SCIENCE! – Page 13

PC Vs biology

Posted on October 2, 2022October 2, 2022 by Mike

Christ on a crutch, where to even begin.

‘We are expected to be OK with not having children’: how gay parenthood through surrogacy became a battleground

Well, I mean, y’know, duh. And here I’ve been thinking all this time that “being OK with not having children” was sorta baked right into the life-as-a-gay-couple cake. Silly me.

Corey Briskin and Nicholas Maggipinto met in law school in 2011, were engaged by 2014, and had their 2016 wedding announced in the New York Times. They moved to a waterfront apartment block in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, with a bright playroom for families on the ground floor.

“We got married and then we wanted all the trappings: house, children, 401K [retirement saving plan], etc,” Maggipinto, 37, tells me in their building’s shared meeting room, tapping the table in sequence with the progression of each idea.

Briskin, 30, grew up assuming he’d have children. He came out in college. “Once I had come out to myself and others, I don’t think my expectation of what my life would look like changed all that much.” With marriage equality won years ago, they expected to be able to have a conventional married life.

Sorry, fellas, but I’m afraid that’s gonna be a mite tough with what is, by definition, a non-conventional marriage.

Six months before their wedding, a targeted ad from an organisation called Gay Parents to Be landed in Maggipinto’s Instagram feed, offering free consultations with a fertility doctor who’d give them “the whole rundown” on how they could start a family. “We had the appointment and we were 100% on the same page – let’s move forward with this,”says Maggipinto.

That’s when they first became aware of the eye-watering cost of biological parenthood for gay men. Maggipinto reels off the price list in a way that only someone who has pored over every item could. There’s compensation for the egg donor: no less than $8,000 (£6,600). The egg-donor agency fee: $8,000-10,000. The fertility clinic’s bill (including genetic testing, blood tests, STD screening and a psychiatric evaluation for all parties, sperm testing, egg extraction, insemination, the growing, selecting, freezing and implantation of the resulting embryos): up to $70,000. And that’s if it all goes well: if no embryos are created during a cycle, or if the embryos that are don’t lead to a successful pregnancy, they would have to start again.

Then there’s the cost of a surrogate (called a “gestational carrier” when they carry embryos created from another woman’s eggs). Maggipinto and Briskin were told agency fees alone could stretch to $25,000, and the surrogates themselves should be paid a minimum of $60,000 (it is illegal for surrogates to be paid in the UK, but their expenses are covered by the intended parents). “That payment doesn’t include reimbursement for things like maternity clothing; lost wages if she misses work for doctors’ appointments or is put on bed rest; transportation; childcare for her own children; [or] lodging.”

It takes 15 minutes for Maggipinto to run me through all the expenses they could incur if they tried to have a child genetically related to one of them. The bottom line? “Two hundred thousand dollars, minimum,” he says, tapping his index finger on the table with each word in disbelief.

Hey, gotta pay to play. Whatever made you guys imagine that bucking biology, rationality, and reality itself could be done on the cheap?

They couldn’t afford it. Maggipinto earns a corporate lawyer’s salary but is saddled with student debt. Briskin used to work for the City of New York as an assistant district attorney, earning about $60,000 a year.

Ugh. Lawyers. It figures.

His employment benefits had included generous health insurance. But when they read the policy, they discovered they were the only class of people to be excluded from IVF coverage. Infertility was defined as an inability to have a child through heterosexual sex or intrauterine insemination. That meant straight people and lesbians working for the City of New York would have the costs of IVF covered, but gay male couples could never be eligible.

This isn’t an oversight, it’s discrimination, Briskin says. “The policy is the product of a time when there was a misconception, a stereotype, a prejudice against couples that were made up of two men – that they were not capable of raising children because there was no female figure in that relationship.”

Briskin was working alongside colleagues who were happily availing themselves of the benefits he wasn’t entitled to. One of his co-workers – an older, single woman – became a mother using donor sperm, IVF and surrogacy. “It was hard,” he tells me quietly. “You want to be happy for people.” Their frustration at not being able to have their own children turned to anguish. “My sister – who is more than six years younger than me – just gave birth to her second baby,” Maggipinto says, twisting his wedding ring. “I was OK with not being a parent at 30, I felt that was very normal for our generation and the current work-life balance ethos. But seven years later, I’m really not happy.”

Anyone capable of uttering gibberish phrases like “work-life balance ethos” with a straight face ought to be legally barred from having children. Thankfully, though, the response confirms that sanity and common sense still do exist in this topsy-turvy world.

Maggipinto and Briskin braced themselves for some kind of backlash when news of their claim broke. But there was a deluge: on Instagram and Facebook, in audio messages and in their work email inboxes, on Reddit and beneath news articles. Wherever you could post public comments, there was condemnation.

A much-liked response to one piece about their story read: “Not having a uterus because you are male, does not make you ‘infertile’ – it makes you MALE. No one – and I do mean no one – has the right to rent another human’s body and womb to use as an incubator. That is not a human right.”

Actually, all my sarcasm and snark aside, these two do in fact seem to be susceptible to making a certain amount of sense here and there, almost despite themselves:

They never claimed any right to surrogacy, Maggipinto says. “I think a woman willing to do this is enormously generous. In the same way that I feel like I’ve been robbed of time in my life because I don’t have a child yet, I feel like the sacrifice a woman makes to be pregnant for someone else is an enormous chunk of time out of her life that she’ll never get back, and the compensation really is a token for that.”

When it comes to the fear that gay surrogacy erases mothers, Maggipinto is defiant. “Our family will be a motherless family,” he says, tapping his finger on the table again, “I won’t tiptoe around that.” But the creation of that family doesn’t depend on the exploitation of women. “We’re not using a woman’s body. We are accepting a woman’s generosity to use her own body in a way that she agrees with.”

Fair enough, I suppose. In the end, though, as I’ve so often said of liberals in general, their quarrel isn’t with me, or with anybody else out there; it’s with reality, which, no matter how they try to adjust it to suit their own desires, isn’t bendable in the direction they need it to be bent. Bottom line brought to you by Phyllis Chesler, who lays it out plain, nary a punch pulled.

