Archives for: November 2014

While we were eating Turkey and watching football…

The fucking crooks in DC, busy bankrupting this country as part of the plan of destroying it the current president’s administration has been on, printed over $1 trillion of new money to pay off debt obligations on money they borrowed:

The Daily Treasury Statement that was released Wednesday afternoon as Americans were preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving revealed that the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue $1,040,965,000,000 in new debt since fiscal 2015 started just eight weeks ago in order to raise the money to pay off Treasury securities that were maturing and to cover new deficit spending by the government.

During those eight weeks, Treasury took in $341,591,000,000 in revenues. That was a record for the period between Oct. 1 and Nov. 25. But that record $341,591,000,000 in revenues was not enough to finance ongoing government spending let alone pay off old debt that matured. The Treasury also drew down its cash balance by $45.057 billion during the period, starting with $126,568,000,000 in cash and ending with $81,511,000,000.

The only way the Treasury could handle the $942,103,000,000 in old debt that matured during the period plus finance the new deficit spending the government engaged in was to roll over the old debt into new debt and issue enough additional new debt to cover the new deficit spending.

This mode of financing the federal government resembles what the Securities and Exchange Commission calls a Ponzi scheme. “A Ponzi scheme,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission, “is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue,” explains the SEC. “Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.”

If you or I, or for that matter any private entity tries to pay off its debts in this way, we will end up in jail. The government however keeps pretending money grows on trees so the political elite can keep their vote buying schemes and scams going long past the expiration date. And their mouth pieces in the LSM just go along because of Black Jesus and their allegiance to donkey dick. Socialism as practiced by the progressives is the bane of humanity and the harbinger of real dark times. Mark my words, but look at what many of them are doing.

Turkeys and Drumsticks 2014

For seven years running, I have taken advantage of the Thanksgiving Holiday to give out my awards for Turkey of the Year and Golden Drumsticks. The latter are for those who exemplify the best traits in our public sphere. The former are for those who exemplify silliness and stupidity. I rarely give them out to someone who is evil; they are reserved for those who regularly make me shake my head and wonder what they’re thinking. It’s a sort of “thank you” for making blogging easier.

We’ll start with the Turkeys of the Year. For reference, the past winners are:

2007: Alberto Gonzalez, Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez

2008: Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin’s critics, Hillary Clinton, Congress, Joe Biden

2009: Mike Steele, Glen Beck, the State Department, Sarah Palin, Andrew Sullivan.

2010: Janet Napolitano and TSA, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, MSNBC, Lower Merion Schools, California Voters.

2011: Nancy Pelosi, Republican Presidential Field, Occupy Wall Street, Anthony Weiner, the Eurozone.

2012: The Culture Warriors, Unions, The Poll Unskewers, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, MSNBC

2013: Healthcare.gov, the Platinum Coin, the Shutdown Caucus, the National park Service, Fiscal Cliff Panic Mongers.

For this year, I picked:

Jonathan Gruber: #3 was in the lead most of the year. Then #2 took over earlier this month. But the millionaire consultant from MIT has to take the top prize now. The thing about Gruber is not that he made comments that support Halbig. It’s not that he helped create Obamacare. It’s not even that he called the voters stupid. It’s that he revealed the ugly reality that undergirds of much of the progressive movement in this country: the belief that Americans are stupid, that leaders are wise and that the latter must lead the former to good choices through deception, obfuscation and coercion. The most common thing I read on liberal message boards after Grubergate was “Hey, he’s right!” There is a large section of the Left Wing that thinks we need to be ruled by a technocratic elite. Gruber pulled back the veil. And that he looked like a horse’s ass into the bargain was just gravy.

