Can I Sue?

See the source image
California State Teachers Retirement System headquarters in Sacramento, Ca.

Really, can I sue California’s STRS, the state’s teacher pension system?  I would think that I have standing.  After all, I am receiving a CalSTRS pension.  Why would I sue?  They are imperiling my pension.  Simple.

How are they harming the integrity of my pension?  It comes in three letters – ESG – and, to no great surprise, California is all into it.  The initials stand for “environment, social, governance” and the plan is to impose these political abstractions on the entire business sector including finance, which also includes pension investing.  In practical terms, ESG means the grab bag of leftwing causes from transgender ideology to the crusade against “systemic racism” to climate-change apocalyptics.  The purpose is to strongarm businesses into leftwing causes with the use of the mother’s milk of business – capital – capital even from pension members.

See the source image
A leading advocate among mega-financiers for ESG under label of “sustainable” is Chairman and Chief Executive of BlackRock, Laurence Fink. Here he speaks during a session at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 25, 2014. (REUTERS/Ruben Sprich)

The State of Utah is suing – that is, suing Standard and Poor’s (S&P) for assessing the state’s financial stability and credit worthiness according to leftwing metrics (ESG), or how diligent the state is in furthering leftwing causes such as hostility to the firearms industry and energy companies.  Since the electorate of Utah doesn’t have the political sensibilities of gun controllers, BLM, the progressive ladies of The View, or the Sierra Club, the state’s financial status and bonds get downgraded by S&P acting in the role of the Left’s hatchet man.  If the state’s electorate doesn’t pay heed to the fascinations of a college Sociology faculty, their bonds get branded “B” (junk).  The purpose is to jeopardize the state’s financial health if they don’t come to heel.

Public-employee pension funds are particularly prone to the sway of the zealots, especially CalPers and CalSTRS in California, already under the direct thumb of an off-the-charts progressive one-party state.  Out goes the standard fiduciary rule of working in the best interests of the client, in comes a redefinition of “best interests” to involve the political inclinations of those like Gavin Newsom wanting to risk the pensioners’ contributions and ultimate payout on Solyndra-type ventures and away from investments that until yesterday were pro forma.

In the case of a public-employee pension system, “best interest” can’t be limited to managers taking dictates from powerful and ideologically pretentious politicos.  Contributions come from everyone from Marxists to NRA members in general funds like CalSTRS.  The only real requirement is to be a teacher of the requisite number of years.  The one thing that they all have in common is being retired and spoiling their grandkids.  If any of them want to fund the antics of The Squad, they can do it from their pre- or post-retirement income, not beforehand after a deterioration of potential payouts to every beneficiary by Gavin Newsom’s preferences.

Kentucky’s AG, Daniel Cameron, senses the chicanery as well.  He hit the mark with a letter to the state’s pension fund managers when he warned them about ESG investing because it would “violate statutory and contractual fiduciary duties.”  He continued, “There is an increasing trend among some investment management firms to use money in public and state employee pension plans — that is, other people’s money — to push their own political agendas and force social change.”  Those fiduciary duties might apply to California as well.

Daniel Cameron
Daniel Cameron, Kentucky’s AG

A favorite tactic to make ESG seem legitimate is to label the opinions of the Left a matter of “science” and a product of a “consensus”, therefore irrefutable, therefore “misinformation” if challenged, therefore above and beyond the standard rules of fiduciary responsibility.  This new “science” – the scientific truth (?) of Leftist opinion – is actually a “science” without the scientific method.  Think about it: What scientist comes from an experimental test of his/her hypothesis with the observation that the results are wrong because they violate a “consensus”?  The whole exercise is as nonsensical as handing over my pension’s investment portfolio to the screeching ministrations of Greta Thunberg or Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

But here we are at a place where we can’t challenge the destruction of a pension because anyone who disagrees is censored as a “denier”.  So, the Left gets carte blanche with the money for my old age.  I don’t think so.  Send lawyers, guns, and money.  Oh, drop the “guns” part and let’s sue.

I identify with Warren Zevon’s predicament in his song “Lawyers, Guns, and Money”.  The lyics:

“I went home with the waitress, the way I always do
How was I to know, she was with the Russians, too?

I was gambling in Havana, I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money, dad, get me out of this, ha

I’m the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck between the rock and a hard place
And I’m down on my luck, yes I’m down on my luck
Well, I’m down on my luck

And I’m hiding in Honduras
I’m a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan

Alright, send lawyers, guns, and money
Huh, yeah
Send lawyers, guns, and money
Uh
Send lawyers, guns, and money
Hey
Send lawyers, guns, and money
Oo, yeah
Yeah
Yeah”

Zevon’s performance of “Lawyers, Guns, and Money”:

RogerG

Read here for more:

* “Follow Daniel Cameron’s lead, purge every hint of ESG from your state’s finances”, Washington Examiner, Nov. 4, 2022, at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/follow-daniel-camerons-lead-purge-every-hint-of-esg-from-your-states-finances .

* “Utah pushes back against pro-Putin ESG financial analysis”, Washington Examiner, May 2, 2022, at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/utah-pushes-back-against-pro-putin-esg-financial-analysis .

Today’s Opportunities for a Columnist with Flair, Heather Wilhelm

charging-station-california
Electric cars sit charging in a parking garage at the University of California, Irvine, in Irvine, Calif., 2015. (photo: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)

I get a kick out of Heather Wilhelm’s columns. She writes for The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, National Review, etc., and calls Austin, Tx., home. She has a flair, as in a recent piece “Running on Fumes”. The topic is California’s fetish for electric cars. As I’ve written many times, it’s a looney idea. Wilhelm agrees . . . with flair.

Here’s some juicy tidbits from the column, with a few quips of my own:

* “. . . America’s favorite loopy wine-swilling communist aunt who dabbles in astrology and mushrooms — I’m speaking, of course, of the government of California . . . .” — What a great distillation of Sacramento.

* “What could go wrong?” [A reference to California’s brain fart to end gas-powered cars by 2035 coupled with the state’s grid operator recently requesting a stop to EV charging from 4 pm to 9 pm.] Putting it in more laymen terms in a fictional expansion of the announcement, she wrote, “ . . . freeze, just like a statue, between the hours of 4 p.m. and 9 p.m., avoiding movement that could cause an injury, lest you have to walk 16 miles to the ER with a broken scapula. Please also refrain from having any personal emergencies that might require a car during this specific time window. And for heaven’s sake, do not — please do not — go into labor between the hours of 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.”

* Then she quotes a Newsom spokesperson: “We’re not saying don’t charge them. We’re just saying don’t charge them between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.” — You can’t make this stuff up. California is an SNL skit in real time.

* “Ah. Remember: If you’re going to get appendicitis, don’t.” — Need I say more?

* “California is a gorgeous state filled with natural wonders and wonderful people, but pretty soon the only way to get out of the place might involve the few remaining clusters of beleaguered residents’ begging Ron DeSantis to fly them to Martha’s Vineyard.” — Nicely put.

