Monday, December 10, 2018

Wherefore Patriotism?

Apparently, patriotism has gone out of fashion in Silicon Valley. Why would Google cancel its work with the Pentagon but continue to work for China? Why would Google refuse to contribute to America’s national defense but happily pursue work that will allow the Chinese government to censor the internet.

Few politicians have spoken out about this contradiction. Of late, however, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford did. Zero Hedge has the story:

Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a speaking engagement Thursday that it was "inexplicable" that Google would seek out business in a country with vastly less freedoms than the United States.
Dunford argued:

We are the good guys and it’s inexplicable to me that we would make compromises in order to advance our business interests in China where we know that freedoms are restrained, where we know that China will take intellectual property from companies.

On two occasions Google refused to work for the Defense Department:

Dunford's words come at a time when Google has actually pulled out of prior Defense Department projects, including failing to renew a contract which helps the military analyze aerial drone imagery. The defense program, called Project Maven, set off controversy inside Google's ranks as employees refused to develop programs related to warfare and battlefield applications, citing ethical concerns.

Separately, Google announced earlier this year that it would not bid on a a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the DoD, citing the company's "new ethical guidelines" which bans weapons projects and provides ethical limitations for work on military A.I. And yet Google continues to work on internet tools that would allow China's Communist government to censor and crackdown on its citizens' online speech even while finding Pentagon related contracts too controversial.

The only real issue here is why more officials have not denounced Google. Where is Defense Secretary Mattis? Where is the White House? Where are members of Congress. One suspects that they are all afraid of Google.

It’s a sad state of affairs. America is not going to prevail in the clash of civilizations if its greatest corporations do not believe in it.

Will Liberal Democracy Prevail?

Civilizations are still clashing. Those who despise Donald Trump insist that they are defending liberal democracy… the same liberal democracy that gave them Donald Trump. And they insist that democracy will out over authoritarian capitalist systems, as in China.

It’s patriotic to root for the home team. And yet, the nations of the West have not yet prevailed over China. Besides, the Chinese are playing the long game… and their long game tells them that Western democracies are infected with terminal decadence, that free enterprise and free elections have descended into a free-for-all, that the media is more interested in propaganda than news, and that our nation, in particular, is tearing itself apart fighting thought crimes.

True enough, China has become more authoritarian of late, but one might imagine that the government has a reason-- however crazy it seems. That would be, to protect itself from the contagion of Western culture. Perhaps they recall that two decades ago more and more girls in Hong Kong, when exposed to saturation media coverage of a girl who starved herself to death, became anorexic. Later, nations around the world, influenced by American television shows, saw an epidemic of bulimia. Eating disorders had been rare in China until it was exposed to Western culture. The Chinese do not want decadence; they do not want an opioid epidemic; they do not want celebrity culture; they do not want multiculturalism; they do not want political correctness; they do not want a free for all.

In truth, we do not approve of the tactics, but the higher truth is that Western liberal democracies are not setting a very good example. If we want liberal democracy to prevail in the clash of civilizations, we must show it to be working. Niall Ferguson writes in the Times of London that these nations no longer seem to be working. We kowtow to the goddess of democracy and increasingly our votes count for next to nothing.

Ferguson explains the power of the vote:

You voted for Brexit? You ended up with Theresa May and now three options — her deal, no deal or some other deal (involving Norway), none of which has a majority in either the Commons or the country, implying another three options: another Tory leader, another referendum or another general election.

You voted for Donald Trump? You ended up with Nancy Pelosi back in charge of the House of Representatives and Robert Mueller rounding up the suspects.

You voted for Emmanuel Macron? You ended up with the gilets jaunes smashing up the Arc de Triomphe.

So, you voted for Donald Trump and you have been barraged with a tsunami of media talking heads calling for his impeachment, working assiduously to undermine, even to sabotage his administration. Tell me why that renews your faith in democracy.

Now, Ferguson offers the sobering insight that failure seems built into the system:

1) You can’t do anything about demographics, and for most democracies these are terrible.

2) You have inherited welfare states that transfer resources from younger to older voters, but the latter tend to be more numerous and turn out more in elections, so you can’t reform welfare and survive.

3) Your safety valve is that you can borrow from the bond market, and interest rates are very low, but that’s now changing and you can’t do anything about it because central banks are independent.

4) Your ageing population creates a demand for foreign labour and students, but immigration is politically unpopular, even when the immigrants come from northern Europe and genuinely ease skills shortages.