Lamenting Democrats: In the wake of yet another electoral shellacking, the professional whining class went into overdrive, trying to find something, anything to blame for their loss. Random articles about science topics would start with lamenting that evil Republicans were taking over the Senate. Robert Reich screamed that Republicans might use reconciliation to do stuff (reconciliation being a legitimate tactic up until November 3). A thousand articles sprang up about “how to talk to your crazy right-wing uncle/parents/cousin/neighbor/imaginary friend at Thanksgiving about Issue X” (hint: don’t).

I’ve been disappointed by elections. But I hope I never get to the point where the results of an election make me gnash my teeth and rend my garments in such hilarious fashion.

Barack Obama: The only reason his approval ratings aren’t at record lows is because of mindless Democrat loyalty. The economy continues to improve despite the Republicans rejecting every “jobs bill” he proposes. His party got crushed in the election. And his response to this was to … implement immigration reform through executive action (polls show Americans support the policy, but oppose the means). His White House is also becoming famous for what are called “bad optics” and would be called scandalous if Bush were doing it: fund-raising while the Ukraine is in turmoil, having a huge dinner while Ferguson is burning, golfing right after a press conference on an ISIS beheading. He has earned the low poll numbers. And earned a place on this list.

Jim Ardis: Earlier this year, Ardis persuaded a judge to launch a raid on a house because one of the inhabitants was … mocking him on Twitter. He apparently still thinks this was a fine idea. Jim Ardis … meet the Streisand Effect.

(One infuriating note: a judge has upheld the drug charges that resulted from the raid finding drugs in the house. Because warrants to arrest parody account holders are apparently just fine.)

Paul Krugman: Another year for Krugman, another set of factually-challenged opinion pieces apparently written by unpaid interns. My favorite was his assertion that Halbig represented “corruption” in the courts, a claim the indispensable Walter Olson demolishes here. As several bloggers noted, Krugman was a big supporter of the Platinum Coin Caper, where he said, essentially, that we should concentrate on the letter of the law, not the spirit, the opposite of what he’s saying now.

Note, also. This year is coming a cropper for things Krugmans believes in. The Picketty analysis of inequality appears to be badly flawed. And Keynesian ideas are failing all over the globe.

Dishonorable Mention: Wendy Davis, whoever is doing PR for the Ferguson Police, the Ferguson rioters, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Secret Service, Mary Landrieu, Everytown USA.

Now the Golden Drumsticks, awarded to those who best exemplified what is right with the world. Here are the past awards, the first round from West Virginia Rebel.

2007: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, David Petraeus, Juan Carlos, Burma’s monks

2008: US Military, Jeff Flake, Ron Paul, Republican Governors, Barack Obama

2009: The American Fighting Man, Kimberly Munley and Mark Todd, George W. Bush

2010: The Tea Party, Chris Christie, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the Next Wave of Republicans, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, The American Soldiers

2011: Seal Team Six, Mark Kelly, The Arab Spring (ugh), the Technicians at Fukushima

2012: Down Ballots, The Sandy Responders, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, Mathew Inman

2013: Francis I, Edward Snowden, Rand Paul, The American Military, The Institute for Justice

For this year, I picked:

Ebola Responders: In the face of a colossal healthcare crisis and one of the most terrifying diseases out there, Africa has been flooded with volunteers risking their lives to help. Hundreds of healthcare workers in Africa, including Humarr Khan, have been killed trying to comfort or save the dying. Even in this country, we’ve seen nurses and doctors work hard to care for Ebola victims, including two nurses who were infected in Dallas and mercifully saved by modern medicine.

Here’s a little thing about me: I tend to dislike movies about dystopias. Not because I think a dystopia won’t happen or because I’m ignorant about the dark side of human nature. I dislike them because they usually ignore the flip side of human nature: our capacity to be generous, brave and compassionate.

Francis I: He continues to shake up the religious world while adhering closely to Catholic doctrine. My initial impression of him remains unchanged. He is just a good man.

