I am reading a book, no surprise there.
The book is “The Uninhabitable Earth”, by David Wallace-Wells, a
columnist at New York magazine. As the title suggests it is about
what the effects of climate change could mean for us. I say “could”
because despite the fact that the book is rather alarming reading
there is still the possibility that we can affect how the end of this
story turns out.
The Guardian had a nice review:
One of the issues Mr. Wallace-Wells
touches upon is hunger. As our climate changes we will find that our
ability to feed ourselves will be impaired due to the effects of
things like drought. While many of the world's breadbasket areas
will be affected detrimentally northern areas in Canada and Russia will see
temperatures more conducive to growing crops, The catch, though, is
that this land is not as fertile. So the yields will not be as
high. Then, of course, there is the rather unnerving possibility of
having to look to Russia for food. But that is a subject for a
different kind of post.
So, even as our population grows our
ability to increase our food supply may very well be limited by
climate change.
How many people can Earth support?
This video was made in 2015 and at that time the world's population
was estimated at 7.2 billion. Today in 2019 the estimate is 7.7
billion. In 2050 the estimated world population will be 9.7 billion. While his numbers may be questionable it is still an interesting overview.
99 comments:
There is something in the Guardian's review to which I take exception.
"…the point about denialism as largely a red herring is an important one."
I think that's wrong. We still have one of the preëminent sources of technological and scientific research and development in the world.
For that to not be committed to the effort to mitigated global warming is a much bigger deal than if Argentina were the the hotbed of climate denialism.
It is important that 40% of our population is committed to supporting the faerie tale notion that anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax. That support limits our ability to commit to the research and development of mitigating technologies (and we would be, or at least should be, particularly good at that).
Here is a 2019 Pew Research poll on Americans' thoughts about climate change. What I found rather interesting is that while Republicans as a whole are less likely to believe in human activity being a driving factor in climate change than Democrats, Millennial Republicans (36%) vs Baby Boomer Republicans (18%) do.
It is important that 40% of our population is committed to supporting the faerie tale notion that anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax.
Yes, because we as a nation have always been stronger when we acted in concert. But that is not to say there is no hope. Sometimes a single person can enact a big change. That was actually pointed out in the book, btw. In fact, I may actually do a post about that, because I ran across a rather interesting video along those lines. :) And these last two posts have been rather alarming. I don't want to totally depress my readers.
"…Millennial Republicans (36%) vs Baby Boomer Republicans
(18%)…"
I think 36% of ‛Millennial Republicans’ is actually fewer total people than is 18% of ‛Baby Boomer Republicans’, on account of there being so few ‛Millennial Republicans’ to grab a percentage of. They're losing that generation rather badly, probably irrevocably.
Given the rising concern about climate change of younger people, who will have to live it, that is not surprising.
It will have been the Baby Boomer generation who will have lost the Republican Party.
"…the Baby Boomer generation…lost the Republican Party."
Yeah, I suppose that's true, although the vestiges of the earlier born generation (pre-'46) are even more locked in to the Republican Party than are the boomers. As the calendar age drops, so to does partisan identification as a Republican drop.
Politico: It would appear that some of the Bible Thumper Trumpkins are beginning to complain about Trump's coarse language at his rallies, especially, but not exclusively, the hells and the goddamns.
Of course, this is not new language for Trump, nor is it new to his rallies. But it's newly becoming a point of complaint for the Bible Thumper Trumpkins. Since it's not new for Trump something else must explain why it's working its way up to grumbling status among Bible Thumper Trumpkins.
There are several possible explanations. None of them are good for Trump.
I've noticed that the Trump administration has issued a new 837 page ‛rule’ that would further restrict the issuance of green cards to immigrants who've recently been on non-cash public assistance (food stamps would be the most commonly accessed example). The Trump administration hasn't shown what we'd call a general competence in issuing legal administrative rules (they can't seem to follow the rules when they issue rules). So, we can be reasonably assured that the new rules will draw legal challenges which'll probably keep it tied up until well into the 2020 elections (probably 'til after the 2020 elections).
So, the takeaway from this is that they aren't really that interested in having the rule. If it had been something that animated Trump it'd have come up earlier in his administration. It's probably intended as just a campaign point for his upcoming rallies and rants.
Lee:
"It is important that 40% of our population is committed to supporting the faerie tale notion that anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax."
It IS important that the remaining 60% does nothing to challenge, and even refuse to talk bout, population growth.
In their mind (that is YOUR mind) populations can grow infinitively. And when for say Black Africa has a birthrate of 6 children per woman it's the white world's responsibility to first feed them with literal food drops BC it's sad if they starve, and then take them in as refugees BC it's sad that they're poor.
Then they need to get lifted up into our high consumerism societies and lo and behold more recources are consumed, so you have to tax white people for consumerism.
