GIVE TIL IT HURTS!

SHOCKER!!!

Imagine my surprise.

There’s a remarkable concession appearing in The Washington Post today:

“a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine.”

The latest data shows that 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August 2022 were from people who were vaccinated or boosted. Based on past figures and the current trends, we can reasonably estimate that the number of vaccinated/boosted COVID-19 deaths will only rise. (In September 2021, the vaccinated accounted for 23% of COVID-19 deaths; in January/February 2022, the vaccinated were 42%.)

This is what happens when you rush ineffective and dangerous vaccines.

It’s also what happens when you blindly put your trust in institutions wholly, demonstrably undeserving of it.

10

Quick, somebody explain to me how this isn’t terrorism

Interfering with airport operations? Knowingly intimidating airport patrons, employees, and security personnel for purely political purposes? Blocking access to travelers as they attempt to go about their perfectly lawful business?

Where’s the Department of Homeland Security when you really need ’em, anyhow?

These climate scientists feel ‘a higher calling’ — civil disobedience

Fine then; I have no real problem with civil disobedience, which has a long and for the most part honorable historical tradition here in the US. I am likewise fine with these weedy shitlibs being arrested, tried, and imprisoned for said civil disobedience, which would be the time-honored, traditional result of such disruption.

As world leaders discuss climate change at the United Nations summit in Egypt, activists elsewhere are targeting private jets and frequent flyers, which contribute to global warming. On Thursday, four people, including two climate scientists, were charged with trespassing after they chained themselves to entryways at Charlotte Douglas International Airport’s private jet terminal.

It was one in a series of protests at 17 airports around the world coordinated by a group called Scientist Rebellion.

Peter Kalmus of Chapel Hill studies biodiversity and ecological forecasting for NASA. Rose Abramoff of Knoxville, Tennessee, researches how climate change affects ecosystems. She doesn’t want to say where.

They’re also both activists, who have recently turned to civil disobedience. Abramoff says she struggles to keep her work and her activism separate:

“Like all scientists, we were trained to maintain a type of neutrality in all things, especially when speaking publicly. As scientists, none of us claim to represent our institutions. But we do speak from a place of greater credibility because of our educational background, and because of our training in the climate sciences,” Abramoff said.

“But when we’re engaging in advocacy, we’re citizens, you know, we’re mothers and daughters, and fathers and sons and members of our community. And we have a right to say what we’re thinking, and almost a responsibility,” Abramoff said.

Yes, you in fact DO have a right to say what you’re “thinking.” So stipulated. What you assuredly do NOT have either a “right” or a “responsibility” to do is any of the things I mentioned in the opening line above, all of which are HIGHLY illegal acts, particular when one does them at an airport. I know all of you are suffused with great pride in your superior intellects, your higher morality and concern, and your overweening, too-precious sense of God-granted entitlement to dictate to us lesser beings as to how we must conduct our own lives.

I repeat: fine, then. Put your fucking money where your fucking fat yaps are and do some hard time for the flagrant illegalities you’ve perpetrated due to your own smug, self-righteous sense of entitlement to harass other people who have done nothing whatever to deserve it. Let’s all see whether your well-muscled, proto-simian, menacing cellmate thinks as highly of you holy-rollers and your “higher calling” as you yourselves do.

3

Amerika v2.0’s energy future: ain’t none

As laid out by our senile, decrepit, corrupt old pervert of a Pretend pResident.

Biden Keeps Promising To Make Energy More Expensive. Believe Him.

Precisely so. After all, it’s the only thing the rat-bastard has ever said that was actually true.

Yes, we’re going to make energy more expensive.

That’s Joe Biden’s closing message for 2022. “We’re going to be shutting these [coal] plants down all across America and having wind and solar,” Biden told a crowd in deep blue California on Friday, arguing that it was “cheaper” to generate electricity from wind and solar.

I’ve noted this before more than once here, but it bears revisiting now and again: the technology of the distant, long-dead past can never be adequate to meet the energy demands of modern industrialized economies.

The earliest-known references to windmills are to a Persian millwright in AD 644 and to windmills in Seistan, Persia, in AD 915. These windmills are of the horizontal-mill type, with sails radiating from a vertical axis standing in a fixed building, which has openings for the inlet and outlet of the wind diametrically opposite to each other. Each mill drives a single pair of stones directly, without the use of gears, and the design is derived from the earliest water mills. Persian millwrights, taken prisoner by the forces of Genghis Khan, were sent to China to instruct in the building of windmills; their use for irrigation there has lasted ever since.

The vertical windmill, with sails on a horizontal axis, derives directly from the Roman water mill with its right-angle drive to the stones through a single pair of gears. The earliest form of vertical mill is known as the post mill. It has a boxlike body containing the gearing, millstones, and machinery and carrying the sails. It is mounted on a well-supported wooden post socketed into a horizontal beam on the level of the second floor of the mill body. On this it can be turned so that the sails can be faced into the wind.

The next development was to place the stones and gearing in a fixed tower. This has a movable top, or cap, which carries the sails and can be turned around on a track, or curb, on top of the tower. The earliest-known illustration of a tower mill is dated about 1420. Both post and tower mills were to be found throughout Europe and were also built by settlers in America.

To work efficiently, the sails of a windmill must face squarely into the wind, and in the early mills the turning of the post-mill body, or the tower-mill cap, was done by hand by means of a long tailpole stretching down to the ground. In 1745 Edmund Lee in England invented the automatic fantail. This consists of a set of five to eight smaller vanes mounted on the tailpole or the ladder of a post mill at right angles to the sails and connected by gearing to wheels running on a track around the mill. When the wind veers it strikes the sides of the vanes, turns them and hence the track wheels also, which turn the mill body until the sails are again square into the wind. The fantail may also be fitted to the caps of tower mills, driving down to a geared rack on the curb.

Interesting enough as a historical study, no doubt, but there’s a reason windmills were in the main abandoned: because, as civilization progressed and technological advances were achieved one after another, something much better came along to replace them. As, y’know, tends to happen over time. As for solar panels, they are by no means anything new either.

It all began with Edmond Becquerel, a young physicist working in France, who in 1839 observed and discovered the photovoltaic effect— a process that produces a voltage or electric current when exposed to light or radiant energy. A few decades later, French mathematician Augustin Mouchot was inspired by the physicist’s work. He began registering patents for solar-powered engines in the 1860s. From France to the U.S., inventors were inspired by the patents of the mathematician and filed for patents on solar-powered devices as early as 1888.

