(L to R) Main characters Stantz, Venkman, and Zeddemore in “Ghostbusters”.
Of course, I’m thinking of “Ghostbusters”, the movie. The story follows a group of academics in a semi-academic field – the paranormal – who don’t, and won’t, conform to the demands of the campus powers-that-be. They bust out on their own, form a business, and run into the widening tentacles of the eco-regulators in the person of Walter Peck, inspector of the EPA, third district of New York City. Please watch below.
Making the tale more relevant, Biden’s EPA is a clone of California and New York’s entangling web of eco-regulators. So filled with arrogance and hubris, they are busy jettisoning their middle class and a good portion of their economies to other states, just like Peter Venkman and company fled the campus and opened shop in the commercial district of 1980’s NYC. The script’s parallels with our times are nothing short of fascinating.
Back to the real, Mark Wahlberg has put his Los Angeles 12-bedroom, 20-bath mansion on the market and is decamping for Nevada. The reason is the same as the one for 300,000 other people who have bolted the state over the past couple of years. He’s an entrepreneur and family man and finds Nevada a better place for his economic health as Ghostbusters’ Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler would discover in fleeing the college.
Mark Wahlberg in April 2022
About the only occupational category whose growth prospects look sunny in California, for instance, is government regulator/inspector. The equation is simple: more laws, more regulations, more state government employees. Each year, the buffoons in the asylum formerly known as the state legislature add to the number of Pecks. One law taking affect this year would require more inspectors of private insurance to enforce a ban on co-pays for abortions. The state’s minimum wage is on legal auto-pilot and is scheduled to jump to $15.50/hour which means more investigators. A new law, effective Jan. 1, 2023, would add to the government workforce to compel compliance with the state’s newfound role of sanctuary for the mutilators of children in transgender medical procedures. New state land use laws will layer more complexity, and regulators, on an already suffocating building industry. In total, Newsom signed 997 new laws, most to take effect on Jan. 1 of this year.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom displays a state bill signed by him shielding abortion providers and volunteers, June 24, 2022.
Thus, California has turned itself into a sanctuary for immigration lawbreakers, child sexual mutilators, and the country’s budding Walter Pecks.
Kathy Hochul’s State of New York is California, Jr. How appropriate that the setting for “Ghostbusters” is New York City. It may as well be Los Angeles or the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area. These blue havens are awash in Peck-like busybodies. No wonder Texas and Florida added congressmen and the Bear Flag Republic and the Empire State lost some. Expect it to continue.
Walter Peck, the EPA guy, in “Ghostbusters”
RogerG
Read more here:
* Mark Wahlberg’s departure from California to Nevada: “Mark Wahlberg left California for Nevada to give his kids ‘a better life’”, Marianne Garvey, CNN, 10/13/22, at https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/entertainment/mark-wahlberg-california-nevada-move/index.html
* “New California Laws on Abortion, Jaywalking, Rap Lyrics”, AP, USN&WP, 12/30/22, at https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2022-12-30/new-california-laws-on-abortion-jaywalking-rap-lyrics
The late great Michael Crichton placed Jurassic Park on a tropical island, but CBS programming execs showed signs that they seized the thing and replanted it in 60 Minutes. As proof, the show welcomed the new year with the fossil discovery of . . . Paul Ehrlich. Yep, the Stanford prof and dinosaur is still alive and vigorous at age 90, alive enough to push his signature doomsaying, and 60 Minutes obliged by trotting him out (see below).
What’s with Stanford University? They seem to be a hotbed for the kind of kooks who are frocked in PhD’s and flock to the limelight like a moth to a porch light. It’s a tradition at Stanford. Remember William Shockley, the engineer and Nobel Prize-winning co-inventor of the transistor and inveterate purveyor of racialist mumbo jumbo? Well, move over Shockley to make room for Ehrlich and colleagues like Tony Barnosky. Science is their vocation and doom is their game. Chicken Little has nothing on these folks.
But they’re scientists, right? They ought to know, right? Yes, they ought to, but don’t. They represent a peculiar species of scientist who pushes science beyond its capacities and right into divination. They take a slice of present data, conjure a trend, and then laser-like project it into the future. No understanding of history; no understanding of mitigating circumstances. Based on the results, their soothsaying is no more accurate, maybe less so, than bibliomancy – the practice of closing one’s eyes, randomly opening a book to a page, and pointing the index finger to a line of verse to extract the future.
In the past, Ehrlich predicted an earth suffocating under the weight of 4 billion souls (earth’s population in the 1960’s), mass starvation, resource exhaustion, and ecological collapse. Now, the siren song is mass species extinction under 8 billion souls. His misses are many and include the famous 1980 lost bet with U. of Maryland economist Julian Simon. Ehrlich chose five industrial metals and bet that their price would be higher in ten years, expecting the subsequent shortages would lead to price increases. He lost. You see, Ehrlich probably wouldn’t make for a good economist. Ehrlich is blind to financier Henry Clews’s insight in 1918 when Clews wrote “the best cure for high prices is high prices”: prices go up, efficiencies increase, new sources discovered, and prices drop. For Ehrlich, mitigations be damned, adjustments be damned, and full speed to the apocalypse.
Economist Julian Simon
Human capital doesn’t exist in Ehrlich’s mind. We’re only animals eating up everything that we can get our hands on. Yet, human beings change their circumstances with innovations. As a consequence, more food is produced with greater efficiency, wealth increases, fertility declines, urbanization intensifies, and pressure on the wildlands decreases. So much for the alleged cataclysm of mass extinction. People like Ehrlich are chronically wrong.
Interestingly, the same 60 Minutes chart of past mass extinctions also shows a recovery afterwards. And the recovery was hundreds of thousands of years before Lenin’s invention of central planning. No need for technocrats like Ehrlich and Barnosky to herd the masses back into the Middle Ages to avoid these shamans’ predictions of doom.