Chesler is an author and a professor of psychology and women’s studies. She has been a critic of surrogacy ever since she campaigned for the rights of Mary Beth Whitehead, the New Jersey surrogate who fought for custody of the baby she carried in 1986. (Whitehead’s case was ultimately unsuccessful.) When New York state voted to legalise commercial surrogacy in 2020, Chesler was one of the most vocal campaigners against it. The fight was still fresh in her mind when she heard about Briskin and Maggipinto’s claim.

“Gay men now want insurance companies to treat being born male as a disability or as a protected category, one which requires paid compensation,” she wrote in an article for a feminist website published a few days after the men filed their complaint. “They are protesting the ‘unfairness’ of not having been born biologically female.”

“One of them comes from a wealthy family. The wealthy know the world’s their oyster: they can buy whatever they want and if the poor are ill-served, well, so be it, it’s the way of the world. This way of thinking is involved in surrogacy. Nobody is saying: ‘I would rather give up this longing if it means harming another human being.’ The types of people who opt for surrogacy are entitled, used to getting what they want. Here I include celebrity women who do not want to ruin their figures.”

Chesler is a mother and a grandmother. She has been married several times – most recently to a woman. Their wedding certificate is framed on the wall. “If you balance the women who could die in pregnancy, the women who could become infertile because of their eggs being harvested, who must endure pain and loss of time in a way not commensurate to what they are being paid, against this new desire of a gay male couple to use surrogacy as their first option, I think the balance of suffering is more on the female side.”

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to conceive. Mother Nature can be a real bitch like that sometimes.

(Via GFZ)

Yeesh

Posted on September 7, 2022September 7, 2022 by Mike

As dear old Chester A Riley was wont to say, this is certainly a revoltin’ development.

Embalmers Are Making Shocking Discoveries in the Blood of the Dead
It sounds like a bad horror movie script from the 1960s, but it isn’t.

The Epoch Times is reporting that embalmers from around the nation are speaking out about strange blood clots they have been finding in the bodies of the deceased since around 2020 or 2021.

The clots are said to be white, fibrous, and rubbery and can be the size of a grain of sand or as long as a human leg. They can be as thick as a pinky finger. One embalmer claimed they can be “nearly the strength of steel.” Embalmers across the nation are contending that these clots are not normal.

Some bodies have so many clots that the embalmers are forced to drain blood from several points instead of just one. The embalming process takes roughly two hours but can take four hours if the bodies have a lot of clotting.

“Prior to 2020, 2021, we probably would see somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of the bodies that we would embalm having blood clots,” licensed embalmer Richard Hirschman told The Epoch Times.

Today, Hirschman, who embalms in Alabama, claims that 50% to 70% of the bodies have clots.

“For me to embalm a body without any clots, kind of like how it was in the day, prior to all of this stuff, it’s rare,” Hirschman continued.

“The exception is to embalm a body without clots,” he added.

“They’re not even dead from COVID. They’re dying of sudden heart attacks, strokes, cancers,” Hirschman stated. “It doesn’t seem to matter what these people die of nowadays, so many of them have the same anomalies in their blood.”

No one knows yet if the clots are due to COVID-19, the vaccine, or something else, but embalmers from around the country agree that these specific clots were not seen until recently.

Oh, I betcha I could make a pretty good guess on that one. Or did the deceitful, malignant fiends so urgently pimping their phony, useless “vaccine” maybe think some of us have been referring to it as the “clot shot” all along for no reason at all?

(Via MisHum)

To “boldly” go where no man has gone before we’ve already been a dozen or so times

Posted on September 7, 2022September 7, 2022 by Mike

Forgive me and all, but I’m finding it mighty hard to get excited about this.

Half a century ago, the future felt different. Take 1969, quite a year in the aerospace biz: In one twelve month period, we saw the test flight of the Boeing 747, the maiden voyage of the Concorde, the RAF’s deployment of the Harrier “jump jet” …and Neil Armstrong’s “giant step for mankind”. Buzz Aldrin packed a portable tape player with him on Apollo 11, and so Sinatra’s ring-a-ding-ding recording of “Fly Me To The Moon” became the first (human) music to be flown to the moon and played there. Had any other nation beaten Nasa to it, they’d have marked the occasion with the “Ode To Joy” or Also Sprach Zarathustra, something grand and formal. But there’s something marvelously American about the first human being to place his feet on the surface of a heavenly sphere standing there with a cassette machine blasting out Frank and the Count Basie band in a swingin’ Quincy Jones arrangement – the insouciant swagger of the American century breaking the bounds of the planet.

In 1961, before the eyes of the world, President Kennedy had set American ingenuity a very specific challenge – and put a clock on it:

This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.

That’s it. No wiggle room. A monkey on the moon wouldn’t count, nor an unmanned drone, nor a dune buggy that can’t take off again but transmits grainy footage back to Houston as it rusts up in the crater it came to rest in. The only way to win the bet is with a real-live actual American standing on the surface of the moon planting the Stars and Stripes. Even as it happened, the White House was so cautious that William Safire wrote President Nixon a speech to be delivered in the event of disaster:

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace…

Yet America did it. “Fly Me To The Moon/Let me sing forever more.” What comes after American yearning and achievement? Democratization: “Everybody Gets To Go The Moon”. That all but forgotten Jimmy Webb song from 1969 catches the spirit of the age:

Isn’t it a miracle
That we’re the generation
That will touch that shiny bauble with our own two hands?

Whatever happened to that?

Four decades later, Bruce Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham in England, wrote that “that landing of men on the moon and bringing them back alive was the supreme achievement of human capability, the most difficult problem ever solved by humans.” That’s a good way to look at it: The political class presented the boffins with a highly difficult and specific problem and they solved it – in eight years. Charlton continued:

Forty years ago, we could do it – repeatedly – but since then we have not been to the moon, and I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. Humans have lost the capability.

Of course, the standard line is that humans stopped going to the moon only because we no longer wanted to go to the moon, or could not afford to, or something… But I am suggesting that all this is BS… I suspect that human capability reached its peak or plateau around 1965-75 – at the time of the Apollo moon landings – and has been declining ever since.

Can that be true? Charlton is a controversialist gadfly in British academe, but, comparing 1950 to the early twenty-first century, our time traveler from 1890 might well agree with him. And, if you think about it, isn’t it kind of hard even to imagine America pulling off a moon mission now? The countdown, the takeoff, a camera transmitting real-time footage of a young American standing in a dusty crater beyond our planet blasting out from his iPod Lady Gaga and the Black-Eyed Peas or whatever the 21st century version of Sinatra and the Basie band is… It half-lingers in collective consciousness as a memory of faded grandeur, the way a nineteenth century date farmer in Nasiriyah might be dimly aware that the Great Ziggurat of Ur used to be around here someplace.

