We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, August 24. 2022
Why Don't Men and Women Get Along?
All about a homeless San Francisco guy
Babylon Bee Won't Back Down Over Trans Joke Twitter Ban. Kyle Mann, the Christian satire site's editor, also talks Biden vs. Trump, and why he saves his deepest burns for mega-pastors like Joel Osteen.
White Christians to blame for campus antisemitism, says CUNY official
NYT reminds nervous parents that they can mask their kids to protect them from ... monkeypox
Can Anyone Explain the Appeal of Drag Queens and Why Lib Parents Bring their Kids to Watch Them?
From Clitoridectomy to Chemical Castration: Call the Left’s Sadism What It Is. Children are being exploited and their bodies mutilated, all to serve leftist ideology.
Editor for The New Yorker advertises his White Savior complex
Joe Biden hands out a $10,000 'gift' to the rich he'd like you to pay for
Back-To-School Programs Dividing Students By “Gender, Culture And Identity”…
Collective farms sure worked in the past
Greg Abbott: Eric Adams is all talk when it comes to ‘open’ borders
Sanctuary City Mayors Cry 'Uncle', No More Migrants!
French Government Already Looking To Establish Climate Crisis Con Police
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Joe Biden: The MIA President.
President Biden's Major Accomplishments
Meet The 46th President Of The United States
"President Biden's Major Accomplishments"
That list looks like it was put together by the Babylon Bee. Hilarious!
Zach and Morning Joe didn't get the memo apparently. It's not the Inflation Reduction Act any more, it's the "the climate, tax and health care bill". The dishonesty is breathtaking.
Eeyore: That list looks like it was put together by the Babylon Bee.
All this is entailed in just the first bullet point:
RJP: It's not the Inflation Reduction Act any more, it's the "the climate, tax and health care bill".
The former is the proper name, the latter is just what it is sometimes called. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will reduce the deficit, which will reduce pressure on inflation over the long term. Investments in energy conservation will reduce pressures on energy prices. Energy investments will help the transition to a modern, green economy, which will save money on climate mitigation in the years to come. The bill will also reduce prescription drug costs, also reducing the pressure on overall prices.
Did you want to discuss the second bullet point, the CHIPS Act?
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will reduce the deficit, which will reduce pressure on inflation over the long term. Investments in energy conservation will reduce pressures on energy prices. Energy investments will help the transition to a modern, green economy, which will save money on climate mitigation in the years to come. The bill will also reduce prescription drug costs, also reducing the pressure on overall prices.
What is disturbing, is that you actually believe all that. More Solyndra's.
Nothing written by the (((Quibble-DickZ))) is disturbing.
Dishonest, unethical yes but not disturbing.
B. Hammer: More Solyndra's.
Tesla was also an Department of Energy investment. Some investments pay off. Some don't. Overall, the government made money on the energy loans, while helping establish an American foothold in the new, burgeoning electric vehicle industry.
B. Hammer: You left out the terrorism funding.
With regards to a possible deal with Iran, the money would not be from the U.S. taxpayer, but earned by Iran, largely through the sale of oil.
The question is how best to curtail Iran's nuclear program. Ultimately, Iran can acquire a nuclear weapon if it wants to. Once the uranium is refined, then making the weapon only takes weeks, and requires only basic technology.
The fundamental concept is called breakout time. That's the time it takes a country to decide to make a nuclear weapon and actually having made one. Without refined uranium, but with the technology to do so, it can take months or even years. Iran has an incentive to have the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon, but not necessarily the final product. If their breakout time is sufficiently short, then they can confidently respond to most external threats, if the need arises. On the other hand, the West wants a long breakout time. That way, the West can respond, if Iran moves towards manufacturing a weapon. To do that, though, you need an inspections regime for the manufacture of refined uranium.
The original deal, negotiated by the Obama administration, kept Iran to a one-year breakout time. And it was largely working. The complaint was that it didn't stop Iran's nuclear program. Well, duh. Nothing can do that, certainly not sanctions.