That'd be about right yeah?
"In their mind (that is YOUR mind) populations can grow infinitively."
You've apparently not been able to extrapolate correctly from the many times I've told Lynnette that, in my firm opinion, we've already got enough people.
I might be well on board with "reducing my carbon footprint" as I might be well on board with paying more taxes to reduce the plight of the poorer in society. But for MY prople, not for infinity Africans whos numbers will only grow even greater under the current system. (look at tghe UN worl projections for population growthy. Look at the
BC that means the carbon footprint will only increase even if I lower my person one to my detriment. And it means my taxes will get higher and nothing will get better.
Half of the Aztecs in central america want to migrate:
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2018/07/25/24371
One third of the people in North Africa wants to migrate:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/04/24/one-three-north-africans-looking-migrate-number-rising/
Half of young arabs want to migrate:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/07/bbc-survey-shows-half-of-arab-young-people-want-to-migrate-to-europe-and-north-america
And where do they want to migrate to? Formerly solid but still majority white nations, thye USA and Western Europe.
Do you think their "carbon footprint" will diminish? Hell, consumerism is what they strive for!
Lee: "You've apparently not been able to extrapolate correctly from the many times I've told Lynnette that, in my firm opinion, we've already got enough people."
Funny then you're on a policy-train that'll only expand on the problem you've so deftly discovered.
Again, you misunderstand, probably intentionally. I've not been opining on the wisdom vel non of letting all those Arabs and Africans into Sweden.
Rather, I've been telling you that you're handling their integration and assimilation all wrong.
Ya'll already let 'em in. That's done. Whether it was wise or not ya'll did it and it's done.
Now that they're there, they're there. Now you gotta figure on how to integrate all them that you can't reasonably expect to be able to send back. Doin' it dumb is doin' it dumb. Doin' two dumb things in a row is hardly ever the solution to havin' done a dumb thing to begin with.
And, if you're talking instead about my objection to The Great Wall of Trump, my objection to The Wall is not an objection to securing our southern border against illegal immigration. My objection is that The Wall is a waste of money. It's a symbol, not a solution, and it's an expensive symbol and it's got significant downsides--and no practical upside.
The Mexicans got ladders! They even have a Mexican name for ladders, escaleras they call 'em. So, The Wall's a waste of money; the Mexicans got ladders. They'll sell 'em to the Central Americans too.
So ... mined ground and gun turrets that via AI can detect humans and shoot them off. That would be a practical solution and probably even a tecknologilcally feasible one. And if you saw to it that it was KNOWN that trying to cross the border you'd be machine-gunned then that leaves the choice open for any would be illegal migrant as well. And if it wasn't known it would be in rapid times.
Kinda like sinking "rescue ships" in the MED, preferrably on the way out from ports of Europoe so that only human smugglers drowned.
It would quickly end, dontcha think?
It'd be humanitarian even. No aztecs wouldn attempt the Rio Grande as they knew they would get gunned down anyway, so fewer would drown trying to get there.
No Africans or human smugglers in the med because they knew they would get sunk = fewer drownings in the long run.
We have treaty obligations to allow asylum claims. (Whether or not that was a good idea is a whole 'nother question; treaty was signed and ratified; we got what we got.) What we need now are enough judges and prosecutors and courtrooms and support staff to provide rapid adjudication of the asylum claims being made. Most of them will be denied, overwhelmingly denied. They should, therefore, be heard in short order, and the applicants get their day before the judge, make their claime, claim gets denied; applicant gets sent back.
That'll put a stop to the run north to file bogus asylum claims. Lotta work to get here, and then they get their cases heard and denied quickly and they're winging their way back home. Word'll get out.
Problem is, Trump don't want that. That's not symbolic, and Trump's way big on symbolism. (In fact, Obama was sending people home at a rate that far exceeds Trump's best efforts, but Trump's gotta reverse all things Obama was doing; gotta be the anti-Obama even when it's clear Obama was getting better outcomes.)
And, I should also point out that Obama was sending assistance money to the desperate regions of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Help stabilize the local situation and the people are less desperate and less likely to make the hard trip north. It was working too. The number of Central American immigrants was tapering off. Trump canceled the congressionally allocated foreign aid by executive order. Trump needs the "caravans" to rail against. No caravans, no cheering at his rallies when he promises to turn the caravans back.
And he can't "turn the caravans back". There's that pesky treaty thing. (The Wall is just a great big "finish line" for the immigrants to see, at target, a draw to draw them on. Get to The Wall, just get to The Wall; just touch The Wall and that means you're in America and you get to make your asylum claim.)
Trump needs the "caravans" to rail against. No caravans, no cheering at his rallies when he promises to turn the caravans back.
This is true.
So ... mined ground and gun turrets that via AI can detect humans and shoot them off.