Rand Paul: Paul gave a speech earlier this year that was a rebuke to the neocons: defining a foreign policy that defends our interests while avoiding senseless overseas debacles. He is pushing the Republicans toward reforms of our criminal justice system, our surveillance state and our War on Drugs. I’m a bit worried whether he’ll hold up to the pressure of special interests, especially if he has Presidential aspirations. But right now, he’s doing good.

David Brat and the Republican Candidates: “A monarch’s neck should always have a noose around it—it keeps him upright.” – Robert A. Heinlein. I’m not sure what to make of Brat at this point, but I think his defeat of Cantor is an important reminder to the Republicans of what will happen if the get stupid again. Among the other Republicans running for office this year, there was barely a gaffe to be heard. In fact, the biggest War on Women complaint was about Mark Udall, criticized by his own supporters for talking too much about the War on Women. In general, they stuck to the bread and butter themes of the economy, Obamacare and big government. Let’s hope they deliver.

The Supreme Court: It’s always a mixed year from the Court, but this year they gave us good decisions in Riley, Hobby Lobby, Harris v. Quinn, McCullen v. Coakley, NLRB v. Noel Canning, Town of Greece v. Galloway, Schuette v. BAMN and McCutcheon. They continued their streak of unanimously rejecting Obama’s power grabs. You can check on this year’s key decisions here. There are a few I had issues with but most were solid.

Honorable Mentions: marijuana decriminalization efforts, Scott Walker, Charlie Baker (anyone who defeat Martha Coakley gets a mention), the American military

Put your nominees in the comments. And I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving.

When people show you their worst..

I would have usually cracked a joke and told people involved in stories like this to just go commando, but these ladies might be better off with granny panties anyway, if not a burqua. Hey CM, ever participated in one of these panty brawls? I heard SO and S8 bring popcorn and lawn chairs to these events anyway.

Thanksgiving and the shopping extravaganzas that happen after that remind me why I have so little faith in people, and especially the ones ranting the hardest for idiotic things like social justice when you then find them behaving like this for junk probably manufactured in China by slave labor.

The Fantasies of Government

I found this story amusing, but not for the reasons Vox intended. In 1939, Franklin Roosevelt moved Thanksgiving back a week in the calendar. Vox goes into the culture war that erupted but I was more interested in his motivation for doing so:

Since the late 19th century, Thanksgiving had traditionally been celebrated on the final Thursday in November. But in 1939, Roosevelt’s seventh year in office, that last Thursday fell on November 30. And that left a mere 24 days of shopping time between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Retailers believed this would lead to less money spent on holiday gifts, and would therefore hurt the economy (and, of course, their own bottom lines). The solution seemed obvious — the date should be moved one week earlier, to Thursday, November 23. Roosevelt agreed, and announced on August 15, 1939, that he would do just that, with an executive proclamation.

Let your mind boggle. Our President thought that he could help the economy by adding some extra Christmas shopping days to the year. Because, I guess, people do their Christmas shopping until the stores close not until they’ve run out of money or gifts to buy.

The “stimulus” didn’t work for the reason Cash for Clunkers didn’t work. All it did was change when people spent their money, not if. But I want you to marvel at the hubris in FDR’s change to Thanksgiving: a belief that government simply telling people to shop seven more days would make them shop for seven more days. It’s a microcosm of every Keynesian will-o-the-wisp economic salvation that comes down the pipe.

Antisocial Movements

If there’s one thing we are going to need in the modern era, it is a term to describe these new, asinine forms of protest currently being used to further political and ideological goals. This type is different from terrorism in that the acts aren’t violent and sometimes not even unlawful. For lack of a better imagination term, I will dub such acts as “churlism.”

These tactics are designed to draw attention to a cause simply by being the biggest prick imaginable and getting a sufficient number of other pricks to go along with it to piss people off on a grand enough scale to accomplish your goals. Case in point: blocking bridges and freeway overpasses with human prick barricades. I think it was the Occupy Movement that really pioneered this one. Do you really want to strike a blow for your cause, deal out economic hardship on individual Americans, tie up police resources, and make everyone hate your cause as they become more aware of it? Keep them from getting to and from work.