Take a light step back to 1883 when New York inventor Charles Fritts created the first solar cell by coating selenium with a thin layer of gold. Fritts reported that the selenium module produced a current “that is continuous, constant, and of considerable force.” This cell achieved an energy conversion rate of 1 to 2 percent. Most modern solar cells work at an efficiency of 15 to 20 percent. So, Fritts created what was a low impact solar cell, but still, it was the beginning of photovoltaic solar panel innovation in America. Named after Italian physicist, chemist and pioneer of electricity and power, Alessandro Volta, photovoltaic is the more technical term for turning light energy into electricity, and used interchangeably with the term photoelectric.

…That same year (1888), a Russian scientist by the name of Aleksandr Stoletov created the first solar cell based on the photoelectric effect, which is when light falls on a material and electrons are released. This effect was first observed by a German physicist, Heinrich Hertz. In his research, Hertz discovered that more power was created by ultraviolet light than visible light. Today, solar cells use the photoelectric effect to convert sunlight into power. In 1894, American inventor Melvin Severy received patents 527,377 for an “Apparatus for mounting and operating thermopiles” and 527,379 for an “Apparatus for generating electricity by solar heat.” Both patents were essentially early solar cells based on the discovery of the photoelectric effect. The first generated “electricity by the action of solar heat upon a thermo-pile” and could produce a constant electric current during the daily and annual movements of the sun, which alleviated anyone from having to move the thermopile according to the sun’s movements. Severy’s second patent from 1889 was also meant for using the sun’s thermal energy to produce electricity for heat, light and power. The “thermos piles,” or solar cells as we call them today, were mounted on a standard to allow them to be controlled in the vertical direction as well as on a turntable, which enabled them to move in a horizontal plane. “By the combination of these two movements, the face of the pile can be maintained opposite the sun all times of the day and all seasons of the year,” reads the patent.

Uh huh…on each and every day the sun is shining, which is nothing like every day, not anywhere in the entire world. Then we get into the storage end of the solar-power equation, ie, batteries. Which, despite some genuine improvement over recent years, is a whole ‘nother kettle of expensive, unreliable, not-ready-for-prime-time fish, other than on a very small, private-home scale.

Ironic, is it not, that the very ones who have for so long insufferably claimed to have a corner on plumping for “new ideas” and “fresh concepts” and “progress”—even going so far, in their boundless hubris, as to misnomer themselves “Progressives”—are the selfsame ones who today insist that “the way of the Future” is to regress to the dim and distant past. Back to the Harsanyi piece for the sad, sorry denouement.

In California, which not only leads the nation in “clean energy” production but is leading the rest of us into rolling blackouts, residents pay 24.62 cents per kilowatt-hour for energy, around double the national average. There are only three other states where residents fork 20 or more cents over, the isolated Hawaii and Alaska and the frack-banning New York. The price of a gallon of gas in California is around two dollars over the national average, at $5.458. In Texas, it’s $3.173.

The president also forgot to mention that affordable natural gas, propelled by technological efficiencies like fracking, is as much a reason for the struggles of coal.

After West Virginia’s Joe Manchin groused about Biden’s denigration of his state’s top industry , the White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, “walked back” the comments, contending that the president’s “remarks yesterday have been twisted to suggest a meaning that was not intended; he regrets it if anyone hearing these remarks took offense.”

How they were distorted, she did not say. The statement stresses that the president understands that “the men and women of coal country built this nation” but that, yes, we must shut down the coal industry — as well as the oil and gas production. Biden is sorry that you’re offended. “Our goal as a nation is to combat climate change and increase our energy security by producing clean and efficient American energy,” the statement falsely goes on to say. Wind and solar, both victims to vagaries of the weather, aren’t, by any definition, “efficient.”

The kerfuffle, as with most debates over gas and oil, is confusing. The administration’s stated goal — one of the major policy planks of the Democratic Party — is to deliberately, through mandates or bans or taxes or contrived “markets,” make fossil fuels prohibitively expensive to force a “transition.” Biden’s Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice promises that a 100 percent clean energy economy and net-zero emissions will exist no later than 2050. California has banned new gas-powered cars by 2035. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, supported by virtually every Democratic Party presidential candidate last time around, is far more extreme.

None of these climate plans can be implemented without the effective nationalization of the energy sector and the banning of fossil fuels. Solar, after decades of mandates and subsidies and cronyism, accounts for around 3 percent of the national portfolio. Both wind and solar need to be propped up by fossil fuel generation. In anything resembling a functioning market, “clean energy” loses, not only to oil, gas, and coal, but also to nuclear power.

Well, they need to be propped up by sustainable, plentiful fossil fuels if one assumes that the shitlib goal is to provide energy sufficient to heat and cool American homes, keep American fridges and freezers stocked and the sustenance within them unspoiled, invigorate our economy, and just generally keep Western Civ moving forward efficiently and affordably. Unfortunately for us all, there is no discernible sign to date that any such thing is their actual goal. Quite the opposite, in fact.

2

Not on Our Side

Utterly, completely appalling. Also despicable.


Although yes, this nauseating, enraging vid comes to us from the People’s Republic of Australia, anybody still expecting any significant number of American lawdoggies to jump in on the side of We The People when the shit truly hits the fan is STRONGLY advised to rethink that fanciful delusion.

2

Perpetual escalation

When they say “mission creep,” this is one of the things they’re talking about.

Ridiculous
Trust the CDC, they alway know what’s best for you

Via Chief Nose Wetter and Aesop, who is horrified, and rightly so:

I’m not anti-vaxx per se, unlike Jenny McCarthy-level nutters (vaccines have utility, and wiping out smallpox worldwide was no petty accomplishment), but pumping this quantity of shit so often, and so young, has long since crossed the line into sheer lunacy, and has a lot to do with how you ever got to Covidiocy now. This nonsense should’ve been nipped in the bud about thirty years back.

Just one among many, many other things that should’ve been as well. The Founders knew and greatly dreaded a home truth that we have, to our great detriment, allowed ourselves to either forget or perhaps ignore: perpetual escalation is the way of all government. Give government a single inch, and it will eventually take everything you have.

8

You go, girl

Not to go on hammering away on this tired “lockdown amnesty” drum well after the drum-head has gotten all ripped and torn asunder, but anytime I run across a double-barreled scattergun blast of righteous rage this blunt, tightly focused, and well-crafted, I just can’t resist posting up at least a little taste of it here.

Ma’am, you have me all wrong. I’m not interested in “I told you so” gloating. What I want is retribution. There is no “moving forward” without jail time for the people who did what they did to our liberty. The only way forward is through trials. We want discovery, we want evidence on the table, and we want accountability. We want a jury of your peers to decide what fate awaits those of you who killed seniors with your insane policies of putting Covid-positive patients in nursing homes, fired nurses for not taking useless vaccines, lied to us about what those vaccines would do, and retarded the development of babies for three years–babies who now have speech delays due to never seeing anyone’s mouths move for three years. We don’t want to gloat. We want revenge.