Some people have a problem with murder.
Russia seems to have had another nuclear accident.
Seems to have been a smaller accident, nothing along the Chernobyl lines. Something blew up at a military research facility.
Trump has already backed down from some of his proposed new tariffs against China. The stock market responded favorably.
Lynnette:
"Some people have a problem with murder"
But it's not murder if there are warning signs. Like you definetly have military complexes in the USA where if you break in you will be shot on sight. So people know not to go there of course and if some lunatic does he/she gets shot. And I doubt you'd want that fact to change, so that any random lunatic could just up and run into your most secure military bases without a threat of force being used against them.
Why can't that be applied to your borders? Do not try to cross illegally or you'll get shot. If you want to cross see too it that you have a right to do so and cross through one of the many available border crossings. Easy.
Might be a few gets shot in the initial term after such a regime, but very, very quickly world would get out and border-jumpers would just stop trying.
Why not? Give me a solid argument for why not.
"…if you break in you will be shot on sight…"
Nevertheless, laying lethal traps for people has long been against the law. It's not the same thing as having armed guards. (It's even against the law in Sweden.)
Why not? Give me a solid argument for why not.
Defending one's home against intruders is one thing, killing people who are just seeking a better, SAFE, life is another. There is a moral imperative here.
I want to be able to look myself in the mirror. And supporting this kind of policy would not allow me to do that.
Those protests in Hong Kong don't seem to be fading. They seem to be getting worse.
Maybe China's Black Swan?
"Maybe China's Black Swan?"
Probably not. Hong Kong's monied class has had enough and they're coming down on the side of the Mainland government. Bloomberg
I see the Swedes have convicted Rakim Mayers, a/k/a A$AP Rocky, of assault, but they don't want him to come back. They're content with time served and the hope he stays away from Sweden in the future. (Although nobody's actually come right out and said anything about denying him another visa in case he wants to do another concert in Sweden.)
Hong Kong's monied class has had enough and they're coming down on the side of the Mainland government.
The protests have given some companies concern as to their activity there. And China is wielding larger influence over anyone who wants to do business with them. Some people will sell their souls for money.
The Dow has tanked on recession fears. The 2/10 year bond curve has inverted, which has preceded every recession in modern times.
Cash anyone?
I'd noticed that they were off to a poor start this morning. But, the day's still young. There's time for the Dow to make a recovery yet today.
No more recovery time today.
By the way, our media types are all atwitter today about an "inverted yield curve" suddenly appearing for the first time since the last recession.
Except… It's not the first time since the last recession. I recall that the yield curve inverted earlier this year, March, and yet things recovered nicely after a few days. Bloomberg; BradfordDelong
Ahhh a note of optimism in the face of a Dow sinking by 800 points. I'd rather read you than CNN.
I am reminded of the famous quip that the stock market had correctly predicted "nine of the last five recessions"¹. I'm afraid the popular news media has an even worse track record.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
¹ Paul Samuelson, 1966.
Looks like the Dow Jones opened UP ↑ 100 points plus, which sounds like a good thing.
Slight correction to my observation that the "yield curve" had been "inverted" earlier this year. Turns out it's been continuously inverted for months now (Slate--just wasn't a lot of newspaper people getting antsy over it 'til just here lately. (Maybe they're just slow to notice.)
Hmmmm… They recalculated, turns out the Dow opened UP ↑ by about 60 points.
Lee: "I see the Swedes have convicted Rakim Mayers, a/k/a A$AP Rocky, of assault, but they don't want him to come back. They're content with time served and the hope he stays away from Sweden in the future. "
In that case you're misinformed. The scentence that he got does NOT prohibit him from visiting sweden in the future, if he accepts it and pays the fines (not realla big, a few thgousand $.) that were given him he can come again, if he wants to.
MY opinion is that ASAP only defended himself against the worst trash of swedish society, in this case an Afghan "child refugee" with previous theft and knife-posession charges agsinst him. If such an individual is harrassing you on the streets I believe you should be allowed to just put them dowm to get away.
So here I'm siding firmly with the American negro over the "Swedish" afghan.
But in any case, he's very much free to come here again if he so wishes. I don't really care if he does or doesn't but there it is.
"…and the hope he stays away from Sweden in the future…"
(emphasis added)
"…The scentence that he got does NOT prohibit him from visiting sweden
in the future…"
I'm not sure where you got the idea that "hope", included either a prohibition or a mandate. But, it appears your English has failed you here.
Lee: "By the way, our media types are all atwitter today about an "inverted yield curve" suddenly appearing for the first time since the last recession."
Yeah, but it typically takes about 14 months from that "inverted curve yield" first happens until the market crash actually happens.
