Net Zero (Chance of Survival)

How is politics not a religion? People who believe there is an existential climate crisis due to human being’s use of carbon based fuels are looking crazier and crazier every day, why isn’t anyone talking about the insanity? They have reached cult status worshiping yet another god for which there is no verifiable proof of its existence. Like every religion, an extraordinary belief without even ordinary evidence.

Sure there are ‘climate scientists’ and ‘atmospheric scientists’ who have done ‘academic research’ and claim there is statistical significance to the claim but those ‘scientists’ are funded by the UN and other governmental institutions to produce the results they’re being paid to produce. But there are also scientists who criticize those results but nobody wants to talk about them, they are ignored and ostracized to the point of irrelevancy. They are labeled heretics for their blasphemy and like the middle-ages they must be denounced by the church. But why would published, tenured, respected scientists speak out against the prevailing political winds if they didn’t believe it was true? There are no benefits for them other than knowing they didn’t compromise their professional integrity and their principles for money and political prestige. It’s like when I’m looking for a good hotel, I only read the negative reviews because hotels don’t pay people to write negative ones.

The belief is that CO2 emissions from carbon based fuels are creating a ‘greenhouse effect’ causing global temperatures to rise, which will lead to crop devastation and the polar ice caps melting and the seas rising by 20′ and a whole bunch of other doomsday predictions – none of which have ever come true by the way. There are hundreds of websites, Wikipedia entries, international accords, political policies, ‘Eco’ settings on devices, Bio food, bars and restaurants issuing paper straws, wind farms, solar panel farms, electric cars etc. meant to ‘combat’ this threat.

And yet, there is no reason to believe a crisis even exists, not one. Of course human beings affect the environment just like all life forms do but there is no evidence that our impact is any more or less, any ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than any other. The reality gap between the crisis alarmists and what we have observed on a daily basis since it began almost 70 years ago is so large there’s ZERO probability it can be true.

But damned with reality, full steam ahead with the UN’s insane ‘Net Zero’ policy of removing CO2 produced by humans as it’s produced so there is a net zero existence of CO2 from carbon based fuels. That means people will be forced by government policy, regulations and laws to cut their CO2 ‘footprint’ as it’s called. Automobile manufacturers will be forced to produce more and smaller electric cars eventually making internal combustion engine vehicles illegal to produce and drive. What does that really imply for humanity? The problems with EVs compared to ICEs are well documented and the problem is physics. The energy density, cost, weight, and size of onboard energy storage can’t even come close to matching that of ICE vehicles and never will, it’s a physical impossibility. EV batteries also drain faster in cold weather and even faster if the heating unit is used to stay warm. If the batteries are damaged and need to be replaced, it costs as much as the car to replace them. The weight of the batteries is offset by using lightweight composite materials for roofs and bumpers which are attached only with glue. Instances of roofs and bumpers falling off are also well documented.

How would EVs affect daily human life considering the everyday transportation essentials people rely on to survive? Delivering crops and food to market, delivering medicines to pharmacies and hospitals, transporting medical patients and medical resources. There are any number of solutions to keep an ICE vehicle running if it’s in the cold or running low on gas but there are zero solutions for a dead battery pack in an EV.

But while the president is forcing others to drive supped up golf carts, he’ll keep his gas guzzling buses and motorcades.

‘Net Zero’ will also mean people will be forced to live in smaller dwellings with smaller ‘carbon footprints’ like trailers, refurbished shipping containers, small cottages in the woods or a nice renovated two rock, one pee-hole cave might do while the president lives in a mansion paid for by the people living in shipping containers.

Air travel will have to be curtailed, quotas will be put on how much you can fly and how far while the president will fly anywhere he wants in a Jumbo 747 and private helicopter.

That’s Net Zero but it gets far more sinister. There are others who believe that net zero political policy isn’t insane enough. They want real, absolute ZERO CO2 emissions from carbon based fuels used by humans.

From Wikipedia:

“In his 2021 report, Dangerous Distractions, economist Marc Lee said that net zero had the potential to be a dangerous distraction that reduced political pressure to reduce emissions.  “A net zero target means less incentive to get to ‘real zero’ emissions from fossil fuels, an escape hatch that perpetuates business as usual and delays more meaningful climate action,” he said. “Rather than gambling on carbon removal technologies of the future, Canada should plan for a managed wind down of fossil fuel production and invest public resources in bona fide solutions like renewables and a just transition from fossil fuels,” he said.”