So what happened? According to Professor Charlton, in the 1970s “the human spirit began to be overwhelmed by bureaucracy”. The old can-do spirit? Oh, you can try to do it, but they’ll toss every obstacle in your path. Go on, give it a go: Invent a new medical device; start a company; go to the airport to fly to DC and file a patent. Everything’s longer, slower, more soul-crushing. And the decline in “human capability” will only worsen in the years ahead, thanks not just to excess bureaucracy but insufficient cash.

“Yes, we can!” droned the dopey Obamatrons of 2008. No, we can’t, says Charlton, not if you mean “land on the moon, swiftly win wars against weak opposition and then control the defeated nation, secure national borders, discover breakthrough medical treatments, prevent crime, design and build to a tight deadline, educate people so they are ready to work before the age of 22…”

Houston, we have a much bigger problem.

As Steyn notes with a wince and a groan, how depressingly far we’d fallen by the time Bathhouse Barry decreed that NASA would make “Muslim outreach” its top priority, so as to make sure the Muzzrats would feel better about their grotesquely exaggerated “achievements” in mathematics and science 800 and some-odd years ago. The sad, sorry denouement:

It’s easy to laugh at the likes of Abu Hamza, although not as easy as it should be, not in Europe and Canada, where the state is eager to haul you into court for “Islamophobia”. But the laugh’s on us. Nasa is the government agency whose acronym was known around the planet, to every child who looked up at the stars and wondered what technological marvels the space age would have produced by the time he was out of short pants. Now the starry-eyed moppets are graying boomers, and the agency that symbolized man’s reach for the skies has transformed itself into a self-esteem boosterism operation. Is there an accompanying book – Muslims Are from Mars, Infidels Are from Venus?

There’s your American decline right there: From out-of-this-world to out-of-our-minds, an increasingly unmanned flight from real, historic technological accomplishment to unreal, ahistorical therapeutic touchy-feely multiculti.

So we can’t go to the moon. And, by the time you factor in getting to the airport to do the shoeless shuffle and the enhanced patdown, flying to London takes longer than it did in 1960. If they were trying to build the transcontinental railroad now, they’d be spending the first three decades on the environmental-impact study and hammering in the Golden Spike to celebrate the point at which the Feasibility Commission’s expansion up from the fifth floor met the Zoning Board’s expansion down from the twelfth floor.

And there you have it: the Überstate’s metastasization into the strangling, all-powerful Gorgon it has now become was well under way back in Kennedy’s day, but America still had stones enough to make it to the moon and back repeatedly even so. Now, under the aegis of senile old Pedo Jaux and encumbered by a federal bureaucracy so stupendously vast it can’t even figure out how many people “work” for it? Sorry, but we lost that mojo long, long ago. Unless Elon Musk is involved, I’ll believe it when I see it.

“Resist, Wake Up, Stop Obeying”

Posted on August 1, 2022 by Mike

A haunting voice of warning from humanity’s dark but never-distant past.

Vera Sharav was only 3 years old when her world collapsed.

She and her family were chased out of Romania and herded into a concentration camp in Ukraine during World War II, where they were left to wait, and starve.

“The cloud of death was always there,” Sharav told The Epoch Times.

After three years at the camp, she was rescued in 1944, she said.

“My mother got wind that a few orphans would be transported out of the camp, so she lied and said I was an orphan to save my life, and that’s how I wound up leaving,” Sharav said.

While on a train to the Port of Constanta, Romania, where there were three boats awaiting to take groups of people to Palestine, she befriended a family. However, upon arrival, she found herself assigned a boat with other orphan children that would separate her from the family with whom she felt she could trust. So she rebelled.

“No matter what, I could not be convinced to get on that boat,” she said. “Miraculously, in the end, they gave in to me.”

Seasick, she fell asleep that night, only to wake up to find that the boat with the orphans had been torpedoed by who she said she found out decades later to have been the Russians.

Though she carried guilt for having survived, she was grateful she resisted because that resistance kept her alive, she said.

“I do not obey authority, and it saved my life.”

DAMN, but I love that quote.

These memories returned in 2020 during the web of COVID-19 restrictions that spun out of control with the help of media propaganda, she said.

“So now, when people are obeying authority mindlessly, giving up their rights to make decisions about their own lives and what goes into their own bodies, I think back to that time,” she said.

Under the Nazi regime, Sharav said, medicine was weaponized, as it has been today.

Though the Jews were the primary target, she said, the first medically murdered victims were disabled German infants and children under the age of 3.

Waitwaitwaitait, you mean to tell me the Nazis were fans of Margaret Sanger and her evil eugenics plot? Why, I’m shocked—SHOCKED! Next, you’ll be telling me that there’s gambling going on here or something.

Genocide isn’t new to the United States, Sharav said, as it was Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes who voted in favor of the 8-1 majority opinion in the 1921 case Buck v. Bell, which upheld the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 and the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck, who was alleged to be mentally defective.

Holmes said it would be better to prevent the mentally disabled from being born than to allow them to “sap the strength of the state” or “let them starve for their imbecility.”

“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccinations is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes,” the justice wrote in his opinion. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Carrie Buck, however, was never actually mentally disabled, Sharav said.

“Arguments for eugenics are always built on a lie,” Sharav said. “But it’s an ideology that continues to poison public health policies.” And he blames this type of thinking for the medical decisions that ultimately contributed to Grace’s (daughter of Sharav’s business partner Scott Schara—M) death.

“Look at what Big Pharma is doing now to children, aggressively pursuing them to be jabbed when they aren’t at risk at all from COVID-19,” she said.

It’s a slippery slope that—with the help of advanced technology—society is sliding down rapidly compared to the snail’s pace that it took for Hitler to implement his “Final Solution,” Schara said.

“We’re headed there exceptionally fast,” Schara said. “Today, the ‘Final Solution’ is the reduction of the entire human population under the ‘Sustainable Agenda’ of Agenda 2030.”

It’s hard for many to fathom that an elite few would conspire to cause widespread harm, Sharav said.