Of course it could be different this time around, but I wouldn't put money on it. I think this time right here is a good time to start to get outta stocks, if you haven't already, and into interest rate holdings, the safer the better.
And in maybe two years time when things look the bleakest, start to aquire stocks again. Not all in one go, but incrementally.
Lee, I don't think anyone HOPES he stays away either. Rather I think quite a few folks HOPE he's coming back, and does so to cheering crowds and none of this street violence.
If he said "I will not ever go back to Sweden" and other celebs might join him, no one here wants that. Basically erryone, left and right, would want him to say he got into trouble but got a fair hearing and that Sweden is a lawful country where entertainers should not fear to go.
He DID pick that Afghan up and slam him in the street and kick him when he was down. It was filmed. I feel for ASAP that that freaking Afghan maybe deserved it and more, but we still have laws to go by.
"I don't think anyone HOPES he stays away either."
Well, Sweden's a small country. Why don't ya check with the judge (judges?) in the case and get back with us on that?
You prolly don't really get it. Sweden took in about 40K of these "afghan child refugees" in a matter of 2 years or so. We're talking here of only males, some as young as 17 for real, the bulk way over 20 but posing as teens, some of them up in their 40's, many drug addicted already.
40K for Sweden with a 10M poulation would equal if yall took in 1.6 MILLION of these desert dwellers who HATE everything western and western women's liberties above all.
A rapier set of gang-rapists we have never seen before, not with Africans, not with Arabs, these fucking afghans are in a leage of their own. They'll rape any woman of any age, they'll rape boys (mostly the littelest one in their own migrant housing unit), they'll rape livestock even - sheep preferrably.
Also we know from past migrant streams that the really BIG problems is not with the initial migrants in the first few years but when after a few years they have solidified and the second generation is usually worse. Way worse.
Lee: "Well, Sweden's a small country. Why don't ya check with the judge (judges?) in the case and get back with us on that?"
Nah, can't be bothered. I just spoke to what I think many in sweden feels about this. Myself I couldn't care less if that fast talking african never again wanted to come here. Not my music, if it's even "music", and not my stage if it is.
I've got no skin in the game here, except it was interesting to see two sufferer-cultures clash and withness how that played out both in the court but especially in the media.
They both had skintone-advantage, compared to a white man, but ASAP beat the Afghan on that, being significantly browner. But the Afghan had refugee-advantage, which packs a punch. And ASAP had money disadvantage. So I guess that's why he was found at fault but let off easy.
It was all quite interesting.
Had ASAP been a white rapper he would be in a Stockholm jail right now. Had the Afghan harasser been a white guy he would serve prison time for hate crime right now. That's how it is.
But here we had brown on brown and it's always interesting to see how that plays out.
You do realize that climate change will be the catalyst for a LOT more migrants/refugees?
I am reminded of the famous quip that the stock market had correctly predicted "nine of the last five recessions"¹. I'm afraid the popular news media has an even worse track record.
lol!
But it is also true that the stock market does tend to act like a canary in the coal mine.
I think there is enough uncertainty worldwide for it to be wise to exercise caution in investing now.
The real question is how long the current sugar-high lasts. Trump won't get another tax cut like the last one. And even if he did, it would be unlikely to goose the stock market like the last one. I'm afraid that "exuberance" has likely played itself out.
For various reasons, I think we're already overdue.
"If President Xi would meet directly and personally with the
protesters, there would be a happy and enlightened ending to
the Hong Kong problem. I have no doubt!
Trumptweets
Yeah, right.
So, how's that gonna work? They gonna travel to Bejing and announce themselves as the leaders of the Hong Kong protests? Tell Xi Jinping that they've come to have words with him?
Yeah, right.
Or, maybe Xi Jinping will summon them to Bejing. And they'll just happen to forget about the part where they were protesting efforts to extradite them to China? No need to extradite them; they'll just come when called.
Yeah, right. Like that's gonna happen.
At some point Trump's no longer gonna be able to pretend this shit is either accidental or ignorance:
"President Donald Trump on Thursday praised a New Hampshire
Republican who previously called for former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton to be shot by firing squad."
Politico
Lynnette: "You do realize that climate change will be the catalyst for a LOT more migrants/refugees?"
I have 3 very different answers to that:
1. First of all it's largely a big hoaxery anything surrounding this "climate change" because all there is is whining and demands for taxes or decreased this or that. It it was true, and we needed to actually do something, where's the global drive for new Nuclear Reactors, that can be made today virtually safe and can even be run on the spent fuels of past reactors?
Cows farting leads to the world ending BC we eat beef? Well, any mammal that eats grass farts the same. So why not eradicate all them useless grass-eaters like elephants and rhinos ans zebras? We don't even get to eat any of those and they run around farting our extinction into being.
