Last One For Today, I Promise

 https://x.com/shellenberger/status/2038609325124354205?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "The Hormuz crisis is the precipitating factor in the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is too little oil and gas production outside the Persian Gulf. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. North America — The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. — The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. — The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. — In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions. — In January 2024, the Biden administration paused all pending approvals for LNG export terminals shipping to non-free-trade-agreement countries, freezing projects representing tens of billions of cubic feet per day of potential capacity. — Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, designed for 20 million tonnes per annum, sat in regulatory limbo for over a year. — NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG in Texas, with 48 MTPA of planned capacity, stalled alongside it. — PTT Global Chemical’s proposed $10 billion ethane cracker in Belmont County, Ohio, first announced in 2015, remains on indefinite hold after failing to attract financing partners amid climate-driven investor sentiment. — Across the US Gulf Coast, nearly 60% of planned plastic and petrochemical production projects sit on hold. — LNG Canada, the Shell-led terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia, took over six years from construction start to first cargo, with its pipeline running 263% over budget. Environmental review, Indigenous disputes, and contractor cost escalation all contributed. — Pieridae Energy’s Goldboro LNG project in Nova Scotia, a 10 MTPA facility first proposed in 2012, was abandoned in November 2023 after more than a decade of permitting and financing obstacles. Australia — Australia’s Santos’s Barossa gas project was halted midway through construction after a Federal Court ruling overturned its environmental approval. — Woodside’s Scarborough project faces ongoing litigation from the Australian Conservation Foundation seeking to block it on climate grounds. Africa — Perhaps nowhere has the damage been more consequential than in Africa. At COP26 in 2021, wealthy nations pledged to halt overseas development finance for gas projects, a commitment that fell hardest on the continent least responsible for climate change and most in need of energy infrastructure. — The World Bank stopped financing oil and gas extraction in 2019 and imposed restrictive conditions on downstream gas projects. — The European Investment Bank announced a complete ban on unabated fossil fuel financing by the end of 2021, with its president declaring that “gas is over.” — At least 21 other development finance institutions followed suit. As a result: — TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project sat under force majeure for four and a half years after the UK Export Credit Agency and other backers withdrew climate-motivated financing. — The East African Crude Oil Pipeline lost financing commitments from more than 30 major international banks under pressure from climatists. Europe — France prevented the completion of a third gas interconnector with Spain, citing climate neutrality goals. — The United Kingdom imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2019 despite sitting atop one of Europe’s most promising shale gas formations. — Germany, which shuttered its last three nuclear plants in April 2023, compounded its gas dependency by refusing to develop domestic shale resources. — CF Industries permanently shut the UK’s largest ammonia plant at Billingham, a facility that also produced 60% of Britain’s food-grade CO2. — Yara International curtailed output across plants in France, Italy, and Belgium before permanently closing its 400,000 tonne per year ammonia facility at Tertre, Belgium, in October 2024. These closures occurred because European climate policy made gas too expensive for the domestic industry to survive."

This Is Pretty Much What We Are Seeing Today

 https://x.com/nancyrpearcey/status/2038668554740892058?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 Why the ancient Romans persecuted the early Christians: "In New Testament times, the Greeks had a term for the underlying principle that unifies the world into an orderly cosmos, as opposed to randomness and chaos. They called it the Logos. The Stoic philosophers conceived it as a pantheistic mind pervading the universe. But the apostle John applied the term to Christ. “In the beginning was the Word”—Logos (John 1:1). Every Greek who heard John’s gospel understood that he was claiming that Christ himself is the source of the order and coherence of the universe. As Paul put it, “in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). Creation has a rational, intelligible order that reflects God’s creative plan. 

  From the beginning, however, this New Testament concept of truth came under fire. The Roman Empire did not regard religion as the search for truth about reality. That was the province of philosophers, not priests. The Romans defined religion solely in terms of ritual, ceremony, and cult practices. The empire was perfectly willing to accept Christianity if it would take its place as just another set of religious practices. What the empire would not accept, says Catholic theologian Lorenzo Albacete, was Christianity “as a source of truth about this world.” How did the early church respond? It resolutely refused to reduce Christianity to Rome’s relativistic definition of religion. As Albacete writes, Christianity “would not accept a place with the religions of the empire” as merely another set of rituals and practices. It “saw itself as a philosophy, as a path to knowledge about reality, and not primarily as a source of spiritual or ethical inspiration.” The message of Christ’s resurrection—in a physical body, in historical time—did not allow for any dualism that shoved religion off into a separate sphere of life concerned only with spiritual rules and rituals. The early church insisted that biblical truth is a comprehensive unity, encompassing the realms of both priest and philosopher. Truth is a unified whole."