Ehrlich and his sidekick Barnosky are programmed to fail in their prognostications. The problem is entrenched is their reliance on a loose extrapolation from a large area to a smaller one (see below). The data can also be fraught with hypotheticals in interpretation. Out of the conjury comes hair-on-fire Armageddons that turn out to be wrong. We are constantly afflicted with it in everything from plastics to the end of the world in climate change. We are kept on the edge of our seats in a pass-the-baton series of dooms.
60 Minutes’s resurrection of the fossil Ehrlich proves that hysteria is a natural feature of the human condition, and the barkers will always have a place at the table. Ironically, progressives pride themselves in their alleged immunity to it and see themselves at war with it, while they are preoccupied with it. They are the chief purveyors. Self-delusion has no bounds.
RogerG
Read more here:
* “60 Minutes Promotes Paul Ehrlich’s Failed Doomsaying One More Time”, Ronald Bailey, Reason, 1/3/23, at https://reason.com/2023/01/03/60-minutes-promotes-paul-ehrlichs-failed-doomsaying-one-more-time/
* “Paul Ehrlich: Wrong on 60 Minutes and for Almost 60 Years”, Peter Jacobsen, Foundation for Economic Education, 1/4/23, at https://fee.org/articles/paul-ehrlich-wrong-on-60-minutes-and-for-almost-60-years/
* The reason for the error in Ehrlich and Barnosky’s predictions can be understood by reading “Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss”, Fangliang He and Stephen P. Hubbell, Nature, 5/18/2011, at https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09985
As of now, the South is the king of football, with competition from the upper Midwest. It’s much more than the SEC. It’s regional dominance. There are places where physical, masculine virtues still prevail. Football thrives in a culture that has a place for such attributes.
I invite others to do a detailed analysis of the region’s productivity of top-tier football talent throughout the NCAA top 20. I’ll admit that it’s more than the South, though. California still gives the country some of the most highly recruited players in the country: C.J. Stroud (The Ohio State), Bryce Young (Alabama), Brock Bowers (Georgia), to name a few. Up and down the west coast, schools constantly dip into the state’s talent pool. Where would Oregon be without California talent?
But the state is shedding population (114,000 last year and almost 118,000 for 2021) and its reigning culture isn’t conducive to the exaltation of virility. The state is too busy becoming the Mecca of transgenderism, which says a lot about where that social eco-system is heading. Persistent pockets of male virtue exist, but the trend is increasingly inhospitable.
Texas, like the rest of the South, produces much talent that is diluted among many schools in the region. So does Florida. The performance of those states’ schools says little because of the chronic raiding.
In addition, the powerhouse schools of the South have a tendency to dominate because they are assisted by coaches who have the magic elixir to draw in much of the region’s pool of talent: Dabo Sweeney (Clemson), Nick Saban (Alabama), Kirby Smart (Georgia) for instance. There will always be exceptions, but they confirm what Cicero of ancient Rome said in Latin, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which means the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted. In my mind, the generality of the South’s preeminence rings true.
As for the Midwest, they compete with the South. The Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State compete with the best of the South. Based on what I saw in this year’s playoff games, the real national championship game was between The Ohio State and Georgia. This region’s dominance, like the South, draws on the same residue of cultural male virtue.
This shift of football power may partially explain USC and UCLA’s move to the Big Ten in 2025. Some say that it’s all about the money. Yes, it is, and money follows success. It’s striking to realize that these big schools have to turn to red America to maintain competitiveness.
Some of my dear friends and family in California may find this assessment jarring, but it’s my judgment of the state of play circa 2023. I could be wrong, and the situation could change. There’s nothing more permanent than flux in human affairs.
RogerG
Read more here:
* On California’s precarious demographic situation:
“For Second Straight Year, California Sees a Population Decline”, Tim Arango, NY Times, May 4, 2022, at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/california-population-decline.html
“California’s shrinking population has big impacts”, Dan Walters, CalMatters, April 10, 2022, at https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/04/california-population-decline/
“California’s population keeps shrinking”, Marc Sternfield, KTLA, Dec. 26, 2022, at https://ktla.com/news/california/californias-population-keeps-shrinking/
I pulled this Carlson rant from Mediate (below), an admittedly left-wing site. The website can be disreputable but here is Carlson in the all-too-familiar raiment of the contrarian. That’s it, he’s crafted this persona of being a contrarian, an inveterate opponent of whatever any large group wants – or as he oftentimes prattles, a foe of “lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink”. It’s a simple-minded reflex to defend the smaller number against the many, even if the “underdog” happens to be a Al Capone. It’s ludicrous.
He sprays vituperation and smug giggles at both the condemnable and reasonable, apparently showing no sign of being able to distinguish between the risible MSNBC nutcases and the sensible others. The only discernable metric being the number: the smaller good, the larger bad. In regard to the Republican leadership fight, he’s a bigot against the 200 and patron saint of the 20. By that standard, if the guy was around Petrograd in 1917, he’d be giddy over the little cluster of Bolsheviks around Lenin. No serious analysis of the demands and antics of the 20 is presented. It’s rabbit-hole logic.
The 20 Republicans opposing McCarthyBolshevik leadership: Lenin in middle row, second from right.
The contrarian schtick has its limitations. Tucker, try leveling your gaze at the 20 as you do the 200. Surely, there’s something more to the imbroglio than the size of the two sides. Hannity, to his credit, has exposed the 20’s most outspoken rabble rousers to some cross examination. After all the chest thumping, the clique demands attention, chaos, and power over the wishes of the other 200. Tucker didn’t portray them for what they are: a conspiratorial rump of the likes frequently seen in history from the Jacobins to the Khmer Rouge.
McCarthy finally won the Speakership on the 15th vote, and that with 216 votes, not the 218 that was repeated ad nauseum because of the kinks of plurality voting in House rules. 6 of the kamikazes still preferred going down in flames.
In the end, McCarthy is, as Phil Klein of National Review said in this morning’s piece, “Speaker in name only”. A weakened Speaker will grant free range for these deadenders to rampage across the Republican caucus all the way to a drubbing in 2024. According to the surrender agreement with the clique, McCarthy must face a vote to fire him whenever a single Republican gets his or her panties in a bunch. The Freedom Caucus and its rump has greater weight than any other group on the omnipotent Rules Committee.