Prophet Greta freaking sailing to the US BC she won't fly, while they will fly two of the crew back to Europe and fly 4 more crew over to sail the boat home. So 6 flights insteads of one just so you sheeplings can believe Greta the Prophet is for real. I'm just so sick of it.
2. Overpopulation. Overpopulation. Overpopulation. I've said it 100 times. The same fucking people behind this climate change bogus are always behind every global scheme to make the global population ever increasing. Withy increasing populations we will de facto make a greater global impact on the environment, especially if we are sold on a migrant-rights agenda where poor folks who consume little have a "human right" to come up to wealthy countries and consume much more.
3. Migrants can only come so long as we let them. Simple as that. We COULD shut that down and do it quickly. Salvini in Italy is proof of that and he hasn't even used any force, yet.
Lee: "The real question is how long the current sugar-high lasts. Trump won't get another tax cut like the last one. And even if he did, it would be unlikely to goose the stock market like the last one. I'm afraid that "exuberance" has likely played itself out."
The big question is wether it will hold up until the elections, or not. Major factor in Trumps re-elactability.
"Major factor in Trumps re-elactability."
I don't think holding the recession off until after the 2020 vote will be enough to get Trump reëlected. Nevertheless, I'd rather it happen before instead of after (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's inevitable). Otherwise the crazies will claim it was Trump losing the election that caused the recession.
At some point Trump's no longer gonna be able to pretend this shit is either accidental or ignorance:
He's not even trying to pretend anymore about anything. He flat out lies about policies put in place before he came to office, taking the credit for them, and is telling voters even if they don't like him they have to vote for him otherwise the economy will go down the tubes. Never mind that it is his policies that have helped destabilize the economic outlook here and abroad.
I am starting to see that the problem really isn't Trump, but the American people. Whatever their problems are they are the ones who have led us down this authoritarian path by electing Trump. We can only hope they have wised up and will dump Trump in 2020.
1. First of all it's largely a big hoaxery anything surrounding this "climate change"...
I suspect that you are young enough, and unfortunately so am I, that you will find out whether that is true or not. I suspect not. But you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Prophet Greta freaking sailing to the US BC she won't fly, while they will fly two of the crew back to Europe and fly 4 more crew over to sail the boat home.
I had heard she was hitching a ride on a racing yacht. That would mean it was coming here anyway, as were the crew. It wasn't her passage that was causing the extra flights.
2. Overpopulation. Overpopulation. Overpopulation
Well I can't really disagree there as it was the subject of the post. The population is rising, and in locations that will be greatly affected by climate change.
3. Migrants can only come so long as we let them.
At some point in time there will be very few of "us", if you mean native born citizens, as the birth rates are falling in many developed countries. So there will be very few people to man the barricades, as it were.
Curiously there was an analyst speaking about white supremacy on one of the news shows recently who mentioned that one of the reasons to many white supremacists are against abortion is exactly for that reason, the falling birth rate of whites.
" We can only hope they have wised up and will dump
Trump in 2020."
I'm expecting Trump to lose in a landslide. (It's possible I'll be disappointed there--shit happens; Biden has blown two presidential runs already; the Russians may get inside the election machinery this time; whatever.)
The thing that surprised me about the dedicated Trumpkins was how they rallied behind him when it became obvious that he wasn't what he promised to be. He didn't try to be more "Presidential". He didn't revive the coal industry. He's not bringing back midwestern industrial jobs. He's simply shiving their political ‛enemies’ and that's turned out to be enough to keep them happy, even raptuous. That surprised me. I think it surprised him too, but he's moved on it and owns it now. He's gambling that it will be enough to keep him in office. I think that's a mistaken premise.
"So there will be very few people to man the barricades, as
it were."
I think you're being overly dramatic with that. Our birth rates haven't cratered--we're below replacement rate but the population here will drop off slowly. The place isn't gonna clear itself out in a generation or two.
Rumors going around suggesting that the Republican National Committee may decide to dispense with the formality of a Republican presidential primary this round and simply declare Trump to be the nominee. Due to legal entanglements with various states which provide financial support for the primary process they may not be able to shut down a nominal primary in every state. But, they may manage to close down the primary process in enough states to deliver effectively coronate Trump as the Republican nominee this next go-round.
They will, of course, hold a national convention in any case, where the conventioneers can ratify the RNCs decision to put Trump on top of the Republican ticket. Won't wanna lose the chance to grab some prime time on national tv.
Lynnette:
"I suspect that you are young enough, and unfortunately so am I, that you will find out whether that is true or not."
Yeah, I'm young enough for that. Still I'm old enough to remember the previous scares taht we were entering a new Ice age and trhe one where the ozon layer was dissapewaring because 80's kids used hairspray and by the year 2000 we could only go outside wearing space-suits.