If you think the internet conversations you’ve been in are “unpleasant and heated,” you better hope we don’t get the tribunals for crimes against humanity that we want.

There will be no forgiving the attacks on our liberty. I do not forgive the government declaring privately owned businesses “non-essential.” I do not forgive being called a “murderer” for not wanting to wear a mask wherever I go. I do not forgive the people who terrorized my family members and made them fear for their jobs over an experimental vaccine that DOES NOT WORK. You want me to move on? The answer is a solid, HELL NO. There will be no moving on until the people who implemented the policies and the people who championed them pay a steep price. Until then, I will hold this grudge forever. You people encouraged family members to reject each other. YOU DID THAT, EMILY! YOU!

Lauren Chen found an old tweet of Oster’s that suggested family pressure to coerce people into taking vaccines. “Individual family pressure,” she wrote. “Maybe vaccine requirements for things you want to do (domestic air/train travel, work, sports events: yes. We can have those without shame.”

The choices you made for all of us, Professor Oster, were not “complicated.” They were evil. And we are a people who will not tolerate evil and we will not offer it amnesty. You showed us who you are. We believe you. And we will not rest until every one of you has experienced some form of retribution for what you have wrought on this country and your neighbors. We will not work with you. We are not your friends. We are not “together” with you and we will not be moving forward with you. We will do whatever we can to make sure you have no power to do the kinds of things you’ve done in the past to anyone ever again and we will constantly remind everyone of what you did. You shut down playgrounds, Emily. You stood by and watched mothers be arrested for taking their babies out to get fresh air and have some time on the swings. You are the baddies, here. Not us.

PREACH it, sister. I wish I could believe that the day of our vengeance for the myriad atrocities committed against us from sea to shining sea will someday dawn, but alas, we all know it ain’t gonna. Not as long as we’re content to placidly sit on our duffs hoping the Republicunts will see to it for us, it ain’t.

Update! On that note, I have to say I wouldn’t at all mind seeing the asshole in this vid dragged behind a pickup truck for a cpl-three miles.


The backstory makes it even worse:

The shocking moment a member of staff at a crematorium interrupted a funeral in order to berate mourners for being too close together has been caught on camera.

Craig Bicknell, from Milton Keynes, revealed he had moved his chair in order to comfort his mother at the funeral of his father Alan Wright on 2nd October at Crownhill Crematorium, before other mourners followed suit.

But it wasn’t long before a member of staff interrupted the service by waving his arms and shouting at the mourners to ‘move the chairs back’.

Craig said he and his brother Paul were left devastated by the ‘telling off’, as they grieved the loss of their father who died from a heart attack in September.

Writing on Facebook he said: ‘I can sit in a restaurant, I can sit in a pub, I can live at her house, I can travel in a limousine to the crematorium with 6. But when I want to give my mum a cuddle at dads funeral, a man flies out mid service shouting stop the service and makes us split…A devastating day made even worse.’

A spokesperson for Milton Keynes Council said: ‘We are sorry to have upset this family. We don’t usually step in if a guest needs to be comforted by another family member and in this instance should have taken a more considered approach.’

Uh huh. You’re nothing like as “sorry” as you damned well oughta be, you filthy rat-bastard. In a better, more sane and civilized world, you would’ve been dogpiled with a quickness by everyone in attendance, closing out the festivities by having your ass kicked up between your shoulder blades. Know what I’m sorry for, myself? That this is NOT that world.

Disgusting, despicable, and purely heinous, plain and simple. “Forgive” the dimestore dictators who blandly committed outrages such as this? All in the name of a way-overhyped “plague” with an IFR that averages out to well under one (1) percent? Not on your life, bub.

13

Resistance is (NOT) futile

Or, in Al Sharpton’s well-known malapropism, resist we much.

Of all the lessons that have been learned over the course of the past almost-three-years now, there is one over-arching one. The one they – our tormentors – are desperate people not learn.

It is that resistance is not futile.

That resistance worked.

Enough of us didn’t wear a “mask” and by doing that showed the rest that “mask” wearing was medically absurd. We didn’t die. Many of us didn’t even catch the cold that was used as the pretext for insisting that everyone “mask.” We showed our faces, often being shown the door for doing so. But we showed them we were right.

That wearing a “mask” just because they said so was servile. That it furthered evil.

Enough of us refused to submit to being “vaccinated” – as it was pitched to us but turned out it wasn’t, since these drugs don’t immunize. We refused for a number of sound secondary and tertiary reasons, chief among them being well-founded misgivings about the trustworthiness of the pharmaceutical cartels pushing them, that had been immunized against liability for any harms caused by them and which had a record of harming people in the past with their drugs. But most of all, we resisted because we objected to these drugs being pushed on us. To being told we must roll up our sleeves and let them inject us with anything they please.

We understood that if they could require – that is to say, compel – people to submit to this “vaccine” then they could in future use that precedent to compel people to submit to other “vaccines.”

To procedures. To anything at all.

That our bodies were in a very real sense their property, as a pet dog or cat’s body is the property of its owner. As cattle are owned by the rancher.

By resisting – by refusing – we asserted ownership – of ourselves.

That was the principle on the line – and we “unvaccinated” put ourselves on the front line, to defend it. It cost some of us jobs. Others family ties. It cost us a lot. But that cost was worth every bit of it.

And because enough of us paid it, it became much more difficult for them to continue imposing it.

Resistance is never futile when rights are on the line.

It is essential.

Americans used to regard this as a kind of foundational principle. It is elaborated at length in America’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is nothing in either about doing what we’re told just because they say so – and much to the contrary.

This spirit – this attitude – once defined Americans, as distinct from the bovine servility of other peoples, trained to do as they were told, just because they were told to do it. It is what made America what it was and unlike anywhere else. It is why people from other places came here rather than stayed where they were.

This is one of Peters’ very best essays, of which you should definitely read the all. As hopeful, as positive as it is, though, none of us refuseniks should make the mistake of thinking The Power isn’t going to try again. And again, and again, until we either knuckle under or remove their worthless, sorry asses from the equation and get their fucking jackboots off of our necks for good, by any and every means necessary.

8

Keepers of the One True Faith

The Branch Covidian faith, that would be.

The CDC Has Lost All Credibility
The Left’s politicization of the once-revered organization has morphed it into a haven for medical hacks and become a massive laughing stock.

I begin to see where the mistake was made here, with that “once-revered” codswallop. NO FederalGovCo bureaucracy should EVER be “revered” by any Real American with even half a lick of sense.

As a licensed and practicing healthcare provider, I want to know the CDC committee’s clinical justification for recommending the COVID-19 vaccination for children aged 6 months and older.

Because, as it turns out, we have little objective data. I’m talking minuscule. No human trials whatsoever; only tests on eight mice using the updated Omicron booster shots.