The fact is, the rump can’t, as they say, “deliver results for the American people”. The boast exhibits no understanding of the Constitution, even a rudimentary awareness of separation of powers. The Dems control half of Article I (the Senate) and the Article II branch (executive). The rump’s sparsely supported designs face a deep-sixing in the Senate and Biden’s veto pen. Oversight investigations will ensue in the House, but that would occur without these embarrassing histrionics. Looking down the road, 20 halfwits could very well spell doom for the GOP and increase the likelihood of untrammeled Democrat neo-socialism after 2024.
Thank you, the carnival barkers of FNC, for making it easier for Democrats to ram through their plans to gut what used to be the United States of America. My only hope is that the bulk of the American people will see through the nonsense, in spite of the 20 clowns in the House Republican Conference under the protective aura of the FNC commentariat.
I’m hoping for 20 well-funded primary challenges in 2024. And that includes you, Matt Rosendale (R, Montana 2nd congressional district).
RogerG
Read more here:
* “Kevin McCarthy Elected Speaker in Name Only”, Philip Klein, Narional Review Online, 1/7/23, at https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kevin-mccarthy-elected-speaker-in-name-only/
L to R: Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity
My viewing of the Fox News Channel (FNC) has cratered. Why, if you’re even interested? They seem to be speaking to an increasingly narrow fringe of the right. A conservative cannot be limited to Trump-worship, neo-protectionism, neo-isolationism, and pandering to the unhinged on the far, far right. Extolling those in Republicans ranks who mirror the antics of the Democrats’ “Squad” isn’t a winning formula for me. It’s off-putting.
The news division is different from the commentariat side. Those reporting the news at FNC do yeoman work in carrying stories that should be leads in our now fully woke legacy media, but aren’t. However, the big money and attention in FNC goes to the primetime lineup of Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham. The school is still out on Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters. Carlson is a repulsive booster of neo-isolationism, an odd critic of support for the victims of brutal aggression (Ukraine), a knee-jerk carper against the “big” in big business, and a half-witted reviler of free markets, among other things. Hannity can’t seem to go beyond Trump-worship. It’s disgusting. Like Tucker, Laura rails against a nebulous “establishment” that eerily and rhetorically performs the same function as CRT’s hazy “white supremacy” and Marx’s “working class”. She and Carlson conduct a regular tag-team hatchet job on Zelensky, and she follows Carlson into the swamp of isolationism. I could go on but won’t bore you with an ever-lengthening laundry list.
I found myself yelling at the tv at age 70 as when I was 30 years younger screaming at Dan Rather. I’d rather ingest my news through reading. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Townhall.com, National Review, etc., staying away from the kookier sites, with supplements from some of the dinosaurs, are my current choices. At least in that way, I can better filter out the balderdash, and keep my sanity.
FNC was a necessary counterpoint to the monotonous leftism most everywhere else. It’s too bad that they regularly soil themselves in the 6 to 9 pm (MST) time slot. Au revoir Fox News Channel.
Matt Gaetz (r, Fla.) and Lauren Boebert (R, Co.), two of the twenty Republicans opposing McCarthy as Speaker
Still no Speaker for the new Republican-majority Congress.
What happens when you cross a lunkhead with P.T. Barnum? The blending of DNA gives you the Republican rump opposing Kevin McCarthy as Speaker and Republican efforts to put the brakes on the Democrats’ scheme to gut America. Some of the gaggle take after the lunkhead side of the gene pool, others the carnival barker. For others exhibiting the wild gene in the family tree, nothing but the perfect will do. The result is a “fecal” (rhymes with chit) show.
If you were looking forward to Republican governance in the House, well, expect to be aghast. If you weren’t, sit back and watch the drama-queen cast of the Keystone Cops at work. It should be a great show. 20 Republicans are making a laughingstock of the other 202. If the rump gets a scalp, such as McCarthy’s, expect scalp-taking to be routine. Meaning, who’d want the leadership job among this cast of narcissistic dolts?
Donald Trump provided the modern template for the drama queen that lies at the heart of many a politician’s soul, but even he finds Gaetz’s stunt “Sad!” What’s more striking is that many of these deadenders don’t really mind if the Democrats regain the Speaker’s gavel. Jake Sherman of Punchbowl News reports that Gaetz, Boebert (R, Co.), and Perry (R, Pa.) told McCarthy in a private meeting that “they don’t mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and [Dem leader] Hakeem Jeffries is elected [because] they’ll fight him.” If true, it speaks volumes for the mindset of these clowns. They want to fight and not govern. They’re into political theater and not responsible decision-making.
No wonder the Republicans are losing the ‘burbs and the degreed middle class. The Republicans are presenting a choice between the sweaty histrionics of Republican William Jennings Bryans and the socialist glibness of California Bay Area Democrats. Many mortgage payers might prefer the glibness to the blustery pandemonium.
To hell with ‘em. Don’t give them a scalp. If anything, hand them theirs. The only choice is McCarthy, period. A disorganized House is clearly their fault. They will be guilty of any return of the crippling Democrats to the seats of power and control of the House’s agenda and committees. Primary them! If they can’t cooperate with fellow Republicans, they can’t cooperate with anybody. Start planning the campaigns now: money, campaign staffs, and candidates.
RogerG
Read more here:
* Jake Sherman’s scoop of the private meeting with McCarthy at https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1610275667756679169
Climate activists, and so-called “stakeholders”, 2019
Stakeholder: noun; a person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business. (Google)
***********
Cut to the chase, a “stakeholder” is someone with no direct invested risk (land, labor, capital) in an enterprise who wants the power to impose their political opinions on those that do. Stakeholder is a euphemism for those who want to screw up your investment for their benefit, however defined. “Stakeholder” is a buzzword, for instance, that strives to create the stampede to end the internal combustion engine (ICE) and push everyone into electric vehicles (ev’s).
I can’t, and we oughtn’t, leave this phenomenon of the ev alone.