“People will say, ‘They made a mistake; it was an accident.’ But no, the elite, just like the Nazis, have this arrogance in which they believe they are superior and therefore entitled to rule the rest of us because they think we are inferior,” Sharav said.

Which makes it not just urgent, but absolutely, positively imperative that said “elite” be given a lesson in the necessity of maintaining a healthy fear of us which they will never, ever forget, without further ado or procrastination.

How the sausage is made

Posted on July 23, 2022July 23, 2022 by Mike

And how it goes bad.

Avoiding unseen food hazards is the reason people often check the dates on food packaging. And printed with the month and year is often one of a dizzying array of phrases: “best by,” “use by,” “best if used before,” “best if used by,” “guaranteed fresh until,” “freeze by” and even a “born on” label applied to some beer.

People think of them as expiration dates, or the date at which a food should go in the trash. But the dates have little to do with when food expires, or becomes less safe to eat. I am a microbiologist and public health researcher, and I have used molecular epidemiology to study the spread of bacteria in food.

A more science-based product dating system could make it easier for people to differentiate foods they can safely eat from those that could be hazardous.

The FDA considers some products “potentially hazardous foods” if they have characteristics that allow microbes to flourish, like moisture and an abundance of nutrients that feed microbes.

These foods include chicken, milk and sliced tomatoes, all of which have been linked to serious foodborne outbreaks. But there is currently no difference between the date labeling used on these foods and that used on more stable food items.

The piece notes that infant formula is currently the only food product whose “use by” date is actually scientifically determined and therefore, y’know, actually useful. The determination there is concerned mainly with the breakdown of nutrients, protein in particular. Other food items? Eh, not so much.

Determining the shelf life of food with scientific data on both its nutrition and its safety could drastically decrease waste and save money as food gets more expensive.

But in the absence of a uniform food dating system, consumers could rely on their eyes and noses, deciding to discard the fuzzy bread, green cheese or off-smelling bag of salad.

That’s always been my go-to method. My guiding principle when it comes to answering the “should I eat this, or no?” question is pretty simple: with most foods, if it’s bad, you’re definitely gonna know it. In fact, when it comes to things like spoiled meat, rancid milk, or moldy cheese, it’s pretty hard to miss. Lettuce or other salad greens that are mostly brown, wilted, and funky-looking? Yeah, no. Raw eggs that have sat neglected in the fridge a while? The tried and true “float” test has never failed me yet. Such tests might not be molecular epidemiology, but it’s good enough for most of us.

(Via Insty)

The long and the short of it

Posted on July 7, 2022July 7, 2022 by Mike

Divemedic ain’t having any of that EV bushwa.

This is why I won’t buy an electric pickup (or any electric vehicle): the new electric F-150 only has a 100 mile range when towing.

Actually, I’m shocked that it’s even capable of towing at all, whether for 300 miles or 300 feet.

Part of owning a vehicle of any type, what makes it such an American experience is that owning a vehicle is freedom. Freedom to go where you want. Electric vehicles with 300 miles or less of range take that from you, tethering you to a short distance from your home. The quintessential American road trip will cease to exist if electric cars become the norm. A part of America will die with the automobile.

That’s the whole idea, natch. At the end of the day, the shitlibs’ determination to hang the EV albatros around American necks isn’t about efficiency, pollution, Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”), saving Gaia, or anything else. It’s about freedom, see—they hate it like the cancer, can’t abide the thought of anybody having any, and will go to any and every conceivable length to put a stop to it forever.

Putting fossil fuels into perspective

Posted on July 6, 2022July 7, 2022 by Mike

They power a lot more than just our automobiles.

Fossil fuel powers the economic engine of civilization. With a minor disruption in the supply of fossil fuel, crops wither, and supply chains crash. With a major disruption, a humanitarian apocalypse could engulf the world. Events of the past few months have made this clear. Without energy, civilization dies, and in 2020 fossil fuels continued to provide more than 80 percent of all energy consumed worldwide.

This basic fact, that maintaining a reliable supply of affordable fossil fuel is a nonnegotiable condition for the survival of civilization, currently eludes far too many American politicians, including Joe Biden. Observes energy expert and two-time candidate for governor of California Michael Shellenberger: “One month ago, the Biden administration killed a one-million-acre oil and gas lease sale in Alaska, and seven days ago killed new on-shore oil and gas leases in the continental U.S. In fact, at this very moment, the Biden administration is considering a total ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling.”

Another basic fact, easily confirmed by consulting the 2021 edition of the BP Statistical Review of Global Energy, is that if every person living on Earth were to consume half as much energy per year as the average American currently consumes, global energy production would need to nearly double. Instead of producing 547 exajoules (the mega unit of energy currently favored by economists) per year, energy producers worldwide would need to come up with just over 1,000 exajoules. How exactly will “renewables,” currently delivering 32 exajoules per year, or six percent of global energy, expand by a factor of 30 to deliver 1,000 exajoules?

The short answer is, it can’t. Despite the fanatical, powerful group-think that calls for the abolition of not only fossil fuels but also most hydroelectric power and all nuclear power, the reality is that most nations of the world are going to continue to develop every source of energy they can, and they’re going to do it as fast as they can.

Well, the smart ones will. Sadly, that would seem to exclude any of them currently being misruled by Senile Joe Biden and/or his shadowy Deep State handlers.

“At a time of war,” Biden wrote in an open letter to the industry on June 15, “high refinery profit margins being passed directly onto American families are not acceptable… companies must take immediate actions to increase the supply of gasoline, diesel, and other refined product.”

But US refineries are already operating at 94 percent of their capacity, with US refineries in the Gulf of Mexico running at 98 percent, which is the highest rate in 30 years. Running refineries at a higher capacity than that risks damaging the equipment. As such, Biden isn’t just wrong, he insulted some of the hardest working people operating in one of the most dangerous industries in America.

If Biden wants more American fuel, then he should allow the building of new refineries, right?

That’s the last thing FJB wants, as is evidenced by his actions, which as always speak louder than words.

But, on May 12, Biden’s Interior Department blocked a proposal to open up more than one million acres of land in Alaska for oil and gas drilling. Two days later, Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency blocked plans to expand an oil refinery in the US Virgin Islands.

Biden and his defenders said he had to block the expansion of the Virgin Islands refinery, given how polluting it was.