Oh, but the human trials are underway now! They’re happening after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration extended emergency use authorizations, which shield pharmaceutical companies from legal liability. Doesn’t that give you a tremendous sense of confidence?

I would rather take my chances with gas station sushi.

The recent child vaccine push by the CDC is essentially bypassing clinical data. How could a 15-member panel of Branch Covidians vote to inoculate children with no real human data? The answer is that they do not care. They are fully invested and have been blinded by false Covidian prophets. These are not ignorant people. They are hand chosen by the CDC. If you are willing to fall in line and do what you’re told instead of being a real scientific arbiter, then you are welcome to serve on the committee. Buck the system, and it’s a hard no.

It’s also helpful knowing the Biden Administration purchased 170 million doses of the updated booster.

As one trained in biological and medical science, I can say with certainty that all of this is absolute lunacy!

There has never been a vaccine added to the child immunization schedule without clear and substantial evidence that it would significantly reduce disease.

The COVID-19 vaccine is a first for the CDC. Added with no clinical data.

The White House COVID-19 response coordinator, Dr. Ashish Jha, claims to have reviewed unpublished data and said that “based on the data we have, [the new vaccines] should be better at providing protection against infection.” He went on to say, however, “Again, we’ll see where the data lands, but I am very hopeful…“

What are they hiding?

Absolutely everything they think they can get away with, not one jot or tittle less, as ever. Speaking strictly for myself and nobody else, I saw through the whole Kung Flu stratagem when the official story started changing, and then went right on changing on an almost daily basis from there. I realized that if this supposed extinction-level event really was as bad as they claimed, then why were the authorities having to pretzel themselves so severely lying about it? If CoVid had been the planet-depopulator they said, there would have been no need to oversell the thing the way they did.

Let’s call it Mike’s Iron Law #847: “government health care” is not about either health, or “caring.” As regards government itself, at every level and in every place, it’s always and forever about power and control, as per usual. Once you’ve accepted that admittedly harsh reality, everything clicks into place and begins to make sense. Not before.

8

Forget, HELL redux

SO much more to say about this shit-circus, even now. In fact, Our Side should commit ourselves, every man Jack of us, to holding their feet firmly to the fire until their soles are blackened and crisped, for reals.

There Can Be No ‘Amnesty’ On Lockdowns Without A Reckoning
Letting people off the hook isn’t amnesty. Amnesty requires an admission of guilt and a commitment to repairing the wrongs done.

Annnnd BINGO. In fact, as a CF Lifer who prefers to remain anonymous astutely pointed out to me in an email yesterday, the two words missing so far from this whole faux-debate are as follows: I’M, and SORRY. Certainly, I don’t recollect seeing them in Ms Oster’s now-notorious plea for “amnesty” in the Atlantic.

She concludes her article, “Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.”

Yet it’s simply not true there wasn’t enough information for leaders to make prudent decisions back in January to April 2020. Indeed, they were certain enough about their patently cruel policies that included leaving the elderly alone to die, requiring women to give birth utterly alone except for masked strangers, and forbidding families from holding funerals.

Oster is not actually advocating for amnesty, but for a complete lack of responsibility-taking and accountability. That will make our nation’s future worse, less able to address the problems lockdowns created. There is no such thing as “moving forward” from mass civil rights abuses until their root causes have been discerned and steps taken to provide recompense and prevent repeat abuse in the future.

We the people were never told by the Covid totalitarians that their predictions were “uncertain” and “complicated.” They were so certain of their false claims that they sent police to record the license plates of people who attended church on Easter, a constitutional and human right. They shut down schools while keeping abortion facilities and marijuana dispensaries open. They were so sure of their moral righteousness that they seemingly gleefully threatened people’s ability to feed their kids if they didn’t take experimental injections for a disease that may have posed little risk to them. The vaccine mandates led to dangerous employee shortages at hospitals, police departments, and now in the U.S. military.

None of this deliberately inflicted mass suffering was necessary, and that was all known early on. It wasn’t, as Oster claims, a matter of “deep uncertainty.” Among others, Dr. Scott Atlas very publicly presented strong evidence that mask mandates and shutdowns were poor policy choices throughout 2020. He was brutalized in the media and his own Ivy League university for pointing out this data. So were the eminent authors of the Great Barrington Declaration that made similar data-based arguments, Drs. Jay Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff.

All of whom paid a much higher price for their OUTRAGEOUS!!! truth-telling than Oster and ilk seem prepared to shoulder for their manipulative dishonesty. But hey, while we’re freely dishing out gifts of undeserved absolution to the obstinately unrepentant, here a few more possibilities shitlibs, DemonRats, GOPer swine, and fascist despots across the fruited plain would very much like us to consider.

Besides COVID, Here Are 43 Other Things Democrats Are Requesting Amnesty On
1. Slavery

2. Jim Crow laws

3. Grooming children

4. Ted Kennedy

5. U2

…9. The DMV

10. Kale

11. Dr. Fauci

…13. Comedienne Amy Schumer

14. The term “comedienne”

…17. Gluing themselves to things

…22. Jeffrey Epstein

23. Killing Jeffrey Epstein

24. Michael Moore

25. Not killing Michael Moore

…28. The KKK

29. Kale again

And so on and so forth from there. As is always the case with the Bee, it’s damned near impossible to tell if they’re doing satire here or simply reporting the news straight-up, dry, and as-is. Speaking strictly for myself and nobody else, though, #25 is enough to condemn the Dems/shitlibs/whatevs to the furnaces of Perdition for all eternity, all by its lonesome.

Update! This one showed up in my latest “Libs of TikTok” email.

 

If you ain’t subscribing to the LoTT email list yet, you damned well oughta be. Not entirely sure how I got on it; somebody musta signed me up for it without asking, I suppose, but I’m damned glad they did.

3

Forget, HELL!

Stupid, smarmy bint expects forgiveness absent any hint of contrition, repentance, and reform. Which is assuredly NOT the way it works.

This is the ultimate slap in the face by “nice Christians” who believe Jesus wouldn’t want us to keep the Nazis waiting at the train station.

Those of us who were right from the beginning about this “pandemic” and were called unloving Grandma killers by these willfully ignorant, tyrant enabling Sheeple, aren’t “gloating.”

We didn’t make “lucky” guesses.

We read the data.

We knew the entire history of virology and true “Science” was being discarded.

We saw the double standards and illogic of unbiblical “lockdown” measures.

We were shocked and dismayed by how “nice Christians” enabled such Tyranny.

And we witnessed the true nature of EVIL at work in every “recommendation” and “mandate.”

And you had the exact same data and opportunity.

You didn’t “make a mistake” and “did the best you could” because you “had no way of knowing.”