5) You might just be able to overcome these problems if there were a real external threat, but the truth is that ordinary people just aren’t that scared of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, much less Kim Jong-un.

6) As for climate change, ask Macron how his proposed fuel tax is going.

7) Finally, social media have made it almost impossible for you to control the narrative. You can tweet to your heart’s content, but you are firing a water pistol into an ocean of extreme views and fake news.

And let’s not forget the increasing number of undereducated migrants, many of whom are not exactly contributing to the common good.

Ferguson suggests that democracies could have learned from each other. They could have borrowed best practices from other democracies. Such would have been the intelligent way to do it. And yet, we have not:

It did not need to be this way. Democracies could have learnt from one another, copying and sharing the Swiss system of decentralised government, the New Zealand system of prudent public finance, Japanese healthcare, Canadian immigration, German energy efficiency and so on. Future historians will wonder why best practices did not spread in that way.

Perhaps they would have, if the brightest people in my generation had gone into politics rather than finance. Without quite meaning to, the bankers contrived to make one thing easier than it had ever been before: government borrowing. Vast global markets for government debt and interest rates at truly unprecedented lows — that was what enabled the political class to duck all difficult decisions, leaving the next generation to sort it out. Now the bankers wonder why their children are all socialists.

About that German energy efficiency, closing down all nuclear power plants does not seem like the best and most economical idea.

Ferguson does offer one important point. America’s brightest people do not go into politics. Take the example of the witless imbecile named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Our brightest people go into finance or high technology. So, we are led by a political class that is not very bright and not very capable. Nowadays, diversity seems to trump everything, even raw intelligence and competence. What good does it do anyone if we elect politicians on the grounds that they look like their constituents… when they cannot do the job.

Does it not strike you that Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May is simply not very bright and not very capable. She has botched the Brexit negotiations to a fare-thee-well.

On the other hand, arguably the brightest politician in the West today is French president Emmanuel Macron. How’s he been doing? Unfortunately, if you want to maintain your intellectual standing you must embrace the dogma of climate change… and carbon taxes.

If you walk away feeling optimistic about the future of democracy you’ve been smoking the wrong kind of cigarettes.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

She Married a Useless Slug

Among the many sad parts of this story is the fact that the woman needs to write to a newspaper advice columnist to get a straight answer to her problem. She has written to Carolyn Hax, and Hax has offered the best advice… even though it’s the most difficult course. We are facing a situation where there is no good solution... we are looking for the least bad solution.

The woman calls herself “Life Is Too Short.” She has been married for twenty-three years to a man who does not make a living, at all. This same man does nothing of consequence around the house. So, it’s a very modern role reversal relationship, the kind that ordinarily does not work. In her case it does not work at all. Because she is both breadwinner and homemaker and lead parent.

The couple has three small children, but we do not know how old the husband is or how old the wife is. We also do not know why the husband does nothing to contribute to the family coffers.

Naturally, LITS has consulted with a therapist. Apparently, the therapist has not offered anything resembling consequential advice… because both the therapist and LITS believe that it can all be dealt with by pasting a few diagnostic categories on the husband’s behavior and working to set boundaries… or some such thing.

Until Hax added her view, no one seems to have understood that the solution would be for husband to get a job… assuming that he can. Anyone who believes that this is all in his mind or her mind should get a new job.

Anyway, LITS writes:

I've heard "life is too short" a lot lately. It makes me think I've wasted significant time, energy and money in a 23-year relationship that has caused me so much pain and exhaustion.

My husband is difficult and controlling. Both tendencies come directly from his family: His mother is a controlling narcissist.

When I was younger, I thought I just needed to improve and that would relieve some of his anxiety, selfishness and control issues. It was not until I had children that his tendencies really caused me to question what I was doing.

We live close to his family, all of whom have — on several occasions in recent years — given me the silent treatment, called me names and generally caused me a lot of stress.

After therapy, I've been able to establish good boundaries with his family. And I've tried in many different ways to talk with my husband to make him understand what I am going through. Since his family is his norm, he doesn't fully comprehend.

He now has meltdowns on a weekly basis that include the silent treatment and sometimes name-calling. I respond calmly most of the time, because I just have to accept him for what he is, since he refuses to seek help. I have three small children and a household to care for — he helps out at home only when and if he feels like it, and usually nothing too taxing. I also am the sole provider for my household. So, I work full-time and have a full-time household with little support.

