“The real motive of liberals has nothing to do with the welfare of others. Instead, they have two related goals - to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives.”
Shelby Steele comes from a similar perspective, but refines it and gives it a great deal of nuance and historical backing in his excellent book 'White Guilt.'
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead".
I woke up this morning with the epiphany that all of the current Democrat platform is a form of NIMBYism. The design of their agenda items are either directly or indirectly to prevent others from accessing the pie and the pot of resources that Democrats want to claim and horde for themselves. Democrats desire a rigged game. I think because Democrat DNA is insecure about their ability to compete in the competitive private economy. Or they have developed an addiction to the soft money of government and are protective of it. The Dynamism of a robust private economy is a risk to them losing their advantage because they are not good at strategic thinking and planning to go with the changes. So, they are change-averse. And almost everything we can list can point back to some weapon to lock us into some mandated policy or social norm that is in direct conflict with freedom, liberty and the related economic dynamism.
I think being called a NIMBY is today one of the most derogatory of labels because it identifies the most selfish and greedy of humanity. People pursuing their own selfish interest without any accountability nor care for the harm it causes others.
They're not just NIMBYs but YIYBYs - "yes in YOUR backyard.'
I'm a NIMBY in the sense that I don't want giant dense housing developments razing my quiet, tree-lined suburb. But I'm not a leftist.
They will push for all but the wealthiest communities to be overrun with Section 8, and then keep retreating outwards to the next gated community. Massachusetts is particularly vile about this with 40B and MBTA Communities, although I'm sure there are other examples out there.
Deport 20 million and we don't have to build SQUAT for 20 years. And, realistically, at some point the population should cap out, or else everyone has to live in inhuman sardine cans with too many people nearby. Some of us prefer to be left TF alone, not drowning in a cacophony of human idiocy!
When the demand for housing exceeds supply and reasonable cost, if you oppose it you are a greedy ass SOB... aka, NIMBY. There is no difference between a NIMBY or YIYBY. They are the the same. There are a percentage of NIMBYs that are non-liberal, but few are conservatives.
Not "greedy" to want to live the way man was intended, with some space and peace, instead of an artificially urbanized shithole where every "home" is eventually a closet. YOU are greedy - and EVIL - for trying to FORCE me to.
That's bullshit. Nobody is forcing you. If you live where the demand is high and you don't like the higher population, then you can move where there is a lower population and less demand. Blocking development after are you privileged to arrive is absolute greed. Who the f*ck are you to have priority?
No who the fuck are YOU, you evil piece of SHIT, to demand that my lower density neighborhood that I have already PAID good money to be in, and CONTINUE to pay property tax on, be flooded with a bunch of crime prone lowlifes who are a drain on resources? Go ruin the shithole where YOU live further, don't bring your failure to MY doorstep.
Fuck off and die, totalitarian commie. Outsiders should NOT dictate housing terms to MY commumity.
I live in NZ a long way from the US and find articles like this and the comments they attract so depressing. What I see are two sides Increasingly hostile to each other, seeing each other as the enemy to be suppressed by any means possible. Engage in reasoned argument? Certainly not, that’s now seen as a weakness not a strength.
I think the Founding Fathers of America did an amazing job in very difficult circumstances and would be horrified by the state of the country today.
I take it as a great compliment that you should consider me capable of such a Herculean task, but even the cleaning of the Augean Stables would be considered child’s play to that of cleaning up American politics.
No, no. I don’t really expect you to do it. You’re just shooting your big mouth off about another country when you should be worrying about NZ and your leftist Orwellian premier or whatever the hell she is. See, here we don’t even think about your little island. Nantucket is worth more than all of NZ.
I am sure you won't mind me correcting you on two points; our PM is a male and a wealthy property owner who would be horrified to be described as left-wing and Nantucket is not worth more than NZ. Their population is under 15,000 while ours is over 5 million, while our economy as measured by GDP is many many times larger.
I am well aware that few Americans think much about NZ and that's fine.
My wife and I earned degrees in science. We attended what was then a University in the top 10 nationwide for science research. We were taught to question everything, think critically, and only make claims that can be backed by hard evidence.
Today, it is woke and is no longer even in the top 50 for science research.
COVID demonstrated that science research and education in this country has become woke.
Man-made climate change has been universally accepted as a fact when there is no actual evidence for it. the little bit of evidence that many point to are the results of poorly done experiments and manipulated data.
Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is one of the weakest greenhouse gas. One of the worst is water vapor. The water vapor in the reason the Earth is warm enough to support life.
Carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated greatly during the history of Earth. Before the industrial age, carbon dioxide levels were low enough to significantly reduce plant growth. Agriculture yields fell to the lowest levels ever recorded. Plants need carbon dioxide. The rise in carbon dioxide levels resulting from the industrial revolution has significantly improved crop yields.