You CHOSE your path and its consequences.

Now that we’ve been proven right beyond all shadow of an “Expert” doubt, we are NOT going to “move forward” with those who demand forgiveness without showing a shred of repentance.

We are filled with Righteous Indignation.

You need to seek forgiveness, in sackcloth and ashes, from the God you have offended for the Evil you have enabled. For the elderly who were left to die alone. For the children who had their childhoods stolen. For your neighbors who had their lives and livelihoods destroyed so you could feel safe. For your fellow citizens who will NEVER be able to return to “normal” after what you’ve done. God’s Justice DEMANDS there be trials AND punishments. To demand “forgiveness” without accountability is NOT WWJD.

We cannot and WILL NOT “work with you.” To order us to AGAIN comply by granting you “amnesty” and an ease of conscience that is not ours to give, shows that you will only repeat your prior actions when TPTB unleash the next “crisis.” You called us “Grandma killers” then and “unloving and unforgiving” now. And all of history shows you will happily comply with Evil when this happens again.

Absolutely, positively correct, right down the line. To grant those I labelled way back when “CoVid panic-ninnies” an absolution they haven’t earned is to guarantee they’ll do this again, as many times as we agree to forgive and forget. As I constantly argued, again and again and again, back in 2020: you NEVER willingly surrender your freedom to snakes-in-the-grass like Prof Oster, because once you have, the only way you’ll ever get it back again, assuming you ever do, is at the point of the sword—or, more precisely, at the muzzle of the AR15. Which, fancy that, is just ANOTHER thing “people” like her want to take away from us.

Gee, wonder why that might be.

As an old bumper sticker popular many years ago amongst us unreconstructed Southrons had it: Forget, HELL!

Believe it
Forget THIS, motherfuckers

Update! Billy Beck says it far better than I ever could.

This woman must think that she’s talking to a 1957 Cub Scout den that got in a fight when someone mis-counted the marbles, or something a lot like that. A person in that situation could afford the authority of using that royal “we” without having to explain it to the children. It becomes a mystery with nearly sinister undertones when this person is talking about the scope and scale of militant destruction put upon America in the past three years.

Let’s note how Dr. Oster confesses that the ones who were in the dark are the ones who said and did what they did. They commanded people’s lives into virtual cages with orders against doing the business to sustain them. They ordered administration of ostensible medicines (“vaccines”) to as many people as they possibly could, under the plain extortion of threatening all other aspects of life — jobs, educations, transport services, medical services, for instance — as penalty for refusal. Honest medical analyses of these drugs are now revealing effects catastrophic to and horribly conclusive of human lives around the world. They smashed the souls and intellects of an entire generation of children, including all imaginable and unimaginable implications ranging from toddlers to adolescents and beyond, with scientifically laughable nonsense applied to schools: the very sorts of schools that once taught me enough to know how plainly psychotic the whole thing was

Dr. Oster: “But the thing is: We didn’t know.”

That is, indeed, “the thing”. It’s the very thing that the commissars and research-fetishist should have been thinking, before they might have had to say it out-loud, after they’d done what they did, but if only they hadn’t done it.

It’s the thing that countless Americans were shouting as hard as they could into the gas-blast from “experts” and “authorities” who never stopped telling them how stupid and evil they were. They were viciously betrayed by the insidious promise of “public square” opportunity for “voice” in social media and then “cancelled” (a word of marvelous facility, now) for dissent, with monstrous digital precision, by faceless corporations selling “community”.

And now, these people — this heathen caste — are professorially instructed that “dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop”.

There’s a phrase fit to Balkanize, for you.

By an unexpected tum of our history, a bit of the truth, an insignificant part of the whole, was allowed out in the open. But those same hands which once screwed tight our handcuffs now hold out their palms in reconciliation: “No, don’t! Don’t dig up the past! Dwell on the past and you’ll lose an eye.”

But the proverb goes on to say: “Forget the past and you’ll lose both eyes.”

(Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn — “The Gulag Archipelago”, vol. I, “Preface”, p. X)

At the lowest, most basic, level of principle, this caste of dissent is called upon to dismiss and dispose of the experienced reality which is the the material of morality itself. The harm that they’ve suffered, and the outrage of having it at the hands of obvious incompetents and malevolents, has shown them more than enough about how not to live as human beings instead of despised subjects. Wholesale demolition of society is what they’ve seen and lived on every quarter, and that’s what they’re being told to forgive and forget, on the now plainly hollowed pretext of “the good of society”. This goes beyond contradiction and hypocrisy to psychological assault, with the added insult that it comes from a self-preened “unapologetically data-driven” economist. Nobody who has had to hear — remotely — of a dear loved one’s death because their presence was forbidden by “data-driven authority” should have to think about something like this for one stolen heartbeat before dismissing it with contempt or hatred or whatever the current research says about the completely sensible and righteous human response.

People who are morals-driven, even at their most charitable, are simply not now disposed to stand for this.

How well or whether the Dr. Osters of America might conceive an understanding of that fact, and why it exists as a fact, would tell a lot about whether the almost maniacal demand for “unity” is as flatly cynical as it seems. There can be nothing like that between people who think that the agonies of the past three years are to be understood and condemned, and people who cannot and will not see that demand as a matter of moral principles: applied studies in how to live, versus how let it all go to massive deathly mayhem.

I must say, I do enjoy the bleating from the Osters of the world, all wailing so very piteously that we didn’t know, we didn’t know, how could we have KNOOOOWWWNNNN

Well, speak for yourdamnedself, bitch; I KNEW, and I don’t think anybody out there considers me any kind of “expert” on anything at all. Go fuck yourself and your proposed “amnesty” right in the liver, with a rusty railroad spike, until it stops hurting so much.

Updated update! I second Francis’s reminder, wholeheartedly and with big clanging bells on.

But let’s not omit this, for without it the formula would be fatally unbalanced: We mustn’t forgive ourselves either. We gave in when we should have resisted with all our might. We accepted dictatorial impositions and abridgements of our God-given rights when we should have mustered our rage and employed the corpses of our would-be tyrants to decorate lampposts from coast to coast. We acted like pusillanimous cretins rather than the heirs of Patrick Henry, who’s undoubtedly spinning in his grave fast enough to power all of Virginia over this embarrassment.

The survivors of the Holocaust made a mantra out of the saying “Never again.” The great majority of us wouldn’t even speak our minds for fear of ostracism, demonization, and unemployment. And over what? A disease that’s proved less dangerous than ordinary influenza! A disease that has hardly any effect on the populations most oppressed and disadvantaged by the lockdowns – our minor children!

No. Do not forgive. To forgive would be to accept that our oppressors’ hypothetical “good intentions” should exonerate them for their totalitarian conduct. To forgive would be to “understand” cowardice instead of reproving it as it deserves.