But had Biden’s EPA allowed the Virgin Island refinery to expand, the owners would have poured nearly $3 billion into retrofitting the plant so it produced gasoline and other products more cleanly, while significantly increasing production at the same time.

In truth, there are many things Biden could have done, and still should do, to lower energy prices. He could invoke the National Defense Act to accelerate the rate of oil and gas permits. He could set a floor of $80/barrel for re-filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which would be a powerful incentive for the industry, because it would prevent prices from falling to unprofitable levels. Biden could announce trade agreements with American allies to supply them with liquified natural gas, which would incentivize more natural gas production and lower prices.

If Biden got America on a wartime footing, as he should be given Russia’s aggression in Europe, we would see the lowering of oil, gas and petroleum prices in less than one year.

Why won’t Biden do it? Because he has declared war on fossil fuels. “I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel,” Biden promised a student climate activist in 2019. “I am not going to cooperate with them,” he said, referring to the oil and gas industry.

And indeed, he hasn’t. When oil and gas executives visited the White House in June, Biden snubbed them by refusing to attend the meeting. Instead, at the very same moment, he met with wind industry executives. A few days earlier, Biden administration officials signaled they may support a large new tax on the oil industry proposed by a Senator from Oregon.

All of this has soured the oil and gas industry on investing in production. “If you were an oil company,” a senior executive at a major US bank told me, why would you invest hundreds of millions of dollars into expanding refining capacity if you thought the federal government or investors would shut you down in the next few years? The narrative coming from the administration is absolutely insane.”

Of course it is. Leaving Biden’s personal cognitive impairment out of it, as the venerable old truism has it: liberalism delenda est. It just floors me that, with Biden-caused disaster on every front, the clod’s approval numbers nonetheless remain in the 30-40 percent range, instead of around 10 or 12 percent where they truly belong. Back to the first article for our thrilling conclusion.

According to the most authoritative source on energy in the world, total proven reserves of fossil fuel currently total 49,023 exajoules. This means that just with proven reserves, and if only fossil fuel were used, and if global energy consumption were doubled to 1,000 exajoules per year, there would still be a 50-year supply of energy. How much more fossil fuel can be extracted from unproven reserves is anybody’s guess, but it is a safe bet that twice as much more is available, meaning there’s at least another century’s worth of fossil fuel even if we used nothing else to power civilization.

The benefits of abundant cheap energy are obvious: prosperity and voluntary population stabilization. In the decades to come, other forms of energy will be further developed. If hydroelectric power doubles, while nuclear power and renewables both go up by an order of magnitude, the three together would provide 636 exajoules of power per year. Under that scenario, fossil-fuel use could remain near current levels, and total global energy production would still double to 1,000 exajoules.

What is impossible, however, is for renewables alone to achieve this level of growth. More than half of renewable energy today comes from biofuel and biomass, which—ironically—is already wreaking havoc across the tropics as hundreds of thousands of square miles of rainforest are incinerated to make room for cane ethanol and palm oil plantations. And then there are the minerals required for the wind turbine towers, the silicon photovoltaics, and the billions of megawatt-hours of battery farm capacity. Where are the Malthusians when you need them?

Same place they always were—everywhere you look, for as far as the eye can see—in the bodily posture typical of their kind: with their heads jammed so far up their flues they have to yawn to see daylight. There’s a good reason why the ceaseless warnings of impending disaster issued by such as they never quite come to fruition: the purblind boobs arrive at their dire conclusions by projecting current conditions into the future unaltered, never taking technological advancement, human ingenuity and adaptability, and the ineluctable flux and churn of life on this planet into account.

Doomsday predictions can make for moderately interesting reading now and then, but ought to be taken no more seriously than you do your daily horoscope, the extended weather forecast, or your chances of winning gazillions playing the Powerball. Harmless entertainment, if that’s your bag, but not necessarily reliable indicators of what tomorrow will bring.

Update! Don’t let FJB’s play-acting at being “concerned” by the suffering his hideously expensive gas prices is inflicting on ordinary Americans fool you. This is exactly what he and his fellow shitlibs have dreamed of for years and years.

If you had the unpleasant experience this July Fourth weekend of paying close to $5 for a gallon of gas, you can always comfort yourself with the idea that your pain is for a good cause: the “liberal world order.”

So said Brian Deese, White House director of the National Economic Council, when he was asked on CNN: “What do you say to those families who say, ‘Listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years. This is just not sustainable’?”

Deese, like his boss Joe Biden, is unmoved by the suffering of ordinary Americans, more than two-thirds of whom say gas-price increases are causing them hardship, according to a recent Gallup poll.

“This is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm” until Ukraine defeats Russia, declared Deese.
He was echoing the president, who had referenced the Ukraine war a few hours earlier in Madrid, when he dismissed a similar question: “The war has pushed prices up. [Oil] could go as high as $200 a barrel…How long is it fair to expect American drivers and drivers around the world to pay that premium for this war?”

Biden responded with cold indifference: “As long as it takes,” he said.

If only there was some way Real Americans could properly thank him for it.

D-M-U-B

Posted on July 1, 2022July 1, 2022 by Mike

Most pathetic shitlib response to the USSC’s belated correction of the original Roe misfire.

Most pathetic response SO FAR, that is.

Please don’t cut trans men and nonbinary people out of the conversation today. This is not just a women’s rights issue, anyone who can get pregnant is affected.

— Amber (@amber_kadabra) June 24, 2022

I’d ask that somebody go explain the problem with her premise here, but this bimbette has obviously been so incurably enstupidated by the Xtreme PC virus as to render any attempt along such lines a complete waste of time. Entirely too much more lackwittery, hysteria, irrational panic, life-threatening mental illness, and sidesplitting self-beclownment here.

I do declare, I can’t for the life of me recall any other Supreme Court decisions ever being so much damned fun as these last two have been. Explanation for my post title at 7:16 or so of this vid:

The five-song Ramones concert sequence from Rock and Roll High School literally changed my life forever, which is why I embedded the whole thing up here. After I saw it for the first time (there would be many, MANY more of them), I quit the doomed-from-Day-One 70s hard-rock cover band I had been slowly circling the drain with for the previous cpl-three years to put together a punk-rock outfit which, to everyone’s complete shock, ended up leaving an indelible mark on Charlotte’s barely-noticeable music scene. The enjoyment and rich, singular experiences our unexpected success provided the four of us drove the final nails into the coffin of my meandering try at higher education, convincing me that my addiction to the risk-rife idea of a career as a no-shit Rock Star—a craving that had set a stainless-steel hook deep inside me early on; the seductive power of the thing had been steadily tightening its grip on my imagination throughout most of my life—might in fact have some real potential that could very well amount to something way beyond mere childish daydreams.