Federal funding has had a significant impact on research into climate change. Studies that assume climate change is real and plan to study its effect are funded. Studies to reseach if climate change is in fact real are not funded. NOAA has pushed out their climate scientists who question the validity of the data being used to support climate change. Many have used real temperature data to show that has been no real changes in the temperature of the Earth. The temperature flections we see are closely related to sunspot activity and the fluctuations in the distance between the earth and sun. Right now we are closer to the sun that we have been in a few centuries.
Second, I went to the local home improvement store to get what I needed tor repair our fence. It an intersection where one often finds homeless begging for money. There was a woman sitting in a chair and holding up a sign in front of her face so no one could see her. The sign said that the government owed her her SNAP benefits and if she does not get them soon, she will start stealing so she can feed her children. Eating is a right.
This is absolutely insane.
The homeless around here have been stealing so much for years that even the local grocery stores are locking up food items because they are on the list of items most likely to be stolen. I have stopped shopping near my home because I am constantly waiting for an employee to unlock what I want and then taking it to the front for me to pay and pick up. I shop in the community where I work because they have a large police force and do arrest criminals and prosecute them in their local courts. My community does catch and release.
I cannot wait to leave this h***hole called California.
If you don't arrest shoplifters, the people that pay the price at the ones who don't shoplift. Everything has to cost more to pay for it. People have to wait unnecessarily because things are locked up to it. There's no upside to protecting thieves.
You don't have enough prisons, and you already have the largest prison population in the world. Only an idiot would suggest that arresting more people is the answer to your problems.
Holding people accountable for crimes they commit is good for society, no? Also, you are a bit confused as arresting and prosecuting someone does not mean you are sending them to prison. Prison is for serious and/or violent crimes with longer sentences. “Jail “is for lessor offenses such as theft. And yes, we should send more criminals to jail who break the law, especially those who do so repeatedly.
That will be the consequence. The consequence of paying taxes for an impotent justice system will require citizen-meted justice. As stated a couple posts above, the cost of theft gets passed on to honest people. How long can this be tolerated?
Jerry, seems like you might be a neighbor of mine, don’t leave, we need you here! Your post has so much in it that I too know to be true, especially about “climate change.” I know we’re outnumbered 2-1 fighting behind enemy lines, and it’s frustrating, but we can make California great again 👍🏼 Regardless, all the best my friend.
Carbon dioxide levels have been relatively stable throughout the history of organised human societies, so over the past 7000 years or so. In the past century they’ve risen by around 50%.
Say there’s a 95% chance you’re right about climate change…
Isn’t it still a huge gamble to not do anything to about it? A 1 in 20 chance of this planet becoming unable to support human existence as we know it is still dangerous odds no?
Besides, do the drawbacks really outweigh the sacrifices needed to get us to carbon neutrality? We’re going to run out of fossil fuels eventually so we may as well invest where the future and innovation are.
There are so many benefits to a grid that uses a mix of renewables, batteries and nuclear over gas and coal. Think drops in air pollution in cities or energy independence from the individual all the way up to state level. We could be looking at one of the main causes of global instability being taken off the table. Isn’t that a compelling enough reason to invest in renewables/nuclear on its own?
If in the next 30-50yrs we can have a planet that runs on 100% renewable and nuclear energy then why is that worse than a future where we stick with fossil fuels?
I just don’t understand the opposition, could you explain?
The problem with the "climate change" crowd is their ideological posturing and shutting people down who even mildly disagree. Then the issues can't even be discussed.
I used to be solar/wind supporter, but no longer. I found out that the harms were never calculated before the (for example) giant turbines were forced upon everybody. And the scams run by all those fly by night companies who build a solar farm and then abandon it when the subsidies dry out... and so on. So yes, let's bypass the demagogues and talk about this, without fear mongering.
What harms are associated with turbines? I'm aware there is opposition to them but given some of those complaints centre on the aesthetics over functionality, I'd like to know what you think are the issues?
Are you opposed to renewables out of principle or do you just not think they're viable at the moment?
Also sure there's some ideological posturing, but then "drill baby drill" is posturing is it not? It's sadly another tedious front in the culture war, just like everything else.
There are many harms, from the mass killing of birds and bats, to them killing the night by constant blinking lights, and shaking the ground (I've driven through them in Oklahoma, felt so sorry for the people who live among them). Plus, of course, there are the esthetic issues. But my main objections are two-fold. One, the energy is intermittent and modest, and they cannot replace the sources that are steady and intense (and that's the kind of energy needed to manufacture them).