I may have the opportunity to move for my job. I think perhaps physical distance from his family might work. Does it ever help in these situations? It is the only thing I haven't reasonably tried.

— Life Is Too Short

Should she move for her job? Yes, she should. And, as Hax astutely points out, one thing she has not tried is… divorce. After all, her husband is a slug and she will need at some point or another to grasp that she made a grievous mistake. And yet, the mistake has produced three children… so, breaking up the family.

I find it especially puzzling that his family treats her so badly. Surely, there is more to that story.

We remark, in passing, that, all things considered, a divorce will likely require her to give her husband alimony, and that a settlement might contain restrictions about where she can and cannot move. Those issues will need to be worked out with a lawyer.

Hax responds correctly:

Life is too short? Maybe. I say life is too long to justify spending its duration with an apparently capable partner who doesn’t contribute emotional support, income or proportionate domestic effort — you don’t even mention love, anywhere — and who does contribute selfishness, stress, poor boundaries, a nasty family and weekly meltdowns/name-callings/silent treatments.

I’m glad you found therapy helpful, and I’m glad your boundaries with his family have held. But allow me to suggest that wasn’t a solution unto itself, but instead was Part 1 of a difficult but overdue long-life/short-life overhaul.

Please explore Part 2 in private consultation with a very good lawyer, and in therapy again, solo. (If he miraculously relents, then he goes solo, too.)...

But ask yourself: If you were your child, would you want to grow up in this home?

For my part I would advise her to stay away from therapy… she has already tried it. It failed. A goodly part of her problem is that she thinks that therapy can solve the problem. It can’t.

Let Them Eat Junk Food

You recall the Obama administration’s plan to force schoolchildren to eat healthy foods. If not, here is the Daily Mail description:

The 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was championed by Michelle Obama and became a rallying cry for her critics after it set school lunch maximums for calories, cut sodium and artery-clogging trans fat, and required more fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

You also recall that when schools started serving grass and twigs for lunch, children simply went on strike. They refused to eat the organic produce and the fat-free pasta. As a result, a massive amount of food was thrown away… enough to feed most the starving children in underdeveloped countries. The children were hungry and, to compensate they headed off to pizza parlors and McDonalds after school.

As for the results of the program, childhood obesity did not fall. It got worse, especially in the targeted minority communities.

The Daily Mail has the story:

Now, however, it appears that childhood obesity has been steadily climbing for both boys and girls since 1999, researchers report in Pediatrics.

More recently, there has also been a sharp increase in severe obesity among kids 2 to 5 years old.

'Obesity is not going away, and all kids are still at risk,' said lead author Asheley Cockrell Skinner of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

And also, from the journal Pediatrics:

A separate study in Pediatrics focused only on the 2.1 percent of children ages 2 to 5 with severe obesity and found these kids were more likely to be from racial or ethnic minority groups.

Compared with white children, Hispanic kids this age were more than twice as likely to be obese, and African American kids had 70 percent higher odds, this study found.
Young children also had at least twice the odds of obesity when they were poor or had parents who were single or had limited education. Children who weren’t breastfed were 50 percent more likely to be obese, the study also found.

Kids who were severely obese also had twice the odds of spending four or more hours a day in front of screens, compared to non-obese children.  

Yet again, we see the deleterious effects of having supposed experts implement policies designed to force people to behave the way the experts want them to behave. No one considered that a certain quantity of cholesterol is not necessarily a bad thing, or that children might choose not to eat the wholesome organic food they were being force fed. Because they, like must humans, do not like it when they are forced to do things they do not want to do.

Anyway, the program is now being rolled back by the Trump agriculture department:

President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday relaxed rules championed by former first lady Michelle Obama aimed at making U.S. school lunches healthier, a move that will affect institutions that feed 30 million children annually.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, delivering on a promise he made when he took office in May 2017, said schools under the current rules faced challenges serving meals that were both appetizing and nutritious.

'If kids are not eating what is being served, they are not benefiting, and food is being wasted,' Perdue said in a statement.

Yes, indeed, the children were not eating the food. So, the Trump administration, in clear defiance of the expertise of experts, is giving the children something they might want to eat.

Among them, refined grains. You may not know it but whole grains are so much more wholesome that we must force children to eat them, even if they do not want to. Now, refined grains are back, in pasta, pizza and tortillas:

Under the new rules introduced by the Trump administration, the U.S. school lunch program is making room on menus again for noodles, biscuits, tortillas and other foods made mostly of refined grains.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Thursday only half the grains served will need to be whole grains, a change it said will do away with the current bureaucracy of requiring schools to obtain special waivers to serve select refined grains foods.