Because the U.S. reneged on the nuclear deal, Iran is currently thought to have a breakout time of a few weeks at most, not to mention an even greater distrust of the Americans than they had before. The new deal would attempt to roll that back to about six months breakout time, still sufficient for the West to mount a response, if Iran were to make a move towards manufacturing a weapon, but short enough to hopefully give conservative factions in Iran some confidence about their ability to produce a weapon, if there were to be an external threat.
Regardless, over the long term, Iran will have a nuclear weapon, if they want one.
'NYT reminds nervous parents that they can mask their kids to protect them from ... monkeypox'
Steering them clear of sodomites would be a better strategy.
Why don't men and women get along? My guess would be because they don't agree on what is a man and what is a woman. At least that's what I've been told.
"Can Anyone Explain the Appeal of Drag Queens"
Yes. Hate! They hate you, they hate your religion, they hate your success or your good looks or normal weight or family life. And it gives then a perverse satisfaction to stick their finger in your eye and if it takes bringing their children or your children to see drag queens and gay sex to do it then that's what they will do. They love the fact that they can label you homophobic and an army of internet queers and haters will cheer them on. They are sick people and nothing you or anyone else can do will ever make them well.
'Homeless San Francisco Guy'. What a sad story. Now, take it over to the Re-write Department and give it to Michael Shellenberger.
I tried to read it and care. I just couldn’t.
The gaslighting about nonexistent crime (you can’t record it if it isn’t reported) and the defense of Chesa Boudin, was just a bit much.
"Joe Biden hands out $10,000 gift..."
Almost everyone in middle America makes far less than $125,000 a year. They cannot figure out why in the world that THEY should pay off some of the debt of people making that kind of money. A lot of people in middle America don't even make half of $125,000 a year and many make less than a quarter of that. This is a perfect example of the tone deafness of our federal government.
JustMe: Almost everyone in middle America makes far less than $125,000 a year. They cannot figure out why in the world that THEY should pay off some of the debt of people making that kind of money.
University tuition is only a nominal fee for citizens in India and Mexico. Of course, we can't expect Americans to be able to afford what more advanced countries can.
Funny how Indians and Mexicans would rather go to American university. Funny how tuition and administration costs have skyrocketed, since the good ole government took over the student loan program. And these woke administrators are doing a fantastic job of making a college degree as near worthless as a degree from Mexico or India. Success!
We are a few more successful Joe Biden policies away from making America into a third world shit hole. Yay, accountable government!
There isn’t a statist/Marxist/communist program that you don’t support.
The question is, why do you spend so much time and energy on this blog, trying to convince a bunch of republicans to the evils of smaller, less intrusive government?
B. Hammer: Funny how Indians and Mexicans would rather go to American university.
And some Americans study abroad.
B. Hammer: And these woke administrators are doing a fantastic job of making a college degree as near worthless as a degree from Mexico or India.
Oh, those crazy Indians coming to America for an inferior degree.
There are fine universities in both Mexico and India, though not as advanced as those in Germany or France, both of which also offer a university education to domestic and international students for a nominal fee.
B. Hammer: There isn’t a statist/Marxist/communist program that you don’t support.
Well, that's not true. We don't support the nationalization of industry, for instance, much less a dictatorship of the proletariat.
B. Hammer: trying to convince a bunch of republicans to the evils of smaller, less intrusive government?
Didn't know facts depended upon partisan affiliation. In any case, we advocate for a Goldilocks size of government; not too big and not too small. Many countries with liberal societies and advanced economies afford not only free university education but universal healthcare, all the while maintaining robust market economies. But, again; one can't expect the U.S. to be able to afford what more developed countries take for granted.
