Why Green Energy Means No Energy
. . . no, not metaphorically. "Why does the green movement oppose every practical form of energy? There is only one answer that can explain this. Greens oppose every practical form of energy not out of love for the non-existent virtues of solar and wind energy, but because they believe practical energy is inherently immoral." * * * "Have you ever heard mankind described as a cancer on the planet? Prince Philip, former head of the World Wildlife Fund, has said, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Biologist David M. Graber, in praising the theme of Bill McKibben’s book The End of Nature, said, “Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” This is the logical end of holding human nonimpact as your standard of value; the best way to achieve it is to do nothing at all, to not exist. Of course, few hold that standard of value consistently, and even these men do not depopulate the world of themselves. But we need to depopulate the world of their ideas. Our goal should not be the impossible idea of a form of energy that doesn’t impact nature but the form of energy that most benefits human beings. We don’t want green energy we want life-enhancing, humanitarian energy." I am about at the end of my rope with these losers. They have been wrong about everything. They believe nonsense, hate humans, themselves, and are intent on carrying out their childish murder fantasies. These people are staunch atheists. They are dangerous, not just silly cranks. If ever give half a chance they would take it. To the demise of millions, or even billions.
Comments
Why Are Millennial Men Such 'Wimps'? Take-Two
. . . while the whingey SJW women, and SJW man/boys are cowering in their safe spaces. Real men, and real women have never had difficulty finding each other. They also have never spent one minute in a "safe zone." Back in the day, Maddog and Maddogswif used to go on kayak expeditions. She was never as keen on the idea, the oil tankers, and cargo ships caused her some consternation. Admittedly, a ship like the Seawise Giant is 1504' in length, while the kayak was about 17', that tends to make an impression! Ditch the safe space, and get outside. Instapundit: Ham-Handed Arrest at Pediatric Clinic . . . police become ever more aggressive and draconian in their arrests. Serious, violent crime like violent assaults are low but not as low as murder. Yet if you ask, no one seems to realize this. In part, this is because the police have been militarizing the police force, and showing up for every arrest, yes, even a minor DUI/failure-to-pay-a-few-bucks arrest with a massive 25 man company of fully armed, fully armored, time and money wasters. We need more budget, because each arrest is so costly!!! I remember back to when this was considered the way to arrest a suspect: But not today, now they roll out the entire station house in full armor, for a jaywalker!
We need to have a come to Jesus about this, and an even more important come to Jesus about criminalizing our drug problem. If drugs were legalized, it is likely we would see 50% drops in violent crimes, including murder. Because these crimes mostly happen to brown people the middle and upper classes don't much care. This is disastrous policy. Costco's new credit card has some of the best rewards in the market
. . . but this new card will be great! Now if I could only wean Maddogswif from using her Alaska Airline card, which pays her a tiny amount in "free" tickets. I would rather have the money, than impossible to redeem airline tickets. Instapundit: U of California Accused of Favoring Non-Californians
That would also eliminate all the whinging about "illegal aliens" receiving in-state tuition rates. Positive! - Cafe Hayek
. . . is to allow those who disagree with you, to show how inane their mind actually is. How Earnings Influence a Woman’s Decision to Wed
. . . men want to have sex with attractive women. These ideas have been long in the can, only a scientist could be so lonely as to need to dredge them up and reconstitute them. What Women Want--What Men Want: Why the Sexes Still See Love and Commitment So Differently by John Marshall Townsend To understand the motivations underlying the sexes, this book is a must-read. Young people just entering the dating world need to read this book. Without it they are likely to make fundamental mistakes by misunderstanding the motivations of the opposite sex. Men and women fundamentally want different things in dating, mating, and marrying. At its most fundamental level, men want sex with attractive women, the most important criteria here are youth, and beauty. This does not mean they do not want marriage, they do, but it is a second step. In dating, and in marriage the attractiveness of the mate is of high importance. While men have secondarily important criteria, they are far less important than the primary. Women primarily want to marry men who have wealth or power. Secondarily women want a large number of thing like superior intelligence, height, attractiveness, education, strength, etc. The secondary criteria for women tend to be driven by the primary, meaning that the secondary criteria like education are leading indicators for wealth, and power.. Today, feminism