As a 30-year veteran of the public schools, I’m well aware of “stakeholders”. Instead of the simple equation of producers (teachers, principals) and consumers (students, parents), we’ve got “stakeholders” to give us diversity/equity/inclusion (DEI), the principal tenets of critical race theory (CRT), “restorative justice” for classroom disruptors, gender-identity grooming, and the rest of the neo-socialistic chaos of the modern classroom. Student performance in the academic core craters but all of that is brushed aside by the education industry’s “stakeholders”. And you and your kids are the guinea pigs, not the principal “stakeholders” of the whole enterprise. For most of the “stakeholders” and their kids, elite prep schools await.
Now the jive is overtaking the relationship between car buyer and car producer. It works like this: create a mania (the role of “stakeholders”), politicize the mania (the role of “stakeholders”), the subsequent politicization transmutes into government mandates (jobs for “stakeholders”), and the rest of us get to live a life imposed by those far removed by from our needs and wants. This isn’t a free economy at work; it’s politics. “Stakeholders” are political activists!
And as is true with all ideological ninnies who want power to tell us how to live, we end up grappling with their crackpot choices. Classic example: the ev. And you know what? A “silent majority” in the auto industry c-suite in their quieter moments recognize the shambolic nature of the scam. Others in the know are beginning to write about it. The Wall Street Journal and National Review’s Andrew Stuttaford, among others, are part of a growing chorus writing about this shortsighted stampede to the ev.
Take the recent comments by the CEOs of Suzuki (Maruti Suzuki India, Ltd), Toyota, Nissan, and Stellantis (Fiat Chrysler/Peugeot) who have expressed misgivings. In the drumbeat of NFL game ads and the enthusiasm blanketing the whole gamut of media, you’d never know of their anxiety. Producers can’t completely ignore the manufactured mania, but amidst the monotonous din some drum up the courage to say the obvious: the “stakeholders” are looney.
It’s like the manufacturers being caught on an open mic. President Akio Toyoda of Toyota Motor Corp. was reported in The Wall Street Journal as being “among the auto industry’s silent majority in questioning whether electric vehicles should be pursued exclusively, comments that reflect a growing uneasiness about how quickly car companies can transition.” Oh, they can abruptly transition, but how much carnage would follow in its wake? Interesting question.
Akio Toyoda, CEO of Toyota Motor Corp.
In January 2022, the CEO of Stellantis was quoted as saying, “What is clear is that electrification [of cars] is a technology chosen by politicians [and their stakeholders], not by industry . . .” Further, according to him, it takes about 44,000 miles to begin to experience the carbon benefit of an ev over your ICE. By that time, your ev is half worn out. Then, what do you do with the toxic thing with its toxic batteries? Recycle? Hogwash. You can’t cost-effectively refurbish the things in the quantities that they will have to be produced. And you thought that your fossil-fuel contraption was an eco-disaster.
Carlos Tavares, CEO of Stellantis
Chairman R.C. Bhargava of Maruti Suzuki India Lt. was encapsulated in a Bloomberg report, “. . . the automaker that sells every other car on the nation’s roads [India], believes electric vehicles aren’t the answer to reducing carbon emissions in the world’s third-biggest releaser of greenhouse gases — at least not in the immediate future.” Yep, because millions of Indians in ev’s requires a steady flood of electricity from – you guessed it – coal and natural gas. See, the stakeholders’ central planners are all about the glitz in the flashy tv ads, like the stakeholders themselves, and are not into the grimy details. Don’t expect practical advice from political activists posing as “stakeholders”. They’ll get you into trouble.
Chairman R.C. Bhargava of Maruti Suzuki India Lt.
Nissan Chief Executive Uchida Makoto predicates more ev production on government help in the form of regulations to herd consumers into his products and cash payouts from taxpayers to his company’s pocket to make the things. It’s the same attitude that turned Detroit’s Big Three into basket cases in the 1970’s and required TARP in 2008. After WWII, Europe and Japan were wrecked and Detroit was riding high. Then, our competitors’ stone age ended in the 1960s and 70s and Detroit and its featherbedding unions turned to Uncle Sam for protection. Ironically, another European import, the Fascists’ idea of corporatism (the tripartite alliance of big corporations, big government, and big labor), entered the go-to manual for American policy makers and their “stakeholders”. It was already resplendent in FDR’s New Deal as a policy maker’s template.
Uchida Makoto, CEO of Nissan Motor Co.
American automakers are well-versed in taking hat in hand to Washington, D.C. Uchida likes the idea, and so does GM. GM pledges to go all electric by 2035. Of course, when things get sticky, they’ll expect Uncle Sam to continue to manufacture the market for them. In the throes of eco-stakeholders, DC will comply. In other words, we’re back to where we were with TARP . . . and a bunch of impractical four-wheelers crowding our driveways
We’ll then experience déjà vu for that fuel-injected ICE under a dusty cover in the garage. Remember the time when a fill-up took a couple of minutes, and the a/c didn’t cause a frantic search for an open charger in the 110-degree Texas/Mojave heat?
Mountain View, Ca., Teslas waiting in line for a charge.
You see, the electric vehicle has nothing to do with the creative freedom of entrepreneurs and voluntary interaction of free consumers and producers, the stuff of an economy in a free society. It’s a central planner’s dream. A central planner is a government employee. “Stakeholders” use political clout to make government empower central planners to make you live according to their lights. Out of the mire comes the ev and your struggles to get the kids to school, show up on time at work, and visit grandma for Thanksgiving. Of course, the “stakeholder” says that you don’t have to do any of that. The whole crusade is soft totalitarianism, soft because of the absence of a massive extra-legal secret police, but then again there’s the unceasing state indoctrination in teacher training and control of the curriculum in nearly every classroom K to grad school. It sounds to me like a totalitarian perpetual motion machine self-generating the support for power to the state’s “stakeholders”.
Interestingly, the problem is not with the electric vehicle itself. It’s the forcing of the things on the entire public. A golf cart made to look like your car is your future, whether you like it or not. The concerns of the auto industry’s execs stem from the exclusive focus on the ev. Hybrids, alternative fuels (biomass, compressed hydrogen, etc.), our trusty reduced-emissions ICE, and many others should also be part of the mix in a truly free society, one without the so-called “stakeholders” running the show. Yeah, it used to be called a free market.