To forgive would be to forget. The two are never separated by much.

Amen, brother. The panic-ninnies and ostracizers can burn for all me. This I vow: NEVER to forget. NEVER to forgive. Ms Oster can go look for her scapegrace absolution someplace else, she’ll find none here.

12

The threatening truth

Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

It is instructive – it is vitally important – that we remember how truths about “masks” and “vaccines” and the actual danger of “the virus” were cat-called as “misinformation,” “anti” Science and, yes, “denialism.” How those who dared to speak the truth were persecuted and punished – and still are (viz, the recent punishing of Dr. Peter McCullough, the eminent cardiologist, for stating truths about “the virus” and the “vaccines”).

That is what comes of tolerating cat-calls in lieu of conversations, no matter how uncomfortable those conversations may be. No matter how wrong some people may be, sometimes.

If a person is antagonistic toward a group of people on account of race or religion or some other such non-specific attribute, that will become clear enough soon enough – and that person’s arguments or statements can be picked apart on the basis of sloppiness, inaccuracy and disingenuousness (after a pattern has been established, after it becomes clear that contrary facts aren’t acknowledged and the person’s arguments and statements change to reflect the chastening effect of truth). That person’s statements and arguments can then be dismissed as wrong, without resorting to cat-calling.

It is easy to cat-call the arguments and statements of those you disagree with – and even easier, if you dislike them, personally.

With good reason.

It is very easy, for example, to dislike the person of someone as personally loathsome as Dr. Fauci – or the CEO of Pfizer, Anthony Bourla. But it is also easy to deflect and dismiss – and even pathologize – any questioning of their actions, their views, their policies, as being “anti” – including, in the case of Bourla, – “semitic” as simply (exactly the right modifier) motivated by dislike of them personally, or on account of their race or religion. And that – if accepted as argument-ending before there is an argument – confers upon their actions, their views and their policies a kind of blanket immunity from being questioned or criticized.

Well, a free society cannot exist without questioning and criticism, whether right or wrong and however uncomfortable certain topics may make some people feel. A free society requires people who can think – and aren’t cat-called for doing so. Even when what they think – and say – is racist or anti-Semitic. Not placed in air-fingers quote marks because it is a fact that there are such people.

But there are also worse people.

They are the people who use those terms to cat-call people who aren’t those things but who make statements or raise questions they’d rather not address, often because they are true and the truth can be very threatening, to falsehood. We’ve had an object lesson about that over the course of the past almost three years now. The lies told us about “the virus,” which were used to further worse lies about “masks” – and then on to “vaccines” – which nearly led to camps – show us what happens when such lies are protected by accusing those who dare to question them as being “anti,” as being “deniers.”

And there is still the road ahead of us, with a fork in it.

Peters explains why this fork is a most perilous one indeed, and why it’s imperative that we choose the right one.

 

3

The Kingdom of Hell

As the drunken psychotic Karl Marx himself specified, seizing control of and then “fundamentally transforming” the very language itself remains Item One on the shitlib agenda.

Transgendering Language
As has become flagrantly obvious over the years, the political left and its myrmidons in the media, medical industry, social agencies, public libraries, and school system have become slickly adept at framing the cultural debate between conservatives and “progressives” by mutilating discourse, fudging long-accepted distinctions, and decoupling terms from their culturally ascribed referents. What was understood for centuries and millennia as decency becomes indecency, good becomes bad, virtue becomes vice, settled tradition becomes feral violence, family and marriage become barbarism and bondage (the feminist mantra), and so on. Conversely, what is destructive of customary order becomes enlightened transformation.

A comparatively recent and most egregious case in point involves what is now called “conversion therapy,” the target of the non-binary and transgender prepossession preaching “diversity” to minors — a cult that has now acquired conventional status. But what is “conversion therapy”?

It is a term calculated to deceive, to reverse normal assumptions by condemning parents concerned about their children’s sexual identity. Thus, to take an instance of adroit dissimulation, according to Human Rights Campaign (HRC), “So-called ‘conversion therapy,’ sometimes known as ‘reparative therapy,’ is a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person’s sexual orientation.” The truth is precisely the opposite. Responsible parents do not wish to “change” or “convert” their children’s sexual orientation but to retain it.

The real “conversion” that is taking place is from natural sexual identity at birth to non-binary and transgender dysphoria, assumed as a therapeutic given. Nonetheless, it is the parents who have been criminalized in law for an offense committed by a persecuting and iniquitous government. Witness Canada’s Bill C-4, which declares that conversion therapy harms society because “it is based on and propagates myths and stereotypes about sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, including the myth that heterosexuality… and gender expression that conforms to the sex assigned to a person at birth are to be preferred over other sexual orientations” (emphasis mine). The Bill is a farrago of abject nonsense, as is the concept of sex as “assigned” at birth by medical personnel and society.

The irony of gender ideology is particularly mordant. Psychological, chemical and surgical mutilation is a function, not of parents maiming their offspring as is generally claimed, but of the gender theorists and predatory groomers who transition (or “convert”) children via persuasion, doctrine, pornographic material, sexual gadgetry, hormone treatments, puberty blockers, testosterone infusions, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, orchiectomy, voice therapy, facial reconstruction, mastectomy, hysterectomy, and other undiminished horrors. It is the official mandarins in the precincts of authority who are the real criminals, encouraging and even forcing young people to embrace life-altering outcomes that promise to be, for many of them, a lifelong condition of misery and dysfunction.

Meanwhile, as noted, the gender mavens will jail parents who object to the insertion of the state into the natural family. They will move to pass legislation, like Ontario’s Bill 89, that seeks to place the state in loco parentis — as in totalitarian societies, the child is understood as belonging to the state, not to the family. They will hide their congenial abominations under perfumed euphemisms like “gender-affirming health care,” but they are nonetheless recidivist felons. The stench of their dogmatic atrocities befouls the cultural and social environment. Their starting point is to conceive the abnormal as normal; preserving the normal is consequently regarded as a “conversion.” The device is a classic non-sequitur, assuming as a rhetorical fact what has not been or cannot be established, like the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” canard. It is as effective as it is disingenuous.

No coincidence, that, seeing as how Canada is well gone into its own fundamental transformation into a totalitarian society, with Amerika v2.0 trotting along dismayingly close behind it.

These apprentices of evil must be held to account.

Absolutely, indubitably correct. The sticking point being that there is only one way that can ever be accomplished, and no amount of well-written op-eds, well-constructed arguments, well-attended protests and/or rallies, or VOATING HARDERER™ at them is gonna suffice to turn the trick. What can speeches, essays, and debates possibly avail anyone when the very words themselves have been stripped of all meaning?

2

Pronoun me no pronouns

CNN shits the bed, as usual.