* On EV road trips: “Electric cars are great, unless you actually want to go somewhere that’s, you know, far.” Further, “. . . if you want to take a road trip with a car that plugs in, in a vast, sprawling country with multiple wilderness areas that will likely never have an abundance of places to plug it in . . . well, you might want to give the whole idea a second thought.” — You say?

* Or this line about her: “I believe in self-sufficiency, am a bit of a prepper, and always keep my gas tank at half full or higher in case the apocalypse breaks out or Beto O’Rourke somehow gets elected to some form of public office.” – The latter hypothetical would be proof that the electorate went mad. Again, hope that DeSantis will fly you to Martha’s Vineyard.

* Lastly, this jab at the airheaded central planners like Newsom and his coterie of sadomasochistic Green New Dealers: “I’d bet on the free market to do a better job than a guy like Gavin Newsom.” Precisely, let people decide – it’s called a free market – and not some shortsighted drunk-on-power goofs with an adolescent vision.

Radical visionaries seldom trouble themselves with consequences. With the “sustainable” grid chronically down, a heat wave means that you’ll . . . sweat, hopefully not into stroke. No electricity, no air conditioning. After controlling your usage with “smart” thermostats – beware of Alexa – the same geniuses might mandate the return to the Victorian 13-foot ceiling and ban air conditioning to go along with your gas-powered car. In one fell swoop, the state’s housing stock of 8-foot ceilings will be made obsolete. Our airheads follow in the footsteps of the many totalitarians who have gone before. They will make you into their better person even if it’ll ruin you.

Heather Wihelm’s full article is at https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/10/17/running-on-fumes/.

See the source image

RogerG

Real Institutional Racism in the Boardroom

The admissions building at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. A trial widely perceived to be a referendum on affirmative action is scheduled to begin Monday. (HADLEY GREEN / The New York Times, file)
The admissions building at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (HADLEY GREEN / The New York Times, file)

Benjamin Disraeli (19th century British politician, Prime Minister, and writer/philosopher) in his book “Sybil, Or the Two Nations” wrote of the deep split of a people into two camps, almost nations, each completely estranged from the other:

“Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws . . . .  THE RICH AND THE POOR.”

See the source image
Benjamin Disraeli

For him, the divide was between the rich and the poor, an artifact of a time of much greater hardship.  For us, it is between the blue silos of a radical Left cultural ethos and the red hinterlands of the traditions of standards, faith, the rule of law, equality before the law, and popular sovereignty under constitutional checks.  The former wishes to overthrow the latter.

In these isolated little blue enclaves, overwhelmingly inner cities and college campuses, the hyper-wealthy and academics can entertain ideological fancies far afield from the lives of the vast majority of people living outside, people who are actually struggling with the daily realities of living and not secure from them by walls, money, and tenured academic freedom.

How could the corporate boardroom – in the past immune – become so enthralled by this revolutionary ethos?  The answer lies in the social realities of living in a narrowly confined space of limited interactions.  A homogeneous mind incubates in a scene of intermarriage, secluded social engagements in a protective cocoon, and an upbringing that transmits the same campus cultural revolution in these secluded social petri dishes.

los angeles estate
Security gate at a Beverly Hills estate

Adapting Mao’s Long March mythology, Rudy Dutschke, a leader of the German radical Left of the 1960s, advocated a long march through institutions in that 1967 time of troubles of strikes, riots, and massive protests in the West.  Rather than tear the institution down, take them over, he said. Well, it happened.  Yesteryear’s student radical is today’s tenured college faculty with matriculated mental offspring littered throughout the Fortune 500.

What brings this to mind?  Eighty-two American companies expressed their official support for race-based college admissions, loosely referred to as affirmative action, in two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the University of North Carolina and Harvard (see their briefs below).  Big corporate players such as Google, Apple, JetBlue, and General Electric produced briefs utilizing the same old neo-Marxist rhetoric of group-conscious oppression.  Rhetorically, the table is set for the talisman of “diversity”.  Merit is redefined as being a member of the proper race or possessing the proper genitalia and calling it “diversity”.  No, this isn’t diversity of opinion.  It’s the diversity of immutable characteristics.  Competence and a special gnosis, it is assumed, emanates from melanin count and genitalia, not from observable qualifications.  It’s preposterous.

The pretzel logic required to make this scheme marketable boggles the mind.  In Monday’s hearing before the Supreme Court, defense counsel emphasized the gambit of race as one among many factors but couldn’t escape withering cross examination from Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Barrett.  The inescapable fact is that at least some admissions will be based on race, and thusly a violation of statute and the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection.  Trying to hide race among the weeds doesn’t eliminate the fact that race will be determinative to award advantages to some to the detriment of others not so privileged with the right skin color and genital comportment.

How could they get away with this after a Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education, and the various Civil Rights Acts in the long campaign to end the award of benefits and/or disabilities based on race or other immutable factors?  The whole enterprise relies on rhetorical legerdemain and a mountain of verbiage in bastardized “studies” to the point that “studies have shown” has gained the reputation as a tipoff for ideological skullduggery.  It’s a new Jim Crow favoring the radical Left’s “oppressed”.

And an afront to most people’s practical sense of fairness.  There’s a reason why lady justice wears a blindfold.

May be a cartoon of text that says 'PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT NO WHITE MEN NEED APPLY. Belu ©2012 BALOOCARTOONS. "We got tired of explaining to everybody what affirmative action' means."'

Not surprisingly given their backgrounds, corporate titans have bought into it.  Read the briefs and you’ll find the ritual abuse of “diversity” and “qualified”, as in “Classroom diversity is crucial to producing employable, productive, value-adding citizens in business.”  Or, how about the claim that the favoritism produces “a pipeline of highly qualified future workers and business leaders”?  “Highly qualified” just became an oxymoron.  “Qualification” now means the right melanin count and genitalia.

The whole thing is a legal, moral, and rational trainwreck.  To borrow a movie line, “Yes, Virginia, there is institutional racism”, but it’s coming from the folks who brought you The 1619 Project, CRT, the 2020 summer of BLM riots, home appliances, and annual college admission letters.  Amazing, the campaign against institution racism was always about furthering institutional racism.

May be a cartoon of text

RogerG

Read more here:

* The corporate briefs in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, and Harvard, can be found at https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Brief-for-Major-American-Business-Enterprises-Supporting-Respondents-FINAL.pdf .

* An excellent synopsis of the case by Brittany Bernstein can be found at https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dozens-of-major-u-s-companies-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-race-based-college-admissions/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=next-article&utm_term=first

If a Red Wave Happens, What Next? More Trump?

See the source image

What’s next after a red wave?  If it happens – big “if” – It’ll depend on how the results will be interpreted.  Will it be viewed as an endorsement of Trumpism or rejection of a radical-Left Democratic Party or both?  Regardless, Trump senses a triumphal return to the White House.  That’s “what next”.  He shared a clip of Meghan Kelly predicting “He [DeSantis] won’t win against Trump.”  Trump attached to the clip, “I agree”.  See below.

This guy is running, and with his usual uncouth cockiness.  What does he offer?  His appeal is encapsulated in “He owns the libs”.  His in-your-face style is appealing to a certain type of voter, thus a rabid following of 20-25% of the electorate.  But this combative charisma repels as much as it attracts.  As such, Trumpism as a political personality is not the stuff of decisive victories.  Politics is about addition, not subtraction, and Trump brings both at the same time.