To Be Wrong Or Not Wrong, That Is The Question

 https://x.com/mamacita4life2/status/2038649157595046152?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

She's not wrong.

 https://x.com/sfliberty/status/2038763477511106596?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Also not wrong. 

 https://x.com/pitiklinov/status/2038726519627854284?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Philosophers Daniel Kodsi and John Maier argue that many of the most absurd and destructive phenomena of our time—from gender ideology, cancel culture, DEI, COVID lockdowns, net zero, the abolition of police and prisons, to the obsession with “including” at all costs—share a common cause: an intellectual vice they have termed “exceptionalism.” What is “exceptionalism”? Exceptionalism is the pathological tendency to make too many exceptions to well-founded rules, principles, and generalizations, based on isolated cases, emotional anecdotes, or particular desires. Instead of maintaining simple and solid principles, the exceptionalist excessively complicates ideas to accommodate any anomaly, exception, or special case that matters to them. This produces over-complicated, fragile, and often absurd theories. The authors compare it to the scientific problem known as “overfitting”: when a model fits so closely to noisy or erroneous data that it loses predictive power and becomes useless. The exceptionalist believes that there are certain people or things to which normal rules do not apply. Moreover, when they stop to reflect, they often end up denying that those rules are rules at all, precisely because they do not account for the exceptions they demand for their protected or special categories. There are two types of exceptionalists: -The single-minded one: They obsess over a single cause or protected group and subordinate everything else to it (example: “minimize Covid deaths at any cost”). -The indiscriminate one: They see exceptions everywhere and constantly complicate everything (typical of woke activists, journalists, and people “chronically online”). And what examples do the authors give of exceptionalism, or how do they apply it? Here are a few: -Gender ideology: Rejecting the simple biological definition of “woman” (adult human female) to accommodate rare cases or subjective feelings, creating extremely complex and contradictory theories. -Covid lockdowns: Prioritizing only coronavirus deaths and ignoring all other harms (mental health, education, economy, isolation of the elderly, etc.). -Cancel culture and restrictions on academic freedom: Freedom of expression becomes “yes, but…” with infinite exceptions to avoid offending certain groups. -DEI and diversity policies: Sacrificing meritocratic standards and objective educational goals to accommodate “inclusion” targets. -Net Zero and climate policies: A single goal (zero emissions) is imposed even if it brings disproportionate costs to other aspects of life. -Police and prison abolitionism: Ignoring that most crimes are committed by repeat offenders and proposing complex solutions instead of the simple and effective one. -Art and culture: Subordinating aesthetic quality and entertainment to political and social justice goals. In summary, many modern absurdities (according to these two philosophers) share a common root: instead of maintaining clear and general principles, people obsess over exceptions, anecdotes, and special cases, complicating everything until it becomes absurd. The authors call this “exceptionalism” and see it as the true intellectual problem of our time."

Also not wrong.  

 https://x.com/drewhutton45645/status/2038719633449214096?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" It is about time those of us in progressive politics owned up to our failures. ·       We argued for social justice for all and ended up arguing it should only be for a favoured few identity groups. ·       We argued for women’s rights and ended up arguing men could be women and could occupy women’s spaces. ·       We argued for same-sex marriage and ended up with saying there are no sex-based rights. ·       We argued for renewable energy and ended up allowing giant, multinational energy companies to bulldoze thousands of hectares of our precious, high biodiversity forests for wind farms. ·       We argued for free speech and ended up by practising cancel culture. ·       We argued for multiculturalism and ended up believing that criticism of the practices of a minority culture is, necessarily, racism. ·       We argued that imperialism should be combated and ended up believing only US imperialism causes authoritarianism and repression."