Second, and this is key. I once asked Ugo Bardi, one of the go-to academics regarding green energy, to point me to the calculations that show that a wind turbine produces more energy than it consumes. He could not.
Mining, smelting, steel works, blade manufacture etc., the transportation, and building (they require vast amounts of concrete to anchor them). Then there is maintenance, and in the end dismantling, and either recycling or junking (recycling has massive issues). Do they really pay for themselves over the 25 years and produce extra significant amounts of energy before they have to be replaced?
I think it's a useful technology in areas of steady and strong winds, but that's it.
That’s interesting and I take your points. I do think there’s a big discussion to be had about the actual production of renewables equipment and infrastructure and whether the benefits outweigh the initial outlay.
Still here in the uk 30% of our energy comes from wind and specifically 17% from offshore. Obviously that’s due to it being an island, but still that’s significant is it not?
Would you be more in favour of offshore wind where it’s viable?
Re: the intermittent nature of it, that’s precisely why we need reactors, after Fukushima I was dead set against nuclear but like you I changed my mind on something and realised that there’s no path to clean energy that doesn’t involve a reactor or two.
I’m not convinced we’re anywhere close to batteries being a serious part of our energy mix, but we will get there with it, even if it takes the next 20years.
TBH I’m more bullish about clean energy than I am on any other environmental issue be it overfishing, deforestation and recycling to name a few, like I said earlier renewables are where the innovation is, what more can we do with coal, gas and oil, especially given the international security trade offs?
I don't know if pushing giant wind turbines into deep water is a good idea. I favor testing some areas for untoward impacts on the marine ecosystem. There are always nasty surprises with high tech solutions. What I object to is going whole hog before we have the calculations I spoke of above. If it all depends on subsidies, and cannot stand on its own, what then? Islands have a more favorable profile due to strong and steady winds. Here in Colorado, they still build them though our winds are neither steady nor strong -- we have intermittent gusts instead that do a number on the turbines. Nuts. It's politics. The people's electricity fees go up and up so that the ideologically captured elites can play in their "green energy" sandbox.
I agree with you, all points to reactors. I was against. Now I am thinking it's inevitable. Just think... we could have been far ahead in the research, maybe thorium etc. if the gazillions and efforts had not gone toward wind. In Colorado, the ideologues are for shutting down natural gas too, though it's plentiful and relatively clean. I am sick of the politically correct bullshit. Here we also could have been ahead if instead they pushed passive solar houses. Our local wealth is in sunshine. But noooooo.... :-(
The climate change proponents lie. They disqualify themselves by their lies.
The climate change proponents reveal themselves to be part of the broader left wing intersectionality cause. They disqualify themselves by engaging in a nefarious ruse like that.
The radical left has been about dismantling and controlling the economy since at least the 19th century. The attacks based on climate change are a ruse to dismantle the economy which runs on energy as much as a car does. With their grand claims about saving the climate, the radical left is aiming to dismantle and then control the economy in one fell swoop.
P.S. do some research into the earth's climate over the last 2000 years, never mind the last 10,000. Spoiler alert: it hasn't been steady at all.
I have 95% faith in our collective intellect to solve our greatest problems through free market enterprise, not government regulations and programs. We all want a clean olanet and there is googles$$ of incentive for clean energy. Furthermore, the earth is a giant inertial system and your feared carbon is spread around the globe. So expedient, measurable progress is extremely unlikely and getting everyone on board through mandate is not happening. The solution is getting everyone on board through competition, that is moving to clean energy to be more competitive. IMO as cleaner lower cost energy technologies are discovered and developed they will be very rapidly adopted. In the meanwhile, carbon is nothing more than a political tool.
The cost of what the climate change activists are proposing are trillions of dollars and so far it doesn’t work. Wind and solar simply can’t replace fossil fuels now.
Yeah and cars couldn't compete with horses once, nuclear power wasn't even a figment of anyone's imagination until 1896, EV's couldn't compete with combustion engines and solar panels used to be expensive.
Sorry but what an incredibly defeatist, loser-ass argument. All of the innovation is in renewables and nuclear, fossil fuels will run out eventually and we may as well start transitioning now in the off chance that, shock horror, the climate change activists (and crucially the vast majority of climate scientists) might be right and you Marty are dead wrong.
Or we could just join you in covering your ears while sticking with what our ancestors came up with.
Oh and the budget for the US Military was $850 billion in the FY 2025, so that's nearly a trillion in one year alone. Compared to that you make the trillions (citation needed) to transform the energy grid for good sound like an absolute bargain.
The answer is not to force these things but to promote innovation and let the market do its thing.
The government didn’t force people to adopt cars over horses, cars were better than horses so cars took over.