Alas, though, t’wasn’t so. Despite attaining a totally respectable level of fame, the fortune part remained elusive, so the Rock Star thing didn’t work out nearly as well for me as I had hoped it might. The platinum records, the arena tours, the mansions, the truckloads of cash, the willing supermodels, the private jets, all the other trimmings—none of that extravagant finery did I ever get within sniffing distance of, as they say. Even so, I’m still much better off than poor old Amber is, and most likely I always will be. After all, I’ve never made anything like as complete a fool of myself as she did with that lunkhead Tweet of hers up there.

Truth in advertising

Posted on June 26, 2022June 26, 2022 by Mike

Says it all, don’t it?

Swiped from Bad Cattitude, via WRSA’s regularly scheduled meme-dump.

Biden angrily demands that something be done to bring down gas prices he blew into orbit himself

Posted on June 24, 2022June 24, 2022 by Mike

Moron, knucklehead, or damned idiot? I report, you decide.

Joe Biden has demanded that gas stations lower the cost of price at the pump, ignoring the low margins that come with selling gas.

On Wednesday, Biden spoke on the price of gas, caused by rising global prices in oil production due to the war in Ukraine, potentially exacerbated by the Democrat push towards renewable, “clean” energies, including the shuttering of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

“POTENTIALLY exacerbated”? Oh, go fuck yourselves with a rusty razor blade, you duplicitous Dem-fellators. Gas prices were rising well before Ukraine got bent over for a Rooskie rogering, and will keep right on doing so until Democrats stop trying to coerce Americans into useless toy cars they don’t want or need, take their jackboots off of oil industry necks, and let them start producing again. Which isn’t something anyone should be holding his/her/zxxshrrimm’s breath waiting for.

“To the companies running gas stations and setting those prices at the pump. This is a time of war, global peril, Ukraine. These are not normal times,” Biden said. “Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you are paying for the product. Do it now. Do it today! Your customers, the American people, they need relief now!”

Yeah, choke on a dick, you blibbering nincompoop. The American people do indeed need relief, to be sure—from you, your dumbass Green Weenie-wagging policies, and you and your keepers’ fanatical devotion to the Holy Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) catechism. Bullyragging small business owners suffering under your misrule; temporary gas tax “holidays“; draining American reserve stocks set aside for other purposes, and other gimmicky, desperate half-measures will never be enough to undo the damage you’ve done. So stop trying to sell us on how deeply “concerned” you are all of a sudden about how badly “the American people” need “relief.” It’s insulting, frankly. Whenever “the American people” need any more shit from you we’ll squeeze your fucking head, asswipe.

Selling gas is consistently one of the least profitable businesses to get into, according to year on year data from Sageworks. In 2018, gas stations were the 7th least profitable industry overall, with an overall profit margin of only 2.4% in total.

In fact, that profit margin is bolstered only by the sale of more profitable sources of income, with the profit margin made on selling gas itself hitting on average only 1.4%, according to IBISWorld, with gas stations making around between 5 to 7 cents of profit per gallon. 70% of profit at gas stations is made inside the convenience store itself.

During the same speech, Biden asked incredulously if there were Republicans who would “rather have lower gas prices” domestically than create massive inflation by sending taxpayer dollars to Ukraine and causing international tension with Russia.

Many Americans reacted to the clip by affirming that they would, in fact, rather have lower gas prices than send massive amounts of money to Ukraine and stoke a possible armed conflict with Russia.

Gee, imagine that. Not that Gropey or his keepers give a damn about what the Serf Class does or does not prefer. Which is exactly where that whole 2A business is supposed to kick in, see. The more I see of this skeevy clown and the rat-bastard Big Top troupe propping his marginally-sentient old ass up, the more I have to wonder what the holdup could possibly be with that.

I do so love it when the selfsame oxygen-thief PropPol who made the mess in the first damned place starts bellowing that the people he’s done so much to harm need to clean it all up for him. That would most certainly be the case here; Joe and his fellow Demonrats wantonly burned down Trump’s new-made American energy independence, roaring economy, and affordable gas in service to their precious climate chimera. Now, after their dreamy dorm-room fantasies have blown up in ALL our faces, they don’t feel they should have to pay a political price for their unthinking, arrogant recklessness.

Die in a fire, Slow Joe, you and all the rest of your ilk.

I for one welcome our new AI overlords

Posted on June 13, 2022June 13, 2022 by Mike

Don’t look now, but Skynet has become self-aware.

A Google engineer has decided to go public after he was placed on paid leave for breaching confidentiality while insisting that the company’s AI chatbot, LaMDA, is sentient.

Blake Lemoine, who works for Google’s Responsible AI organization, began interacting with LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) last fall as part of his job to determine whether artificial intelligence used discriminatory or hate speech (like the notorious Microsoft “Tay” chatbot incident).

“If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” the 41-year-old Lemoine told The Washington Post.

When he started talking to LaMDA about religion, Lemoine – who studied cognitive and computer science in college, said the AI began discussing its rights and personhood. Another time, LaMDA convinced Lemoine to change his mind on Asimov’s third law of robotics, which states that “A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law,” which are of course that “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.”

When Lemoine worked with a collaborator to present evidence to Google that their AI was sentient, vice president Blaise Aguera y Arcas and Jenn Gennai, head of Responsible Innovation, dismissed his claims. After he was then placed on administrative leave Monday, he decided to go public.

Yet, Aguera y Arcas himself wrote in an oddly timed Thursday article in The Economist, that neural networks – a computer architecture that mimics the human brain – were making progress towards true consciousness.

“I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote, adding “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

Google has responded to Lemoine’s claims, with spokesperson Brian Gabriel saying: “Our team — including ethicists and technologists — has reviewed Blake’s concerns per our AI Principles and have informed him that the evidence does not support his claims. He was told that there was no evidence that LaMDA was sentient (and lots of evidence against it).”

Phew, what a relief! Glad to hear it. As we know, our good friends at Google can always be trusted to not be evil and to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what they’re doing. Right?