In other words, no more carbon based fuels at all, zero, everything should be wind or solar or hydro or electrical. But that’s impossible since batteries for electrical devices have to be charged with electricity, how will electricity be produced without carbon based fuels? It’s a physical impossibility for wind, solar and hydro to produce enough electricity to charge all the batteries the world would need. And those ‘alternative’ forms of energy are highly unreliable as principle energy sources. The only viable alternative is nuclear which is great, a single pellet of enriched Uranium produces as much energy as two tons of coal, it’s a great alternative but for some odd reason, the powers that be wont even add nuclear to the discussion. Almost as if it doesn’t exist.

Bottom line is if politics forces humanity to live without carbon based fuels, it will be a real existential crisis. It will thrust mankind back into the dark ages, disease will run ramped, life expectancy will fall, famine and poverty will ensue. But those responsible for the policy will still be living like royalty consuming the abundance of carbon based fuels available now that everyone else isn’t using them. Blaming the dark ages on ‘free markets’ or ‘capitalism’ or some invisible virus, AI or aliens and claiming that those who created the problem are the only ones who can fix it so we have to give them more money and more power.

Why isn’t anyone talking about the insanity?

The Fissure Bridge

Confirmation bias is the concept that people’s currently held beliefs bias how they process information and make decisions. Any information that agrees with or confirms their currently held beliefs will be processed and any information that doesn’t will be filtered out. Confirmation bias then reinforces people’s currently held beliefs and hinders critical thinking, innovation and invention.

Brainwashing is the concept of coercively cleansing a person’s mind of its current content and beliefs and implanting new, more desirable ideas, thoughts and beliefs that are more to the cleanser’s liking. The purpose is for the cleanser to leverage the new beliefs by using confirmation bias to control the individual’s behavior.

Indoctrination is the concept of implanting desirable ideas, thoughts and beliefs in a young, impressionable mind over a longer, more gradual period of time that are more to the liking of those doing the indoctrination. Currently held beliefs are not yet developed and don’t need to be cleansed as with brainwashing. Having matured and developed their minds in concert with these ideas for years and years, they are as real to the individual as their own existence and will not be questioned, again critical thought is suppressed. The purpose of indoctrination is also to leverage these beliefs by using confirmation bias to control the individual’s behavior later in life.

For example, if your parents belonged to a religious cult and raised you with the same beliefs on a daily basis from an early age so that you have been convinced that there is a god and he’s watching you all the time and judging you for your journey in the ‘after life’, then the fear of this judgement will influence your behavior. If the cult says you have to do A, B and C in order to spend all of eternity in a heaven rather than burn in hell’s fire and brimstone, then you will do A, B and C and C usually has something to do with money.

Brainwashing, indoctrination, social engineering are all siblings in the same family of concepts meant to psychologically condition people’s minds in order to control them. And like any control system, a car, a computer the controllers must have a method of accessing just the beliefs they’re interested in, a trigger in order to manipulate them to their advantage. With a car it’s a key, a computer has a power button and socially engineered behavioral control systems have key words and concepts. Key words and concepts that have been repeated thousands upon thousands of times in the context in which they’re used so that the words and concepts are indistinguishable from the context whether they make sense or not.

Politics has an advanced social engineering program that has evolved over the millennia in order for a small ruling class of political insiders – a few hundred or so — to control hundreds of millions without ever having to raise a fist. It is so advanced it can get otherwise peaceful, intelligent people to volunteer to go to war and kill others in some foreign land they don’t know and who have never done anything to them and risk being injured, maimed or killed themselves and be proud that they did it! The key words and concepts are invoked and the psychological fissure in the person’s mind is bridged from the rational to the irrational where the desired belief system can be accessed.

This control system is so effective and efficient people will allow themselves to endure physical pain and suffering without even knowing why and without any rational justification. For example, a crosswalk at an intersection with a pedestrian crossing light is a psychological key that triggers the fissure bridge and engages the irrational. People are conditioned to believe that when they see that light in the context of crossing the street, they must stop and wait for the light to turn green even if there’s not a car in sight and even if they crossed thousands of streets in their life without a crosswalk. The irrational conditioning prevents them from thinking independently and disengages their motor skills until the appropriate key – a green light – triggers the fissure bridge back to the rational and they cross the street. There are people who will stand in the freezing cold, rain, snow enduring physical discomfort and pain without being able to consider simply looking both ways and crossing the street like our parents taught us and how any rational adult would do.  Their psychology won’t allow it, their brains are broken but they don’t know it.

