The Not-So-Pretty Fine Print of the ‘Green New Deal’

Making the click-through worthwhile: Why you need to read the fine print in that “Green New Deal” everyone’s talking about, what worked and what didn’t in President Trump’s Oval Office prime-time address, Paul Manafort’s curious conversations with a Russian agent, and a big start to 2019 for the pop-culture podcast.

The deal includes a plan to “cut military spending by at least half” and withdraw U.S. troops from overseas.

The United States military currently has 1.3 million active-duty troops, with another 865,000 in reserve, and 680,000 civilian employees. Green New Deal advocates haven’t laid out exactly how many fewer personnel the U.S. military would have if spending was cut in half, but a military that was half the size of the current one would leave about 1.4 million personnel out of work. And remember, advocates of the Green New Deal pledged to cut military spending in “at least half.”

When there are no U.S. forces stationed in Europe, South Korea, Japan, or the Middle East, how much safer do you think those places get? Do you think conflict is more likely or less likely once all U.S. military personnel leave? Do you think China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia become more aggressive or less aggressive? I thought warfare and explosions and firebombing generated a lot of carbon emissions, but maybe Green New Deal advocates think people being killed in a war on a massive scale would balance it out in the long run.

Under the Green New Deal, within eleven years, the United States would be required to eliminate not merely nuclear power — which does not directly produce any carbon dioxide or air pollution — but all natural gas. Natural gas currently provides about 32 percent of America’s energy, and nuclear power produces another 10 percent. The “Green New Deal” would also eliminate coal, which provides almost 18 percent of America’s energy, and liquid natural gas and oil, which generates another 28 percent.

In other words, within eleven years, the United States would need to replace about 88 percent of its current energy sources. This is not possible short of a societal collapse to agrarian subsistence. (At least the Renaissance fairs will remain the same.)

It would effectively nationalize the entire energy industry and shut down non-renewable energy companies, with workers given a vague promise to “provide resources to workers displaced from the fossil fuel industry.”

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, roughly 1.1 million work in coal, oil, and gas production; 2.3 million jobs in transmission, distribution, and storage; and 2.4 million workers in motor vehicles and component parts (not counting dealerships). The vast majority of these 5.8 million jobs would be eliminated under the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal calls for “replacing non-essential individual means of transport with high-quality and modern mass transit.” This is a wonky way of calling for a ban on cars. Who decides whether your car is a “non-essential individual means of transport”?

The Green New Deal also declares, “along with these steps, it will be necessary to electrify everything else, including transport.”

Your gasoline-powered car would be banned. You would only be allowed an electric one, if you were allowed a car at all.

The Green New Deal calls for the federal government would become the “employer of last resort,” contending:

Other economists also estimate the cost of a program for the federal government as employer of last resort (ELR) would be relatively small, around 1-2% of GDP, because it corresponds with huge savings in unemployment insurance in a way that pays people to work rather than paying them to not work.

One percent of our $19.4 trillion GDP would be $194 billion; 2 percent would be $388 billion.

Let’s split that in half and say having the federal government hire everyone without a job would cost $291 billion. For perspective, all U.S. corporate taxes in one year generate $225 billion. (Remember we’re running close to trillion-dollar deficits now, in economic good times.)

Did you notice, by the way, that the Green New Deal would eliminate unemployment benefits? If you lost your job, your alternative would be to go to work for the government.

The Clean New Deal declares, “a British think tank recently put out a study saying that all fossil fuels could be eliminated in 10 years.”

But if you actually go and read that study, you’ll find near the end some glaring caveats:

The experience of tiny, affluent countries such as Denmark and Kuwait may be relevant for countries in a similar class (such as Belgium, Brunei, or Qatar), but less so for an India or Nigeria. Moreover, the sociocultural or political conditions behind transitions in Brazil and China, at the time military dictatorships and communist regimes (respectively), are incompatible with the governance norms espoused in modern democracies across Europe and North America. Furthermore, history seems to suggest that past transitions—including many of the case studies presented here—are based on discoveries of new, significant, and affordable forms of energy (usually carbon-intensive) or technology, leading to abundance. Yet in the future, it may be scarcity and “stranded assets,” rather than abundance, which influences decisions.

The fact that enacting these changes would probably require a dictatorship or other authoritarian regime to suppress resistance seems like a pretty important detail, don’t you think?

Can the Democrats Really Win 2020 with a New Green Deal?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks so.

Occasional-Cortex may actually believe her own leftist enviro/econut swill. Which means she actually is as stupid as she sounds.

“This is going to be the New Deal, the Great Society, the moon shot, the civil rights movement of our generation,” declaimed Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) at a “Solving Our Climate Crisis” townhall this week. She was referring to the idea of a Green New Deal, which Mother Jones describes as “a complete realignment of the U.S. economy for a carbon-free future.” Not wanting for ambition, Ocasio-Cortez added this goal: “We can use the transition to 100 percent renewable energy as the vehicle to establish economic, racial and social justice in America.”