The “stakeholders” aren’t into freedom, or a market with “free” – the autonomous soul – in front of it. They’re into making you think like them. Your life is to be rigged by them to be loyal clients of big-corp whose production decisions have been constricted by big-government under the influence of big-activists, aka “stakeholders”. Once government has a “stake” in electric vehicles, it’s going to make you buy them. Count on your state to resemble the hellscape of California.
RogerG
Read more here:
* “Toyota Chief Says ‘Silent Majority’ Has Doubts About Pursuing Only EVs”, River Davis and Sean McLain, The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 18, 2022, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/toyota-president-says-silent-majority-has-doubts-about-pursuing-only-evs-11671372223
* “Electric Vehicles: Mr. Toyoda is Worried”, Andrew Stuttaford, National Review Online, Jan. 1, 2023, at https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/01/electric-vehicles-mr-toyoda-is-worried/
* “India’s Top Carmaker Bets on Hybrids Over EVs in Clean Shift”, Ragini Saxena, Bloomberg, Jan. 26, 2022, at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-26/india-s-top-carmaker-bets-on-hybrids-over-evs-in-clean-shift?cmpid=BBD062722_GREENDAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=220627&utm_campaign=greendaily&sref=KgEBWdKh&leadSource=uverify%20wall
* The History Channel’s “The Cars That Built the World” prompted the following reaction.
History shows that we go through periods of frenzy. Nearly everything gets sucked into a time’s all-encompassing and obsessive manias. We’re in one of those crazy times. You can’t escape the time’s convictions. The idea(s) permeates every nook and cranny of modern culture. There can be more than one overriding and widespread infatuation, but “climate change” seems to rise heads and shoulders above most others. It’s an ideology and is only science insofar as science can be recruited to lend it some credence and therefore an aura of irrefutability. Thus, a seemingly objective excuse is presented for intolerance of countervailing views and force-feeding the people into the narrow confines of its beliefs.
It’s an ideological enterprise with overtones of authoritarianism, even straying into totalitarianism. The difference between the two is summarized by the fact that authoritarians don’t really care how you think and live so long as you don’t threaten their power. Totalitarians seek to control everything about you. The “total” thing enshrines a surveillance state to manage your life in the most intimate details.
Can democracies be totalitarian? Impossible, you say? We are in the midst of an experiment to prove them compatible. Totalitarianism enters through the door of the mass acceptance of an ideology that has many of the characteristics of a religion – with or without God of course. Most often, if God is mentioned as part of the equation, He is the caboose trailing the train of thought. As a quasi-faith, environmentalism has its dogmas, such as “climate change” and an assortment of sacraments like “net zero” in carbon. One manifestation of “net zero” is the full-frontal assault on the internal combustion engine and the drive to get everyone into electric vehicles (ev’s).
The infatuation with the ev is a product of our time’s Secular Great Awakening: the vast upsurge in ethusiasm for Environmentalism. Environmentalism entails a severe preservationism that implants a loathing to alter the natural world for man’s benefit. It’s a prejudice against convenience for humankind. The ev is one allowance approved by the faith’s ecclesiastical leadership because it is said to address the cardinal sin of climate change, similar to the purchase of an indulgence.
Au contraire to The History Channel, the electrical vehicle has a distinct developmental history as compared to the rise of the SUV. The modern all-electric auto is not the outcome of the earlier scattered, hit-and-miss process of freedom-loving actors that led to the conventional automobile. The ev was essentially commanded into existence by the faith’s politically powerful adherents. In that sense, the ev mandates have much more in common with Stalin’s Five-Year Plans rather than anything recognizable in Adam Smith’s free market.
The track record of command-economy technologies isn’t impressive. Mao thought that he could jump-start Chinese industrialization (The Great Leap Forward) by turning the country’s peasants into steel producers with smelters in village backyards. It all was a bunch of hooey and culminated in the worst famine in history.
Chinese people working in a commune during the Great Leap Forward
Then along came the Soviet MIG-25 “Foxbat” fighter. A Soviet pilot defected one to an American airbase in Japan in 1976, and, low and behold, its materials and avionics were outdated. Like most everything coming out of the Soviet Union’s command economy, it was as flawed as the fake tractor that first rolled out of one of Stalin’s first new tractor factories in the 1930’s. Politicians, ignorant of production processes and engineering, are agog over flashy, showy things. The impracticality of their hairbrained ideas is unknown to them, and irrelevant to them anyway. In today’s political eco-system, environmentalism’s dogmas are assumed to be true and therefore windmills, solar panels, and ev’s are commanded to be the only true path to the Promised Land.
Soviet MIG-25 fighter that was flown by Soviet pilot Victor Belenko to Japan on Sept. 6, 1976
These thoughts were lurking in the background as I watched the four episodes of The History Channel’s “The Cars That Built the World”. I kept expecting the ubiquitous reference to the threat of man-caused apocalyptic climate change to rear its ugly head in the program’s rendition from the development of the internal combustion engine to Toyota, like so much of today’s litany of programming. It’s usually lurking in there somewhere. It finally did at the end of the last installment by associating the development of the electric vehicle to the creative energies of the bygone era.
The parallel is misleading to say the least. The ev is the dream product of today’s ideologically driven central planners. The thing’s glaring deficiencies are overlooked in the headlong rush to get people into them. True, advances in the ev have been made but not enough to overcome its inherent shortcomings and justify a junking of nation’s entire car fleet in a few decades. This can only happen when powerful political actors stray outside their limited lane of competence to force us into their preferred choice.