Churlists like the Westboro Baptist Church mastered this years ago with their funeral protests and Anonymous loves to show how cyber-churlism can punish bad actors beyond simple Internet insults. In fact, churlists can often best terrorists, as Anonymous has recently proven against the KKK (an organization that has itself become more churlish with each passing decade). Hell, Obama has even practiced a rare form of state-sponsored churlism for years now by mocking invited guests at public events (Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, the entire Supreme Court, etc), laughing at commuters when his motorcades cause traffic gridlock, or golfing just to show how little he cares about his critics’ views on his lack of action on foreign or domestic policy. And all of those crass people get away with it and even do succeed at getting their message across. So we know it works.

My own viewpoint is that incredibly crass acts like blockading traffic and taking over public parks are inconvenient, but they are far preferable to destruction of property, assault, and other nasty acts that asshats with no purpose for breathing other than their pet causes do when they don’t think they’re being listened to.

Now, I’m not saying that I want to be vexed in my daily life. Far from it. Also, recognize that churlism is different from civil disobedience, which is generally pretty focused on specific people and circumstances. Churlism is utterly random and basically has a way of pissing off people who even hear that it’s being done. Even people who agree with with the Ferguson protestors hate the thought of being caught in a traffic jam while police kick street people and privileged young white hipsters off of a freeway ramp. On the other hand, they like the thought of other people being inconvenienced, because fuck you, whitey.

What I am saying is that I find protest techniques such as these to be potentially highly effective, more so than anything we’ve seen before. In a society as passive-aggressive and disconnected as ours, it simply has to work. Also, I think a good distinction is needed to protect civil liberties by properly differentiating asshole protest activities from extreme or dangerous ones.

Some of my proposed churlist tactics:

1. Fart-Ins. Exactly what you think it means.
2. Sidewalk Jamming. Police can clear you off of a street, but what can they do if you’re just walking on the sidewalk reeeeeeeeeeeallllllllly fucking slowly?
3. Urinal Funnel. I have to explain this one. Some guy at my workplace figured out how to remove the urinal pad and roll it up into a cone. He’d then set it back in the drain so that when the automatic flush engaged, the water would spray back toward the person who had just pissed in it. The guy is a genius, but he lacks the vision to fulfill the destiny of a great cause.

What do you think of such protest tactics? Fair or over the line?

The Ferguson Decision

(Note: As I was writing this, Thrill put up his own post, which I recommend you read as well.)

As you have probably heard, the grand jury refused to indict Officer Darren Wilson tonight. A few thoughts:

First, this is not a surprise. Grand juries are reluctant to indict officers even when there is solid evidence of excessive force. They are reluctant to convict officers when there is clear evidence of excessive force. Three years ago, a group of police officers beat Kelly Thomas to death. He was unarmed but mentally disturbed. On the video tape, he tells the officers he is trying to cooperate, tells them he can’t breath and calls out for his father. He died from the massive injuries inflicted on him that night. The jury acquitted the officers who killed him. Earlier this year, John Crawford was walking around Walmart with a toy gun. Officers, responding to a 911 call, gunned him down almost immediately after seeing him. The jury did not indict.

Keep something in mind, though: it is incredibly rare for a grand jury to not indict. You can read a first-hand account from Ken White, a former prosecutor, here, about how the grand jury process tends to work. What the DA did in this case: not asking the jury to consider a specific charge, was unusual and made it a lot more likely that no true bill would be returned. This is not a degree of skepticism that is applied to average citizens. It is only applied to those on the side of government.