EV’s can’t really compete with gas cars, that’s why the government has to massively subsidize them.
If solar can reliably generate power cheaper than fossil fuels then it will win in the market. Let the free market do what it does best innovate. Government trying to pick technology winners never works.
Those free market oil companies just asked President Trump to kidnap the President of Venezuela so he could secure that country’s oil reserves for them. And he did it no questions asked.
You make it sound like lobbyists don’t exist, or that entrenched industries who’s sole purpose is to extract maximum profit from what they extract from the ground don’t fight tooth and nail to kill any progress on renewables.
The oil companies didn’t ask Trump to invade Venezuela. To get Venezuelas oil industry back into a workable profitable industry will take years and billions of dollars in investment.
There are lobbyists on all sides. That’s one of the evils of modern politics.
Good column, John. Thank you for "borrowing" and running with this idea, you have made an interesting and thought-provoking list. It's also an indictment and a pretty sad reality of what's happening in our country, isn't it? I can't stand the ignorance and nihilism of it. The level of entitlement and childish "I want what I want, and I'm going to have a tantrum until I get it" explains the current government shutdown pretty well, doesn't it? The OBBB went through months of negotiations, the bill was passed by majorities in the house and senate, but now the Demonrats want to force changes via the 60 vote "veto" power. And, of course, blame SNAP money running out on racist Republicans. It's stupid, it's sickening; yet it's so typical of the Left, isn't it?
SNAP is an absolute travesty. In Virginia the money is openly, publicly stolen every month. The poor do not receive it. Nothing is done. Nothing. Recently the outgoing governor filed a state of emergency in order to tap emergency funds so SNAP funding would continue during the shutdown. It was obscene. Tapping an emergency fund just so thieves can publicly keep getting free millions.
-source: myself, SNAP recipient (in theory, although I've only ever had enough SNAP money for one small food purchase. I don't know how I managed it before the rest was stolen, maybe they were sleeping at the switch that day.)
Great list. I’m sore all of us here could push it to 100 but the point is made. One thought, we view these as crazy because most people want there country to be safe and prosperous and law abiding, want everyone to succeed at work, have a fair shot at life (including sports), etc.
Leftists will say these support all of these goals but what they truly want is the destruction of America and the American dream, as well as western civilization. Hence, they default to supporting anything that leads to chaos and anarchy, anything that tears down the producers and props up the looters, and anything that tears apart our social fabric like traditions and religion.
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." - P. J. O'Rourke
14) Liberals believe it’s immoral to put someone responsible for the most horrible crimes imaginable to death, but that it’s okay to murder innocent babies via abortion.
This is very true. Every Liberal I know looks down upon the same Preborn Human Child they once were as being either a lesser person lacking the same value as the Mother or not even a person at all. The violent methods of Abortion/Infanticide of Survivors doesn’t offend them in the least. It’s modern day Child Sacrifice and self worship. 64 million little boys and girl legally butchered here in the US alone since ‘73, yet few on the Left care about them at all. Watch all the angry Leftist comments in response to my post. 🫠
What stands out to me isn’t the politics — it’s the pattern. Every one of these “beliefs” requires you to suspend logic, deny incentives, and pretend contradictions build stable societies. They don’t. They just create moral theater where common sense becomes a radical act.
John, I have been wondering how much, in total, do Americans contribute to the poor and underprivileged in this country. Start with Federal aid programs, state aid programs, county and city programs, food banks, religious organizations for the poor, shelters, soup kitchens, half-way and domestic abuse centers, etc., now add all the programs and payouts for illegal aliens. Not to mention all the other giving to animal shelters, climate issues, etc.
All of this giving and the left wants more taxes to solve societal issues! This would be a great investigative article for you!
You nailed it when you said they are addicted to the soft money and protect it at all costs. Otherwise, how could ANY taxpayer be upset that DOGE is saving us billions of dollars?
T Sowell
“The real motive of liberals has nothing to do with the welfare of others. Instead, they have two related goals - to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives.”
Shelby Steele comes from a similar perspective, but refines it and gives it a great deal of nuance and historical backing in his excellent book 'White Guilt.'
Highly recommended!
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead".
It seems much the same can be said of conservatives.
Not in the real world.
Are you still looking for weapons of mass destruction north east south and west of Baghdad?
You are in a cult.
If that cult includes Thomas Sowell, yes, and proud to be.
Cult like the liberals?