This whole climate hysteria is on the same level as that bullcrap, and the proof is that all that's ever debated are taxes and regulations, in white nations only, and not a thing about what we could actually do if we wanted to, with nuclear power.
If Sweden shut down all transports, shut down all industry, and reduced our carbon footprint to zero; China's increase in CO2 output would account for that in 2 days. Not their consumption, that's hundredfolds more, but their INCREASE.
Lynnette: I had heard she was hitching a ride on a racing yacht. That would mean it was coming here anyway, as were the crew. It wasn't her passage that was causing the extra flights."
She's not "hitching a ride" on a previously planned trip. They make the trip for her and for the publicity that comes along with it.
What, is otherwise the necessity of sailing across the Atlantic and flying crew members to sail back? What purpose does it serve?
Lynnette: "Well I can't really disagree there as it was the subject of the post. The population is rising, and in locations that will be greatly affected by climate change."
'
Agreed, except "climate change" is largely a hoax but resource depletion is very much real.
Lynnette: "At some point in time there will be very few of "us", if you mean native born citizens, as the birth rates are falling in many developed countries. So there will be very few people to man the barricades, as it were."¨¨
That's a fairy tale as well. We'll manage. The Japanese have had falling birtrates and falling population numbers for decades. And while bankers decry that there's no "growth" there, the average Japanese is affluent and lives in a virtuallyt crime free and safe society.
Lynnette: "Curiously there was an analyst speaking about white supremacy on one of the news shows recently who mentioned that one of the reasons to many white supremacists are against abortion is exactly for that reason, the falling birth rate of whites."
That's prolly true but when you speak of those very few neo-nazis you have to remember they are also complete idiots. For one thing the abortion rates for non-whites are much, much higher than for whites. So outlawed abortion would actually dicrease the white/non-white ratio in society, which them neo-nazis, dumb as they are, might not like so much.
I'm expecting Trump to lose in a landslide.
Yeah, well, I never thought he'd get elected in the first place, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
The place isn't gonna clear itself out in a generation or two.
Nope, but it's going to get older and grayer. We're already short of workers just about everywhere.
Rumors going around suggesting that the Republican National Committee may decide to dispense with the formality of a Republican presidential primary this round and simply declare Trump to be the nominee.
Anointing him King, isn't that special.
"We're already short of workers just about everywhere."
And yet the "participation rate" is running a good 5 points below what it was in the year 2000. And many of the working poor are now working two or even three "gigs" and still pulling federal assistance, food stamps and/or medicaid, or even housing assistance. (Hell, even military families often qualify for food stamps, depending on local rules.)
What we have here is federally subsidized employment--corporate welfare. Many corporations rely on federal assistance to the poor to keep their employees alive and working--rather than paying a living wage themselves.
We'd be less short of workers if more jobs paid a living wage.
If Sweden shut down all transports, shut down all industry, and reduced our carbon footprint to zero; China's increase in CO2 output would account for that in 2 days. Not their consumption, that's hundredfolds more, but their INCREASE.
Which is why the developing world will have a huge impact on our future.
This whole climate hysteria is on the same level as that bullcrap, and the proof is that all that's ever debated are taxes and regulations, in white nations only, and not a thing about what we could actually do if we wanted to, with nuclear power.
The only thing that proves is that people in the more developed nations are paralyzed by their own division. The environmentalists worry about fallout from nuclear power and the fossil fuel industry is looking for more jobs in their industry.
None of that proves that climate change is a hoax. What we are seeing in Alaska, the warming waters causing mass die offs of fish, what we are seeing in areas along the coasts that flood routinely, what we are seeing in our forests with changes in insect populations infesting our trees, what we are seeing in the increase of hundred year storms, we are seeing climate change up close and personal. This is not the new normal, this is only the beginning.
They make the trip for her and for the publicity that comes along with it.
Apparently the yacht itself uses alternative forms of fuel, solar I believe, and there is only Greta, her father and two crew members. At least according to one of the articles I read. What happens to the boat after she arrives in the US, I don't know. But if she gets here she needs to get back. And, yes, I am sure they were looking for major publicity.
Agreed, except "climate change" is largely a hoax but resource depletion is very much real.
We will have to agree to disagree. Because I believe that climate change is very much real, just as is resource depletion.
We'll manage. The Japanese have had falling birtrates and falling population numbers for decades.
Last I heard they were looking at ways to bring more people into their country.
That's prolly true but when you speak of those very few neo-nazis you have to remember they are also complete idiots.
I will bear that in mind.
"…the fossil fuel industry is looking for more jobs in their industry."
Actually, they're looking for more profits, not more jobs. (West Virginia might be looking for more coal jobs, on account of they happen to still be sitting on coal beds, but West Virginia isn't an industry.)
Another thing we got to face with the fossil fuel industry is their commitment to recovering their "stranded assets".