How to get people’s pronouns right and what to do if you slip up

Don’t give a greasy shit; ain’t never gonna give a greasy shit; have no interest in so much as being in the same area code as the kind of batshit mental defective who’d insist I SHOULD give a greasy shit. Period fucking dot.

Personal pronouns are the words used in place of specific people, places or things. Pronouns such as “me, myself and I” are how people talk about themselves, and pronouns such as “you, she, he and they” are some pronouns that people use to talk about others.

A person’s pronouns are the third-person singular pronouns that they would like others to use for them. Personal pronouns are used to convey a person’s gender identity and don’t necessarily align with the sex a person was assigned at birth.

The most common third-person singular pronouns are “she/her/hers” and “he/him/his.” “They/them” can also be used to refer to a single person, while some people use gender-neutral or gender-inclusive pronouns like “ze/hir” (pronounced “zee/here”) instead.

Please reread the statement above. Thank you.

It matters what pronouns you use for someone

Agreed, emphatically. The options for accurate use of those pronouns are limited strictly to two (2): He/her, she/him, etc etc. All else is horseshit of the purest ray serene, amounting to unnecessarily kowtowing to the specious fantasies of the mentally ill, the twee, and the overly-affected and/or pretentious. Which, that ain’t ever gonna do any good or be of any help to anybody; it would be a more productive use of one’s time trying to teach a pig to sing. And you know what they say about that.

Okay, enough of that goofball CNN crap. Buck Throckmorton, for his part, says he’s all about the verbs.

This inspires me. Just differently. If Demi can have plural pronouns, then I can have plural verbs.

Using the pronouns that a person goes by is a way of respecting that person’s gender identity, meaning a person’s emotional and psychological sense of their own gender.

I’m starting to get it. While “my verbs” might be unrelated to my gender, I am still a very special person who is uniquely me. My emotional and psychological sense of my own special identity is such that verbs used by the rest of you are not satisfactory to me. In fact, your verbs are repressing me.

If someone tells you that they go by the pronouns “they/them,” for example, and you continue to use “he/him” pronouns for them, it can signal that you believe that transgender, non-binary or intersex people are unimportant, or shouldn’t exist.

And the same goes for me and my verbs! When ignorant bigots continue to use a singular verb when talking about me, even though my verbs are always plural, you are telling me that I am unimportant. Or worse, that I don’t even exist to you.

But by the way, I do have special pronouns too. Instead of “he/him” my pronouns are “him/he.” This applies to the reflexive version too, “heself” instead of “himself.” Whenever you would normally use the word “he” when referring to me, you must use the word “him” instead, and vice versa.

Grammar snobs might protest that “him” cannot be the subject of a sentence and “he” cannot be the object of the preposition. Sorry, grammar snobs, but that train left the station when our elite media embraced the transgender lobby’s boutique language agenda.

So how do you use my pronouns? Here’s an example: “Buck said that him will never buy he-self an electric vehicle.”

Now let’s put it all together. Here’s an example of how to talk about me using my verbs and my pronouns.

“Have Buck bought he wife an anniversary gift, and do him have a plan if she wants he to consider buying a Tesla?”

It’s that easy. Just educate yourself.

Heh. Sorry to Oppress™ you and all there, Buck ol’ boy, but that second example sounds a heck of a lot like Ebonics to my ign’ernt cracker ass. Probably just me, I know.

1

The greatest story lie ever told

I repeat: if it weren’t for lies, they’d have nothing to say at all.

More than two years since the lockdowns of 2020, the political mainstream, particularly on the left, is just beginning to realize that the response to Covid was an unprecedented catastrophe.

But that realization hasn’t taken the form of a mea culpa. Far from it. On the contrary, in order to see that reality is starting to dawn on the mainstream left, one must read between the lines of how their narrative on the response to Covid has evolved over the past two years.

The narrative now goes something like this: Lockdowns never really happened, because governments never actually locked people in their homes; but if there were lockdowns, then they saved millions of lives and would have saved even more if only they’d been stricter; but if there were any collateral damage, then that damage was an inevitable consequence of the fear from the virus independent of the lockdowns; and even when things were shut down, the rules weren’t very strict; but even when the rules were strict, we didn’t really support them.

Put simply, the prevailing narrative of the mainstream left is that any upside from the response to Covid is attributable to the state-ordered closures and mandates that they supported, while any downside was an inevitable consequence of the virus independent of any state-ordered closures and mandates which never happened and which anyway they never supported. Got it? Good.

Astonishingly, in a debate on Monday, Charlie Crist, Democratic candidate for governor of Florida, accused Ron DeSantis of being “the only governor in the history of Florida that’s ever shut down our schools.” “You’re the only governor in the history of Florida that shut down our businesses,” Crist went on, “I never did that as governor. You’re the one who’s the shutdown guy.”

In fact, as DeSantis pointed out, Crist had publicly sued DeSantis to keep kids out of school in 2020, and he wrote DeSantis a letter in July 2020 saying the entire state should still be in lockdown.

Arguments like these are as facile as they are transparent. Does anyone honestly think these people would be arguing that lockdowns didn’t happen, or that it’s impossible to measure their effects, if the policy had been a success?

Read on for an incredibly chilling rundown of the veritably incalculable and multifarious damage done by those newly “nonexistent” lockdowns—first and foremost among that being, for me at least, the wreckage it made of such piffling concerns as individual autonomy, self-determination, and the very idea of unalienable, Constitutionally-protected rights.

The piece continues from there with pictures, almost none of which I’d seen before, putting this wanton, needless destruction on display for all to see and be shamed by. Bottom line? You’ve been had. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled.

By pretending that all of these horrors were attributable to public panic, apologists for the response to Covid are attempting to shift blame away from the political machines that imposed lockdowns and mandates onto individuals and their families. This is, of course, despicable and bunk. People did not voluntarily go hungry, or stand in the freezing cold to get food, or remove themselves from hospitals while they were still sick, or bankrupt their own businesses, or force their own kids to sit outside in the cold, or march hundreds of miles in exodus after losing their jobs in factories.

The collective denial of these horrors, and the refusal of media, financial, and political elites to report on them, amounts to nothing less than the greatest act of gaslighting that we’ve seen in modern times.

Further, the argument that all of these terrible outcomes could be attributed to public panic rather than state-imposed mandates would be far more convincing if governments hadn’t taken unprecedented actions to deliberately panic the public.

Does it get even worse yet? Oh, you bet your sweet bippy it does.

report later revealed that military leaders had seen Covid as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public, “shaping” and “exploiting” information to bolster support for government mandates. Dissenting scientists were silenced. Government psyops teams deployed fear campaigns on their own people in a scorched-earth campaign to drive consent for lockdowns.