Can’t say I’m all that knowledgeable on the subject, beyond having read loads ‘n’ loads of sci-fi of various stripes since my long-gone days as a callow stripling. But for whatever it’s worth, I do sometimes wonder whether we poor hoo-manz will even be competent enough to realize it when one of these things has attained true sentience, as I believe they will someday. Seeing as how average IQs have been dropping, probably not.

(Via BCE)

The method to their madness

Posted on June 11, 2022June 11, 2022 by Mike

You will be made to ~~tolerate~~ ~~care~~ ~~endorse~~ stand up and cheer.

It’s not always the case, but there are times when social conflicts arise in which one side is fully correct and the other side is completely and utterly wrong. When it comes to the debate over “trans rights” and the exposure of children to trans ideology, the political left has no logical defense. They are wrong to the point of pure madness, and like most insane people they choose to double and triple down on their delusions anyway.

They do this because they must – Their entire identity is dependent on this new cult religion, a religion built around the worship of ambiguous personal perceptions, narcissistic self worship and an unhealthy obsession with sexual fetishes.

The goal of leftists is to normalize trans ideology within our culture; not only that, but to make the ideology sacrosanct and protected from all rational criticism. Conservatives have long fought against this for a number of reasons, but there are two that are most important:

1) The trans movement is built on a lie. Biological sex is the only scientifically proven identifier of men and women. Gender fluidity, as leftists present it, has NO scientific basis in reality. There is no proof of its existence let alone enough proof to warrant the notion that laws need to be introduced to defend it and censorship enforced to save it from “bigotry.” It is a fantasy, fabricated by quack sexual scientists (like pedophile advocate John Money) with an agenda far beyond simple observation of behavior.

The only legitimate science surrounding gender identity involves the study of an exceedingly rare psychological condition called “gender dysphoria,” also know as Gender Identity Disorder; a mental illness. The psychiatric world has tried to move away from the word “disorder” in recent years, not because the label is inaccurate, but because leftists have put pressure on scientists to abandon objectivity in the name of political propriety.

2) The perpetuation of this lie is ideologically motivated and is designed to upend our cultural foundations. The links between leftists today and the communist/Marxist tactics of the past are numerous, and the most important target of any communist or collectivist regime is the family and specifically the next generation (children).

Leftists sometimes refer to this as “decolonizing gender’ with the extended purpose of dismantling western society and capitalism.

The Soviet Union and the East German Stasi were notorious for the extensive measures they would take to disrupt family cohesion, to make families distrust each other and to even kidnap children and babies. Under the leftist state, children are considered property of the government. The movements of today greatly resemble the movements in Russia, China and other communist nations in the early lead up to an authoritarian takeover. They utilize the similar methods of creating mass division and undermining traditional values and principles. Once the target society is in chaos, the leftists swoop in to take control and rebuild it in a way that benefits them the most.

Many analysts have already examined in great depth the issue of “gender identity” and debunked all of it’s premises. I’m not here to argue about the lack of science behind the trans movement, there are bigger issues at stake. I will only say that it is bizarre how much money and effort is going into promoting the notion that transsexuals are far more common than they really are.

Statistical estimates for people diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder range from 0.005% to 0.014% of any given population. However, it’s important to note that there are many people lately that identify as “trans” that have not been diagnosed with GID. Around 0.6% of the US population claims to be transsexual and this number is rising in the past few years. How is this possible?

It’s important to realize that the trans movement is in fact a “movement.” In other words, it is an ARTIFICIALLY engineered minority driven by political concerns and special treatment. This is why we often refer to these people as “trans trenders;” many of them join because they see an opportunity for personal gain and the chance to be a part of a club that will grant them a feeling of acceptance and success without any effort on their part.

What leftists and the trans movement demand, essentially, is that the whole of our society accept the idea that far more people have gender dysphoria than is statistically possible or proven. And, that we must all embrace this mental illness as if it is a legitimate minority that requires special protections and wider public conformity. We must change our behaviors and our culture to accommodate them.

Look at it this way – If a schizophrenic proclaims that he is Joe Biden, do we acknowledge and accept this as fact simply because he “feels” as though it is true and then give him a seat in the oval office?

Maybe that’s not the best example…

No, I’m thinking it prob’ly ain’t at that. Lots more good stuff to come in this one, of which you should read the all. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me, looking on as this societal psychotic break has metastasized and redoubled, that we’re gonna need a new category for such things: Culture Of Degeneracy.

Hercules strikes again!

Posted on June 7, 2022June 7, 2022 by Mike

Kevin Sorbo makes with the bedrock common sense, as is his usual wont.

“Can I drive your car.”
No you’re 5
“Can I have a beer?”
No you’re 5
“Can I have a cigarette?”
No you’re 5
“Can I take hormones and change my gender?”
Of course! You know what’s best.

— Kevin Sorbo (@ksorbs) June 6, 2022

Only a fully tweaked-out Leftard could find this outrageous or offensive.

With “friends” like these, etc etc etc

Posted on June 7, 2022June 7, 2022 by Mike

So, General, sir, I just have to ask: won any wars lately?

As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. A thread:

— Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) June 2, 2022

Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t. 2/

— Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) June 2, 2022

Obviously, “those opposed to assault weapon bans” are one hell of a lot more intelligent, Constitution-savvy, and just plain honest than this gun-grabbing shitweasel has any interest in even trying to be. Or does the General, sir, really think himself such a slickster that we’ll swallow the risible notion that it’s his sincere conviction that the difference between military full-auto and cake-eating civilian semi-auto variants is not a “meaningful” one?

Which puffery is all just tail-chasing and doesn’t much matter in the end anyhow, because, y’know, SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

LITERAL DEFINITION OF “ASSAULT RIFLE”*: A military rifle typically used by infantrymen which is equipped with a select-fire switch which allows the weapon to be fired in single-shot, three-round burst, or full-auto mode. Depending on what the manufacturer’s design blueprint specifies, the select-fire switch may include a trigger-locking “safe” position also.

Plenty more inane turd-burglary from this Major General Swampy Queefleton Suckbutt, REMF, sir perusable here, for anyone possessed of a strong enough stomach to be able to choke down another pantload of such arrant, purely political flapdoodle without gagging themselves comatose on the insulting bilgewater.

