking his predicament – and our own predicament – at face value, the fiscal year 2024 funding bill is the last chance to force a national debate on the dangerous weaponization of government. Trump might feel he has some magic potion, but the rest of those politically targeted certainly do not and are in need of immediate redress. They will not be able to remain on the golf courses of Mar-a-Lago for the rest of their lives like Trump.
The DOJ has just successfully convicted five pro-life activists on charges carrying 11 years in prison simply for peacefully blocking entry to an abortion clinic. They were not convicted for what they did but for what they believe, because right now there are hundreds of climate activists blocking major roadways, much more dangerously to the public, and none of them is serving time in prison. If this is really about more than Trump, we need to act now, regardless of whether he wants to focus exclusively on tit-for-tat with Biden, slandering DeSantis, or selling merchandise.
#58
Politics / democRATs out electioneer Republicans.
August 30, 2023, 11:34:37 PM
Watch this video. It is only 3:16 long.
https://rumble.com/v38wvst-republicans-fail-to-out-electioneer-democrats.html?fbclid=IwAR16ZRGsIztQYwZxlc0i9xmDUexE_1ByMNCtv9jJEeuHbOMHTyD0KADTiEQ
https://rumble.com/v38wvst-republicans-fail-to-out-electioneer-democrats.html?fbclid=IwAR16ZRGsIztQYwZxlc0i9xmDUexE_1ByMNCtv9jJEeuHbOMHTyD0KADTiEQ
#59
News & Current Events / What’s going on with Millennials? Here’s what the research says
August 29, 2023, 09:52:24 PM #60
General Chit Chat / Sleep
August 27, 2023, 10:59:02 PM
After a long day, you flop onto the sofa and find yourself dozing off while watching TV. The room is nice and warm, the sofa is comfortable, and the background noise of the TV lulls you to sleep.
Then a loved one nudges you awake and reminds you to go sleep—in bed. But when you get there, you find to your frustration that you're wide awake.
Why does sleep come so easily on the sofa but not always in bed?
Why Is It So Easy to Fall Asleep on the Sofa?
Sleep pressure is one reason why you fall asleep on the sofa. This refers to the strength of the biological drive for sleep. The longer you've been awake, the greater the sleep pressure.
Your body clock or circadian rhythm is another factor. This tells you to be awake during the day and to sleep at night.
Your environment will also impact how likely it is you fall asleep. You might have just eaten a meal, and your very comfortable sofa is in a warm room, with dim lighting and maybe a TV program in the background. For many people, this environment is perfect for falling asleep.
So by the end of the day, sleep pressure is strong, your circadian rhythm is telling you it's time for sleep, and your environment is cozy and comfortable.
What Happens After a Nap on the Sofa?
If you've had a nap on the sofa before heading to bed, your sleep pressure is likely much lower than it was before your nap. Instead of having more than 16 hours of wakefulness behind you, you've just woken up and therefore have less sleep pressure. This can make it much harder to fall asleep in bed.
If you just fell asleep on the sofa for five minutes, you might not have too much trouble getting to sleep in bed. This is because a nap that short is unlikely to reduce your sleep pressure very much. But if you were asleep for an hour, it might be a different story.
Your sleep cycles might also be working against you. Most sleep cycles are about 90 minutes long. They start with light sleep, progress to deep sleep, and then end with light sleep again. If you wake up during deep sleep, you're probably going to feel groggy—and it might be easy to get back to sleep when you go to bed. But if you wake up during light sleep, it could be harder to fall asleep again in bed.
The activities you might do when you get up from the sofa—like turning on bright lights or brushing your teeth—can also make you feel more alert and make it harder to sleep when you get to bed.
Then a loved one nudges you awake and reminds you to go sleep—in bed. But when you get there, you find to your frustration that you're wide awake.
Why does sleep come so easily on the sofa but not always in bed?
Why Is It So Easy to Fall Asleep on the Sofa?
Sleep pressure is one reason why you fall asleep on the sofa. This refers to the strength of the biological drive for sleep. The longer you've been awake, the greater the sleep pressure.
Your body clock or circadian rhythm is another factor. This tells you to be awake during the day and to sleep at night.
Your environment will also impact how likely it is you fall asleep. You might have just eaten a meal, and your very comfortable sofa is in a warm room, with dim lighting and maybe a TV program in the background. For many people, this environment is perfect for falling asleep.
So by the end of the day, sleep pressure is strong, your circadian rhythm is telling you it's time for sleep, and your environment is cozy and comfortable.
What Happens After a Nap on the Sofa?
If you've had a nap on the sofa before heading to bed, your sleep pressure is likely much lower than it was before your nap. Instead of having more than 16 hours of wakefulness behind you, you've just woken up and therefore have less sleep pressure. This can make it much harder to fall asleep in bed.
If you just fell asleep on the sofa for five minutes, you might not have too much trouble getting to sleep in bed. This is because a nap that short is unlikely to reduce your sleep pressure very much. But if you were asleep for an hour, it might be a different story.
Your sleep cycles might also be working against you. Most sleep cycles are about 90 minutes long. They start with light sleep, progress to deep sleep, and then end with light sleep again. If you wake up during deep sleep, you're probably going to feel groggy—and it might be easy to get back to sleep when you go to bed. But if you wake up during light sleep, it could be harder to fall asleep again in bed.
The activities you might do when you get up from the sofa—like turning on bright lights or brushing your teeth—can also make you feel more alert and make it harder to sleep when you get to bed.