No wrong detected. 

 https://x.com/cynicalpublius/status/2038660940426879460?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/chrismartzwx/status/2038440523564781818?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

In the case of how stupid the woman is, still not wrong. 

 https://x.com/toscaausten/status/2038643533096137024?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

OK, the woman in the attached video is wrong.

 https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2038030980003324173?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Shilling for communism, also wrong. 

 https://x.com/danburmawy/status/2038714670303912190?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "When I say “Judeo-Christian values,” I mean the backbone of Western civilization. In the Judeo-Christian framework, your worth is not contingent on race, tribe, ability, utility, or social status. You are not valuable because the state says so, or because you’ve achieved something impressive, or because you’ve aligned with the right political movement. You are valuable because you were made in the image of God. Period. That’s a claim with legal, social, and philosophical consequences. Strip that away, and you are left with humanist relativism? Then you’re only as valuable as your usefulness. Your dignity is conditional. Your rights are negotiable. And your identity means nothing unless the mob, or the regime, says it does. Without Judeo-Christian foundations, there is no unalienable human dignity. There is only hierarchy, utility, and power. You’re not better than a rat unless you belong to the dominant group, or unless you’ve earned your worth through performance. The Western judicial system, equal protection, due process, innocence until proven guilty, was built on the belief that every human being stands equal before a higher moral authority. That’s not a product of secular enlightenment. That’s the fruit of centuries of biblical soil. Freedom of conscience, the right to dissent, to question, to protest, to speak your mind, to grow, these didn’t emerge in societies shaped by Islam or atheism or Marxism. They emerged where the individual was seen as accountable to God alone. You may not believe in God. Fine. But if you enjoy the freedom to say that publicly without being jailed or executed, you can thank the Judeo-Christian worldview."

Back to not wrong. 

 https://x.com/Austen/status/2037993939165233265

 https://x.com/johnamonaco/status/2038392136480301346?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "People do not realize how significant this was. Everyone was locked inside. Basketball courts were filled with sand, the netting of the hoops cut. Weddings were postponed. You were prevented from attending the funeral of a loved one. Restaurants lost business and turned into takeout stations. Grocery stores had those 6 feet markers for “social distancing”. You couldn’t attend classes, but instead had to log on Zoom. And then, suddenly, the rules shifted for a certain group. After George Floyd died, hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest “systemic racism” and “police brutality”. “Surely,” you thought, “the medical establishment will sympathize with their cause but reinforce the lockdown rules.” Except, they didn’t. “BLM protests are justified because racism is also a pandemic” “White supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19” (University of Washington, 6/2/20) “Racism is an ongoing public health crisis that needs our attention now!" (American Public Health Association, 5/29/20) Immediately, every rational person became aware of how the COVID-19 response was a charade. We were lied to. It was an utter and complete power grab by a global elite, and too many were all too keen to bend the knee. After the 2020 “Summer of Love”, it seemed as if the Overton window shifted. Not only was DEI unfair, it was considered ridiculous. Posts about people ransacking Targets and Walmarts were explicitly calling out the race of the perpetrators. Folks like Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and other talking heads became bolder in going beyond the “principled Republican” conservatism. When COVID first hit, I more or less believed the mainstream narrative. While, from the start, I vehemently opposed the Church’s suspending of public worship and access to the sacraments, I still wore my mask & kept my 6 feet social distance. I had 10 people at my wedding. I couldn’t attend the funeral of a loved one. But I nonetheless complied with the mandates and trusted in public health officials. After the post-Floyd BLM protests, however, everything changed. The medical establishment will never realize just how much public trust was burned by their allegiance to The Current Thing. The idea that “racism” somehow justified 80,000 people marching shoulder-to-shoulder through streets of Philadelphia during a “pandemic”, but that 8 people couldn’t attend a funeral for their grandmother due to a need to “stop the spread”, radicalized me to distrust the entire medical establishment. I feel like we all moved on way too quickly from holding these charlatans accountable for the bio-tyranny they inflicted upon the world. COVID-19 felt like a bad dream, but it was the BLM riot justification that woke me up."

Not wrong.  

 https://x.com/magamahacindy/status/2038701879476011503?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

More not wrong.  