And schools will now be able to serve chocolate milk… that notable artery clogger. In a compromise, the schools will only be allowed to serve low-fat chocolate milk:

Low-fat chocolate milk will also be allowed again.

Previously, only fat-free milk could be flavored, although that rule had also been temporarily waived.

A final goal for limiting sodium will be scrapped as well, but schools will still be required to meet reduced sodium targets.

Hasn’t there been a debate in the biochemistry field about whether butter and eggs are really responsible for coronary heart disease? Once upon a time everyone was giving up on butter and eggs, because experts recommended that they do so. Now, if I recall correctly, expert opinion has done an about-face, and allows these foods. Besides, what with all the whining about whole grains, organic vegetables and inorganic fruits, did anyone give any thought to the importance of protein for growing bodies?

The Daily Mail reports on the social media reaction:

Reaction on social media was divided. Some said that Michelle Obama's reforms did not succeed, while others say they were necessary.

'I had a salad bar in HS before the Michelle [sic] Obama's plan went mainstream! Our food literally turned to crap afterwards,' tweeted Hunter Mayberry.

'Yeah, reversing an initiative to make food more nutritious will definitely make the food taste better,' Kat Hamilton tweeted sarcastically.

'Oh thank God,' tweeted one Twitter user. 'If you want your kids to eat that "balanced" nonsense then you be a parent and make your kids lunch.

'It is more important to do physical education and get your kids off the tablets. Was never an issue til now. Why is that?'



Saturday, December 8, 2018

The Pronoun Wars

You might not pay it much mind, but the pronoun wars are alive and well. They began when feminists decided that it was bad to use generic masculine pronouns, as in, “the doctor and his patient,” or “the nurse and her patient.” Apparently, these pronouns were invented to oppress women and to keep them in subordinate positions in the medical professions.

So, in a first attempt to rectify the gender divisions, writers chose to replace generic masculine pronouns with the following: “the doctor and his or her patient,” or “the nurse and his or her patient.”

Of course, this is awkward… when it doesn’t sound stupid. In the interest of concision, culture warriors decided that in a feminized and womanified world, we should simply use the generic feminine pronoun. As in “the doctor and her patient,”  and “the nurse and her patient.” Admittedly the latter sounds a bit sexist, but people who are arrogant enough to think that they can control language are not going to bother.

Evidently, the generic feminine did not work very well. Simply put, the generic masculine pronoun includes women while the generically feminine pronoun excludes men. Using grammatically incorrect pronouns makes you sound like an idiot.

What to do?

Well, the great minds of political correctness decided that we must use the singular “they” in all sentences that suggest gender specificity. That gives us: “the doctor and their patient” and “the nurse and their patient.” Naturally, this makes you sound illiterate, but, hey, it’s worth the sacrifice to be politically correct.

How illiterate does this make you? Allow me to offer a sentence written by a fine writer. I understand that some of you do not like Andrew Sullivan’s writings, but, agree or disagree, he is a serious writer and a serious thinker.

Imagine my surprise when I ran across this paragraph in his new column about religion and politics. The "she" in the first sentence is New York’s senatorial embarrassment, Kirsten Gillibrand:

By 2015, she invited Emma Sulkowicz to the State of the Union, a person who alleged they had been raped at Columbia University, despite Columbia’s, the NYPD’s, and the district attorney general’s investigations ending without a finding of rape, indeed finding “a lack of reasonable suspicion.” On social media, Sulkowicz was known as “Mattress Girl,” carrying an extra-long twin around the campus to exemplify the burden they felt (Sulkowicz identifies as nonbinary) and to pressure Columbia into expelling her alleged rapist.

Did you notice how stupid it sounds: a person who alleges that “they” had been raped. Since the antecedent of "they" cannot be the singular person, the sentence has the person declaring that a group of people had been raped.

The second time that Sullivan indulges this grammatical error he adds that Emma Sulkowicz, known as “Mattress Girl” identifies herself as non-binary. She must also identify herself as non-singular, because she prefers the supposedly singular “they.” Why would she not opt for "it?" As for the "Mattress Girl" locution why haven’t all politically correct folk now changed it to Mattress Person or even Mattress Persons.

Accommodating the personal preferences and quasi-delusional beliefs of each individual you write about is obviously an impossible task. Asking each person what his or her or its pronoun preferences are is not economical. You will probably decide not to write about them at all.