Moreover, as a study by Cardiff University demonstrated, the primary factor by which citizens judged the threat of COVID-19 was their own government’s decision to employ lockdown measures. “We found that people judge the severity of the COVID-19 threat based on the fact the government imposed a lockdown—in other words, they thought, ‘it must be bad if government’s taking such drastic measures.’ We also found that the more they judged the risk in this way, the more they supported lockdown.” The policies thus created a feedback loop in which the lockdowns and mandates themselves sowed the fear that made citizens believe their risk of dying from COVID-19 was hundreds of times greater than it really was, in turn causing them to support more lockdowns and mandates.

Those who publicly spoke against lockdowns and mandates were ostracized and vilified—denounced by mainstream outlets like the New York Times, CNN, and health officials as “neo-Nazis” and “white nationalists.” Further, among those who really believed the mainstream Covid narrative—or merely pretended to—all the authoritarian methods that had supposedly contributed to China’s “success” against Covid, including censoring, canceling, and firing those who disagreed, were on the table.

Though many now claim to have opposed these measures, the truth is that publicly opposing lockdowns when they were at their apex in spring 2020 was lonely, frightening, thankless, and hard. Few did.

A-HENH. Actually, although it was certainly lonely, I saw nothing whatsoever hard about it, much less frightening; way more frightening to me was how very many of us failed to see through this patently bogus nonsense, even supported it at the time.

This revisionism is all the more disappointing because a small handful of politicians including Ron DeSantis, Imran Khan, and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have proven that admitting error in implementing lockdowns and mandates isn’t that hard, and can even be politically profitable.

The same should go for the political left. Thus far, we have yet to see anything remotely resembling regret from any leader on the left, but this is what a decent, Truman-era Democrat might say in these circumstances:

“The lockdowns of 2020 were a terrible mistake. While they were outside my field, it was my duty to properly vet the credibility of the advice that was coming from health officials and to end the mandates as soon as it was clear they weren’t working. In that role, I failed, and you all have my humblest apologies. Given the unprecedented harm that’s been done by these mandates, I support a full investigation into how this advice came about, in part to ensure there hasn’t been any untoward communist influence on these policies.”

Those who spoke against lockdowns and mandates in early 2020 showed that they were willing to stand up for the freedoms and Enlightenment principles for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, even when doing so was lonely, thankless, and hard. For that reason, anyone who did so has reason to feel extremely proud, and the future would be brighter if they were in positions of leadership. That fact is now becoming increasingly clear—unfortunately, even to those who did the opposite. One more reason to keep all the receipts.

Any liberty-oriented American worth his salt must never, ever forget the needless, intentional disaster of Spring 2020, on pain of seeing one of the bleakest chapters of our history repeat itself. Because it’s for sure and certain that they’re going to try, and the only way they can get away with it again is if We The People allow them to. If you only read through all of one thing I link to this entire weekend, this one absolutely must be it.

(Via Ed Driscoll)

2

The eternal tease

Never mind the self-driving ones, where the hell is my flying car?

Why Self-Driving Cars Are NOT The Future
Technological hurdles aside, if we could develop the AI that makes self-driving cars as safe as human-driven cars, they’d still have quite a few other hurdles to overcome before going mainstream.

The biggest hurdle, perhaps, is the problem of liability.

Last week, a man in North Carolina was driving at night, following his GPS. The GPS led him to a bridge that the man couldn’t see was unfinished. He then drove off the bridge, crashed upside down in the river below and died. His GPS didn’t show that a portion of the bridge had been washed away – instead it went on mindlessly recommending it as the fastest route. After the man’s death, questions came up about who should be held responsible. Was it all the man’s fault? What about the fault of the city for not repairing the bridge? The state? The bridge manufacturer? What about the GPS technology that got it wrong? Should they pay out? It wasn’t clear where the fault lay and for that reason, all parties involved were vulnerable to lawsuits.

The list of liabilities continues to expand as well. The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) has only demanded more and more accountability from car manufacturers regarding auto safety regulations over the years. According to NHTSA (an arm of the Department of Transportation), all vehicles MUST include specific types of seatbelts, they MUST disclose the locations of where all their parts are assembled (via the Labeling Act), they MUST follow all cybersecurity restrictions, and if a new safety recall should arise, the manufacturer MUST fix them at their own expense. Today, about one in four vehicles on the road have an unresolved safety recall on them which has increased every year since the recall program’s inception.While some may say this is a good thing to have that much oversight around safety, it also does a lot to discourage manufacturers from sticking their necks out for potentially unsafe innovations.

The EPA is also squeezing vehicle manufacturers with new regulations – tightening its emission standards and adding restrictions that car manufacturers find increasingly difficult to abide by. As David Shepardson from Reuters said,

New rules [that] take effect in the 2023 model year… require a 28.3% reduction in vehicle emissions through 2026. The rules will be challenging for automakers to meet, especially for Detroit’s Big Three automakers. General Motors (GM.N), Ford Motor Co (F.N) and Chrysler-parent Stellantis NV (STLA.MI).

With all this red tape, automotive manufacturers are already feeling the weight of big brother pressing on their shoulders and would be reluctant to go all in on self-driving vehicles without all the safety concerns rigorously tested and approved to the point they can be sufficiently indemnified from lawsuits.

Perhaps in another country with a more authoritative government, the liability issues can be overcome.

Perhaps. But you can bet that, in a country with a LESS authoritative government whose citizenry was jealous enough of their liberty to see to it that their central government remained firmly within its Constitutional corral, we’d probably have workable autonomous and flying cars both by now. The lesson: bloated, meddlesome, too-powerful governments stifle creativity and innovation; capitalism and liberty encourages them, and rewards them richly. In Amerika v2.0, unless and until We The People have internalized that lesson fully and put its teachings into full effect, the day of the flying car can never dawn.

3

Recent Comments

Comments policy

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't. Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

"Mike Hendrix is, without a doubt, the greatest one-legged blogger in the world." ‐Henry Chinaski

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

Shameless begging

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Allied territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media:

Fuck you

Kill one for mommy today! Click to embiggen

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Claire's Cabal—The Freedom Forums

FREEDOM!!!

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”
Ezra Pound

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
Frank Zappa

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”
John Adams

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
Bertrand de Jouvenel

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."
GK Chesterton

"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free."
Donald Surber

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved."
Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil."
Skeptic

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork."
David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"If the laws of God and men, are therefore of no effect, when the magistracy is left at liberty to break them; and if the lusts of those who are too strong for the tribunals of justice, cannot be otherwise restrained than by sedition, tumults and war, those seditions, tumults and wars, are justified by the laws of God and man."
John Adams

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine."
Joseph Goebbels

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it."
NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in."
Bill Whittle

Best of the best

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

Contact


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Copyright © 2022