 

I Really Like This Guy

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2038728914189578448?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" THE FLAG THEY BURNED AND THE ONES WHO BLED FOR IT I cried doing the research for this. Only tears that a combat veteran would not be ashamed of. More than once. I am not embarrassed to say that. I am a science teacher and a medically retired Army combat medic with 23 years of service. I have held men together who were coming apart in ways that would make most people close their eyes and look away. I have been in places and made decisions that follow me into rooms where I am supposed to feel safe. I do not cry easily. But I cried writing this. And I think that is exactly as it should be. Because if you do the research — if you really sit inside these stories and not just skim the surface of them — and you feel nothing, one of us is broken. I am fairly confident it is not me. So. Let us talk about a flag. And what it actually costs. — The Decision Nobody Talks About — There is a decision that combat medics make that nobody talks about at the dinner table. You do not read about it in the news. Politicians do not bring it up in speeches. But every combat medic who has ever worked a mass casualty event knows exactly what I am talking about. And most of us spend the rest of our lives carrying it in a place that does not have a name. You are at my CCP. The world is loud and wrong and smells like things that should not have a smell. My hands are already doing the assessment before my brain has fully caught up — fast, mechanical, exactly the way they trained me. I go down the line. One man. Serious wound. Survivable — IF I start right now, right here, and I do not stop. I KNOW I can save him. I have the training. I have the supplies. My hands already know what to do. But there are two more. And they are also dying, but each one not as bad, not as time consuming. If I stay with him, my friend, my Brother, the other two are gone. If I move on, he is gone. The math is the math. Save my friend or save two of my Bothers. It does not care what I feel. It does not care that he has a name, he is my friend, that I know the name of his wife… his kids… that I have talked to his family on the Satellite Phone. It does not care that somewhere there is a woman who said goodbye to him at an airport and is going to get a knock on her door that will divide her life into a before and an after. I move on. He dies. And two more live from his sacrifice… from my sacrifice. And I live with that. Not because I did something wrong. Because I did something RIGHT. I did it by the books! And the books saved two when only one would have lived. Because the math said two lives outweigh one and I had the composure to do the math in the worst moment a human being can be asked to do math. I replay it… again… and again… and again. Every quiet room. Every night that runs too long. I replay it and I come to the same answer every time and it does not help. At all. I am a medic, and that is my job, to save the most I can and let the rest be a sacrifice for the survivors, for if I tried to save them all, all of them would have perished. There are rules of being a combat medic, even if not written, we know them… Rule 1: Good People Will Die Rule 2: Doc Can't Save Everyone Rule 3: Doc Will Go Through Hell to Break Rules 1 & 2 This is the curse of a combat medic. To be the Attorney of the fallen, to plead to God for one more day, one more chance, one more evac to the next level of care… but I can only have so many clients in the same hour. I have made that call. I live with it… some days better than others. I was still in country but imagined I stood at the grave of the man I chose not to save. I have watched the honor guard carry his flag-draped casket with the kind of precision that only exists when it is the last thing you can give someone. I have watched his widow receive that folded triangle. I have stood there knowing — KNOWING — that the flag on that box passed directly over a hole in the ground where a decision I made was to allow him, someone I could have saved on a normal day, to die, because this was no normal day, and instead chose two of his brothers to litigate for their survival. Two for the cost of a friend. Math and emotion know no wars. So when I tell you the flag is not a piece of cloth, understand where that is coming from. — The Funerals — I need you to sit here for a minute. Not scroll. Sit with it. There is a protocol called the transfer of remains. A military casket comes off a plane. The flag is on it — not a crease out of alignment, not a single imperfection anywhere — because this is the last thing the military can give him, and it is going to be given perfectly. It does not matter if you are in a war zone or you are state side. When these service members get transferred, everything stops. Planes are not loaded, buses stop, mission prep stops. Every service member is halted in respect, even for a single casket with a flag draped on top. This is what defense of the flag with one’s live mean on a FOB. We all make a moment of silence in respect for the Brother or Sister who sacrificed their life for the flag and their country. They make it home, and we still carry on the fight for them. The honor guard moves with a precision that does not exist anywhere else in civilian life. Every step deliberate. Every motion exact. Because the ceremony is not for show. It is the nation saying — through the rigid, unwavering discipline of its ritual — WE KNOW WHAT THIS PERSON GAVE. We know. And we will not let them go without being witnessed. Twenty-one guns. Three volleys. The sound goes into the trees and comes back wrong. Every combat veteran in the crowd flinches at the first one and tries not to show it. Some of them do not succeed. That is not weakness. That is the body remembering something the brain is still trying to process. And then Taps. Twenty-four notes. Played at American military gravesides since the Civil War. If you have never stood at one of those funerals and felt those twenty-four notes hit you somewhere behind your sternum — and refuse to leave, days later — then you have not yet felt what I am trying to describe. I do not say that to be unkind. I say it because it is true. Those notes go somewhere in the body of a person who has served, and they do not come out. The flag is folded. Thirteen folds. A tight triangle of blue and stars. A soldier kneels. On behalf of the President of the United States, the United States Armed Forces, and a grateful nation, please accept this flag as a symbol of our appreciation for your loved one's honorable and faithful service. She takes it. She might be nineteen. She might have a child on her hip and another one coming she has not told anyone about yet because she was waiting to tell him first. She might be holding herself together by something that has no name in any language and no equivalent in any civilian experience. She holds it on the way home. She puts it somewhere she can see it. And on the nights when the house is too quiet and the chair at the dinner table is a wound that does not close and the world has moved on in a way that feels like a personal cruelty — she looks at that folded triangle. THAT flag. The one in her hands right now. THAT is what you are burning. — The Bill — Here is what I am proposing. Read the whole thing before you react. There is a serious constitutional argument underneath it and I have thought about it carefully. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990) that burning the American flag is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment. I agree with this ruling, surprisingly. But not as you may thing. I have fought for your freedom of speech, my brothers and sisters have dies to protect this freedom of speech, from the government! HOWEVER. Every person who has put on the uniform of the United States Armed Forces has taken an oath. Not to a president. Not to a party. Not to any political figure alive or dead. To the CONSTITUTION — and the flag of the United States is that symbol that stands against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is on our shoulder when we go to war. It flies over bases, FOBs, COPs in every foreign land that troops are stationed. That oath does not come with an expiration date. Ask any veteran you know. It lives in the body long after the uniform comes off. So here is the First Amendment tension that nobody in Washington is addressing: If a person has the constitutional right to burn the flag as protected symbolic expression, and a service member has a sworn constitutional oath to defend that symbol of the constitution… our flag — an oath made under legal penalty, governing their entire adult lives, sending them to the places where they watched flags draped over their brothers — then THAT SERVICE MEMBER is also engaged in a constitutionally grounded act when they place themselves between a flame and that flag. Both parties are exercising rights derived from the same founding document. The flag burner invokes the First Amendment. The veteran invokes the oath that made the First Amendment possible in the first place. My proposed bill is this: any person who has taken the military oath of enlistment or commissioning, with documented service in the United States Armed Forces, regardless if they served in a combat zone or personally witnessed the flag draped over the remains of a fellow service member — that person is legally protected from civil and criminal liability for ANY physical action taken to prevent the burning of an American flag in a public setting. As the poem says “Now there's but one shot in this old gun, So now it's time to decide which one, Which one of you will follow our lead, To stand and die for what you believe?” I put my life on the line knowing that I may be in a box draped by that flag. It is time for the people who want to exercise their freedom of speech to have that very same honor, to stand up and die for what they believe in. No arrest. No lawsuit. No criminal record. Because if you want to exercise your First Amendment right to burn the symbol of a country that my brothers died for — the symbol that came off the plane on their caskets, the symbol their widows are holding right now in quiet houses — you are now standing in a crowd where at least one person has sworn, under oath, before God, that they would defend it. You have the right to burn it. I… WE… have the right to stop you, by any means per our oath and to defend what our brothers and sisters would do if they were still alive. By any means! I am not the government as much as you are. The Government is not restricting your freedom of speech, I am fulfilling my oath, as in individual! I am embracing my freedom of speech, No, I am embracing the freedom of speech for all of my brothers who have died in service of this country since 1776, for my fallen brethren by destroying anyone who are willing to burn their casket covering. That is not a contradiction. That is the First Amendment working exactly the way the Founders intended — two competing rights, both rooted in the Constitution, working themselves out in the public square without the government pre-deciding which one wins. — What I Need You to Understand — The reason I cried researching this — and I said it at the beginning and I will say it again because I refuse to be embarrassed by the truth — is the accumulation of it all. The medic's calculation. Two lives for the cost of one. Math that does not care about names. The twenty-four notes that do not leave. The widow who does not let go of the triangle. The flag is not the cloth. The flag is the CHOICE. The choice to stand when everything says run. To hold on when everything says let go. To put your body between what you love and what is trying to destroy it. THAT is what the anthem is about. THAT is what the twenty-four notes are about. THAT is what every flag on every casket is about. You want to burn it, bring your lighter. Put your life on the line to burn that flag. I dare you! With this law, you have the freedom to burn the flag… but I will protect the flag with my life as I have done for the last 23 years, and I do not think you are ready to protect your right to burn it with the same vigor and sacrifice, for I will protect it to MY DEATH… so good luck! But I want the man in that crowd who folded that flag for a widow he never met — who stood at attention for someone else's husband, dry-eyed and straight-backed because she needed him to be — to have the legal right to stand between you and that flame without being handcuffed for it. He already spent years doing exactly that. The least we can do is make sure we do not arrest him for doing it one more time. But what do I know — I am only a medically retired Army combat medic who has made the calculation you can never take back, who has watched a flag-draped casket pass over a hole in the ground where a decision of mine is buried alongside a man I could have saved on any other day, who has placed a folded triangle into hands that shook in a way I still see in the quiet rooms, and who has enough respect for every one of them to refuse to let their symbol go without saying something. Share this if you have ever stood at a graveside while those twenty-four notes told you something words never could. Share if you support our Flag and the ones who died and where covered by it to protect the rights of those who burn it."