Second, I don’t know what happened in this case and neither does anyone except Officer Wilson. A lot of people have been claiming that Wilson had been “vindicated” by some of the physical evidence (Brown’s DNA in the car, etc.). I don’t see that. Parts of his story check out. But the one part of the story that is most critical — his claim that Michael Brown fled 50 yards down the street, turned and charged into a hail of bullets — is still unproven. Whether Michael Brown was a choirboy or not is irrelevant. What matters is what happened in those critical seconds. And there are conflicting witness accounts of that.

Third, none of this changes the fundamental problems that are still present in Ferguson and in other cities: a gung-ho militarized culture, an extensive use of military-grade weapons, a hatred of sunshine that led to the arrest of two reporters and a ban on air travel that is now known to have been implemented to keep the media out. In the aftermath of the Brown shooting, the police still pointed military weapons at peaceful protesters, still responded to taunts with tear gas, still responded to FOIA requests with a incident report that was essentially blank. If they had wanted to enrage people, they could not have picked a better strategy. And the underlying problem, presented in start detail by Radley Balko, remains.

Fourth, anyone who responds to this incident with violence or looting is not helping. For the most part, these are thugs taking advantage of the situation. They are outnumbered by the peaceful protesters but they will be the face of this. The windows they smash, the cars they burn — that is what people will remember. And that’s a terrible pity.

There are real things that can be done about this. But it will involve a lot of hard work to change our government, our culture and our law enforcement. Is anyone willing to do that?

Fear And Looting in Ferguson

I watched the Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson Grand Jury announcement with an annoyed sort of interest. The prosecutor showed up a Barack Obama-ish 15 minutes late and then spent an additional 10 minutes bitching about the media before telling those same clowns in the press what the grand jury decided. You know, the jury. Those people who looked at the actual evidence instead of watching screaming idiots on MSNBC.

It’s not to say that the whole event has been for nothing. Besides the humor of the protestors having picked the absolute worst case they could’ve rallied behind and the tragedy of America grinding ever closer to waging a race war within the next generation, Ferguson has given us another fire bell about the dangers of the militarization of law enforcement. I hate rioting and looting, but St Louis-area police were utterly ham-fisted in their early responses to the protests and never missed a single opportunity to make things worse. I’d like to think that left-wing race pimps and right-wing pro-freedom types agree now more than ever that it’s time for the cops to give up their tanks and other war toys.

So there will be no criminal indictment for Officer Wilson. This was what I (and most people, I think) expected and I’m okay with it. Like the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman deal, the more evidence leaked out the more it indicated that the defendant wasn’t going to be punished as long as the jury took its job seriously.

Not that the facts ever mattered. The racial grievance industry stupidly swallowed every rumor and eagerly embraced this cause, making a martyr out of a strong-arm robbery suspect. Even when more and more details came out revealing that they had rallied to the wrong guy, they just couldn’t help themselves. The people who spread destructive rumors that furthered the cause were believed while those who provided evidence got to be accused of having racist motives. If they had just waited a few months, they could have probably earned more sympathy with the Tamir Rice shooting instead of shooting their wad on the corpse of a fat Swisher Sweet bandit.

In other words, it’s just another beautiful day in Obama’s America, with all the ineptitude and divisiveness we’ve come to expect.

Speaking of Obama, he couldn’t resist injecting himself into this local law enforcement use of force once again and, as he always does, he did everything he reasonably could to encourage his fellow street agitators by sending known racial extremist and mustachioed asshole Eric Holder into the fray. In his own post-no bill statement this evening, Obama spoke heavily against violent protests. But that’s pretty much going to be short-circuited by his own credibility problem wherein nobody believes or listens to him anymore, even when he tries saying helpful things for a change.

We now return you to the rioting and looting, already in progress. I’d like to think that both the protesters and the police in every city can avoid displaying the worst characteristics and stereotypes that each side has of the other, but it isn’t in the cards. Like most white suburbanites, I’ll just sit and watch, uncomfortably.