Michael Brandon Dougherty (in many ways a Trump admirer) in National Review Online makes the point that Trump is charisma, not policy.  I agree.  Trump’s term in office was characterized by management chaos and the farming out most policy initiatives to Congress.  Trump is no policy wonk.  Other than immigration, issues like tax cuts, deregulation (Congressional Review Act repeals of regulations), and judges were at the behest of, and impossible without, Paul Ryan (House) and Mitch McConnel (Senate).  Even “energy independence” and immigration he must share with the party leadership since many of the policy aspects of these issues originated in long-established party platforms and previous Republican congressional actions.  In many ways, the country benefitted not necessarily from Trump but from not having a Democrat in the Oval Office to block them.

The Trump return is predicated on an overwhelming view within the party that Trump was cheated (“screwed” in popular Trump parlance) in the 2020 election.  The claim is only half right.  He claims that he won, but no, no one can say that.  Once the ballots entered the many registrar offices for counting, no one can say how they were marked, how they got there, nor where they came from.  Indeed, the election procedures in place throughout much of the country were the ones most prone to the kind of fraud that is nearly impossible to prove in court.  Tracing a ballot to a fraudulent voter is next to impossible once you bypass the controls of in-person voting with the mass-mailing of ballots.  That’s the wrong half of Trump’s indictment.  Trump and his backers would be on firmer ground to complain of the mass-mailing of ballots, the use of dirty registration rolls, unsupervised drop boxes, ballot harvesting, provisional ballots, same-day registration, anywhere voting, etc.  The most unsecure method of voting that put an end to the secret ballot was used in 2020.  That’s the right half of the Trump complaint.

So, did he win? No, because he can’t prove it, no one can.  A ballot stripped of its envelope is dropped into a sea of undifferentiated ballots.  He should have known, screamed to high heaven when the procedures were jerry-rigged, but saved most of his vituperation after he lost.  At this point, he looks and sounds like a petulant child.  You want to talk about a huge turn-off?

Trump is so yesteryear.  His appeal is yesteryear – “I was cheated” and “own the libs” – and he can only offer us what he has already given us: some very good policies, like many good Republicans, and repellant behavior and mismanagement.  So much for the “virtue” of having a vaunted businessman behind the Resolute desk.  As the 2022 red wave and 2024 elections recede, if Trump gets the nomination and wins, the memory will quickly wane of the Democrats’ embrace of radical-Left revolution, to be replaced by, once again, X-rated presidential antics.

We – meaning Republicans – have options.  Our bench is long.  Romney milquetoasts are not the order of the day.  A compromise with radical-Left revolution is a semi-radical-Left revolution.  Socialism and neo-Marxism – agreed, they are similar – is poison no matter the dose.  A spine is required.  We have many backboned political leaders but without the boorishness.  Republicans have a choice to salve an inflated ego or establish a winning coalition for a decade(s).  Trump in his second term can only bring more subtraction than addition.

Please watch the clip. Meghan’s prediction is a warning, not a promise.

RogerG

For more, read here:

* “The Coming Fight over Trumpism: Charisma or Policy?”, Michael Brendon Dougherty, National Review Online, Oct. 28, 2022, at https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/10/the-coming-fight-over-trumpism-charisma-or-policy/.

Ukraine and the Bursting of Bubbles

See the source image

Alas, Tulsi Gabbard left the Democratic Party after some years of abuse typified by Hilary Clinton branding her a Russian agent.  I can’t say I blame her. She went from the Democratic Congressional Caucus to the arms of the Fox News punditry, a go-to for Tucker Carlson and the “populist” Right.  There’s wisdom in crowds – the idea that crowds are wiser than “experts”, thus “populism” – and also mass mania, unfortunately another facet of “populism”.  Right now, the foreign policy fad of the moment on the “populist” Right is a retreat to fortress America.  It’s incoherent, but there it is.  Bubble #1.

That’s not all.  Bubble #2 is the grip of climate-change ideology among our so-called elites.  The simple fact that climate changes is exploited for a wholesale revamping of our way of life.  This won’t end well since we are starting to see the first signs of its horrendous fallout as Putin utilizes his oil/gas/coal weapon.

Commissar Putin’s invasion of Ukraine carries the pin to pop both bubbles.  In the first fantasy, the limits of collective security, collective solidarity, collectively imposed anything are borne out.  One overriding behemoth must be available to thump the world’s worst malefactors.  In the 19th century the role was filled by Britain and her navy; the baton passed to the U.S. in the 20th and 21st centuries, like it or not.  Sorry Tulsi and Tucker.  One nation must fill the role of the one power who scoundrels must watch over their shoulders.  Is this carte blanche for intervention?  No, but we must be in a position to act when necessary, Tulsi and Tucker be damned.  When a vacuum exists, we get the barbarian 5th-century sacking of Rome and the descent into Hobbesian chaos, Europe as a Napoleonic grand duchy, the slaughter pens of the WWI trenches, blitzkrieg and the Holocaust, and communist expansion at the barrel of a gun (or tank, or ICBM) and more mass slaughter in the late 20th.  Weakness invites horrors.

Collective solidarity gambits like the UN or EU are no substitute for the behemoth.  A majority of the UN could probably fit into the international malefactors’ caucus, which makes the occupants of the building on Turtle Bay a dubious enforcer of goodness and light.  As for the EU, it is proof that once an ideological frenzy like climate-change ideology grips continental elites all the nations in the club will step back a century in prosperity.  The result is a decline in energy freedom and a fall into a dependence on the whims of Putin and his Kremlin kleptocrats, and a choice between wintertime of mass hypothermia or quietude on the rape of Ukraine.

See the source image
Russian energy giant Gazprom
See the source image
Working on the Nordstream 2 pipeline in December 2019, now halted due to Russia’s Ukraine invasion. (The times of London photo)

Make no mistake about it, today’s thugs-with-nuclear-weapons act like Jack the Ripper, always looking to see if the night watchman is distracted or asleep.  For 10 years, in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union, the world chose to be spectators as Russia suppressed Chenya.  The appetite wasn’t whetted with a few Chechens so Putin turned his gaze to the bigger prize of the Ukraine in his campaign to reconstitute the USSR.  Interestingly, the role of night watchman at the time was filled by Obama, but Obama was busy with the eight-year run of his apology tour.  Obama was caught promising Putin a dismantlement of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic if Putin would play nice for his reelection campaign.  Done deal.  Obama gets reelected and afterwards Putin invaded and annexed Crimea and used proxies to lop off two eastern districts of the Ukrainian Donbass.  After the Trump interregnum, Putin pounced with Obama II, Joe Biden, at the helm fumbling Afghanistan, dispiriting the American military with an inquisition to ferret out the nefarious kulaks of “white supremacy” in the ranks, and wrecking the US economy in wild spending and a full-frontal assault on our bountiful energy resources – a textbook example of how to voluntarily dismantle a nation.