Cognitive Dissonance is the psychological state in which your mind holds conflicting beliefs which can cause confusion, agitation, anxiety, anger and even physical violence. Although the beliefs seem perfectly rational individually, they  are a source of internal conflict when they are revealed. Rational behavior is seen as a threat to the indoctrinated’s irrational beliefs, an insult to their identity and must be defended. The defense mechanism can be verbal insults and angry comments or even physical violence. This is why people can discuss almost any subject calmly and maturely but they can’t discuss politics or religion. Both politics and religion have sophisticated indoctrination programs that create the psychological fissure bridge in people’s minds and the cognitive dissonance is seen as a threat and the defense mechanisms kick in.

Is Morality Objective?

Objectivity means the absence of subjectivity, a universal standard applied to everyone equally. Gravity is an objective physical law, jump up in the air and you will come falling back down to earth.

In this context, can we say that morality is objective, is there a universal moral standard that can be identified and applied to everyone’s behavior equally? A universal standard that defines wrong and right and any deviation from it defines immorality, criminality? It wouldn’t seem so considering how many people define their moral compass by religious doctrine or by legal doctrine or by other arbitrary beliefs but let’s look at it logically anyway.

In order to discuss objective morality, we first have to agree what morality means. Let’s say that morality means the difference between wrong and right. So what does wrong and right mean? Let’s say wrong is defined by a purposeful action that imposes a cost or harm on someone else – this excludes honest human mistakes, accidents.  I wanted to rob you, I meant to rob you, I robbed you, no mistake about it.

It’s the idea that your actions make someone worse off, a lower level of utility in some way than if you hadn’t done whatever you did. If you steal money from them, they are poorer, if you assault them they are physically injured etc., there is a victim.

But individual utility, a person’s well-being is subjective, it’s based on personal preferences and personal preferences are obviously not objective. Can we objectively say that everyone who has something stolen is worse off? Do we speak for them? What if someone is the kind of person that believes if someone stole from them then they must have needed it more than they did and they would have gladly given it to them if they had asked? They don’t consider themselves worse off, a victim because of the theft. In that situation, the action was not wrong or immoral because there is no victim. As a society we cannot decide on someone else’s behalf whether they are a victim or not, only they can do that. And there only has to be one person in the world who feels like that to dispel the objective theory of morality.

Therefore, victim-hood and morality doesn’t depend on the actor but on the actor’s target’s subjective valuation of the actions rendering wrong and right and morality subjective since individual valuation of everything is subjective. No two people value anything the same.

But our analysis of subjective morality actually implies something much more than that. Consider an old lady falls down in the street, is it wrong, immoral not to help her up? There is no objective response, it depends on her subjective valuation. It’s fair to assume she would prefer someone help her up and she would consider herself worse off laying in the street rather than being on the sidewalk. If your actions don’t help her then she’s worse off and her valuation of your actions is that they are wrong, immoral. But we know that is just as valid as any other valuation of the actions of others so are we to believe that morality can obligate us to act in circumstances that we have absolutely nothing to do with? Are we morally obligated to run into a burning building to save someone? Because they are definitely worse off if we don’t. If so then there’s no such thing as a hero, it would just be seen as the right thing to do. Are we obligated to give to others who have less than us since they would be worse off if we didn’t? If so then there’d be no such thing as generosity, compassion, charity, humanity it would just be seen as the right thing to do.

What are we to conclude if morality cannot be objective and if subjective morality strips us of our free-will and humanity? We have to conclude that morality doesn’t matter, it’s just a concept, there are only the consequences of your actions. Tough pill to swallow but true nonetheless.

What implications does this have for humanity? Historically, peaceful societies have been more economically prosperous and violent societies have been poorer. Respecting private property claims and voluntary cooperation have proven to lead to economic prosperity whereas survival of the fittest always leads to famine and suffering. But can one society be considered objectively moral and the other not?  Not necessarily, all we can conclude is that the consequences of peaceful cooperation  are more economically beneficial than the consequences of war. Not really a surprise is it, the answer to the question of objective morality was always staring us right in the face wasn’t it? Economic prosperity and safety is a matter of intelligence, reason, rational and peace not morality.

What’s Wrong with Public Education?