You don't have to nationalize an industry if you create law to punish one industry (gasoline powered cars) and create law to subsidize another industry. (battery powered cars) That kind of lawmaking equates to nationalization. Spread that out to the coal industry or plastic straws and a myriad of others.
indyjonesouthere: You don't have to nationalize an industry if you create law to punish one industry (gasoline powered cars) and create law to subsidize another industry. (battery powered cars) That kind of lawmaking equates to nationalization.
Well, no. That's not nationalization. Countries often subsidize industries. In the U.S., automobiles were subsidized by a vast network of government-built roads in the 20th century, or the giveaway of vast tracts of land to build the continental railroad system in the 19th century. Most countries subsidize various industries in order to gain an advantage over other countries, or to shield industries thought to be essential for national defense. That is not the same as nationalization of industry.
I didn't call it nationalization. Read it again. What I did imply is that it garners the same result.
indyjonesouthere: I didn't call it nationalization. Read it again. What I did imply is that it garners the same result.
No, it doesn't. Giving land to the railroads to build the transcontinental highway was a huge government subsidy, but it wasn't effectively the same as nationalization or Marxism or whatever bugaboo you imagine. Nor are subsidies given to the steel or oil industries.
It does provide the same result. An industry will survive or fail due to governments interference. Whether you wish to call it fascism or marxism makes little difference. Government is picking the winners and losers through the taxpayer purse.
Right now the government is picking non carbon as a winner and punishing carbon as the loser. They are spending billions of taxpayer funds and tax credits to do so.
And you will be happy and own nothing. Is that marxist or fascist?
indyjonesouthere: An industry will survive or fail due to governments interference.
An industry may survive or not, but businesses will still be in direct competition with others. Consider the superhighway system, a government program that encouraged the growth of the auto industry. Government didn't take over the car industry, and car manufacturers still continued to vigorously compete. Whatever you may think of the superhighway system, Eisenhower was no communist, and didn't effectively nationalize the auto industry.
For Ike the interstate highway system was considered the National Defense Highway system. As a junior officer he made the trek from east to west and realized that the highway system was a failure for providing logistics support for the military. It even required sections to function as landing strips.
The DOT highway system is funded primarily through gas taxes and fees on vehicles. Unfortunately, it is robbed to fund mass transit schemes without those entities contributing any funds to the DOT transportation fund. Even the states provide their own funding.
Where are the federal DOT taxes on EV's?
indyjonesouthere: For Ike the interstate highway system was considered the National Defense Highway system.
And if you apply your so-called definition, Eisenhower was a fascist. Or a communist. Or somehow both.
IKE didn't promote the interstate system to subsidize the auto industry. That would be your definition.
Ike promoted the system in order to reinforce the US defense system. Big difference. It's one of the Constitutional mandates for the federal government.
indyjonesouthere: IKE didn't promote the interstate system to subsidize the auto industry.
You're working hard to avoid the point. The head of the committee said, "It was evident we needed better highways. We needed them for safety, to accommodate more automobiles. We needed them for defense purposes, if that should ever be necessary. And we needed them for the economy. Not just as a public works measure, but for future growth." They were clearly tilting the economy towards the automobile and away from other forms of transportation.
There was an entire century of the government supporting the auto industry at the expense of other transportation industries, including the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. Other examples include the U.S. space program, or, going farther afield, the government-sponsored Columbus expeditions.
I'm not avoiding the Ike point. You are. I told you what Ike's point was in creating the interstate system. Now you want to bring in everyone elses opinion? Perhaps the committee chairman was a fascist? The system was his idea and he pushed it through. The new federal gas taxes paid for the system along with state gas taxes.
indyjonesouthere: Now you want to bring in everyone elses opinion? Perhaps the committee chairman was a fascist?
So Eisenhower picked a fascist to oversee the building of the interstate system?
We noted that the government invested in upgrading roads for cars over generations, so it's not just the one program.
The personnel on committees are elected, not appointed. Take fascism up with the voters.