BOT

 https://x.com/jenvanlaar/status/2042710790919327920

Obviously Swalwell needed to drop out of the CA governor's race, and he should already have resigned from his current post.  What's interesting is that the evidence is, as noted, much more robust than Christine Blasey Ford, but that the outcry is more muted.  It's obvious that the governor's race withdrawal  is more about making sure that at least one DFL candidate gets into the runoff than any actual moral outrage.  

 https://x.com/zagrebbi/status/2042599995174445233?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "The New York Times reports that 12 of the ~1500 January 6 rioters have reoffended in about a year's time—calling it a "crime spree". The recidivism rate of the J6ers is 0.8%. The average 1 year US re-arrest rate, by contrast, is 43%. funny how that works."

 https://x.com/badhombre/status/2042344433065087374?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Wait a minute! Gavin Newsom said none of this was happening, mocked Nick Shirley for traveling to California to investigate and expose it, and called CMS administrator Dr. Oz “racist” against Armenians for even suggesting there was hospice fraud in Los Angeles."

 https://x.com/MengHu13/status/2042056680591241332

 

 So, if we'd have kept the same threshold for poverty instead of changing it, we'd have virtually eliminated poverty in the US. One wonders why the metric keeps changing.

 https://x.com/wil_da_beast630/status/2042343425593282672?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw 

 So, we know that we could remove a mere 500 known individuals from society and lower the rate of gun violence by 70%, and for some reason choose the higher gun violence.

 https://x.com/msmelchen/status/2042246483236237620?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 An excellent piece on the assimilation of Muslims into non Muslim cultures.

 https://x.com/will_tanner_1/status/2042209102529454218?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Once again, Europe's history shows that if you simply hang the tiny percentage of the population that commits essentially all of the crime, rather than giving it EBT Danegeld indefinitely, the criminality problem goes away Europe hanged 1% of each generation for centuries. Practically every crime beyond the most petty minor offenses were capital crimes, and the proper sentencing was rigorously enforced Horse thieves, robbers, murderers, etc. faced not "probation" given them by a pro-crime judge, but the gallows. And they faced it for centuries, from roughly the High Middle Ages to the Georgian period The result was that crime went away. They plucked the crime genes out of the population by ruthlessly punishing criminals, and the result was that their civilization could focus on doing great and noble things instead of endlessly subsidizing a criminal underclass It is this lesson that must be in mind as we deal with crime and criminality. The number of lawbreakers is relatively small, though much dead wood has been allowed to build up. It's time to start handling that with the seriousness it deserves."

 

  

 

Clearly living with and doing nothing about violent crime is a choice made by leaders of large urban areas.  

 

 

 

Weather, Science, Hysteria, And More

 https://x.com/matthewwielicki/status/2042644831919628720?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "This map is supposed to scare you… but it actually reveals something much more interesting. March 2026: the U.S. is blazing hot… while Canada right next door is unusually cold. Same atmosphere. Same CO₂ levels. Same “greenhouse effect.” So what changed? Not CO₂… circulation. If greenhouse gases were the primary driver of these “heat waves,” you wouldn’t see this kind of sharp, regional contrast. CO₂ doesn’t turn on over Texas and switch off at the Canadian border. What you’re looking at is classic atmospheric dynamics… ridging, jet stream shifts, and heat redistribution. The same processes that have always driven regional extremes. Heat waves aren’t new... And they aren’t controlled by a trace gas."