Worse yet, if you tailor different pronouns to the personal preferences or even the heartfelt convictions of different individuals you are not speaking a human language. You are using the kinds of passwords that gain you entry into a cult, or even a speakeasy.

Since Sullivan’s article concerns the growth of political cults in the absence of religion, he would have done better to risk the wrath of Sulkowicz and to respect English grammar.

As you know, taxation without representation is tyranny. But, isn’t it also tyrannical to force people to speak a specialized language, to use code phrases that affirm membership in a cult, instead of teaching them to speak English?

Jewish Columnist Supports Palestinian Terrorism

Leading the useful idiots defending Islamist anti-Semitism is the highly challenged, weak thinker and weaker writer… Michelle Goldberg. I rarely comment on her screeds because I rarely read them. I don’t eat junk food either… for approximately the same reason.

Now, Goldberg marches out to defend Congressional Democratic Muslims like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar because, to her mind, Muslims have an Allah-given right to be anti-Semitic. The two incoming Congresspeople have expressed solidarity with the Boycott Divest Sanctions movement, movement that attempts to marginalize Israel and to make it cease to exist.

Of course, the dim-witted Goldberg thinks that it’s just about the human rights of the poor oppressed Palestinian people.

In her words, BDS:

... seeks to use economic pressure on Israel to secure Palestinian rights.

You see, the Palestinian people have been using terrorism for over seven decades in order to destroythe state of Israel. In the meantime they want to kill as many Jews as possible. War is war. You are on one side or the other. Goldberg’s mind has so thoroughly marinated in leftist propaganda that she comes down on the side of Palestinian terrorism.
Goldberg continues to explain BDS:

Further, the movement calls for the right of Palestinian refugees and millions of their descendants to return to Israel, which could end Israel as a majority-Jewish state.

With the exception of useful idiots like Goldberg  everyone understands that the so-called right of return means nothing more than the destruction of Israel. About that, Goldberg does not seem to care. What really matters to her is human rights, even though the slogan is merely used by Palestinians to sucker Western radical leftists like Goldberg. Does anyone imagine that any Jew would have any rights in a new Palestine? If Goldberg thinks they would, she should move to Gaza.

By her reasoning the anti-Zionism of the Congressional supporters of the BDS movement is not of a piece with anti-Semitism. The connection has long been established and is well known. Jews founded and built the state of Israel for the Jewish people… to ensure that Jews always had a homeland and to ensure that Jews could defend themselves. So explained Prime Minister Netanyahu to a joint session of Congress, session that was boycotted by significant parts of the Democratic caucus. All Zionists are Jews. Hating Zionists is merely a convenient way to hate Jews.

Like many other leftist American Jews Goldberg is sorely discommoded over the fact that Israel does not always live up to her conception of the ideal state. She would do better to keep such thoughts to herself. When a nation is at war it needs to do what is necessary to win the war. Winning the mind of Michelle Goldberg is probably a lost cause anyway.

We are not surprised to discover that Goldberg never suggests that the Palestinian people have been suffering the dereliction of their leaders’ inability to accept the right of Israel to exist. And that the Palestinian campaign of terror against Israel, a remnant of the Nazi attempt to exterminate Jews, can only be countered with a ruthless and relentless counterforce.

Like the good stooge that she is Goldberg blames it all on Israel. Not a word about terrorism. Not a word about an unwillingness to recognize Israel:

Now, however, Israel has foreclosed the possibility of two states, relentlessly expanding into the West Bank and signaling to the world that the Palestinians will never have a capital in East Jerusalem. As long as the de facto policy of the Israeli government is that there should be only one state in historic Palestine, it’s unreasonable to regard Palestinian demands for equal rights in that state as anti-Semitic. If the Israeli government is going to treat a Palestinian state as a ridiculous pipe dream, the rest of us can’t act as if such a state is the only legitimate goal of Palestinian activism.

In other words, Palestinians have a right to do whatever they want to undermine and ultimately to destroy Israel. So, we have a New York Times columnist supporting terrorism against Israel.

You see, Goldberg believes in fundamental values. In order to support such values she sides with people who have devoted their lives to killing Jews. Naturally, she blames it all on the Trump administration. You would think that she is working for the Palestinians, so adept is she at mouthing their propaganda.

If you can’t think straight, why not take it to its most absurd extreme… and hope that no one will notice.