In the meantime, Tucker and Tulsi are aghast that the semi-senescent Biden would dare empty US weapons inventories in support of a Ukrainian fighting force of high esprit de corps.  And the Ukrainians are giving a good accounting of themselves.  But Tucker, Tulsi, and the “populist” Right in the podcastry are in the grip of fear of Russia’s nuclear arsenal.  What do they propose to do as Putin brazenly invades?  I don’t know, they won’t say, but they heap scorn on Zelensky and his country.  Odd.  It’s perplexing.  Is it due to an unstated love affair with nationalism, even if it is of the Russian variety?

Anyway, no better inducement for nuclear proliferation cannot be imagined.  Go nuclear, and you too can establish the caliphate, starve your people and unite the Korean peninsula under a monomaniacal family junta, or fulfill your wish to reimpose the iron fist of the USSR.  Just get the bomb and watch the “populist” Right media sweat bullets if our government should dare arm the victims.

See the source image
Victims of Russian atrocities in Bucha, Ukraine, waiting for burial.

No nation should put itself at the mercy of nuclear blackmail.  The possession of nuclear weapons should not mean that a nation’s rulers have the winning lottery ticket to the mega-prize as the rest of the world cowers in acceptance.  Cowering is no answer; deterrence is, as it always has. Sī vīs pācem, parā bellum: “If you want peace, prepare for war.”  Not even diplomacy works without it.  That is, make the cost of using these WMD’s far greater than any benefit.  The cost can come in the form of nuclear retaliation and/or Russia’s status as a pariah in the full sense of the word and/or threats to Putin’s personal safety.  Being Interpol’s no. 1 fugitive will not contribute to an autocrat’s peace of mind.  State the costs up front and be prepared to carry it out.  Sweating bullets is for Putin, not the pundits in the Fox News studios.

The formula applies to us as well.  To stand by, appease, or sanction aggression will only green-light more of it.  The costs of the populist Right’s dithering and fear are far greater than any benefits.  Why shouldn’t Red China initiate a “special military operation” on Taiwan since the politburo in Beijing has nuclear weapons too?  Say goodbye to Taiwan.  Speaking of a Hobbesian world beset by anyone with the “bomb” license.  No matter what the Right’s appeasement caucus has to say, you can’t replace a calculation that is as old as humankind with dithering and fear.

Ukraine is forcing another cost/benefit dose of reality and the bursting of Bubble #2.  Putin’s ambitions are smashing any illusions of a costless “transition” to a carbon-free ecotopia.  Indeed, the wakeup call of the cure being worse than the disease may be the one Putin gift to the world from the Ukraine imbroglio.  The so-called cure of greenie energy promises a devolution to a 19th century GDP, with very little likelihood of any impact on global temperatures.  The world watching a voluntary descent into economic struggles isn’t likely to inspire much of a following.  Self-immolation isn’t a successful recruitment tool.

See the source image
North Sea windmills

Germany called it Energiewende (energy transition), their effort in reality to transition from industrial powerhouse to Putin concubine.  Under the EU’s own Green Deal, the continent is to be carbon free by 2050, and all the while cementing an addiction for Putin energy as their backbone, and particularly for Germany: 55 percent of Germany’s natural gas, a third of its oil, and half its coal.  Try running the factories of Mercedes-Benz Group AG on the kind of electricity that makes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez smile.

Unsaid about the “transition” is the absolute need for a fossil fuel backbone to buck-up those ugly and vast arrays of Bunyanesque windmills and solar panels.  But the electricity production is unavoidably spasmodic. The hours of full sunlight in Germany, for instance, translate into the annual daylength equivalent of 158 days, or conversely 207 days of cloud cover.  And sometimes, inexplicably, the North Sea wind fails to blow, which happened in September 2021 and lasted weeks.  When nature didn’t cooperate with the dream of Berlin’s central planners, Germany double downed on stupid by closing the three remaining nuclear power plants (now delayed).  Germany learned that zero-carbon/zero-nuclear means blackouts, rationing, skyrocketing rates, job losses, and the prospect of widespread hypothermia deaths in this and future winters if they refused to pay the Khan’s ransom.

In the upside-down logic of the greenie crowd, not paying the ransom means an even greater attachment for Alices’ Wonderland.  For these dreamers, Putin’s cutoff is more of an excuse to transition to . . . blackouts, rationing, skyrocketing rates, job losses, and the prospect of widespread hypothermia deaths in this and future winters.  Alice’s logic is evident on the “populist” Right.  Their substitute for “peace through strength” is . . . dithering and fear.  Diplomacy driven by dithering and fear leads to a dark place.  At this juncture, the loons of the Left, enveloped in eco-madness, and the loons of the “populist” Right, in the grip of Russian nuke-fear paralysis, have nothing to offer but wreckage.

This resembles a mid-winter scene after the second day of snow in Chisinau, Moldova
Late spring freeze in Europe, 2017. This scene is from Chisinau, Moldova. Try heating your home or getting to work with no nuclear power and Putin reducing your fossil fuel supply by a third to a half. Don’t expect much help from “sustainables”.

RogerG

We Did It to Ourselves

See the source image
Electric vehicle catches fire in Florida after Hurricane Ian.

In Rob Reiner’s “This Is Spinal Tap”, the boys in the band are asked about the unexpected deaths of some of their drummers, including one who mysteriously erupted in spontaneous combustion.

It’s hilarious, but not so funny for Florida electric vehicle (EV) owners in the wake of Hurricane Ian.  We now know that water and EV batteries don’t mix.  The things don’t need a spark.  After the deluge and submersion in flood waters, they’ll just quietly simmer in a super-hot chemical reaction, smoke a little, and then erupt.  Watch the Good Morning in America (GMA) report below.

The EV is the darling of our eco-central planners and the eco-acolytes who sit atop many of our institutions.  For the elected ones, they didn’t gain their seats of power and influence by accident.  We chose them.  Through the franchise and Electoral College, we made the choice to give power to those who would force us out of our deep family investments in clean and fuel-efficient sedans, mini-vans, and SUV’s and into the thing that could set a packed parking lot and neighborhood ablaze.  Add to that the range anxiety from inoperable, scarce, and inconvenient charging stations; dishonestly advertised operational distances if one takes into account running life-support and other systems like air conditioning and the heater; and the threat of hypothermia as we wait the hour or two for enough juice to get the thing up and running in a Michigan winter.

Wait, there’s more.  The same folks who are foisting the EV on us are creating the most unstable grid distributing the most expensive electricity.  An ever-growing expanse of giant windmill forests and broadening seas of solar panels marring ever greater portions of the earth’s surface will be our future if they have their way.  And if that isn’t enough, much of that grid is exposed to the annual seven-month firestorm season from eco-crazed forestry practices that annually belches millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air, like the 130 million tons from last year’s conflagrations in California – the equivalent CO2 of 25 million regular autos.  So, they shove everyone into EV’s to allegedly save the planet as they encourage the buildup of debris to burn it up.  Go figure.

See the source image
Trees and brush erupt in flames in a California wildfire from 2019.