IF renewable energy sources become viable then they're gonna get stuck holding trillions of dollars worth of paper wealth that'll never be realized, oil in the ground, coal in the ground, all this stuff they're carryin' on their books as assets to offset their liablilities. (Lotta these assets are pledged as collateral to banks who don't want their loans to go bad--so there's that problem too.)
We'd be less short of workers if more jobs paid a living wage.
Possibly so. But try telling that to corporations.
"But try telling that to corporations."
Which corporations? Banks, for instance, aren't particularly interested in making operating loans to companies that pay a living wage, which is a good part of the reason why Apple builds its product in the Orient.
(Lotta these assets are pledged as collateral to banks who don't want their loans to go bad--so there's that problem too.)
A very good point. The fossil fuel industry has a lot to lose, as do others. But then they do with climate change as well.
Which corporations?
It would have to be those who are in any kind of service industry, wouldn't it? Because those are the jobs that are here. It's the reason they are protesting for $15 minimum wage.
And the corporate response to the $15 per hour minimum wage is to work ever harder on robot workers; ATM machines; self-checkouts in stores. More coming down the pike all the time.
ABCNews has a survey of economists who think the recession will wait until 2021 to hit. This will suit Trump.
Trump just tweeted some nonsense about "Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election" Trumptweets
I am starting to wonder if the man won't go quietly if he does get booted out.
I think he's feeling out his dedicated Trumpkins, to see if they can be rallied to back an attempt by him to hold on to the office after a 2020 loss. I don't think he's decided to actually try to overthrow the Constitution, but he's looking at the feasibility of such a move, and part of that is prepping his dedicated Trumpkins.
Slow news cycle. Even Brietbart has been reduced to covering Trump's Buy Greenland initiative. (For the record, they consider it a flash of brilliance and beauty, proving how wonderfully intelligent, prescient and good looking is Trump the Magnificent.)
ROFL!
Trump has canceled his scheduled trip to Denmark (which trip, according to this morning's Trump, was not related to his desire to purchase Greenland) on account of the Prime Minister of Denmark said today that she had no intention of entertaining, or even discussing, the sale of Greenland.
Lynnette: "None of that proves that climate change is a hoax. What we are seeing in Alaska, the warming waters causing mass die offs of fish, what we are seeing in areas along the coasts that flood routinely, what we are seeing in our forests with changes in insect populations infesting our trees, what we are seeing in the increase of hundred year storms, we are seeing climate change up close and personal. This is not the new normal, this is only the beginning."
You don't know this is only the beginning, you de facto cannot know that. Also the world's climate has shifted in waves of heating and cooling for BILLIONS of years, before man came about. The Midevil warming-period when temperatures were higher than today, that surely wasn't man made. You know, that period that was common scientific knowledge, but then whitewashed from history BC it didn't fit in with the current narrative.
Fact is: Not nearely as many scientiests as they tell you buy into this HOAX. But the ones who have a differing opinion gets drummed outta Academyy and lose all funding. So new and younger would be "scientiests" learn this and hop to.
But the evidence of this HOAX is still: Why don't you listen to the answers, why do you only talk about taxes and quotas?
Lynette: "Last I heard they [thge Japanese] were looking at ways to bring more people into their country."
Yeah? Did you hear them wanting savage MS13 members or murderous Jihadists from Syria or yellow-eyed war criminals from the jungles of the Congo, or maybe stay at home moms who breeds a spawn of ten from the Hazara regions of Cerntral Asia?
What sort, pray tell, did you envision that Japan was opening up to?
(And I can answer that: educated whites from European stock and educated East Asians. ONLY)
"The Midevil warming-period when temperatures were higher than today…"
I'm guessing she knows better. Should be interesting to watch while you get dissected on this one.
On Japan wanting immigration:
Prolly no chinese though, they REALLY hate eachother and it goes back a long way, and you'd prolly be hard pressed to find chineese who would even want to emigrate to japan now that they have options at home.
But more likely Phillipinas (note the feminine gender - their males would not be so welcomed) and maybe SE-Asians to work as nurses and such. And a sprinkle of highly educated whites to help boost creativity in their coorporations and some as english teachers.
But no blacks, no browns. I can pretty well god damned guarantee you that much, knowing Asia better than ya'll.
A nice analysis of Trump's presidency as viewed through the Greenland kerfuffle.
But, I was having fun with the Greenland story.
Also the world's climate has shifted in waves of heating and cooling for BILLIONS of years, before man came about.
Of course it has.
Climate Myths
That doesn't mean it was a pleasant place to live. Nor does that mean that we can rule out human activity having an impact on today's climate.
But the evidence of this HOAX is still: Why don't you listen to the answers, why do you only talk about taxes and quotas?