I woke up this morning with the epiphany that all of the current Democrat platform is a form of NIMBYism. The design of their agenda items are either directly or indirectly to prevent others from accessing the pie and the pot of resources that Democrats want to claim and horde for themselves. Democrats desire a rigged game. I think because Democrat DNA is insecure about their ability to compete in the competitive private economy. Or they have developed an addiction to the soft money of government and are protective of it. The Dynamism of a robust private economy is a risk to them losing their advantage because they are not good at strategic thinking and planning to go with the changes. So, they are change-averse. And almost everything we can list can point back to some weapon to lock us into some mandated policy or social norm that is in direct conflict with freedom, liberty and the related economic dynamism.
I think being called a NIMBY is today one of the most derogatory of labels because it identifies the most selfish and greedy of humanity. People pursuing their own selfish interest without any accountability nor care for the harm it causes others.
They're not just NIMBYs but YIYBYs - "yes in YOUR backyard.'
I'm a NIMBY in the sense that I don't want giant dense housing developments razing my quiet, tree-lined suburb. But I'm not a leftist.
They will push for all but the wealthiest communities to be overrun with Section 8, and then keep retreating outwards to the next gated community. Massachusetts is particularly vile about this with 40B and MBTA Communities, although I'm sure there are other examples out there.
Deport 20 million and we don't have to build SQUAT for 20 years. And, realistically, at some point the population should cap out, or else everyone has to live in inhuman sardine cans with too many people nearby. Some of us prefer to be left TF alone, not drowning in a cacophony of human idiocy!
When the demand for housing exceeds supply and reasonable cost, if you oppose it you are a greedy ass SOB... aka, NIMBY. There is no difference between a NIMBY or YIYBY. They are the the same. There are a percentage of NIMBYs that are non-liberal, but few are conservatives.
Not "greedy" to want to live the way man was intended, with some space and peace, instead of an artificially urbanized shithole where every "home" is eventually a closet. YOU are greedy - and EVIL - for trying to FORCE me to.
That's bullshit. Nobody is forcing you. If you live where the demand is high and you don't like the higher population, then you can move where there is a lower population and less demand. Blocking development after are you privileged to arrive is absolute greed. Who the f*ck are you to have priority?
No who the fuck are YOU, you evil piece of SHIT, to demand that my lower density neighborhood that I have already PAID good money to be in, and CONTINUE to pay property tax on, be flooded with a bunch of crime prone lowlifes who are a drain on resources? Go ruin the shithole where YOU live further, don't bring your failure to MY doorstep.
Fuck off and die, totalitarian commie. Outsiders should NOT dictate housing terms to MY commumity.
Thank you showing everyone the true character of a NIMBY... the most vile identity on the planet.
I live in NZ a long way from the US and find articles like this and the comments they attract so depressing. What I see are two sides Increasingly hostile to each other, seeing each other as the enemy to be suppressed by any means possible. Engage in reasoned argument? Certainly not, that’s now seen as a weakness not a strength.
I think the Founding Fathers of America did an amazing job in very difficult circumstances and would be horrified by the state of the country today.
Why don’t you schlep on over and straighten us out. Thanks in advance.
I take it as a great compliment that you should consider me capable of such a Herculean task, but even the cleaning of the Augean Stables would be considered child’s play to that of cleaning up American politics.
No, no. I don’t really expect you to do it. You’re just shooting your big mouth off about another country when you should be worrying about NZ and your leftist Orwellian premier or whatever the hell she is. See, here we don’t even think about your little island. Nantucket is worth more than all of NZ.
I am sure you won't mind me correcting you on two points; our PM is a male and a wealthy property owner who would be horrified to be described as left-wing and Nantucket is not worth more than NZ. Their population is under 15,000 while ours is over 5 million, while our economy as measured by GDP is many many times larger.
I am well aware that few Americans think much about NZ and that's fine.
have a great day.
Greed maximized and morality minimized. Greed morlaized. I agree... the founding fathers would certainly be very disappointed.
My wife and I earned degrees in science. We attended what was then a University in the top 10 nationwide for science research. We were taught to question everything, think critically, and only make claims that can be backed by hard evidence.
Today, it is woke and is no longer even in the top 50 for science research.
COVID demonstrated that science research and education in this country has become woke.
Man-made climate change has been universally accepted as a fact when there is no actual evidence for it. the little bit of evidence that many point to are the results of poorly done experiments and manipulated data.
Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is one of the weakest greenhouse gas. One of the worst is water vapor. The water vapor in the reason the Earth is warm enough to support life.
Carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated greatly during the history of Earth. Before the industrial age, carbon dioxide levels were low enough to significantly reduce plant growth. Agriculture yields fell to the lowest levels ever recorded. Plants need carbon dioxide. The rise in carbon dioxide levels resulting from the industrial revolution has significantly improved crop yields.