Incidentally, try to find a place to charge up the thing if you happen to be in the path of the flames, the lines are down, and the cell towers are incinerated.  It’s a perpetual motion machine of eco-nuttery.  Lesson: Don’t sell that old Camry with the regular unleaded in the gas tank.

Who’s at fault?  We are.  We elected the clowns who thought that showering the country in paper money was economically righteous and think that eco-central planning is somehow different from the Soviet variety.

It’s not that the donkey party hid it from us.  Nancy Pelosi and The Squad have been busy concocting the Green New Deal since Pelosi took the gavel (2019) and Biden the oath of office (2021).  Anyone above the sentience level of a worm should have known.  Biden repeatedly bellowed their intent when he, for instance, looked into the eyes of a teenage girl (a real XX-chromosome one) in 2019 and said,

“I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.”

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden pumps his fist as he speaks during a campaign stop, Friday, Sept. 6, 2019, in Laconia, N.H. (AP Photo/Mary Schwalm)
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden pumps his fist as he speaks during a campaign stop, Friday, Sept. 6, 2019, in Laconia, N.H. (AP Photo/Mary Schwalm)

True to his word, he’s trying to euthanize the entire industry: practically ending oil development on federal lands and offshore, axing pipelines, lavish spending on loopy “sustainables”, and a quiet strangulation of the energy companies by frightening financial capital away from them.  For this gang, real, affordable energy is a dragon to be slain.

The choice of candidates in the 2020 presidential race was between the uncouth with the right policies (for the most part) and a revolutionary ethos of class warfare, neo-Marxist race-baiting, transgenderism, open borders, law unenforcement, and greenie fanaticism.  As it turned out, a majority preferred the revolution.  Look no further than the mirror for the cause of our troubles if you thought that the uncouth drove you into the arms of the revolutionary.  A candidate is much more than the fact that he’s not the other guy.

See the source image

RogerG

Read here for more:

* “Red Tape Is Making Wildfires Worse”, Shawn Regan and Tate Watkins, National Review Online, Oct. 4, 2022, at https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/10/red-tape-is-making-wildfires-worse/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=capital-matters&utm_term=third

* “About Those Green Jobs . . . They Keep Vanishing”, Andrew Follett, National Review Online, Oct. 15, 2022, at https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/10/about-those-green-jobs-they-keep-vanishing/

* “Climate Policy Should Pay More Attention to Climate Economics”, John H. Cochrane, National Review Online, Sept, 3, 2021, at https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/climate-policy-should-pay-more-attention-to-climate-economics/

* “In intimate moment, Biden vows to ‘end fossil fuel'”, Steve Peoples, ABC News, Sept, 6, 2019, at https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/intimate-moment-biden-vows-end-fossil-fuel-65442382

Amazon’s The Rings of Power: The Middle-earth Matriarchy

See the source image
Jeff Bezos and his girlfriend Lauren Sanchez at the gala for The Rings of Power

In Tom Wolfe’s novel, “A Man in Full”, the main protagonist is the successful Atlanta entrepreneur Charlie Croker who seems to have everything but tranquility and satisfaction.  His corporation is mired in crushing debt but he has all the trappings of material success, and a new, younger trophy wife.  He divorced his first wife, Martha, after decades of marriage.  She begins to resume her life without him by getting back in shape.  She joins a gym and quickly realizes that women have changed, particularly in body type.  Gone is the hour-glass figure and everywhere she notices the absence of hips among the female fitness fanatics.  A female ideal has changed.  She dubs these women “boys with breasts”.

See the source image

Harvey C. Mansfield, Harvard professor of political philosophy, wrote the book “Manliness” in 2006.  In it, he distinguished between masculinity and manliness.  Masculinity can, but not always, stray into beastly behavior (“toxic masculinity”).  By contrast, manliness in the ancient Greek is synonymous with “courage” and therefore tied to virtue.  A manly person – for women can also exhibit manliness – would protect the weak.  Bluster, bullying, and abuse is not the stuff of manliness.

See the source image
Harvey C. Mansfield

Manliness must be differentiated from the modern slang of “BDE”, or “big d*** energy”.  At a recent campaign rally, Keri Lake (Arizona gubernatorial candidate) introduced Ron DeSantis using the earthy initials.  People enamored of Trump use it.  Manliness should not be confused with brutish bellicosity.

Why mention “boys with breasts” and manliness in connection with Amazon’s Rings of Power?  Simple, if the masterminds of the series, J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay, wanted to create a Middle-earth matriarchy, they could find no better device than to turn Galadriel into an Aragorn with breasts and refocus Tolkien’s tale on one of the three queens of Númenor, a total of three among the twenty-five rulers of the land in the legendarium.  The women’s characters were crafted to portray Mansfield’s manliness but lack the charisma to inspire a drug addict into an opium den.  And why the decision to exercise the creative arts to distort Tolkien’s story in this manner?  I suspect that something more fundamental is afoot, like the politico-cultural prejudices of a narrow social claque that gave us Jane’s Revenge (pro-abortion terrorism) and cancel culture.  They are the same crowd that ate up as gospel the wild smears against Brett Kavanaugh.  The bias is everywhere in our institutions and now unsurprisingly could be corrupting this rendition of Tolkien’s Middle-earth in the second age.

See the source image
J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay

Or, conversely, it could be just a terrible misreading of the public’s desires from the top of the cultural pyramid above the clouds.  McKay and Payne may be doing it without awareness, mistakenly thinking that’s what the public wants.

Either way, we got an incoherent mess in this the first season.  The creation of Mordor was so off-the-wall that it could have been the product of an all-night LSD-laced bull session.  Tolkien’s Mordor was created by the evil super-spirit Melkor to be a land of volcanic activity.  Payne/McKay make it a product of the mechanical operation of turning a sword hilt like a key and voilà we have volcanic eruptions, bursting aquifers, and pyroclastic flows.  By the way, this pyroclastic flow doesn’t behave like a real pyroclastic flow.  Amazingly, magically, the hurricane of super-heated deadly gasses and fine ash doesn’t kill everyone in its path.  Galadriel, the queen of Numenor, and many others walk away as if they were only plastered with the dust from a shaken vacuum cleaner filter.  A pyroclastic flow buried Pompeii in AD 70. Talk to anyone who fled the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption.  Fantasy is riveting if it has some relationship to the real.  This falls into the category of laughingstock.

The speeches of the matriarchy are not, shall we say, awe-inspiring.  It’s not because they were made by women.  They are just simply stale.  Compare any of them to Margaret Thatcher’s refusal to bow to the pressure to compromise at the October 1980 conference of the British Conservative Party: “The Lady’s not for turning” (see below). Or, closer to home, Peter Jackson/Fran Walsh managed the stirring words for Aragorn at the Black Gate of Mordor in “The Return of the King” (see below), or Theoden’s rallying cry before the Rohirrim’s charge into the orc ranks in the Battle of Pelennor Fields (see below). They would steel the spine of anyone facing long odds. In comparison, the words of the Payne/McKay matriarchy are an insipid string of gibberish.