The problem with public education is that it has nothing to do with education, it’s politics. Public school systems are political institutions, administered, run and funded by bureaucrats for political expedience. Is there anyone who doesn’t understand the inherent inefficiencies, half-truths and political horse trading of politics? People you wouldn’t trust to babysit your kids but who you trust to educate them?

Any politician’s priorities are to his party first then to his political capital. Schoolboard decisions, regardless what it is, has nothing to do with what’s best for the school, the kid’s education or the community. Schoolboard bureaucrats have to ‘play ball’ according to their party’s platform and do whatever’s necessary to get reelected. And like all elected officials, there are no qualifications required to be on a schoolboard and no work experience required, anyone from the community can be elected, just get the most votes. That should seem odd, shouldn’t it? Have you ever heard of an organization deciding who will fill a job vacancy simply by popular vote rather than the best person for the job by education, experience, qualifications, interviews and internal discussions?

School budgets and teacher salaries are not determined by their value to the market, they are just line items in a state budget set by political policy. And like all political policy they are susceptible to corruption. When school budgets depend on student performance, teachers and administrators will sacrifice their professional integrity and principles and do whatever it takes to protect their budgets and salaries, even lie and cheat. The list of such scandals in public education is far too long to list here and annual statistics show that the more money public schools get, it has little to no effect on student performance. Internationally, American students don’t even rank in the top 20 in reading, mathematics and science while public school budgets have skyrocketed.

The politics of public education strips children of their individuality, it standardizes education and treats every kid as if they learn the same way, they don’t. It expects them to test what they’ve learned in the same way, they can’t. If public schools really cared about education, that should seem odd too shouldn’t it? Can teachers and ‘educators’ not look at the kids and see how wonderfully different they are or do they choose to ignore their diversity because that would require real effort and concern for student education which would eat into the budget. Political budgets are fixed pies, every institution getting their slice with which to make do. If public school bureaucrats waste money on education, they might not have enough money left for themselves and we can’t have that.

So what is primary education, what does it even mean, the problem has to be defined before it can be solved. What do children need to learn and what’s the best way for them to learn it? It seems reasonable that children need to learn some basic skills like reading, writing and arithmetic in order to equip themselves with the tools to learn more advanced topics. Since every child is an individual and learns differently, the learning needs of each student need to be evaluated and a method designed to meet those needs. Who knows these kids better than their parents? Who better to teach their kids the simplest things like reading, writing and arithmetic, how hard is that really?

After they’ve learned those basic skills it seems reasonable they should learn whatever they want, whatever they’re interested in and the parents can foster interest by providing opportunities. Before public schools, parents would pay mentors and artisans to teach their kids similar to what parents do today with after school music, art and sports activities. Why can’t they do the same thing with any academic or trade skill from engineering to automotive mechanics?

Why must children learn history if they’re not interested in history? If they want to know something about history they can Google it. Why must children learn geography if they’re not interested in geography? If they want to know something about geography they can Google it.  Why must children learn anything they’re not interested in? If they want to know something they can Google it or watch online educational videos like Khan Academy or any number of others and then ask their parents for clarification if needed.

The truth is that public education is a failed experiment which consumes scarce resources and provides no benefit to the students or the community. Just another one of many government institutions that redistributes wealth from those who produced it to those who didn’t. But it does provide ostensibly free babysitting for parents too busy living the ‘American Dream’ to be bothered with their kids’ education.

Male-Female Wage Gap?

Depending on which ‘study’ you read, some believe that there is a systematic difference in the amount of money companies pay men and women for the same work and they claim the difference is due to sexism. Let’s distill the issue of emotion and consider it rationally, reasonably, logically and with some common sense.

First of all, what does the phrase “for the same work” mean? Does it mean the same job title, working on the same types of projects, does it mean working in the same domain, what does it mean and how do you quantify it? If you read the ‘studies’ you’ll see there is no standard definition or measure of “for the same work”. It’s a purposefully vague and generalized concept that is typically whatever fits the author’s bias best. It doesn’t control for differences in education, industry, markets, geography, years of experience, market shares of the companies etc. The only metric is that – on average – men earn more per hour than women and it’s claimed that it’s “for the same work”.

In economics we talk about market value, wages, in terms of productivity and value to the firm. The more productive a worker is for the firm, the more valuable they are and the higher their wages. Productivity, then, seems like a reasonable basis for worker comparison.