By contrast, no one was forced out of their horse-and-buggy at the dawn of the twentieth century in order to go further, faster, more cheaply and reliably than ever before. But our choice today isn’t between facing the back end of a horse and Henry Ford’s Model T. It’s a choice between a cleaner and fuel-efficient multi-cylinder and something that can’t be charged quickly, drains quickly the moment you turn on life support (heating, a/c), and is tied to a grid that ev-enthusiasts have made astonishingly unreliable. The trajectory of the internal combustion engine is toward lower emissions and greater fuel-efficiency. Ev’s have an improvement ascent as well, but where’s the cost-benefit for the centrally planned disruption that will inevitably ensue?
Answer: There isn’t one. Cost/benefit commonly stems from a calculation of the opportunity costs and tradeoffs of competing options. What opportunity costs and tradeoffs are entailed in the massive shift to ev’s by government command? What are we giving up by doing so? Therein lies the limiting principle for these politically driven economic schemes. It’s not that the product doesn’t look and sound great – you know, the all-agog reaction of our elected nincompoops. It’s what we are forgoing as we turn a good portion of our lives upside down. The amount that we spend or give up on this choice isn’t available for other things.
The result isn’t a seamless transition but a chaotic, disruptive mess. It won’t be anything like the shift from analog to digital recordings (cd’s, etc.). Digital’s advantages were immediately apparent. Leaving aside its recording superiority, its portability and ease of transition across multiple platforms using its storage advantages, flash drives, WIFI, streaming, cellphones, and assorted peripherals, it turned music into an easy-to-access commodity. Music was democratized every bit as much as personal transportation was by Henry Ford’s Model-T. Can we expect the same glorious outcome when we are forced to scrap our $30,000 sedan in exchange for a thing that will introduce us to serious “range anxiety”. It’s a step down, but for what?
We will be expected to accept the devolution because of the faith’s catechism in the original sin of climate change. So, we must forego something that has only gotten cleaner and more efficient in return for something with inherent difficulties in recharging, long recharge times (1 hour to 2 days) producing long wait times, a range dependent on ambient temperatures and use of basic accessories (such as a/c), and a dependence on a fitful grid.
To iron out the some of the most glaring deficiencies, batteries, batteries everywhere will be necessary for the zillions of ev’s and to level out electricity generation from an uncooperative nature with her flippant spasms of wind and her half-day time off when the sun is on the other side of the planet. More open-pit mining and disposal facilities for all those environmentally unfriendly batteries will be imperative. And, by all means, if you happen to live in a flood-prone area, park your drenched ev blocks away from anything of value. They spontaneously combust like Spinal Tap’s drummers.
Luxury electric vehicles bursting into flames after being damaged by floodwaters and car batteries catching on fire have prompted a new warning from the state after Hurricane Ian. (ABC News)
The electric vehicle – like the secular catechism’s other components such as wind, solar, locking up the forests, and the assault on suburbia – is a product of an ideology that functions as quasi-religion. Though, an ideology is different from a religion. While exhibiting many of the characteristics of one, ideology possesses one fundamental difference: a religion doesn’t generally concern itself with your choice of car, but an ideology can. A religion is primarily limited to the condition of your soul. An ideology can march you off to the death pits or simply shame you into fealty to the ordained lifestyle. Puritanism never really faded. Our modern version just stripped away the God-garb and donned the raiment of the prig. Only this time, the self-righteous are commissars.
Progressives pride themselves in being in the vanguard of history’s arc of betterment, thus Obama’s “wrong side of history” claptrap. But history has no arc. While one technological advance can lead to others, amidst the science and gadgets, we are the same hoard of clashing ambitions, prejudices, and interests. We can still spend ourselves into oblivion and turn the knowledge to malevolence such as robust ways to kill babies, surveille the population, force everyone into lockdowns, and believe in the unbelievable. So, history isn’t an ascending glide path but the teeth of a saw blade. The quality of life bounces up and down. It can register a descent if the balance of nonsense overwhelms the sense.
The electric vehicle as a substitute for your regular family sedan makes no sense. One sure way to institute a new dark age is to force people into making their lives more difficult. The ev aligns more appropriately with the rule of Xi Jinping. Welcome to the reign of today’s eco-Puritanism.
Here’s a disturbing tidbit: tweens (8-12 years old) are on their cell phones for an average of five and a half hours per day; teens (13-18 years old) average eight and a half hours (The Common Sense Census, see below). In addition, as of 2019, half of adolescents and tweens owned a cell phone, and 84% of teens owned one. I suspect that it’s only gotten worse. Why “disturbed” and “worse”? Think of the behavioral and mental contagions unleashed by these “pocket computers”.
The mania can be measured in “eyeball minutes” by Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. For them, they are the equivalent of the oilwell gushers of old. Much that they do is geared to maximizing the fixation of the eyes, particularly of the young.
Now, we have a new meaning for “viral”. What used to be applied to contagious diseases has greater relevance for today’s addiction for that eyeball-and-thumb rummaging through websites and pictures. It’s easy to alter mental states as never before. The emotional enslavement to the device was properly characterized by Bill Maher when he said on 60 Minutes,
“The tycoons of social media have to stop pretending that they’re friendly nerd-gods building a better world, and admit they’re just tobacco farmers in t-shirts selling an addictive product to children.”
Think of the emotional conditions that are sparked by the incessant activity on the thing. Anorexia nervosa, gender dysphoria, experiments in alternate sexual orientations, teen jealousies, distorted expectations, new and toxic behavioral norms, flash mobs, are just some examples of mental and behavioral contagions that a tween or teen can potentially experience through their incessant connectivity.
No wonder that a good chunk of today’s under-30’s are moonbat crazy.
RogerG
Read more here:
* Bill Maher quote at “Tech Insiders Call Out Facebook for Literally Manipulating Your Brain”, Jon Brooks, KQED, May 25, 2017, at https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/379828/tech-insiders-call-out-facebook-for-literally-manipulating-your-brain#:~:text=%27The%20tycoons%20of%20social%20media%20have%20to%20stop,to%20children.%27%20Bill%20Maher%2C%20on%20his%20HBO%20show
* “The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teen (2021)”, Common Sense Media, at https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/8-18-census-integrated-report-final-web_0.pdf
* Much thanks to “I Was One of the Last Kids in America to Grow Up before the Smartphone”, Alexandra DeSanctis, National Review Online, Dec. 17, 2022, at https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/12/i-was-one-of-the-last-kids-in-america-to-grow-up-before-the-smartphone/
Okay, I’ll come out and say it: The young are moonbat crazy. Not all, but stunningly large numbers are. “Moonbat”, what’s that? Crazy is the easy part. The word “moonbat” in this context has been attributed to conservative commentator Howie Carr in referring to California governor Jerry Brown, Jr., who was caricatured in an online poster, “Before Moonbats, there was Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown”.