 

 

 https://x.com/electroversenet/status/2042331715784319110?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "In 2004, the BBC warned the Maldives were "soon to be uninhabitable," claiming sea levels were rising 0.9 cm per year and that 80% of the islands could vanish within a century. More than two decades later though, reality says otherwise. The Maldives haven't sunk, they've exploded with growth: 12 new airports, expanded international terminals, record tourism of over 2 million visitors a year, and more than 170 resorts, with 7 added in 2024. Instead of disappearing under the waves, this so-called "paradise in peril" has shown no statistically significant sea level rise since the 1980s, according to satellite data. Here we have another 'climate catastrophe' headline completely undone by time."

 

 

 

 

 https://x.com/electroversenet/status/2041969331202855261?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "For decades, scientists and the media have kept moving the catastrophe goalposts. First, they said the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free by 2000. Then it was 2008, then 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 18, 2019, 2020. And now they say it'll be 2027. That's almost three decades of failed doomsday deadlines. The Arctic was still covered in thick summer ice in 2025, with no loss for 18 years now. Frustratingly though, there is no accountability for the failure. While the honest scientists that called out this bunk got de-platformed or even fired, many of the activists spouting these nonsense deadlines still hold distinguished positions in academia and are regularly invited on to mainstream news programs."

 https://x.com/llbiggers/status/2038626504360268278?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/justin_hart/status/2038641057513259336?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 

 

 

Hollywood

 https://x.com/fandompulse/status/2042405151579742583?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Ender's Game author Orson Scott Card on the problems with how religion is portrayed in current fantasy and science fiction: "In our culture, intellectuals have become so uniformly a-religious or anti-religious that our fiction, with few exceptions, depicts religious people in only two ways: the followers are ignorant and stupid and easily fooled, and the leaders are exploitative and cynical, manipulating others' faith for their private benefit. I know some people who fit those descriptions. But they are in a tiny minority. Most religious people I know are smart, well-educated, independent-minded, stubborn, honest, and generous -- at least as much so as the average intellectual, and usually more. The hostility toward religion among American intellectuals arises, I think, from a clear awareness that it was against a publicly religious culture that their own culture rebelled. Now that rebellion is completely successful in terms of capturing control of all the public instruments of transmission of culture -- the universities, the media, and the literature and art -- but it has become such a shibboleth of intellectual life to snipe at religion that, like the aging "revolutionaries" of the old Soviet Union, they mindlessly continue to "rebel" in order to defend their tight grip on the establishment. Indeed, those intellectuals are the establishment. And what was once a daring and rebellious stance is now just another example of lockstep conformists mindlessly echoing ideas that they haven't examined. That's when contemporary fiction mentions religion at all. Most of the time, in and out of speculative fiction, religion simply doesn't exist. Characters don't believe in God or even think about believing in God. Nobody talks about religion. Nobody belongs to any kind of church. Religion simply doesn't exist. ... This is, I think, a serious lapse, a dishonesty in our contemporary literature. It is most seriously dishonest because in fact, even the supposedly a-religious intellectuals behave exactly as religious people always have. That is, the behavioral and cultural patterns that we have always associated with religions are indistinguishable, except by vocabulary, from the behavioral and cultural patterns of the a-religious intellectuals. They band together with fellow believers, feel sorry for or hostile toward unbelievers, immediately punish heretics -- intellectuals who, having once been accepted in the 'faith,' dare to question its premises -- anoint their priests and theologians (psychologists and therapists being their ministers, scientists and, more usually, science popularizers being their doctors of atheology), and insist on their absolute right to put forth their religious ideas with public funding and the authority of the state behind them, while doing their utmost to silence or marginalize the beliefs of others. Most fiction has become, in short, an instrument of propaganda for the established religion of our time, which differs from other religions only in the particular content of the faith and the vocabulary used to describe it. Naturally, the true believers are sure that the real difference is that their beliefs are objectively true. But then, true believers have always believed that. This is not what distinguishes them from other established religions, but rather what makes them fundamentally identical to them. The honest depicter of human life will include the religious aspect of that life. This is not to say that stories need to be about religion, any more than stories about our contemporary culture need to be about cars. But the cars need to be present, at least by implication, and if a character doesn't know how to drive, we'd need to know why." Is this why Hollywood stopped adapting his books into films?"