User fees on gas and diesel paid for the project even though Ikes primary concern was for defense logistics.
You responded to 1/2 the equation. How much does the US spend on defense VS what does Europe spend. That is why we are shoveling money into the Ukraine fiasco. Europe won't even spend 2%. It is why Trump tried to get them to spend more and they didn't. Now they can't defend themselves nor does it appear they will be able to keep the lights on, their butts warm, and their stomachs filled. Nothing like being carbon free.
indyjonesouthere: How much does the US spend on defense VS what does Europe spend.
The U.S. spends about 3.7% of GDP, but that includes both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. NATO nations have agreed to a goal of 2% of GDP by 2024.
indyjonesouthere: Now they can't defend themselves
Russia is having troubles with Ukraine, a country with a third of its population and with an eighth of its GDP. Comparing NATO in Europe to Russia:
GDP, 12 to 1
Military spending, 5 to 1
Ukraine is a proxy war. If you haven't figured out the sides yet it is little wonder that most socialist haven't. And Ukraine holding their own. Did you get that from the NYT or MSNBC?
indyjonesouthere: And Ukraine holding their own.
The situation for Ukraine is dire. They are a small country being invaded by a much larger country. But, Ukraine has made Russia pay a heavy price for every advance.
Um no, the US is paying a heavy price.
Hundreds of billions.
Such a tool.
The ukranians should have known that killing thousands of russian speakers over 8 years was going to create a reaction from the russians. I seems neither the zelensky government nato learn anything quickly.
The countries with liberal societies with free healthcare and education...but very little defense spending. How is that working out for europe with little defense spending and Ukraine getting its butt kicked and losing its war. Oh yea, NATO. And who funds the NATO budget.
Lets make a trade. Us can bail out college students for ten thousand apiece and then we abandon NATO to the europeans. They stand on their own.
indyjonesouthere: The countries with liberal societies with free healthcare and education...but very little defense spending.
E.U. spending was over 2% of GDP before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They reduced their spending after that, as did the U.S., but have since begun to increase it again. They are currently at 1.6% and growing to a target of 2%. That 0.4% doesn't explain the difference, though.
Country, percent of GDP
United States, 19.7%
indyjonesouthere: How is that working out for europe with little defense spending and Ukraine getting its butt kicked and losing its war.
NATO is not at war with Russia. Ukraine is a small country that was invaded by a large and aggressive neighbor. Not sure your point here. Do you think NATO should attack a nuclear-armed Russia?
No. We need to get out of the NATO group. NATO has no function other than subsidizing European defense. Subsidizing European defense allow them to provide "free" healthcare and education.
At the same time get the US state dept and the CIA out of the Ukraine. The US has been subsidizing and arming Ukraine since Ukraine ran the Russian leader out of the country. Ukraine also killed thousands of Russian speaking Ukrainian since 2014. And you seem surprised that the Russians intervened. The US intervened and now the Russians intervened.
indyjonesouthere: NATO has no function other than subsidizing European defense.
NATO has helped maintain stability in Europe. You will note that Ukraine is not a NATO member. By the way, NATO includes Article 5, a commitment to mutual defense. Article 5 has only been invoked once in the history of NATO. Can you say when?
indyjonesouthere: Subsidizing European defense allow them to provide "free" healthcare and education.
We already responded to this. E.U. defense spending was over 2% of GDP before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, yet they still provided universal healthcare coverage in most of its member countries. E.U. defense spending is now 1.6% of GDP, and the 0.4% is much smaller than the difference in healthcare spending between the U.S. and E.U.
Nato is a destabilizing force in Europe. They keep expanding it and creating more destabilization. The madness of the destabilization even spred to Switzerland. Those damned fools condemned Russia, without considering the killing of Russian speaking Ukrainians for eight years. Did they ever denounce the German government during WWII? They lost their neutrality after being neutral for hundreds of years.
indyjonesouthere: Nato is a destabilizing force in Europe.