So let’s restate the argument in the context of productivity: some believe that there is a systematic difference in the amount of money companies pay men and women for the same productivity and they claim the difference is due to sexism.

Now that we’ve clarified the problem, lets analyze it reasonably. Businesses exist to make a profit, in fact the people complaining about a wage gap are the same ones who complain that profits are the only thing businesses care about. If a man and a woman were significantly similar in their productivity in a given industry, and the companies paid the women less than the men due to their sexist attitudes, then those companies employing women would have a competitive advantage against other companies that paid higher wages to men. Labor costs are a huge part of any company’s bottom line and they are always looking for ways to cut them in order to increase profits. Being able to pay women less money for the same productivity would be the perfect solution.

So, if there really were a wage gap for the same productivity, we’d expect to see companies everywhere hiring more and more women, driving their wages up and simultaneously driving men’s wages down. We would also expect to see female owned businesses hiring all women since sexism wouldn’t be a factor but we don’t see that at all, and the reason is because productivity is not the same because men and women are not the same.

Social experiments have been conducted in which half an audience was male and half was female. The experimenter instructed the audience members to raise their hand when they heard a job called out that they’d be willing to do. The outcome is consistently the same: men and women are not willing to do the same jobs or work the same schedules. Men are more willing to work riskier jobs and longer hours at the expense of other things like family and personal time. Women are more likely to work more traditional jobs and fewer hours because they value their family and personal time. Another obvious difference is that women can get pregnant which will affect their productivity and their work schedule.

The sports industry gets a lot of attention because women athletes don’t understand why they don’t get paid as much as men. WNBA players don’t understand why they don’t get paid as much as NBA players. The product in professional sports is elite athleticism, athletes doing things that we can’t do and can’t see just anywhere like on a playground basketball court. The elite of the elite is what people pay for and women in the WNBA can’t compare to the men’s athleticism in the NBA so people choose to watch the NBA instead. We know that wages are a function of productivity so the players in the NBA are paid more because they bring in millions for their teams. WNBA players are paid less because they bring in very little. The WNBA brings in so little in fact that it has to be subsidized by the NBA to stay afloat.

There is no rational or empirical evidence to suggest wage differences has anything to do with sexism. It’s just an appeal to emotion to try to politicize the issue and get politics to force companies to pay women more money just because they’re women which I think is sexist.

When No Symptoms is a Symptom

In the same sense that I don’t deny the existence of a god, I just recognize there is no proof of one, I don’t deny there was a pandemic, I just don’t see any evidence of one. I think it’s fair to say that if people had been dropping dead in the streets, nobody would have had to be told there’s something going on. They would have been avoiding each other like the plague – to turn a phrase – and taken whatever measures they felt necessary to protect themselves. The politicians probably wouldn’t have been able to pull people from their homes. The hashtag would have been #ComeOut rather than #StayHome. But people weren’t dropping dead in the streets like in the pictures transmitted from Wuhan, China. That was probably the first head scratcher for me. How was it that the virus was so dangerous in China but nowhere else in the world?

The second head scratcher was when the CDC changed its policy on determining cause of death specifically for covid. From the CDC website:

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. 

Meaning that even if someone tested negative, even if someone had no symptoms the attending physician had the discretion to decide covid was the official cause of death. Why would such arbitrary and subjective policies be necessary in the midst of a real pandemic? Wouldn’t such a policy absolutely inflate the mortality numbers and present a false impression of the situation? How could it not? Why would the CDC feel the need to inflate the numbers?

After that, the head scratchers came so fast and furious I thought I had head lice, then they just got stupid.

You would have expected the restrictions to be objective, medically based and the same everywhere but instead they varied from state to state depending on the political bend of the government. A political pandemic by definition.

The media was caught numerous times spreading misleading information, sensationalizing stories and outright lying. Why would they feel the need to lie and sensationalize the pandemic if it’s real? Shouldn’t the truth have been sufficient?

You had to cover your face with something, anything, no medical standard required. A surgical mask, a scarf, a sock, an old t-shirt, literally anything. Everyone got to choose for themselves what was medically sufficient to protect them from a dangerous infectious virus.

You had to close your business, except if you owned a corporate chain, college or professional sports team, a Hollywood production company or an airline. Some states allowed bars and restaurants to remain open.

If you wanted to risk your life to go to a bar or restaurant during a pandemic you had to cover your face when you entered but could take it off once you were seated. I feel my IQ dropping just writing this.