has failed many women by misinforming them that men will want to marry even after they have taken the time to become educated, and built a career. But men, will mostly want to marry women who are young and beautiful. Women who wait until their mid 30s or later will have mostly missed the boat with the successful "good catch" men their own age. Many of these men will have married, and the remaining will be looking for a younger, even more beautiful woman. Men can easily shop down in age, because young women tend to be highly attracted to men who are within 10 years of their age, and who have cracked the wealth and/or power nut. The 36 year old women on the other hand will likely need to find a man between 10-15 years older than her, or about 50. The fundamental axiom is a woman's sexual value is greatest when she is between 18-28, while a man's slowly increases with age, as he becomes more wealthy and powerful, generally plateauing at about 50-55. The following so badly misunderstands what is going on it should be criminal. "In a recent paper, Na’ama Shenhav, a Ph.D. candidate at U.C. Davis, estimates that as much as 20 percent of the decline in the marriage rate over the past 30 years is attributable to women’s growing wages. More specifically, it’s the increase of women’s wages relative to their potential mates and the growing importance of women’s wages to overall household income that have contributed to women’s decisions to delay or forgo marriage. The idea is that for many women, especially those on the lower end of the economic ladder, higher earnings allow them to be less financially reliant on others for things such as rent, groceries, utilities, or other basic necessities. That means that the choice to marry becomes less about financial need and more about other things, like love, social norms, religion, or the desire to start a family." The problem here is that women want a man who makes more money than they do. The single men who do, are much older than they are and likely don't want to have children, or don't want to marry. The single men their age are uninterested in them, as they are dating women younger, and more attractive. This is especially a problem for women who are not very attractive. This means these women have a very small pool of attractive men. This makes it far less likely they will have an opportunity to marry. "Why are more women opting out of marrying? Now, they have less of a financial incentive . . ." There are also no barriers to these women having children outside of marriage. While this is a terrible idea, society couldn't give a rip. The only remaining peer pressure is among the upper middle class and the wealthy. "Does this all mean that women who earn more, in general, are less likely to get married? Not quite. Shenhav’s findings are all about relative wages, and earnings convergence between men and women remains elusive in some of the highest-paying fields. In fact, marriage is the province of the wealthy: Upper-income Americans are more likely to be married than their lower-income peers, and the rise of assortative mating means that more than ever, educated well-off people are intermarrying and staying rich, while poor people are intermarrying, and pretty much staying poor." Parents in the upper middle class and upper class understand and reinforce in their children the importance of marriage as a mechanism to make, and retain wealth. Parents need to read John Townsend's book, and provide it to their children. Optimistically, the parent will discuss these issues with the child, because so much of their future depends on getting this correct. Science Is a Good Substitute for God
Like pregnancy, science is an either/or proposition, not a belief. Yes, there are times we might not know something, but it is best then to keep ones powder dry, and wait till we do. Otherwise, you will look as stupid as the US federal government hopping from belief in the food pyramid, to belief that eating eggs increase blood cholesterol levels, etc. Science worth its salt is testable, provable, and falsifiable. It is not belief. The real problem with a belief in science is that unreformed religions are extremely dangerous. The unreformed science of Marxism caused the deaths of over 100 million. This seems like a bad outcome especially once you realize that science failed in every incarnation. Any scientific position which morphs into a belief will soon be controlled by the belief, while the actual sciency stuff falls by the wayside. This is what has happened in climate science. While it was once a science it is now a belief. Let's just hope that climate science does not need to murder 100 million before winking out of existence like the Marxist science did. I have always found the idea of atheism to be inane. To mean anything, atheism must stand for the proposition that "there is no God/god." Fine, but by making that statement one must bear the burden to prove there is no God. I will wait right here, let me know when you are done. Still waiting. Waiting. The problem is the believer of this position cannot prove there is no God. In fact, the believer cannot even prove that he, himself exists. Nor can he prove any other thing exists. In this environment, what is