Then we have the disjunction of physical prowess and the natural female musculature and skeletal fragility of, say, the Aragorn with breasts, Galadriel.  There’s a reason why actors as diverse as Christian Bale to Chris Pratt to Michael B. Jordan bulk up.  It’s intuitive to match in some sense the physical action of a role with the appropriate appearance.  While it’s a stretch at times, it’s an easier visual sell.  But take Morfydd Clark’s Galadriel and her domineering physical antics alongside her frail muscle mass.  These are muscles that would have difficulty crushing a grape, let alone wielding a heavy sword to take down the mighty men of Numenor.  They’d be better casting a female MMA fighter for the role.  At least the gap between the action and her appearance would be lessened.  But better yet, reshape Galadriel’s character to fit Tolkien’s strengths for her.

See the source image
Morfydd Clark as Galadriel in The Rings of Power

Ludicrously beefing up the female roles was evident throughout, to the point of relegating the men to subsidiary positions in the story.  The Payne/McKay men are weak, petulant, or stubbornly wrongheaded.  All of a sudden, Tolkien’s mighty men of Numenor become . . . ? ? ? . . . .  One is left to wonder how they became so pivotal and deserving of great respect in the later trilogy.  Now, in the hands of Payne/McKay, the two sagas don’t relate in a basic sense.  What we have with the Rings of Power is something that appears to be an artifact of the present moment of millennials who were raised on identity politics and cultural reparations, warping everything to fit the manias of the present.  Some would say that this is a “woke” LOR and in many ways they would be right.

Even for the Harfoots (proto hobbits), while they have a male leader, it’s two teenage girls in the tribe who carry the action and wisdom of the group.  They dictate the clan’s thread in the story.  The males are limited to being sperm donors, objects of pity, and comic relief.

Women, women, girls, girls everywhere may be alright in another context, but it isn’t Tolkien.  Galadriel was strong in character, and according to Tolkien sparred with the boys, and had special gifts.  She is deserving of a prominent role in any production under the byline of Tolkien.  But Aragorn, or even Legolas, she is not.  Tolkien’s conception for her would parallel the English history of powerful monarchs like Elizabeth I.  Elizabeth was wily and shrewd, but not known for her swordplay with the Earl of Essex.  An adult Galadriel would use her feminine guile, wisdom, and special powers of foresight to command a situation.  Watching this production left me with the idea that this is Tolkien as the women of The View would have him.

We are not viewing Tolkien’s legendarium.  In the hands of Payne/McKay, it became another exercise in the modern fixation to turn women into boys with breasts.  No wonder transgenderism has gone viral and men seem to be settling into the role that Hollywood has assigned for them – as they are seemingly dropping out of the workforce, marriage, and college in substantial numbers.  Will I be watching any more of it?  Maybe.  I’d be interested in seeing how much further this thing descends into our modern cultural rabbit hole.

See the source image
The new man for our “enlightened” times

RogerG

Are We Getting Stupider?

See the source image
Students taking the ACT

Could be, I don’t know.  We fellow Boomers weren’t so smart.  We rebelled against self-restraint and got a world without self-restraint.  Now, a pleasant afternoon stroll in Denver or New York City will be through a smokey haze of people lighting up blunts amid the staccato bursts of drive-bys.

You can’t say that the times are the best for kids.  If we aren’t pummeling their future prospects with eco-nuttery and $31 trillion of debt, we are destroying their mental capacities under a barrage of toxic neo-Marxism and a campaign to turn teenage emotional instability into gender dysphoric mutilations.  Not only that, with all the cultural poison at their I-phone fingertips, we suffocate their leaning behind masks, plexiglass, social distancing and an end to in-person instruction under the threat of teacher union die-hards.  The results?  This is the most anti-child era in living memory, if not all time, and I haven’t got to the zealous push to abort them from conception to just before the slap on the back side after exiting the birth canal. Maybe after that too.  A few data points are illustrative.

Item #1: ACT Scores dropped to their lowest level in 30 years.  The ACT is a snapshot of the mental astuteness of this year’s incoming college freshman class.  The shamings, lockdowns, school closures, and kids living their lives in the glow of flat video screens have produced one of the most ill-prepared incoming classes of matriculants.  We did it to them under the pseudo-claims of “follow the science” and “experts”.  Progressivism’s blind faith in a professional-but-politicized class of bureaucrats led us straight into a dark hole, and an even darker and deeper one for our kids.

And once they get to the ivy-covered walls of state U, more stupidity awaits them.  Look at what our isolated hyper-wealthy in the isolation of their hyper-wealthy foundations consider “genius”, a “genius” that will flush through the lecture halls.  Item #2: the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation released this year’s 25 winners of their no-strings-attached “genius” cash awards ($800,000).  They’re left-wing activists.  They’re “geniuses” because of it.  Really.  I don’t know of any veterans of the Young Americans for Freedom or Federalist Society getting the phone call.

The winners check all the preferred boxes of today’s race/gender neurotics.  Two-thirds are women and 19 of the 25 were recruited from the so-called “marginalized”, all of the approved biases.  No Candice Owens or Winsome Sears (Virginia lt. gov.) types were obviously considered.  Somewhere, among the sanctified, you might find someone of the wrong genitalia and melanin count but still certainly, along with the rest, of the right ideological orientation.

See the source image
Patrisse Colours, Black Lives Matter co-founder and the picture of “intersectionality”, Black/female/Gay.

Patronizing mediocre artists (Amanda Williams) and a chattering class of whiners (Kiese Laymon, etc.) with the title of “genius” will degrade it like “real estate agent” after the collapse and serial fraud in the Florida Land boom in 1926.  “Genius” was applied to Reuben Jonathan Miller, U. of Chicago prof and peddler of the “mass incarceration” nonsense.  The crusade against “mass incarceration” means “mass decarceration” and is turning many of our neighborhoods into war zones.  Thanks “genius”.  How many more vapid treatments of anything “indigenous” do we need?  Robin Kimmerer serves up another one in “Braiding Sweetgrass”.  The more-in-tune-with-nature schtick is an attack on air conditioning, the family mini-van, and the single-family home.  This stuff is as old as the hippie commune and is as equally bankrupt.  And this makes her a “genius”?  The WaPo reporter tried to buck up Kimmerer’s status by writing that her book “has gone from surprise hit to juggernaut bestseller”.  No, only if “juggernaut” is 4,474 in Amazon’s rankings (paperback, 1,504 in Kindle, 3,313 in hardcover).

See the source image

See the source image
Robin Kimmerer

Are these our educational influencers?  These are only geniuses among people who are gullible enough to believe it.  As a teacher of 30 years and annually exposed to the blatherings of credentialed activists telling us how to teach, I’ve watched them wilt under even mild cross examination.  The phrase “empty suit” was tailored for this type.  Yes, they’re empty suits but now they’re also rich “geniuses”.  As for the kids, they’re languishing.

Watch Kmele Foster’s excellent observations on the decline in ACT scores, but don’t expect an $800,000 “genius” award for him coming from the MacArthurs.  Use the link below.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6313699523112

RogerG

Read more here:

* “ACT Test Scores Drop to Lowest in 30 Years Following School Closures”, Cheyanne Mumphrey, RealClear Politics, 10/13/2022, at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/act_test_scores_drop_to_lowest_in_30_years_following_school_closures_148318.html .