I haven't been talking about taxes and quotas, but maybe those who do figure that is the only way to get people to actually do something? Personally I am more of the conservation of energy, using alternative sources, and buying local produce kind of person. Granted it's not much, but at least I am trying to keep my carbon footprint low.
What sort, pray tell, did you envision that Japan was opening up to?
It looks like they are seeing a large influx from China, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philipines.
Japan opens its doors.
But, I was having fun with the Greenland story.
I'm guessing that there are others out there doing the same...:)
"I'm guessing that there are others out there doing the same."
Looks like it.
"The National Republican Congressional Committee began
running a promotion in which donors contributing $25 or
more receive a limited-edition T-shirt depicting the semi-
autonomous Arctic island, part of the Kingdom of Denmark,
as part of the U.S.
"“Support President Trump and his efforts to help America
grow!” reads the promotion touting the limited-edition tee.
The red shirt features a map of the continental U.S., along with
silhouettes of Alaska, Hawaii and Greenland patterned with
the American flag."
Politico
Hmmm...why am I afraid it's not a joke?
In the ‛not a joke’ column, Sarah Palin comes out of hiding and joins Breitbart in cheering on Trump's efforts to acquire Greenland.
Trump said he'd be "responding" to China this afternoon. Trumptweeted Well, the Dow's already closed, and he seems to have forgotten the response. Didn't do what he said he'd do. Whodathunkit?
Ah ha! With the Dow firmly closed for the night, now Trump tweets that he's jacking tariffs on China's stuff another 5% across the board. (No wonder he waited for the stock market to close.)
The market still took a huge dive, down over 600 points. It hadn't really recovered from the last time he opened his mouth.
And that's not all, he literally ordered US companies to find alternative markets to China. For someone who is supposedly a capitalist that is a bit odd. For an authoritarian it is right on target.
Maybe he's figuring on driving down the asking price on Greenland.
I've been looking this morning for articles about what the Trump administration was hoping to achieve during this weekend's G7 meeting. (I've been assuming these articles would be "Republican friendly" by necessity.) I ain't finding anything suggesting that Trump's planning to accomplish anything, not even anything by his erstwhile friendlies.
Struck me as kinda odd.
Turns out Trump actually thinks he has an "absolute right" to stop American companies from doing business in China. What we may have assumed was merely Trump being Trump on Twitter was, in his mind, a serious order that he thinks he has the authority to enforce. NBCNews
I wasn't expecting that one. Trump can still surprise me on occasion.
BTW, ya'll being believers of hoaxes, do you also believe the hoax that Epstein committed suicide? I mean the NYT, which is the hoily grale for folks as you when it comes to TRUTH is saying he did kill himself.
So, we've got:
* He was on suicide watch.
* He prolly had real nasty intel on a LOT of powerful people.
* His cell-mate was for some untold reason removed the day before.
* Prison employees attest to that there was 24 hour camera survelience in his cell covering "every inch". But somehow it failed on the very day
he killed himself.
* He had broken bones in his throat consistent witgh strangulation by force yet it was decided he brought that about himself by hanging himself with a bedsheet.
Ya'll really think this was a suicide?
Re: Epstein
You probably need to recheck your "facts". You almost certainly need to double check your sources. They seem to be leading you astray by feeding you bad "facts". (‛Bad’ as in "not true".)
And, for the record, I've not come to a final conclusion on whether or not Epstein killed himself or was maybe done in by malefactors. To my knowledge, neither has the New York Times expressed an editorial opinion on the matter, although they have reported the official finding of suicide as an official (closed) finding of suicide.
You think the Trump administration is hiding something there?
Trump can still surprise me on occasion.
I think the only thing he could do now that would surprise me is resign.
In a further bit of his role playing as chief international brown-noser to Trump, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe has joined Trump in announcing the consummation of a bi-lateral Japanese/American trade deal yet to be agreed upon. (They'll have guys working on it here soon; hope to actually have an agreement to go along with today's announcement by maybe late September.)
Among other things the Japanese will be making major purchases of American farm products to supplement the "massive" Chinese purchases of American farm products announced back in the spring and to shore up Trump's support among Midwestern farm states.
(With a little luck Trump might be able to announce later that he's also sold those same farm products to the Russians just in time for the election season to hit full swing; get yet another announcement out of that pile of surplus seeds.)
Bloomberg is telling us that Macron invited the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, to the G-7 meeting and that everybody was warned in advance except Trump--who didn't learn about it until Zarif was on the ground. (Some of the others didn't get but a few minutes warning, but they were warned.)
Trump responded by retreating to his hotel room and staying holed up there until Zarif left, wouldn't come out. (Didn't tweet either.)
Trump responded by retreating to his hotel room and staying holed up there until Zarif left, wouldn't come out. (Didn't tweet either.)
Probably pouting because he was blindsided.
Post a Comment