Federal funding has had a significant impact on research into climate change. Studies that assume climate change is real and plan to study its effect are funded. Studies to reseach if climate change is in fact real are not funded. NOAA has pushed out their climate scientists who question the validity of the data being used to support climate change. Many have used real temperature data to show that has been no real changes in the temperature of the Earth. The temperature flections we see are closely related to sunspot activity and the fluctuations in the distance between the earth and sun. Right now we are closer to the sun that we have been in a few centuries.
Second, I went to the local home improvement store to get what I needed tor repair our fence. It an intersection where one often finds homeless begging for money. There was a woman sitting in a chair and holding up a sign in front of her face so no one could see her. The sign said that the government owed her her SNAP benefits and if she does not get them soon, she will start stealing so she can feed her children. Eating is a right.
This is absolutely insane.
The homeless around here have been stealing so much for years that even the local grocery stores are locking up food items because they are on the list of items most likely to be stolen. I have stopped shopping near my home because I am constantly waiting for an employee to unlock what I want and then taking it to the front for me to pay and pick up. I shop in the community where I work because they have a large police force and do arrest criminals and prosecute them in their local courts. My community does catch and release.
I cannot wait to leave this h***hole called California.
If you don't arrest shoplifters, the people that pay the price at the ones who don't shoplift. Everything has to cost more to pay for it. People have to wait unnecessarily because things are locked up to it. There's no upside to protecting thieves.
You don't have enough prisons, and you already have the largest prison population in the world. Only an idiot would suggest that arresting more people is the answer to your problems.
The certainty of being arrested and penalized reduces the incentive to commit crimes, and less prison space is needed.
Holding people accountable for crimes they commit is good for society, no? Also, you are a bit confused as arresting and prosecuting someone does not mean you are sending them to prison. Prison is for serious and/or violent crimes with longer sentences. “Jail “is for lessor offenses such as theft. And yes, we should send more criminals to jail who break the law, especially those who do so repeatedly.
How about eliminating them in other ways, then.
That will be the consequence. The consequence of paying taxes for an impotent justice system will require citizen-meted justice. As stated a couple posts above, the cost of theft gets passed on to honest people. How long can this be tolerated?
What is?
How about if we do not imprison people for shoplifting but just publicly cane them?
Jerry, seems like you might be a neighbor of mine, don’t leave, we need you here! Your post has so much in it that I too know to be true, especially about “climate change.” I know we’re outnumbered 2-1 fighting behind enemy lines, and it’s frustrating, but we can make California great again 👍🏼 Regardless, all the best my friend.
Carbon dioxide levels have been relatively stable throughout the history of organised human societies, so over the past 7000 years or so. In the past century they’ve risen by around 50%.
Say there’s a 95% chance you’re right about climate change…
Isn’t it still a huge gamble to not do anything to about it? A 1 in 20 chance of this planet becoming unable to support human existence as we know it is still dangerous odds no?
Besides, do the drawbacks really outweigh the sacrifices needed to get us to carbon neutrality? We’re going to run out of fossil fuels eventually so we may as well invest where the future and innovation are.
There are so many benefits to a grid that uses a mix of renewables, batteries and nuclear over gas and coal. Think drops in air pollution in cities or energy independence from the individual all the way up to state level. We could be looking at one of the main causes of global instability being taken off the table. Isn’t that a compelling enough reason to invest in renewables/nuclear on its own?
If in the next 30-50yrs we can have a planet that runs on 100% renewable and nuclear energy then why is that worse than a future where we stick with fossil fuels?
I just don’t understand the opposition, could you explain?
The problem with the "climate change" crowd is their ideological posturing and shutting people down who even mildly disagree. Then the issues can't even be discussed.
I used to be solar/wind supporter, but no longer. I found out that the harms were never calculated before the (for example) giant turbines were forced upon everybody. And the scams run by all those fly by night companies who build a solar farm and then abandon it when the subsidies dry out... and so on. So yes, let's bypass the demagogues and talk about this, without fear mongering.
What harms are associated with turbines? I'm aware there is opposition to them but given some of those complaints centre on the aesthetics over functionality, I'd like to know what you think are the issues?
Are you opposed to renewables out of principle or do you just not think they're viable at the moment?
Also sure there's some ideological posturing, but then "drill baby drill" is posturing is it not? It's sadly another tedious front in the culture war, just like everything else.
There are many harms, from the mass killing of birds and bats, to them killing the night by constant blinking lights, and shaking the ground (I've driven through them in Oklahoma, felt so sorry for the people who live among them). Plus, of course, there are the esthetic issues. But my main objections are two-fold. One, the energy is intermittent and modest, and they cannot replace the sources that are steady and intense (and that's the kind of energy needed to manufacture them).