* “Meet the new MacArthur ‘genius grant’ winners”, Karen Heller, Washington Post, 10/12/2022, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/10/12/macarthur-genius-grant-fellows/ .

RogerG

Read more here:

* “ACT Test Scores Drop to Lowest in 30 Years Following School Closures”, Cheyanne Mumphrey, RealClear Politics, 10/13/2022, at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/act_test_scores_drop_to_lowest_in_30_years_following_school_closures_148318.html .

* “Meet the new MacArthur ‘genius grant’ winners”, Karen Heller, Washington Post, 10/12/2022, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/10/12/macarthur-genius-grant-fellows/ .

Rule By Arrogance

Have you caught this?  Melissa Fleming, U.N. under-secretary-general for global communications, at a recent World Economic Forum (WEF) panel on disinformation declared, “. . . we own the science and we think that the world should know it.”  Who’s the “we”?  They are the claque sitting atop our cultural commanding heights with their narrow-minded and nearly uniform biases.  This is a group who claim the privilege to announce the “science” not because the science says so but because they do (watch Fleming below).  On the law, it’s the same approach by the same isolated and mentally constrained practitioners in our law schools – forget about popular sovereignty, federalism, diversity of opinion by state, separation of powers, and even the rule of law.  It’s their way or the highway.  It’s the rule of arrogance by the same aggrandizing and increasingly undeserving few, not the rule of law or real science.

In that sense, it’s nihilism because this privileged and tiny cluster reject overarching and universal standards which could restrain their actions leaving their biases as the only guidance.  Thus, the whole mental state devolves into a naked exercise of power.  Reason, logic, morality, constitutional restraints, and the scientific method must bend to their will. It’s the will to power.  Ummm, where have we heard that before? (Hint: See Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” on the 1934 National Socialist rally at Nuremburg.)

Fleming goes on to extoll the collaboration of the U.N. with Google to suppress dissenting voices on climate-change orthodoxy as if the only views allowed are those in accord with their prejudice to force conformity to their lifestyle choices.  She goes on, “We partnered with Google. For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of U.N. resources.”  She was driven by surprise at the fact that there might be others who disagreed with her: “[We, U.N. officials, were] shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top.”  Distorted information?  Cut to the chase: Disagreeing with her and the Google boardroom and lunchroom is the equivalent of a thoughtcrime.

Bear in mind, I don’t think that there are too many climate scientists filling the ranks of Google or the UN’s communications department.  Fleming herself is a graduate of Oberlin College in German Studies and an MA in broadcast journalism, and a penchant for hobnobbing with transnational organizations.  For sure, she can rely on a gaggle of scientists corrupted by grants and government subsidies.  Meet the nest of Big Global Governance, Big Tech, Big NGO’s, Big Academia, and DC.  Remove the pretense and what you have is an end to scientific inquiry if it contradicts the approved dogmas.  Just label the insights of those with contrary views “distorted information”, then strip the nonconformists of their positions, tenure, and ability to publish and get notice.  Somewhere in a Google search you might find divergent outlooks from the little hivemind, but they’ll be relegated to page 10 and beyond.

Refuseniks in Stalin’s gulags would recount how Stalin “had the power to say what reality is”.  Their refusal to accept his omnipotence explains how they ended up as zeks (gulag inmates).  Right now, our cultural nomenklatura is content with vocational excommunication and muzzling opposition; though, don’t expect the current cultural junta to remain so “mild” in their punishments for straying from the party line.

The sight of refuseniks to the UN/Google’s grand vision produces the same conniptions in the law school professoriate when confronting originalists on the bench.  Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern in his piece “The Supreme Court Is Blowing Up Law School, Too: Inside the growing furor among professors who have had enough” (Oct. 2, 2022) describes a typical reaction:

“When the [Dobbs] decision came down, [UC–Berkeley School of Law professor Khiara Bridges] got a migraine for the first time in a decade.  The image of the court as a majestic guardian of liberty was, she concluded, ‘a complete lie.’”  Stern continues, “Now [Khiara Bridges] had to teach her students about the work of an institution that made her sick to contemplate. . ..”

See the source image

These people can’t handle disagreement . . . or maybe it will be tolerated only if the dissenters are ostracized and powerless. Like their ideological cousins in the Big Tech/UN cartel, debate and disagreement is beyond their cognition.  They’ve had a jolly good time for the past 70 years with the courts granting carte blanche to the regulation-happy wing of their movement, shunting orthodox Christianity out of public view, limiting legislation to the social preferences of libertine jurists, inventing rights, making eunuchs of state governments and centralizing power in DC, etc.  It was their glory days, but jurisprudence didn’t begin or end with Earl Warren and Roe v. Wade.  The past 70 years is a blip in history.

These boosters of the rule by judicial oligopoly were ecstatic when the black robes sided with them.  They thought it was the end of history.  But two recent decisions in particular incensed them: Citizens United (2010) and Dobbs (2022). The first stopped their power grab to curb political speech and the second resuscitated the states’ police powers which are guaranteed in the Constitution’s 10th Amendment.  No more can the Constitution be used to silence their political opponents (Citizens United) or prevent a state from responding to the will of its electorate to restrict the wanton destruction of the generations-to-be (Dobbs).  Now, the shoe is on the other foot and they’re having a nervous breakdown.

See the source image
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and British Columbia Premier John Horgan sign a climate agreement on Thursday Oct. 6, 2022 at the Presidio in San Francisco. (Photo: California Governor’s Office)

This statist priesthood exerts its control and influence from inner-city, academic, and bicoastal blue redoubts.  If you live under their sway, woe will befall you.  And it is only getting worse.  Heralding more troubled times ahead, doubling down on stupid, the governors of California, Oregon, Washington, and the premiere of Canada’s British Columbia inked an agreement to further impoverish their residents.  They promise to impose more greenie energy with its blackouts and escalating rates; more discomfort in herding their populations into impractical EV’s; and more public spending to accelerate the dystopia.  Arrogance reaches toxic levels when it is combined with idiocy.

RogerG

Read more here:

* “The Supreme Court Is Blowing Up Law School, Too: Inside the growing furor among professors who have had enough.”, Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, Oct. 2, 2022, at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-scotus-decisions-law-school-professors.html .

* A rebuttal to Stern: “The Emotional Meltdown in American Law Schools”, Dan McClaughlin, National Review Online, Oct. 4, 2022, at https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/10/the-emotional-meltdown-in-american-law-schools/ .

* Search Wikipedia for “Melissa Fleming” for her background.

* “West Coast leaders sign bold new climate agreement in San Francisco”, Edie Frederick, MSN/KCBS Radio San Francisco, Oct. 6, 2022, at https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/west-coast-leaders-sign-bold-new-climate-agreement-in-san-francisco/ar-AA12G1J4 .