It appears to be getting worse – the moonbat craziness, that is.
I know about youthful kookiness because “Been there, done that”, as any child of the 60’s should know. “Drugs, sex, and rock ‘n roll” isn’t exactly a clarion call for mature judgment. The nutty stuff is rooted in the young’s unappreciation for the arduous path that was trod by others to get to the present. It stems from the young’s newness to the world. All they really know is what’s around them.
They can be taught history, but they have no experience with prior struggles, and telling and showing them won’t be enough, even if someone lectured them. My WWII-generation parents experienced life before air conditioning, and when capable of acquiring it, they did in a heartbeat. Today, large percentages of the young, pampered by modern conveniences, prefer to end a/c in a holy war to defeat climate change. Yet, they wouldn’t last long without it, along with their trendy ev’s and obsession with connectivity. There’s only so much room on the coastal plain to accommodate the added millions fleeing the oppressive heat everywhere else. And the attendant blackouts and spiking utility bills won’t be good for streaming and the apps on their cellphones that direct them to the nearest Starbucks and car charger that won’t charge, the cell towers and relay centers absent the juice to run.
The moonbat in our young came out in all its glory in the last few elections. No, this conclusion isn’t ageist prejudice. Once again, “Been there, done that.” Epidemics of STD’s and drug abuse, riots, and mass displays of self-righteous posturing were as characteristic of my youth as flower power. The peace movement’s catastrophic demand to withdraw from South Vietnam led to the fall of Southeast Asia and millions exterminated and millions more shoved into tortuous reeducation camps. Not quite a Dark Age – for us, that is, a Dark Age for SE Asia – but certainly the quality-of-life lights were dimmed.
Well, the young are at it again. Kristen Soltis Anderson, pollster and partner of Echelon Insights, unknowingly lays out the evidence for moonbat craziness in the under-40’s. Large portions of youthful voters are committed to social and economic suicide. On the social side, they aren’t marrying and having kids at levels of previous generations, support sexual unions that can’t produce them, and want to treat pregnancy as a disease. I guess to make it all go down easier, they favor legal and social approval of THC intoxication in today’s highly potent, selectively cultivated pot (5 to 6 times more lusty than the kind passed around in the smoking circles of my youth).
The economic side of the self-abasement is a toxic embrace of socialism and eco-madness. Unknowingly for them, the socialist paradise of North Korea didn’t invent the microchip. No socialist Shangri-la had a hand in that. It’s a product of free-enterprise entrepreneurialism, capitalism. You know, private property and profits, all that “evil” stuff. Socialism is an assault on private property, profits, and the rich who got rich because they brought all that stuff to the Antifa zealots so they could virally coordinate to close down Portland.
The eco-madness is their poorly thought out but loudly espoused mitigations of “climate change”. Well, prove it. Prove that “climate change” is a man-caused apocalypse. Prove that your chic measures – ev’s, a grid reliant on windmills and solar panels, and chicken-coop housing in today’s urban hellscapes – will make more than a dimple of improvement on the hypothetical crisis. Convince me that it won’t lead to central planning, the ideological cousin of totalitarianism. Convince me that it won’t lead to the iron fist of totalitarianism to socially engineer the Sierra Club’s ideal person. History shows a link between moonbat utopianism in power and thuggery. What makes the young so confident in thinking that the historically evident travel from an imposed fantasy to full-throated coercion can be successfully suspended? History isn’t encouraging.
Here’s Soltis’s scoop on the political status of the young: they are strong Democrats, stronger than earlier renditions of youthfulness. The upper end of millennials has reached 40 and they punched the Democrat ticket by nine points in 2022. The bulk of them, though, are in their 30’s, and combined with the twenty-somethings, they favored the Democrats by 28 points! The Republicans are in a world of hurt with them. It’s been particularly true in the last three election cycles.
Long lines of students waiting to vote at a Michigan college.
What animates these young folks to ignore the urban filth and crime, inflation, a looming recession, the wildlands as open-air combustion chambers, the blackouts, the crippling national debt, the invasion of boys into girls’ sports and bathrooms, and schools that function more as lefty finishing schools than places of learning? The affection for the donkey party can’t solely be laid at the feet of Trump. The young obviously care more about other things. Among those under 30, 53% want abortion to be legal “under any circumstance”. That could unthinkingly include late term/partial birth abortions, ending the life of babies who survive the procedure, sex-selection abortions, and excusing those mothers who see a baby as an obstacle in the climb up the greasy corporate pole.
“Under any circumstance” is an awfully grizzly affair. Many of the young seem to be fully onboard with the “right” to abortion translating into the “right” of the mother and doctor to be executioners. Or do they? “Under any circumstance” precludes any consideration of viability. Pardon me, but I can’t accept the claim that 53% of the young are so inhuman. For many in the polling, I speculate, the response was a visceral reaction to Dobbs, which was caricatured by a similarly ill-informed press as a ban on abortion. But explaining the decision as a return to federalism would require an understanding of federalism. The trillions of dollars spent on the schools has yet to succeed at reading, writing, and math (NAEP scores). What makes you think that they will be any better at conveying the meaning of federalism?
Trillions more and dismal results (NAEP scores). Dismal results and political illiteracy. Political illiteracy and hitching a ride on the Democrats’ train of affection for government as super daddy.