Friday, December 7, 2018

Climate Change Fanatics

You cannot turn on the news without being subjected to the shrieks and howls of climate change fanatics. Their apocalyptic message: The End is Nigh. Repent before it’s too late.

OK, not quite in those terms, but it’s the same discourse. They are telling us that we must feel paroxysms of guilt over what we have done to the environment, how our industrialism has destroyed the pure and holy natural world. Think of the number of bacteria we have ruthlessly destroyed. Think of the damage to health that is being done by industrial sanitation.

Climate change alarmists never think in those terms. If human lifespan has increased significantly since the advent of industrialization, they do not care. They imagine that we are all going to pay a price, that all of humanity is going to be destroyed by global warming, global cooling or the next Ice Age. They might not be able to make up their minds, but they have seen the future and the future, they insist, is a nightmare.

Of course, let’s not forget, if you refuse to accept this prophetic vision,  you are a bigot and a Holocaust denier.

In his commentary about the French uprising against a diesel fuel tax Bret Stephens offers a sobering counterpoint. He asks us to weigh the cost of all the schemes proposed by climate change zealots. Clearly, when French president Macron imposed his new tax he did not consider the effect it would have on people who drive diesel-powered vehicles. And Macron is a brilliant politician.

Of course, if the world is about to end, why would you consider the price paid by the citizenry?

As you know, Macron had a change of heart and rescinded the tax. Stephens explains the context:

Emmanuel Macron’s government was forced this week to suspend a planned 6.5-cent-per-liter tax increase on diesel and 2.9 cents on gasoline — collected for the purpose of speeding France’s transition to renewables — after weeks of protests and violent rioting throughout the country. French consumers already pay more than $6 for a gallon of gas, compared to a current national average of $2.44 in the U.S.

That’s in a country where unemployment is 9.1 percent, the median monthly disposable income is $1,930, and economic growth has lagged for decades. “To the protesters,” wrote Adam Nossiter, The Times’s correspondent in Paris, “Mr. Macron is concerned about the end of the world, while they are worried about the end of the month.”

Hmm … a glimmer of reason enters the fray.

The prevailing apocalyptic narrative tells us that no one has the political courage to stop climate change-- as though we humans control the climate. Stephens throws some shade on that idea:

So much, also, for the fantasy that our main climate challenge is that nobody in power has the spine to do something about it. The real problem is that so far most of those somethings haven’t worked, or won’t work, or won’t work anytime soon, or come at too exorbitant a price.

Among the dazzling solutions proposed by activists are these:

Biofuels? They turned out to be an epic environmental and economic disaster, never mind that so-called climate hawks like Nancy Pelosibacked them for years. Massive government subsidies for wind and solar power? No country has invested more than Germany — an estimated $580 billion by 2025 — yet it will still miss its 2020 carbon emissions goals while energy prices have soared.

The Paris Climate Accord? The website Climateactiontracker.org finds that every nation it tracks save for Morocco and Gambia is falling short of its Paris commitments. Reducing the role of coal in energy markets? In India and China, which account for more than one-third of the world’s population, things are moving in precisely the opposite direction.

Carbon sequestration? Maybe, but it will likely be decades before the technology is likely to be widely adopted. Long-term battery storage? This is the holy grail of renewable energy because it would solve the intermittency problem of wind and solar power. But like the holy grail, it’s notoriously dangerous to those in its quest, with companies that pursue it having a bad habit of going bankrupt.

One thing that might help is: nuclear power. Naturally, the climate change fanatics are against nuclear power. Angela Merkel has been shutting it down in Germany. In France, where most of the nation’s electricity has been generated by nuclear power plants, the nation is moving away from it. And they have been moving away from natural gas, one fuel that does not pollute and that has done wonders for the American climate. Now you understand why they believe that they have superior intelligence:

Which brings me back to France. For years, the French had an advantage when it came to climate change, since they get about 75 percent of their electricity from nuclear power. In 2015 they passed a law to cut it to 50 percent. Two years later, they decided to phase out all oil and gas exploration by 2040, never mind that the natural-gas boom has been essential to America’s transition away from coal.

Funny thing, when your belief system comes from the Book of Revelation, when you burn with righteous fury at those who do not accept your beliefs, when you believe that prophecy is fact, you are likely to do stupid things… and  you are equally likely not to care:

But a long history of climate policy failures might also cause climate activists and the politicians they support to be more humble about their convictions, more sensitive to the human effects of their policy, and more willing to listen to criticism.