Yes, standing against aggression and tyranny will always make aggressors and tyrants upset.
Europe was stable until the US and Nato stuck their nose into the Ukraine and stirred up shit.
"E.U. defense spending was over 2% of GDP before the dissolution of the Soviet Union"
Soviet Union fell in 1991, EU formed in 1993. What the hell are you talking about?
RJP: Soviet Union fell in 1991, EU formed in 1993. What the hell are you talking about?
Countries that comprise today's European Union. The European Union doesn't actually have a permanent military structure.
Military Expenditure (% of GDP) - European Union. If you click through to individual countries, you can see when the year were included in the E.U. totals (e.g. Latvia in 1993).
Many of those Indian universities, like the Indian Statistical Institute, are highly selective, and have very small student bodies. In India, your Plan B university is probably in the US.
Mike Anderson: Many of those Indian universities, like the Indian Statistical Institute, are highly selective, and have very small student bodies.
About 100 million Indians have a higher education degree.
100 million sounds like a lot until you realize the current estimated population of India is 1,407,563,842. So about 1 in 14, around 7%.
Mike Anderson: 100 million sounds like a lot until you realize the current estimated population of India is 1,407,563,842. So about 1 in 14, around 7%.
Well, as noted, not every country can be as advanced as to provide low-cost higher education for their citizens. And 100 million highly educated Indians can have a huge impact on the Indian and on the global economy.
"University tuition is only a nominal fee for citizens in India and Mexico"
I am 100% with you on making college cost less and 100% opposed to having taxpayers pay for that. College should be cheaper NOT SUSIDIZED! People should pay for their higher education it shouldn't be socialized.
The federal government should have never decided to loan or guarantee loans for education. This is not their business and they need to stay in their lane and do a better job at their constitutional mandated duties such as protecting our borders.
OneGuy: I am 100% with you on making college cost less and 100% opposed to having taxpayers pay for that.
That was the old system, where only the rich and well-connected could afford a university education. But, then again, university was primarily for making connections with other well-to-do families and businesses.
Several generations of engineers, chemists, biologists, physicians, architects, educators, veterinarians, nurses, etc, who got solid educations for a few hundred dollars a semester and came out of school with little debt, would have a thing or two to say about that.
Then of course the Fed decided to get involved and began throwing easy money at the market, and the market responded the way any market would--by raising prices.
With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about this one thing you won't hear are the colleges and universities--who have benefitted from it and many of whom are sitting on piles of cash--offering to pay off any of the debt.
And of course the academic left is probably one of the loudest cohorts arguing for retiring the debt.
Brandon doesn’t give a flying fuck about the middle-class.
This is just another shameless stunt using more taxpayers' money (about $300,000,000+ up to $1.75 trillion) to groom young voters.
SK: Several generations of engineers, chemists, biologists, physicians, architects, educators, veterinarians, nurses, etc, who got solid educations for a few hundred dollars a semester and came out of school with little debt, would have a thing or two to say about that.
In fixed dollars, the cost of tuition at public 4-year U.S. colleges has gone up about 4x since 1970. Costs of many other labor-intensive industries have also gone up significantly, such as medicine and caregiving—unless the labor costs can be exported. Yet, other developed (and some less developed) countries manage to provide low-cost higher education.
The result of using taxpayer money to qualify 10 million new gynecologists by 2035, one for every 17 U.S. XXs, results in many unemployed gynecologists. Viewed alternatively, one MD for every 34 U.S. residents, results in idle MDs.
Those nations which subsidize college do not pretend to do it for everybody, but only those who, by rigorous testing, appear likely to benefit. The U.S., trying to do the same, would immediately run afoul of "disparate impact" lawsuits, when members of an identifiable group fall short of their percentage of the population.