Economic illiteracy too. Young people support labor unions because they supposedly have a “positive impact on the country”, more so than the church and the military. As long as we keep the discussion out of reality, America’s adversarial unions are seen in poorly developed young minds as fighting the battle against the exploitation of innocent workers by robber barons. But it isn’t that simple. A strong historical case can be made that industrial labor unions killed Detroit and sent American steel into a tailspin. Unionization was contorted into corporate and job euthanasia. Their extravagant demands, wrapped in a promiscuous right to strike and lavish collective bargaining agreements, paved the way for the rise of Toyota and the other Asian and European automakers. The industrial heartland became deindustrialized to a great extent by their workers.
Abandoned office/industrial building in Detroit.
The Rust Belt became as rusty as its unions. Who wants to invest in a dive into the jaws of our labor unions, so long as we still have the freedom to decide where to put our money? Better to avoid the Upper Midwest Rust Belt and go to friendlier places, like the American South, who are without laws that grant power to unions to force everyone into their clutches. “Right to work” laws in the South weren’t a ban on labor unions, but merely made them voluntary. Such nuances aren’t the stuff of K-to-grad school curriculums. We’ve trained a generation in AFL-CIO urban myths.
It doesn’t end there. More immediately, our young folks seem to be okay with not getting the latest edition of the I-phone, or even underwear. Those container ships anchored over the horizon at San Pedro were a gift of the Pacific Maritime Association (an affiliate of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union) representing dock workers. As of October 2022, 77 ships remain anchored outside the port. Our supply chain is dependent on the featherbedding of $171,000/year dock workers (2019 numbers). Monopolies of labor have the funny tendency of behaving like any other monopoly.
Even “the most pro-union president” (Biden) is feeling the heat of another possible disruption from a rail strike. Once the containers get off the ship, the most congested docks face the most congested railyard in the country. Its expansion faces the usual suspects: organized eco-zealots and California’s exhaustive eco-regulations. The state’s EIR’s (environmental impact reports), to go along with the fed’s EIS’s (environmental impact statements), to go along with multiple layers of bureaucratic meddling, prompted endless delays and lawsuits. We may get the expansion, but not without a taxpayer breaking and company busting and bloated price tag, not an unusual experience in the Democrats’ Mecca and Medina of California. Remember the state’s high-speed rail monolith to nowhere?
Unfinished California high-speed elevated rail line outside Fresno, Ca.
Such episodes don’t register with the young. I think that too many of the young are into the excitement and drama normally found in their personal diversions and aren’t attracted to the boring and tedious work of reading and contemplation. They won’t read a magazine of substance but will glance at Twitter burps and anything on their Instagram feed.
Why bother to vote If that is the case? Has anyone ever pondered the possibility that voting could be an immoral act? Think about it. An uninformed vote is the equal of an informed one, a frivolous one equal to a serious one. As in a fraudulent vote, one cancels the other. If you don’t know, don’t care, and won’t inform yourself, don’t you have a moral responsibility to stay away from the ballot . . . and power tools? Such an ethic of responsibility cannot be encapsulated in a law, but it should be implanted in our minds – to go along with honesty, charity, and love – from a young age. Before you do something, do it responsibly.
Today’s young are less inclined to be responsible because some parents and most of our schools have failed to prepare them to face the issues of their time. Take marriage as an example, same-zex marriage in particular. The young favor it by upwards to three-quarters in recent polling.
But is same-sex marriage an oxymoron? Has the thought ever graced their mind? Same-sex marriage might be sensible if marriage is construed as nothing but assuaging the interests of adults. In history, however, marriage has always been tied to civilization’s stake in procreation. For that to happen, heterosexual behavior is required. Not every married couple of a heterosexual complexion can or chooses to have children. That’s not the point. The long nurturing process of our young requires the tight bond of the people who brought them into being. The state and its disconnected operatives are no stand-in.
That tight bond is marriage, and it should be reserved for heterosexual pairings. Whether they have children or not is a personal matter. Other conceptions (civil unions, etc.) with many of the privileges and protections of marriage can be made available for same-sex couples. But heterosexuality is a privileged coupling because without it, there is no next generation. A society of the incontinent and gray-haired, because we have elevated everything else but childbearing and childrearing, doesn’t bode well for survival. Heterosexuality must be privileged. Marriage is the way, born of necessity, to do it.
The reservation of marriage for complimentary sexual pairings isn’t a prudish ban on “loving who you want”. That’s pure sophistry. Marriage is society’s minimal requirement for there to be a next generation.
Has this argument ever been presented to the three-quarters who think that same-sex marriage is a great idea? The overwhelming numbers in support of something is not proof of the thing’s validity. More accurately, it’s evidence of a lack of exposure to the history of our institutions, and to a real debate. Like much else involving the young, they don’t know any better and nobody told them.
It comes back to maturity. One element of maturity is tied up in the economic concept of tradeoffs: you can’t have it all. No one can. We give up one thing to obtain another. So, for our fulminating statue-topplers and Antifa zealots, and our twenty-somethings whose education didn’t educate, you can’t simultaneously have your socialism and 5G and the next generation of connectivity. That stuff is born of freedom, the freedom to live a life, to think anew, to acquire, without undermining the prerequisites for their being generations to come. It’s not the freedom of bureaucrats to meddle.
The young are just moonbat crazy. Is this what degringolade (downfall) looks like?
RogerG
Read here for more:
* “Republicans’ Lost Youth”, Kristen Soltis Anderson, National Review, Dec. 1, 2022, at https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/12/19/republicans-lost-youth/
* “NAEP national test scores fall to lowest levels in decades!”, Anthony Picciano of CUNY, Sept, 2, 2022, at https://apicciano.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2022/09/02/naep-national-test-scores-fall-to-lowest-levels-in-decades/#:~:text=Driving%20the%20news%3A%20The%20results%20on%20the%20NAEP%2C,in%20learning%20outcomes%20were%20starkest%20among%20lower-performing%20students.
* “77 box vessels waiting outside San Pedro Bay ports”, World Cargo News, Oct. 25, 2022, at https://www.worldcargonews.com/news/news/77-box-vessels-waiting-outside-san-pedro-bay-ports-67501#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Marine%20Exchange%20of%20Southern%20California%2C,Los%20Angeles%20are%20due%20to%20arrive%20at%20anchor.