science, and what does that concept even mean? Ultimately, without this fundamental proof everything becomes belief, or faith. So, exactly what is the difference between faith in a God, and anything else? This fundamental misunderstanding leads intelligent men to argue for the position of atheism when it is a position which cannot be supported. However, the obverse position, that there is a God, if relying on faith, is fully supportable. The argument that science, and faith are antagonists is incorrect. At their most fundamental level there is only faith. Science only exists, if you accept on faith that it exists. Ultimately, our author is correct that science is a substitute for God, if you need to replace a tried and true reformed faith with an untried, unreformed belief. The again the last time this was tried in a large scale experiment 100 million people lost their lives. Choose wisely. Agnosticism is another matter entirely. The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics (Hackett Publishing) by Richard A. Watson Watson's book is brilliant, and is a must-read book to understand the interplay between religion, and faith. Instapundit: Soak-the-rich proposals ignore history
Exactly! How else would inane investment "opportunities" like Solyndra get traction if politicians didn't provide it? An income tax is a terrible idea because it acts as a break on individual income. Anything taxed will result in less of that thing. Do we really want people to have less income? No! On the other hand, we don't care as much if people purchase things. So, we could correct a significant economic problem by eliminating the negative income tax, corporate tax, estate/gift tax, and payroll tax, and turning to a simple consumption/sales tax. The problem from the political point of view is that the sales tax does not offer any obvious path to political graft and corruption, especially if the rate is fixed. Unite to Defeat Radical Jihadism
. . . this is mostly because our allies in Europe cannot integrate a muslim to save their soul's. Peggy lays this out in simple easy to understand terms, "These things are obvious after the Brussels bombings: In striking at the political heart of Europe, home of the European Union, the ISIS jihadists were delivering a message: They will not be stopped. What we are seeing now is not radical jihadist Islam versus the West but, increasingly, radical jihadist Islam versus the world. They are on the move in Africa, parts of Asia and of course throughout the Mideast. Radical jihadism is not going to go away, not for a long time, probably decades. For 15 years it has in significant ways shaped our lives, and it will shape our children’s too. They will have to win the war. It will not be effectively fought with guilt, ambivalence or double-mindedness. That, in the West, will have to change." She notes that President Golf Pants had something to say, "The usual glib talk of politicians—calls for unity, vows that we will not give in to fear—will produce in the future what they’ve produced in the past: nothing. “The thoughts and the prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium,” said the president, vigorously refusing to dodge clichés. “We must unite and be together, regardless of nationality, race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.” It is not an “existential threat,” he noted, as he does. But if you were at San Bernardino or Fort Hood, the Paris concert hall or the Brussels subway, it would feel pretty existential to you." True. He cannot pass a cliche without stopping to make its acquaintance. So, if we are to unify to stop this threat, how? First we must understand what causes all mass movements. "There are many books, magazine long-reads and online symposia on the subject of violent Islam. I have written of my admiration for “What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood, published a year ago in the Atlantic. ISIS supporters have tried hard to make their project knowable and understood, Mr. Wood reported: “We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change . . . and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.” ISIS is essentially “medieval” in its religious nature, and “committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people.” They intend to eliminate the infidel and raise up the caliphate—one like the Ottoman empire, which peaked in the 16th century and then began its decline." This doesn't really answer the question does it? This does. The short answer here is hatred of self, of religion, and of nationality. This is a festering sore, which is worsened if the adopted nation treats the individual as second class. Here are a large number of opinion polls which show the extent of muslim extremism. Muslim Opinion Polls On the other hand, I agree with this analysis as well: Labor Market Rigidity and the Disaffection of European Muslim Youth - Marginal REVOLUTION America does a better job at integrating immigrants than Europe. That should not surprise, Europe spent the past 150 years torn between sending waves of immigrants to the US or fighting internecine wars. It has no experience with emigration. Perhaps the key reason America does so well is we allow quick and complete economic integration of