These lies have a function that is similar to what was going on with the Soviets – the lie as mockery and insult and sadistic tease. In that regard, obvious lying is a feature, not a bug, and it helps that the lie is absurd. It’s a show of power meant for the opposition to view, a way to say, “we can state any stupidity we want as truth, things both you and I know are ridiculous, and will we say it with a straight face to illustrate the extent of our power over you. We don’t have to pretend to make sense. We’re in control and you’re not. We are laughing at you.”
The paint reflects 98.1% of solar radiation while also emitting infrared heat. Because the paint absorbs less heat from the sun than it emits, a surface coated with this paint is cooled below the surrounding temperature without consuming power.
Using this new paint to cover a roof area of about 1,000 square feet could result in a cooling power of 10 kilowatts.
I find it interesting that there are some people delusional enough they believe they know the sexual functionality details of someone they have never met. And yet, their friends and relatives have not insisted they spend time attempting to recover while in a comfortable facility wearing a straitjacket.
Perhaps Obama Care doesn’t fund mental health care as well as is required to help such people. But, what can you expect from socialized medicine?—Joe]
Gun control is not about gun crime — gun control is about gun culture.
That culture-war mentality produces a great deal of sloppy thinking and ignorant commentary. Consider the case of Gail Collins in Thursday’s New York Times. Collins is hopping mad about gun shows, about which she seems to know . . . not a whole lot. “Yeah,” she writes — really, “yeah” — “right now one easy way to buy a gun without having anyone check to see if you have a history of criminal convictions, mental illness or a domestic violence restraining order is to just plunk down some cash at a gun show.”
This is — and this part still matters! — not true.
Because this is a culture-war issue rather than a crime-reduction issue, Collins apparently has not bothered thinking much about the most obvious and most relevant question: Are guns bought at gun shows a significant contributor to crime?
Kevin D. Williamson September 16, 2021 Gun-Control Laws Aren’t about Preventing Crimes [The obvious and relevant questions are also inconvenient for people such as Collins. Other questions not mentioned by Williamson include, “Do you realize you are advocating for infringements on a specific enumerated right?” And, “Are you aware that conspiracy to infringe upon rights is a serious Federal crime?”
The surge in new gun owners could have a political impact that lasts far longer than the pandemic and the surge in homicides that inspired it.
Between January 2019 and April 2021, approximately 7.5 million people became first-time gun owners. Nearly 50% of them were women. More than 40% are black or Latino. This is bad news for the gun control movement and, perhaps in the long term, for the Democratic Party.
Gun control, despite polling well as a collection of general platitudes, is already a losing issue throughout the country. Each time someone becomes a first-time gun owner, the chances of passing the strict gun control measures that the gun control movement and the majority of the Democratic Party want to see implemented go down. The pandemic will go away, and homicides will decline — but this will continue to shape our gun control politics for years to come.
You can certainly be assured that they will not win. That’s not at issue. Their entire goal is to lose. If you ever doubted, you’ve had the better part of a year of their stupidity to reflect on. You can quit wondering. They will lose. They want to lose. The only question is who they lose to. They want to lose to China, but I think losing to the radical Islamic world is their consolation prize.
Let’s spoil their day. Let’s make them lose to America.
Thomas Kendall September 7, 2021 US, AT THE GATE [Interesting idea. It’s certainly worth considering.—Joe]
We are not broke as a nation. We are not bankrupt. We can’t go bankrupt. We absolutely cannot go bankrupt because we have the power to create as much money as we need to spend to serve the American people.
If this were true then why not create enough money for every person in the U.S. to have an “universal basic income” of $100K per year? Everyone, if they wanted, could just retire in comfort and live happily ever after. And why stop there? Why not create and distribute enough money for everyone on the planet to comfortably retire?
One has to conclude he is one or more of the following:
The Left fights for abortion because abortion is the easiest and lowest hanging fruit of Leftists desire for mass extermination to achieve utopia.
J. KB September 8, 2021 Why the Left goes all in on Abortion [This is an interesting hypothesis. I might even be willing to bet that a measurable fraction of leftists falling into this category. But I find it grating to state this in all inclusive terms with such certainty.