Second, and this is key. I once asked Ugo Bardi, one of the go-to academics regarding green energy, to point me to the calculations that show that a wind turbine produces more energy than it consumes. He could not.
Mining, smelting, steel works, blade manufacture etc., the transportation, and building (they require vast amounts of concrete to anchor them). Then there is maintenance, and in the end dismantling, and either recycling or junking (recycling has massive issues). Do they really pay for themselves over the 25 years and produce extra significant amounts of energy before they have to be replaced?
I think it's a useful technology in areas of steady and strong winds, but that's it.
That’s interesting and I take your points. I do think there’s a big discussion to be had about the actual production of renewables equipment and infrastructure and whether the benefits outweigh the initial outlay.
Still here in the uk 30% of our energy comes from wind and specifically 17% from offshore. Obviously that’s due to it being an island, but still that’s significant is it not?
Would you be more in favour of offshore wind where it’s viable?
Re: the intermittent nature of it, that’s precisely why we need reactors, after Fukushima I was dead set against nuclear but like you I changed my mind on something and realised that there’s no path to clean energy that doesn’t involve a reactor or two.
I’m not convinced we’re anywhere close to batteries being a serious part of our energy mix, but we will get there with it, even if it takes the next 20years.
TBH I’m more bullish about clean energy than I am on any other environmental issue be it overfishing, deforestation and recycling to name a few, like I said earlier renewables are where the innovation is, what more can we do with coal, gas and oil, especially given the international security trade offs?
I don't know if pushing giant wind turbines into deep water is a good idea. I favor testing some areas for untoward impacts on the marine ecosystem. There are always nasty surprises with high tech solutions. What I object to is going whole hog before we have the calculations I spoke of above. If it all depends on subsidies, and cannot stand on its own, what then? Islands have a more favorable profile due to strong and steady winds. Here in Colorado, they still build them though our winds are neither steady nor strong -- we have intermittent gusts instead that do a number on the turbines. Nuts. It's politics. The people's electricity fees go up and up so that the ideologically captured elites can play in their "green energy" sandbox.
I agree with you, all points to reactors. I was against. Now I am thinking it's inevitable. Just think... we could have been far ahead in the research, maybe thorium etc. if the gazillions and efforts had not gone toward wind. In Colorado, the ideologues are for shutting down natural gas too, though it's plentiful and relatively clean. I am sick of the politically correct bullshit. Here we also could have been ahead if instead they pushed passive solar houses. Our local wealth is in sunshine. But noooooo.... :-(
Read this: https://open.substack.com/pub/criticallythinking/p/critically-thinking-about-industrial-c60?
Read this - it will add relevant info to your arsenal of valid arguments against wind energy. https://open.substack.com/pub/criticallythinking/p/critically-thinking-about-industrial-c60?
For one they kill massive numbers of birds.
The climate change proponents lie. They disqualify themselves by their lies.
The climate change proponents reveal themselves to be part of the broader left wing intersectionality cause. They disqualify themselves by engaging in a nefarious ruse like that.
The radical left has been about dismantling and controlling the economy since at least the 19th century. The attacks based on climate change are a ruse to dismantle the economy which runs on energy as much as a car does. With their grand claims about saving the climate, the radical left is aiming to dismantle and then control the economy in one fell swoop.
P.S. do some research into the earth's climate over the last 2000 years, never mind the last 10,000. Spoiler alert: it hasn't been steady at all.
?
Come on. At least throw in a line about 15min cities being communism or something. Jazz it up a bit.
15 minute cities for everyone
I have 95% faith in our collective intellect to solve our greatest problems through free market enterprise, not government regulations and programs. We all want a clean olanet and there is googles$$ of incentive for clean energy. Furthermore, the earth is a giant inertial system and your feared carbon is spread around the globe. So expedient, measurable progress is extremely unlikely and getting everyone on board through mandate is not happening. The solution is getting everyone on board through competition, that is moving to clean energy to be more competitive. IMO as cleaner lower cost energy technologies are discovered and developed they will be very rapidly adopted. In the meanwhile, carbon is nothing more than a political tool.
The cost of what the climate change activists are proposing are trillions of dollars and so far it doesn’t work. Wind and solar simply can’t replace fossil fuels now.
Yeah and cars couldn't compete with horses once, nuclear power wasn't even a figment of anyone's imagination until 1896, EV's couldn't compete with combustion engines and solar panels used to be expensive.
Sorry but what an incredibly defeatist, loser-ass argument. All of the innovation is in renewables and nuclear, fossil fuels will run out eventually and we may as well start transitioning now in the off chance that, shock horror, the climate change activists (and crucially the vast majority of climate scientists) might be right and you Marty are dead wrong.
Or we could just join you in covering your ears while sticking with what our ancestors came up with.