individuals. This ties them to the community economically, and whatever other negative feelings they may have, are muted by the strength of the economic tie. Europe on the other hand does what Europe always does, it ghettoizes the other, and economically marginalizes them.. "In Belgium high unemployment and crime-ridden Muslim ghettos have fomented radicalism but as Jeff Jacoby writes: Muslims in the United States…have had no problem acclimating to mainstream norms. In a detailed 2011 survey, the Pew Research Center found that Muslim Americans are “highly assimilated into American society and . . . largely content with their lives.” More than 80 percent of US Muslims expressed satisfaction with life in America, and 63 percent said they felt no conflict “between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.” The rates at which they participate in various everyday American activities — from following local sports teams to watching entertainment TV — are similar to those of the American public generally. Half of all Muslim immigrants display the US flag at home, in the office, or on their car. Jacoby, however, doesn’t explain why these differences exist. One reason is the greater flexibility of American labor markets compared to those in Europe. Institutions that make it more difficult to hire and fire workers or adjust wages can increase unemployment and reduce employment, especially among immigrant youth. Firms will be less willing to hire if it is very costly to fire. As Tyler and I put it in Modern Principles, How many people will want to go on a date if every date requires a marriage? The hiring hurdle is especially burdensome for immigrants given the additional real or perceived uncertainty from hiring immigrants. One of the few ways that immigrants can compete in these situations is by offering to work for lower wages. But if that route is blocked by minimum wages or requirements that every worker receive significant non-wage benefits then unemployment and non-employment among immigrants will be high generating disaffection, especially among the young. Huber, for example, (see also Angrist and Kugler) finds: Countries with more centralized wage bargaining, stricter product market regulation and countries with a higher union density, have worse labour market outcomes for their immigrants relative to natives even after controlling for compositional effects. The problem of labor market rigidity is especially acute in Belgium where the differences between native and immigrant unemployment, employment and wages are among the highest in the OECD. Language difficulties and skills are one reason but labor market rigidity is another, as this OECD report makes clear: Belgian labour market settings are generally unfavourable to the employment outcomes of low-skilled workers. Reduced employment rates stem from high labour costs, which deter demand for low-productivity workers…Furthermore, labour market segmentation and rigidity weigh on the wages and progression prospects of outsiders. With immigrants over-represented among low-wage, vulnerable workers, labour market settings likely hurt the foreign-born disproportionately. …Minimum wages can create a barrier to employment of low-skilled immigrants, especially for youth. As a proportion of the median wage, the Belgian statutory minimum wage is on the high side in international comparison and sectoral agreements generally provide for even higher minima. This helps to prevent in-work poverty…but risks pricing low-skilled workers out of the labour market (Neumark and Wascher, 2006). Groups with further real or perceived productivity handicaps, such as youth or immigrants, will be among the most affected. In 2012, the overall unemployment rate in Belgium was 7.6% (15-64 age group), rising to 19.8% for those in the labour force aged under 25, and, among these, reaching 29.3% and 27.9% for immigrants and their native-born offspring, respectively. Immigration can benefit both immigrants and natives but achieving those benefits requires the appropriate institutions especially open and flexible labor markets." Young American muslims will still be potential recruits to Islamism, but the ability of the radicals to find converts will be lessened by economic opportunity. This is a key reason why continuing to follow the dying progressive system is not just folly but dangerous. The progressive belief structure will mire the employment relationship in 19th century goals and ideals. We know this will slow economic growth, and do nothing to further the needs and desires of either the workers, or the employers. This will hurt the immigrant more than the native. The best mechanism to fight Islamic terror is rapid, inclusive economic growth, not slowed growth, and stagnation. Bad ideas are myriad, but should be eschewed. The other battlefield for this fight will need to be the Middle East itself, through the Islamic Reformation. The West cannot be involved in this war. If it is, the battle will surely spill into the West. This will be difficult but necessary. Ultimately this needs to be a war for reformation fought only by the parties to the reformation. Our current political class is not up to this. |
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|