If you wanted to risk your life to fly during a pandemic you had to stay 6’ apart and cover your face in the airport. But as soon as you got on the plane you could crowd together to find overhead space and your seat and uncover your face to eat a snack while sitting right next to others.

Sports leagues carried on during the pandemic but without spectators, instead they put cardboard cutouts in the seats to give the impression of fans and for some reason still paid to have security personnel on the field looking up into the stands during the games.

You could be infected and have no symptoms but still infect others and your immune system couldn’t form antibodies. So you had to assume you could always be infected, never out of the clear until the vaccine was available which also doesn’t prevent you from being infected and infecting others. That’s when it went from stupid, passed childish and abusive and right into insanity.

And in true political fashion, the politicians were caught over and over again all over the world, disobeying their own restrictions while punishing others who didn’t obey. Are we to believe  they were sacrificing themselves for the ‘greater good’, risking their lives and the lives of their loved ones knowing that at any moment they could be infected and die? Or does it seem more plausible they knew it was all bullshit, political theater and there was nothing to worry about?

The funniest part was when the world-renowned virologist and immunologist Bill Gates became the face of the vaccine.  And they enlisted other experts like Jimmy Fallon and Stephan Colbert to promote their drugs. They have been telling you all along that it’s a joke.

It was and still is a show, a scripted production, no intelligent person with an ounce of common sense would conclude that this has had anything to do with a virus except as an excuse for new political policy. And now that the issue has been politicized it will be with us for the rest of our lives for the powers that be to leverage when convenient like ‘anthropogenic global warming’ and all the other politicized issues that refuse to die.

The Magic of Fiat Borrowing

Awhile back I posted an article called ‘Your Government is Bankrupt’ and in that article I was right and I was wrong. I was right that the government is bankrupt, bankrupt meaning it takes in less revenue than it spends and can’t pay back its debt, but I was wrong that it matters, it doesn’t, at least not to the government.  

The Federal Reserve prints US dollars out of thin air whenever the government wants it and buys government bonds effectively loaning the government the newly printed money. The Federal Reserve banking system does the same thing for the private sector. Whenever someone borrows money, it’s created out of thin air for the borrower, banks don’t need your deposits to make loans. All US dollars in circulation are debt, if all debt were paid off, there’d be no more USDs in circulation. As the supply of money decreases its value rises and so do interest rates. Higher interest rates would mean less borrowing from the banks by consumers and businesses which is financially detrimental for the banks, so the government ensures that the banks keep making money by keeping interest rates low by borrowing continuously from the FED. It’s a perverse fraudulent financial system that has led to every financial crisis for the last hundred years.

The unfettered money printing inflates the money supply and consumer prices rise, too many dollars chasing all the same goods drives prices up. In the long-run all prices rise including wages and exchange rates so the only real problem for the state is fitting all the zeroes on the banknotes as the banking system prints the value of the dollar into oblivion. Effectively, the government can continue to borrow from the FED to pay back existing debt to the FED and domestic and foreign investors with interest even as it accrues new debt. If inflation becomes hyper, they can just deflate it like the former communist countries did in the early 2000s and start all over again. That’s the magic of fiat money, it’s not real money so its value can be manipulated at will.

The problem for consumers and businesses both domestic and foreign is that inflation eats away at investment returns so investors will stop investing in dollar denominated assets and those with existing investments and contractual rates of return will lose purchasing power, the same thing as losing money. Foreign investment during hyperinflation is what has historically destroyed currencies. Governments borrow money internationally for war and empires and then print the money into worthlessness trying to pay their foreign debt back which, depending on the amount and the interest rate, may or may not be mathematically possible.

Those with fixed incomes and locked in rates of returns like non-governmental retirees will see their returns consumed by inflation as prices rise. Those with variable rate loans will see their monthly premiums skyrocket as banks scramble to preserve their returns. Foreign investors will lose money and not make any further investments in the future and American investors will move abroad. In the end, the US economy will exist in its own little imaginary bubble of paper wealth with little to no new investment except by the state. Production will grind down and all wealth will be inflation as the rest of the world moves forward. The US economy’s trade deficit will balloon far beyond its current $700 billion.

As long as the government borrows in its own currency, it can do so without economic consequences to itself, but there will be economic consequences for both foreign and domestic investment that will eventually isolate the US economy.