Oh and the budget for the US Military was $850 billion in the FY 2025, so that's nearly a trillion in one year alone. Compared to that you make the trillions (citation needed) to transform the energy grid for good sound like an absolute bargain.
The answer is not to force these things but to promote innovation and let the market do its thing.
The government didn’t force people to adopt cars over horses, cars were better than horses so cars took over.
EV’s can’t really compete with gas cars, that’s why the government has to massively subsidize them.
If solar can reliably generate power cheaper than fossil fuels then it will win in the market. Let the free market do what it does best innovate. Government trying to pick technology winners never works.
Those free market oil companies just asked President Trump to kidnap the President of Venezuela so he could secure that country’s oil reserves for them. And he did it no questions asked.
You make it sound like lobbyists don’t exist, or that entrenched industries who’s sole purpose is to extract maximum profit from what they extract from the ground don’t fight tooth and nail to kill any progress on renewables.
The oil companies didn’t ask Trump to invade Venezuela. To get Venezuelas oil industry back into a workable profitable industry will take years and billions of dollars in investment.
There are lobbyists on all sides. That’s one of the evils of modern politics.
Good column, John. Thank you for "borrowing" and running with this idea, you have made an interesting and thought-provoking list. It's also an indictment and a pretty sad reality of what's happening in our country, isn't it? I can't stand the ignorance and nihilism of it. The level of entitlement and childish "I want what I want, and I'm going to have a tantrum until I get it" explains the current government shutdown pretty well, doesn't it? The OBBB went through months of negotiations, the bill was passed by majorities in the house and senate, but now the Demonrats want to force changes via the 60 vote "veto" power. And, of course, blame SNAP money running out on racist Republicans. It's stupid, it's sickening; yet it's so typical of the Left, isn't it?
SNAP is an absolute travesty. In Virginia the money is openly, publicly stolen every month. The poor do not receive it. Nothing is done. Nothing. Recently the outgoing governor filed a state of emergency in order to tap emergency funds so SNAP funding would continue during the shutdown. It was obscene. Tapping an emergency fund just so thieves can publicly keep getting free millions.
-source: myself, SNAP recipient (in theory, although I've only ever had enough SNAP money for one small food purchase. I don't know how I managed it before the rest was stolen, maybe they were sleeping at the switch that day.)
This is a good start to listing the many examples of "Liberal Logic".
Such as Liberals believe all cops are racists that drive around looking for innocent people of color to murder for the fun of it.
And then in the next breath say that common citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns, only the police and military should have guns.
Great list. I’m sore all of us here could push it to 100 but the point is made. One thought, we view these as crazy because most people want there country to be safe and prosperous and law abiding, want everyone to succeed at work, have a fair shot at life (including sports), etc.
Leftists will say these support all of these goals but what they truly want is the destruction of America and the American dream, as well as western civilization. Hence, they default to supporting anything that leads to chaos and anarchy, anything that tears down the producers and props up the looters, and anything that tears apart our social fabric like traditions and religion.
Liberals need to pick up a bible. And LISTEN to what the book says.
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." - P. J. O'Rourke
Liberals wouldn’t agree, but it’s a great quote.
14) Liberals believe it’s immoral to put someone responsible for the most horrible crimes imaginable to death, but that it’s okay to murder innocent babies via abortion.
This is very true. Every Liberal I know looks down upon the same Preborn Human Child they once were as being either a lesser person lacking the same value as the Mother or not even a person at all. The violent methods of Abortion/Infanticide of Survivors doesn’t offend them in the least. It’s modern day Child Sacrifice and self worship. 64 million little boys and girl legally butchered here in the US alone since ‘73, yet few on the Left care about them at all. Watch all the angry Leftist comments in response to my post. 🫠
What stands out to me isn’t the politics — it’s the pattern. Every one of these “beliefs” requires you to suspend logic, deny incentives, and pretend contradictions build stable societies. They don’t. They just create moral theater where common sense becomes a radical act.
John, I have been wondering how much, in total, do Americans contribute to the poor and underprivileged in this country. Start with Federal aid programs, state aid programs, county and city programs, food banks, religious organizations for the poor, shelters, soup kitchens, half-way and domestic abuse centers, etc., now add all the programs and payouts for illegal aliens. Not to mention all the other giving to animal shelters, climate issues, etc.
All of this giving and the left wants more taxes to solve societal issues! This would be a great investigative article for you!
Painfully true.
Good one! Hillarious and spot on!
And they want you to love evil.
I like lists. Especially this one.
You nailed it when you said they are addicted to the soft money and protect it at all costs. Otherwise, how could ANY taxpayer be upset that DOGE is saving us billions of dollars?