 

“Fumes Never Smelled So Sweet”

See the source image

Michigan Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow enthused about receiving her new electric car (EV) by saying in a June 7 Senate hearing, “I got it [EV] and drove it from Michigan to here [Washington DC] this last weekend and went by every single gas station, and it didn’t matter how high it was.”  Adding, “And so I’m looking forward to the opportunity for us to move to vehicles that aren’t going to be dependent on the whims of the oil companies and the international markets.”  Well, the Wall Street Journal had eight of its reporters in four countries, most in the U.S., spend three weeks of their lives in reliance on an EV as their principal mode of personal transportation (watch below).  One main conclusion: Don’t underestimate the ability of partisan ideology to cloud a senator’s mature judgment.  Either that, or she’s lying.

Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan, speaks during a hearing in Washington, D.C., US, on Tuesday, June 7, 2022. 
Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan, speaks during a hearing in Washington, D.C., US, on Tuesday, June 7, 2022. (Photographer: Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Here’s some takeaways from WSJ’s experiment.  First, some of the people with power in the corporate boardroom are looney.  Take GM’s Rick Spina, VP of EV Infrastructure.  He details three reasons for the shift to EV’s in the industry: (1) “public opinion, public awareness of climate change”; (2) “there’s legislation around the world supporting the move”; and (3) “in the long run, electric vehicles are going to be cheaper to own and operate”.  Two of the three reasons are political, not empirical, in nature. The highly touted wave of climate change concern might show in opinion polls, but it hasn’t translated into a rush to the showroom to buy them.  Why?  They’re impractical . . . as you will see.

Spina’s claim of the supposed rise of “public awareness” in climate change ranks a fourth-place tie with health care behind the economy, immigration, and abortion in a recent University of Massachusetts Amherst survey.  And “awareness” doesn’t mean a broad public embrace of the EV as the solution.  The public is simply not buying them in sustainable numbers.  The climate change concern could just as easily translate into greater support for the increased use of natural gas and nuclear power than a willingness to pay a $10,000-$20,000 premium on a car of limited practicality.  GM is making a bet on something that isn’t a clean match with the so-called “awareness”.

#2 in his rationale is purely political.  Legislation is politics pure and simple. Politics has never been shown to bring the greatest good to the greatest number.  When politics becomes the arbiter to separate winners from losers, life quickly becomes a zero-sum game: some people win only at the expense of others.  Boat loads of subsidies, cash, capital, tax preferences, and punishments for making the politically incorrect decision deprive resources to other pleasant and more appealing alternatives.  The economic concepts of opportunity costs and tradeoffs explain the reality.  People are herded like cattle down the wrong chute, or the chute that they wouldn’t take voluntarily.  Free markets do that – operate on voluntarism, that is – but people like Stabenow and her colleagues want to substitute their judgment for ours.  The result is the Soviet world of central planning, queuing up, shortages, and junk nobody wants, and no amelioration of “climate change”.

The last of Spina’s justifications is based on hope, the wishful thinking that the things will be cheaper . . . in the future.  They might be more affordable if we sink enough government coercion and largesse into them, but remember, you’ll never realize the things that you gave up (after all, the government aborted them before they were allowed to be real) as gazillions are pumped into making the EV work.  It’s like taking one step forward and then three steps back in terms of prosperity.

Enough of Spina.  Back to the real world.  Notice the appearance of “range anxiety”, the worry that you’re running low on juice and may be stranded before you get to a charging station?  It’s much more than a shortage of charging stations.  It’s the whole technology.  More charging stations means more opportunities to wait hours.  It might mean spending a Michigan winter night in the car waiting for a station to free up and charge the batteries so you can get to safety.  Speaking of those outside temperatures below freezing, those lithium-ion batteries don’t like the cold.  They take even longer to charge.  And don’t forget, the batteries that power the wheels energize the heater element and blower to keep you and your kids from hypothermia.  More anxiety.  A 10-hour trip quickly became 30-hour one.

Which brings up another matter: “gaming” the technology to get more range out of it.  What does that mean?  You’ve got to turn off all systems to free up more power to the wheels making for an interesting experience driving from LA to Las Vegas in 100+ degree weather on Interstate 15, not to mention a winter drive up the MIchigan peninsula.  Range anxiety is instantly transformed into survival anxiety.

Another interesting aside is the identification of EV success with tyrannical regimes, like Red China, the only place with fewer complaints in the test.  It makes sense for a system whose stock-and-trade is social engineering.  The politburo can simply order an all-EV existence, no great surprise for a Big Brother regime controlling individual conscience, religion, massive surveillance of the population, and genocide, with a gargantuan secret police to make it all happen.  Pushing EV’s is small potatoes.  But still, if you watch closely, the air is filthy as an American auto exec in China is driven around Shanghai or Beijing.  The totalitarians may be shoving their people out of gas cars, but they aren’t so deluded as to think that windmills and solar panels will be sufficient to charge the all-electric things.  They are a prime customer for American coal.  Imagine, if you will, EV traffic jams in polluted air basins.  Has anything about climate really changed?

See the source image
Beijing in 2015

The WSJ report proved that the EV is almost purely an urban artifact.  They’re great for people who live their lives within the city limits running errands.  Get out on the open road and range and survival anxiety overhangs the excursion.  Plus, unsurprisingly, the published 250–300-mile range is a fantasy.  Due to weather and the use of the car’s other system’s such as cabin climate and entertainment, the purported range evaporates.  All of this doesn’t matter to a person whose idea of a road trip is to the airport.  The EV is a car for a strictly urban life.  Outside of that, life is riskier in it.

That’s why some participants in the test suggested a gas-powered car to supplement the EV.  So, in Stabenow’s version of the proper life, a one-car purchase is suddenly a two-car purchase.  For a family struggling to make ends meet in an existence crafted by Stabenow’s policies, a $40,000 compact EV requires an additional $30,000 fossil fuel sedan if the family wants to have a vacation and family visits beyond the city limits.  Maybe in the millionaires’ club called the U.S. Senate, living in domiciles with multi-car garages, having two SUV’s in both modes is pro forma.  For the rest of us reeling from inflation, crime, high taxes, rampant homelessness, skyrocketing housing costs, spikes in utility costs, poor schools, and transgenderism threatening to change the lives of our kids forever, an additional car purchase to make the first one practical is lunacy.

That’s why one of the reporters exclaimed in a sigh of relief after the test that “Fumes never smelled so sweet.”  First, watch the video if you’re inclined to heed the advice of Gavin Newsom.  Don’t say that you haven’t been warned.

RogerG

Read more here:

* “Michigan Democrat brags about driving expensive electric car to DC, avoiding gas stations amid historic prices”, Jessica Chasmar, Fox News, at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-democrat-electric-car-expensive-dc-gas-prices .

* “Poll: Economy, Immigration Top List of Most Important 2022 Election Issues”, Hannah Bleau, Breitbart, May 14, 2022, at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/14/poll-economy-immigration-top-list-of-most-important-2022-election-issues/ .

* “Running on Fumes”, Heather Wilhelm, National Review, Sept, 29, 2022, at fumes/https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/10/17/running-on-fumes/ .

* “Pollution prompts 2nd Beijing “red alert” in a month”, CBS News, Dec. 18, 2015, at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-second-smog-red-alert-beijing-air-pollution-in-month/ .