I don’t believe J. KB is capable of mind reading or has the raw data to back up this claim. Until data is in and analyzed I will think of it as a hypothesis worthy of testing.—Joe]
What other social engineering goals can be rolled into your annual booster shot in the future once you are permanently bound to these annual jabs and vaccine passports? In an atmosphere of hysteria, it’s a system ripe for abuse by opportunists, ideologues, power hungry totalitarians, and Malthusian social engineers. The snowball doesn’t have to grow by design. Mission creep happens all on its own once Pandora’s Box is opened to coerced vaccinations and conditional rights. The road to Hell is frequently paved by good intentions… and hysteria.
I’m far more inclined to believe there is “mission creep” without “design” rather than a well executed grand conspiracy. Not that it makes all that much difference except, perhaps, in the penalty phase of their trials.—Joe]
President Biden’s much-hyped new strategy for fighting covid-19 is a tepid half-measure that falls short of the dramatic reset the country needs. The six-pronged strategy announced on Thursday can be summarized as “more of the same” — these are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done.
Biden needs to acknowledge that we have reached the end of the line when it comes to asking individuals to get vaccinated. We’ve tried education, incentives and appealing to people’s patriotic duty. It’s not working. Now is the time for mandates, with the federal government using the full extent of its authority.
Actually, it is about freedom and personal choice. And the lack of authority of the executive branch to create law without going through the legislative branch. And the lack of constitutionality authority for the Federal government to force the injection of foreign substances into individuals without consent.
In short, this action is clearly illegal. It violates 18 USC 242 and probably numerous other laws.
If the President has this authority then he also has the authority to force the injection of an abortifacient, a birth control drug, implant fertilized eggs, or sterilize those deemed unfit to reproduce (see previous link). We are no longer considered individuals with inalienable rights. We are little different from cattle in their treatment (no pun intended) of us.
You’ve got some people, they’ve got a little authority in a village and they always think they can push it a little further. But I think now people realize that they do have rights. You just gotta stick up for them.
Initially, dictatorship is imposed via the abuse and manipulation of language, its function being to peddle falsehoods. Censorship comes next, and then the denigration and erasure of memories of the past. This process has an established pattern. First, the past is ridiculed. Second, it is demonised and, finally, criminalised.
It is when the first stage is segueing into the second that an open battle of wills begins to emerge between those demanding the reinstatement of their traditional culture, customs, and freedoms and the totalitarian few, gathered together with their imported alien foot soldiers, who are attempting to destroy everything that was and is.
At that point it soon becomes evident that the only viable end game is that one side must completely eliminate the other in order to survive. There is no longer any room, nor necessity, for the so often fatal trap of compromise.
Have no doubts about it: If the situation becomes kinetic, and history suggests this has a probability higher than 0.5, then only the brave, the most determined and ruthless will prevail.
Baron Bodissey September 5, 2021 Crossing the Rubicon [Interesting take on the current situation in Britain. I’m not sure Bodissey knows that much more on the topic than anyone else and I wonder how well it applies to the U.S.. But I can see some strong correlations to our situation.—Joe]
I cuddle mine at night and read them bedtime stories. I tell my 1911 all about his dad, John Browning. The slide then goes back and forth with happiness until it lowers it’s hammer down for the night and goes to bed. #GunsHaveFeelingsToo (Now that’s how you do something original)
I have never heard of a group of guys that are so obsessed with the sizes of other men’s junk as the anti-gun pervs! Does one need to have an obsession with dicks to be anti-gun, or does being anti-gun cause that obsession?
If you ever wonder how Germany got to the point it did look at Australia. Insane authoritarianism, rising identitarianism, and apologists terrified of the state pretending to offer some opposition but defending camps for the ‘unclean’
Tim Pool @Timcast Tweeted on September 4, 2021 [Via daughter Jaime:
The Third Circuit panel found that not only did the township offer no evidence that its zoning rules are targeted to achieve a public safety benefit without imposing undue restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, but that it neglected to explain why it chose to implement these specific restrictions, and why they did so only in the part of the township that was zoned for “sportsmen’s clubs.” Two other areas of town where “shooting ranges” are allowed to operate don’t have these same types of restrictions in place, but the township can’t explain why center-fire rifle firing should be banned at a sportsmen’s club and not at a shooting range.
Now the case goes back down to the district court for a third time, and hopefully this time around the judge makes the correct decision and finds that the township violated the rights of the gun range owner by arbitrarily imposing these zoning restrictions without being able to offer up any substantive reason for doing so.