No One Likes Being Fat

There’s an ongoing cultural movement to convince fat people that they are healthy and beautiful just the way they are. They don’t have to live up to some unspoken social standard of health and body shape. There’s no need to change their lifestyle, no need to learn to eat healthy and get some regular exercise. They should accept themselves just the way they are and anyone who tells them differently is being offensive and ‘fat shaming’. They are being glamorized on magazine covers and television talk shows. The issue has been politicized to enable people’s bad habits and punish those who aren’t politically correct.

The potential health risks associated with being overweight are well known and doctors have a duty to point them out to patients. That’s why the first thing a doctor does when you go for a checkup is check your height and weight. Those risks include high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, sleep apnea, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver diseases, osteoarthritis, gall bladder disease, back and joint pain to make a short list. It’s irresponsible and mean to try and convince someone who’s fat that they’re healthy rather than addressing the potential risks.

Are fat people beautiful? Are thin people beautiful? Is anyone beautiful? Beauty is not an objective measure, it’s in the eye of the beholder, so to tell people they are objectively beautiful just because they are fat is also mean and misleading. It can lead to unrealistic expectations that society can never live up to. They’ll expect everyone to find them beautiful and when they don’t it can lead to frustration, anger, anxiety and depression. It can strain and damage personal relationships leading to social isolation and psychological issues that fuel the bad habits that led to the situation in the first place.

Regardless of the narrative, the truth is that nobody likes being fat irrespective what they say or what they might have been conditioned to believe. Not because they are shamed by others for not adhering to a social standard but because even the most mundane daily activities are hard when you’re overweight – depending on how much. Simple things like walking any prolonged distance, climbing flights of stairs, getting in and out of a car, getting up off a sofa, social activities with friends like going on hikes, playing sports, summer and winter activities like skiing, skating, dancing, buying clothes, fitting in an airplane seat, buckling a seat belt, sex! Some even have difficulty wiping their backside because they just can’t reach, they have to use a specially made device.

Some circumstances can be humiliating like the unusual shortness of breath or excess perspiration. Not being able to find clothing that fits so they have to wear stretchable shirts and sweatpants and shoes without laces because they can’t bend over to tie them. Or like when the woman was told she couldn’t go horseback riding because she was too heavy for the horse. So they end up sitting on the sidelines watching others enjoy life because they are physically unable to participate. That has to be sad, it has to have a psychological effect on anyone.

That’s why they’ve tried many times to lose weight, and sometimes succeeded, but they’ve never been able to keep the weight off. They’ve disappointed themselves over and over again with their failure to change. Now people are telling them that the solution is to stop trying, there’s no need to disappoint themselves anymore because there’s nothing wrong. It takes caring about someone enough to risk them being mad at you for being honest with them. Most people care more about what others think of them to risk someone being mad at them so they enable the bad habits and perpetuate the problem. And now it’s considered socially unacceptable to be honest, so people lie and pat themselves on the back for being so virtuous, a cultural hero regardless of the consequences to others. That’s politics for you.

Nonsense – The Short List

Why do people make their bed every morning?
Why do people wash their hands before they eat but not after?
Why do people wash their hands after they use the bathroom but not before?
Why is it disrespectful to wear a hat indoors?
Why are some obscenities considered offensive but others aren’t?
Why do men stand when a woman sits down or stands up from a table?
Why do people use their turn signal when there’s nobody behind them?
Why do people wait for the light to turn green at a crosswalk when there’s not a car in sight?
Why do people get mad at those who drive in the left lane when they can just change to the right lane?
Why do flight attendants show you how to buckle and unbuckle a seatbelt?
Why does drain cleaner have a warning label not to drink it?
Why is placement of the ball in a football game subjectively arbitrary but the measurements for a first down so precise?
Why does a quarterback get credit for a 99 yard pass if he only threw it one yard and the receiver ran the other 98?
Why are there individual awards in team sports?
Why do baseball players take on a 3-0 count when they know the next pitch will be right down the middle?
What do the military, flags and the national anthem have to do with sporting events?
Why is it considered disrespectful not to stand when the national anthem plays?
How can soldiers be sent to war when there is no war without the soldiers?
Why is it illegal to speed but legal for cops to speed in order to catch speeders?
If speed kills, why aren’t all race car drivers dead?
If drinking and driving is illegal, why is it legal for people to drive to bars and why do bars have parking lots?
Why do people show unusual respect to anyone dressed in religious clothing?
Why are stores closed on Sunday and not any other arbitrary day?
When people say ‘thank god’, which one are they referring to?
If both teams pray to god to win a game, how does god decide?
If god is everywhere, why do you have to go to a church to worship him?
If the church is god’s house how come the parishioners have to pay for it?
If confession absolves you from your sins, can you sin all you want as long as you confess?
Why do parents tell their kids there’s no such thing as ghosts and then start every prayer with ‘in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost’?
What does a fat old man and elves have to do with the birth of Christ?
What does a rabbit and eggs have to do with the ascension of Christ?
Why do people get so excited about New Years Eve and not any other arbitrary eve?
Why do people believe that having any college degree gives you ‘something to fall back on’?
If the constitution is meant to create a government to protect our rights, why the need for the Bill of Rights to protect our rights from the government?
If the constitution creates the authority for the supreme court, isn’t it a conflict of interest for the supreme court to interpret the constitution?
If swearing on a bible in court that you won’t lie is meant to ensure that people won’t lie, why are there laws that punish people for lying in court?