UNEXPECTEDLY! Talks with Iran fail for the umpteenth time…

While the idiots that think you can negotiate with evil people are all surprised that the Iranian Mullahs have decided to thumb their efforts. I have to admit that I expected nothing else. When GWB chose to let the Europeans talk and talk instead of acting back when, I pointed out the result would be the same. Obama, the narcissist that he is, ignored that record, and did all but drop to his knees to suck the Ayatollah’s cock, but the result again is more of the same.

At this point it is obvious that Iran will only be stopped by force. That’s because of the lesson of Pakistan and North Korea. That lesson being that if you defy the rules and get a nuke, then you not only get to keep it, but you can use it to give cover to all sorts of illegitimate and illegal behavior. Of course, the first problem is with Iran choosing to use the thing or giving it to others to use. But the next one, which is the one that frightens me more, is with everybody in the ME – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and even Iraq – deciding that the only counter Iran is for them to also have nukes. And that is because they all know damned well that Iran with a nuke is not just an existential threat to Israel, but to all of them. Especially if they end up with a president as weak and as ineffective as Obama some time in the future dictating US actions and responses. An American guarantee of support with democrats in charge is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Get ready for things to get far worse as the impotent and weak shitbags let this travesty go on. Maybe Israel will do the world a favor, yet again as it did with Saddam’s nuclear program in Iraq, and do what is needed, only to be ostracized for doing what we all should have done ourselves in the first place. But then again, when it comes to Israel and the Jews, the anti-semites run that show these days, so I am sure they know better than to care what the court of public opinion of the anti-semites tell them they can or can’t do.

When even the science fs up your agenda…

I just recently had several discussions in the last week or so, with different people at different times, about energy and economic impacts of that energy’s availability and cost. I pointed out that people have spent the last 5 decades telling us we would be running out of fossil fuels in the next 3 or 4 decades, only to end up with scientific advances and human ingenuity raising the time we have at a curved use of the stuff from decades to centuries. Of course they all turned up their noses to what they consider to be Satan’s shit and wanted it replaced, but when asked by what, it was all pie-in-the-sky answers. For me, based purely and simply on the numbers and the science, the one viable technology that can produce energy in the amount we would need to replace fossil fuels, is nuclear. Nothing else can, but the people that want to get us green all seem to have bought into Hollywood’s depiction of how dangerous and nasty nuclear energy is. So instead they seem to propose we use the equivalent of unicorn farts as the alternative to oil, gas, and coal.

When we discussed these various alternatives the greens have a boner for and went through the list, one after the other fell off. Solar and wind have been terribly disappointing. We are not about to build giant space based solar arrays and beaming down the energy as microwaves any time soon, because the same green people would have heart attack at the potential use as a weapon. And we could cover the planet with windmills and it would still not produce enough power. So they always go to the renewables, of which far less is known, but far less is pretended can come, to justify the campaign to stop us from using fossil fuels. Of course, renewables have not really shown much other than promise at this time, but the greens have no doubt that this stuff will save their faltering agenda. And then there are the facts:

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

REclosed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.

The two men write:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

One should note that RE<C didn’t restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, windfarms, tidal, hydro etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, “self-assembling” wind towers and so on and so forth. There’s no get-out clause for renewables believers here.

Koningstein and Fork aren’t alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn’t feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn’t even vaguely plausible.

Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

The funny thing is that you don’t need a PhD to figure this stuff out. And note they point out this stuff won’t work as marginal energy just to reduce emissions. The logical conclusion is that it hence will also never be a replacement. But the greens seem to be immune to the simple facts and science and far more interested in science fiction and fantasy because they are driven by something other than either. The watermelons pretend to be scientific, but the fact is there is very little of that and a lot of feelings and the overarching collectivist agenda, and very little of the former. So for now we are stuck with oil, gas, and coal. Maybe someone will find a way to make fusion work and that can fill in the gap, but the other stuff the greens pine for simply is not gonna happen. That won’t stop them from taking advantage of the plethora of fools that will allow a few of them to get stinking rich at tax payer’s expense.