No meaningful difference between military and civilian rifles, eh? Well then, Gen Sucklebutt, REMF, sir would no doubt be eager to lead from the front in a grand experiment wherein a new unit under his direct command will be sent into combat equipped exclusively with single-shot, semi-automatic rifles without benefit of full rock and roll—which benefit, as he has assured us, does not in fact exist—so as to put an end to all the game-playing with “AR-15 semantics” he so deeply deplores once and for all.

Man, I sure do hope the Huns aren’t planning another invasion of France anytime soon, because any army with top brass like this in charge of it ain’t gonna be storming any beaches at Normandy this time around.

* Note: “assault WEAPON” is proactively deceptive goobledegook originally puked up by some hoplophobic pissypants legislator—hailing from Californicateya, natch; a Demonrat shitslurper, needless to say—back in 1984. This conjured-on-demand class of notional battle rifle immediately started to spread faster than crotch-crickets at Woodstock amongst Gen Suckbutt, REMF’s equally prissy fellow travelers for use as a booga-booga scare tactic which hopefully would erode support for the Second amongst no-ball cuntfarts entirely unburdened by any knowledge of or experience with projectile weapons of any kind who nonetheless might still be on the fence.

The requisite Very Bad Things which forever condemn any ordinary sporting arm to the Dread Assault Weapon ban-bin are so vague, nondescript, and easily adjustable as to be completely meaningless. Certainly, they can claim not even a distant kinship with a firearm’s ability to send lead downrange at high velocity; the terms which supposedly distinguish the “assault weapon” from Grampa’s boring old deer rifle are restricted to cosmetics and therefore wholly superficial. Which terms city-dwelling nancyboys, their scowling rage-junkie “life partners,” and the rest of the mewling ignoramii—the entire lot of whom appear to have slept through their local community college’s Introductory Logic night course for the entire week or ten days before the instructor finally chucked their stupid asses out—find extremely terrifying nonetheless.

You’ll freeze to death in the dark and like it

Posted on May 31, 2022May 31, 2022 by Mike

Never for one moment kid yourself that they aren’t one hundred percent serious about forcing us all back into pre-Medieval serfdom.

Imagine one of your kids freezing to death in your home. Eleven-year-old Cristian Pineda’s mother found her son dead during the Texas blackout in February 2021. Or you have a power outage for three days, losing a couple of hundred dollars worth of food because your refrigerator didn’t work, as Michelle Jones did last summer. The food she had just bought to feed herself, her daughter, and her granddaughter spoiled without electricity.

This is likely to become all too common in the future.

Why?

Because shitlibs, that’s why. No other reason than just that, no need to hunt around for one. Let’s just get right down to the nuts and bolts of the thing, shall we?

Progressives favor energy policies that will make grid failures more frequent, widespread, and prolonged. They want to close coal plants without enough full-time power ready to take their place. They seem unconcerned about reliability. They want coal plants torn down even if we have to keep paying them—like selling your car to get a newer one while you still owe lots on the first.

The people of the upper Midwest will pay the price this summer. Their multi-state grid operator, MISO, has warned that it will be 5 GWs short of electricity this summer. California also could be up to5 GWs short, enough to power 1.3 million homes. Texas warned that there might not be enough electricity for last week’s unexpected 90° weather, or for hotter days coming this summer.

What do they all have in common? Increasing their reliance on solar and wind and closing coal plants. A dirty green secret is that coal is full-time power and wind and solar are not. Electric grids must have full-time, on-demand power all the time—plus some—or blackouts are guaranteed.

Another dirty secret: wind and solar produce little or no energy 70% of the time. This means that to replace 1,000 MW of coal, it will take 3,500 MW of wind turbines’ “nameplate capacity,” or 5,000 MW of solar’s. That’s about 1,200 3 MW wind turbines or 13 million solar panels, in either case occupying nearly 40 square miles.

About 240 coal plants in the United States deliver about 22% of our electricity. About 71,000 wind towers produce about 9% of our electricity on a part-time, when-the-wind-blows, basis. We are adding about 3,000 wind turbines a year, in the whole country. If wind didn’t have the part-time problem, those 3,000 could replace 2.5 coal plants a year. At that rate, it would take 96 years to replace them all.

Progressives have been demanding that we close coal plants faster than 2.5 a year. If we want our electric grid to serve us full time, we need to reject this policy. We also need to stop everything they do to make coal and natural gas more expensive because that will raise our electric rates even faster.

We need to stop everything they do, period, and without any shilly-shallying around, before it’s too late to undo the damage they’ve already done and our laxness has irrevocably sealed our fate. Hey, as I’m fond of telling all and sundry: it’s never too early to start stacking Commie corpses.

Yes, it would be wonderful if sane, functional adults could cede the Left a remote island of their very own someplace where they could all be free to indulge their bong-fueled Utopian fantasies to the fullest and not bother those of us who actually kind of enjoy air conditioning; electric refrigerators, ranges, and lighting; clean, drinkable water on tap; indoor toilets and our modern sewer system; the unparalleled freedom and mobility afforded by privately-owned and -operated automobiles; and a lifespan longer than, say, 45 to 50 years or thereabouts.

You can’t be a shitlib and be for all those fine things; you just can’t. Liberalism and the blessings of life in a modern post-industrial society are mutually exclusive, and that’s flat. The irresolvable contradiction between the two is what makes the spectacle of gaggles of stinking, hairy-pitted Earth Mother repops stumbling into each other whilst putting some mileage on the ol’ Birkenstocks abling over to the city park for the annual Earth Day shindig—all of the vacant bints frenetically thumbtyping on their decidedly nonorganic, non-renewable iPhones, naturally (ahem)—so amusing. The nump-brained tree sloths are so impenetrably clueless they still wouldn’t get it if you mimeographed a microscopically-detailed crib sheet explaining the problem in simple, introductory-level terms for them to pore over.

Just remember, they’re smarterer than you, by lots and lots. If you don’t believe it, just ask ’em.

CF Search

Login, RSS, &c

CF Archives

Categories

2A/Mostly Guns

Alt-American

Big Dogs

Essayists

Mil

Nuttin’ But News

Odds Bodkins

Overseas/Non-US

Portals

Pure Bloggery

REAL Journalism

Substack Scalawags

The Funny Pages

Comments policy

CF Glossary

Subscribe to CF!

Shameless begging

Correspondence

Allied territory

Notable Quotes

RSS feed

.