Why is selling sex for money illegal but if you film it and call it porn it’s legal?

Politics is for the Infantile and the Insane

Remember when we were children in grade school, we were mean and selfish and loud and called each other names like ‘retarded’ and ‘stupid’. We talked over one another trying to drown out the other kids so we could get attention and the teacher would have to yell and bang something to get the class to settle down. We’d argue with one another using childish language like ‘nah ah’ and ‘ya-ha’ as if we were so smart and important and right. We’d make up silly monikers for kids to make fun of them depending on their name. If your name was ‘Mary’ then you were called ‘Mary Mary Had a Little Lamb’ or if your name was ‘Donald’ you were called ‘Donald Duck’, Tony was ‘Tony Bologna’ and if your last name was Hammond then you were ‘Hambone’. We’d lie and cheat to avoid getting in trouble and being punished and if caught we’d apologize and swear we’d never do it again knowing damn well we would if we thought it was necessary. Every school had bullies who would intimidate and try to frighten the other kids to get what they wanted whether it be attention, lunch money, your candy bar or just to feel like a big man.

We did those things because we were kids, we were emotionally immature and we didn’t understand things like respect, consideration, compassion, character, integrity, honor or humanity. Everything was interesting and fun, the world was our oyster and we were full of energy and wanted to explore it all. We didn’t have time for worrying about others or how our actions affected them. But we were supposed to mature emotionally and become adults. We were supposed to stop being selfish and calling each other names. We were supposed to stop lying and cheating and bullying, and some did, a lot maybe but there is one place where the culture is no different than it was in grade school: politics.

What is ‘Libtard’ and ‘Trumptard’ if not the political version of the grade school ‘retard’? Isn’t that what the ‘tard’ suffix is meant to imply? Grown adults calling each other ‘retarded’? What are the unruly congressional and parliamentary sessions where people talk over one another and jeer and sling snide comments at each other if not tantamount to the unruly grade school classroom with each child posturing for attention? And if it gets loud and unruly enough someone bangs a gavel and tells everyone to settle down just like the teacher used to do. Hell they even refer to a break in the chaos as ‘recess’ just like in grade school.

What is ‘RINO’ or ‘Neo-con’ or ‘MAGA Republican’ if not made up monikers in order to make fun of and chide people? What are congressional hearings if not two people spending hours going back and forth with ‘yes you did’, ‘no I didn’t’, ‘yes you did’, the political version of ‘nah ah’, ‘ya-ha’, ‘nah ah’. Or one accusing the other that they have ‘no idea what they’re talking about’, the political version of calling someone stupid and in the end absolutely nothing is ever accomplished. Rand Paul and Fauci have spent hours over the past two years doing just that. Repeating the same meaningless argument over and over again to no conclusion.

Politicians, those involved in politics and the media reporting on politics are infamous throughout history for lying, cheating, stealing and manipulating. Politicians outright lie with impunity both on the campaign trail and in office and the media brazenly prints exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies to push a political narrative. Then they apologize, swear it was an honest mistake and then they do it over and over again. ‘Law Enforcers’ have their own Wikipedia page chronically ‘Police Abuse’ going back 150 years. What are they if not bullies who use intimidation and fear to control people.

What kind of person, adult, would associate himself with such a childish, immature culture? They’d either have to be insane or their emotional maturity would have to have been ‘retarded’. Politics is for the infantile and the insane.

Translate »