Another big grift:
You have probably seen the lawyers ads on TV telling you if you were at Camp Lejune you may be able to share in a multi-billion dollar scam/lawsuit. This all came about because a trial lawyer went to a friend who was a congressman and convinced him to include a "law" in a congressional bill that would allocate billions to anyone "injured" by the water at Camp Lejune.
The way that works is congress wants to pass a much bigger bill and to get enough votes they have to include grifts like this from a couple dozen congressmen and women. The various things they insert into the larger bill could not stand the scrutiny if they were not burried in a 2000 page bill.
Once passed anyone with a health problem or even claims to have a health problem now can get $100K or more by simply including their name in the class action case. Of course they don't get the full $100K the lawyer gets 30%-50% and THAT is the grift.
The lawyer bribed/coerced a congressman friend to write the law and the lawyer becomes a billionaire of the back of the taxpayer.
But what about those who were injured by the "toxic" water? Yeah, well an important part of the grift is that the event happened long enough ago that all the potential "victims" are quite old or dead. And as you know when you get quite old you incur various illnesses. And the grift lays the blame for all those illnesses on the toxic water. A perfect grift!
Probably no one ever had any long term or serious effects from the "toxic" water because if they had the "toxic" water would have been discovered long before this. All the "victims" are merely suffering the ills of old age. This is really all about making lawyers rich.
IdahoBob: You have probably seen the lawyers ads on TV telling you if you were at Camp Lejune you may be able to share in a multi-billion dollar scam/lawsuit.
Ah, memories. Just yesterday, it was argued that pollution could be controlled through lawsuits.
As for Camp Lejeune, they've been polluting the groundwater for decades, and the problem has been known for decades. Polluting started in the 1950s, and the worst water wells were shut down in the 1980s.
IdahoBob: All the "victims" are merely suffering the ills of old age. This is really all about making lawyers rich.
That's one of the problems with trying to sue over pollution. The damage is diffuse, and it's difficult to prove individual cases, even if the statistics show a strong correlation. Another problem is that the defendants are often rich and powerful. Another problem is the cost of suing is high. Even if you win the suit, it can take years, and winning is not guaranteed, and polluters often avoid accountability, or made so much money while polluting, they happily settle for pennies on the dollar.
"Men and Women..." I'll say it again: The emotionally available man, after sneaking up on a herd of antelope with his buddies, does not say, "Grok? I'm really scared". Why? It's because he becomes known as "Scares Game; Makes Hunger". Same with our ancestor who said, "Owwwww! I stepped on a sharp rock!"
There is probably a hard-wired module that keep males from disclosing unless they are very secure, and the probability of repercussions is small.
This instinct, if it exists, is devilishly hard to override. I know. I run into it several times a day for the last seven decades or so.
"Climate Crisis Con Police" TV Ads in the Las Vegas area are already featuring a rookie water use cop making her first bust ummm I mean arrest.
I'm expected to have sympathy for a guy who's willing to live cold and hungry in a broken-down RV just so he can "stay in San Francisco". The reason San Francisco is the way it is is because of him and people like A. Samaha who wrote that oh-so-caring article. They refuse to see the dysfunction that's right in front of them, and then they blame everyone else when nothing changes.
Back to school programs...dividing students.
There was a time when the SCOTUS declared "separate but equal" to be discriminatory. Now it is the mandate of educators? Easier to slip in the propaganda and woke.
White Christians to blame for campus antisemitism, says CUNY official
I am reminded of a story from the 1980s. Some Lebanese Christians went to a Palestinian camp and killed some Palestinians. (Some of whom might have been Christian).
There was a big outcry that this was the responsibility of the Israelis, who had recently invaded Lebanon.
Begin's response: "Goyim kill Goyim, and they blame the Jews."
Gringo: Some Lebanese Christians went to a Palestinian camp and killed some Palestinians.
Some Palestinians? Hundreds of civilians were massacred. Israel was the occupying power, surrounded the camp, prevented anyone from leaving, and then allowed Christian militias to enter the camp.