Ocasio-Cortez and her allies have yet to propose any Green New Deal bills. (The first step, she says, is to create a House Select Committee to devise the relevant legislation.) Until then, we’ll have to rely on the leftist group Data for Progress’ vision of what a Green New Deal would look like. By their lights, the feds should aim for 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 by shuttering all natural gas and coal-fired generation plants. All fossil fuel emissions should be ended by 2050. All new passenger automobiles for sale in 2030 should be zero emissions vehicles; all rail, vehicles, and aviation should be totally fossil-fuel free by 2050. Other parts of the Green New Deal include reforesting 40 million acres of public and private land by 2035, greatly expanding mass transit systems, upgrading local water supply and management infrastructure, expanding federal regulation of the waters of the U.S., and requiring that all materials be recyclable by 2040.

The centerpiece of the New Green Deal would be the creation of 10 million new green jobs in its first ten years. “A Green New Deal requires a massive workforce for the construction, operations, and administration of projects, and a federal job guarantee program can ensure there are enough workers to meet that need,” says the Data for Progress proposal. “A job guarantee is a legal right that obligates the federal government to provide a job for anyone who asks for one and to pay them a livable wage.”

Pointing to problems that may need to be addressed is all well and good, but when it comes to how to pay for the proposed vast transformation of the U.S. economy, the Data for Progress folks basically punt. The most that the Data for Progress report does is hand-wave toward repealing the recent tax cuts and rolling back military spending. But guaranteeing 10 million green jobs alone would require roughly to $500 billion annually, assuming full-time employment at $15 per hour.

The Data for Progress proposal cites some polls that supposedly show that Americans back a Green New Deal, including 64 percent support for a renewable electricity mandate, 71 percent for EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, 74 percent for vehicle fuel efficiency standards, and 55 percent for a green job guarantee. But would Americans really support higher fuel and electric bills along with higher taxes to support this ambitious program? An October 2017 poll from the University of Chicago strongly suggests not. While 61 percent of Americans in that survey think that climate change is a problem, the pollsters report, “questions on how much they would personally be willing to pay to confront climate change (in the form of a monthly fee on their electric bill) reveal great disparity. While half are unwilling to pay even one dollar (emphasis added), 18 percent are willing to pay at least $100 per month.”

“The Green New Deal is one of the most interesting—and strategic—left-wing policy interventions from the Democratic Party in years,” writes Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic. Meyer thinks that the green jobs guarantee will be so seductive a lure that voters will hardly notice that their taxes have increased along with the costs for heating and cooling their houses and fueling their cars. Perhaps, but given the French workers’ fierce reaction to a relatively minor 12 cent per gallon increase in their gasoline taxes, this proposed “left-wing policy intervention” may be less “interesting” to U.S. voters than progressives like Ocasio-Cortez suppose.

Dick’s CEO Ed Stack totals up how many employees quit over assault-style weapon decision.

This is a propaganda smokescreen.
It’s not the loss of employees, but of customers, he’s concerned about.

According to CEO Ed Stack, 62 employees quit working for Dick’s Sporting Goods over the retailer’s decision to stop selling assault-style weapons, announced in February.

Stack spoke on the matter before the Wall Street Journal CEO Council and called the number “relatively small” in the context of a company that employs 40,000 people.

“We anticipated that there would be some people that would leave. We’ve got 40,0000 employees, and 2,500, or 2,6000 people working at our corporate headquarters,” said Stack, of the Findlay-based company. “We’re a cross-section of the country. We knew people would be upset.”

The Rand Corporation’s dishonest report on gun control

That last is important. When the difference between murder and homicide is glossed over or completely disregarded, you can almost be assured 100% that it’s being done to push gun-grabbing.

The approach of the Rand Corporation is to reach their conclusions regarding gun control by either completely ignoring studies that indicate that gun control is harmful or claiming some reason that it can’t be included in their survey.  Time after time their justifications for excluding studies are simply false.

The strange thing here is that when the results are not statistically different from zero rather than saying that there is no evidence that a particular law had an impact, Rand would consistently claim that the results are “uncertain” or “inconclusive.”

The Rand Corporation claims are shown in bold. As an initial example, take Rand’s discussion of the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

Using a panel of state data, Lott (2010) provided an update of his earlier analyses examining the effect of shall-issue laws on violent crime.  . . . Many of Lott’s modeling results were presented as figures and did not indicate statistical significance. Detailed results were provided only for an analysis of homicide rates.

Their discussion is simply not correct on many levels. The entire book gives extensive results for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Apparently the Rand report authors don’t understand the difference between murder and homicide. Here is an example from Table 10.4 on page 265 that provided detailed results for those different categories along with their level of statistical significance.

American Energy: Making Oil Shocks History.

The econutz, ecotards, proggies and demoncraps spouted their propaganda and said ‘we can’t drill our way to oil independence.’
Lying Pansies

 

Potential supply disruptions no longer stir a national conversation on thermostats and speed limits. Since 2008, U.S. oil production has more than doubled, and this year, we likely become the world’s top oil producer, passing both Saudi Arabia and Russia. U.S. natural gas production has surged almost 50%, and also now leads the world. Abundant gas is making electricity cleaner and more affordable, and enabling a resurgence in manufacturing and the good-paying jobs that come with it. Energy exports are booming—the U.S. is on pace to become a net energy exporter by 2022, significantly improving our balance of trade. A reduced dependence on energy imports has enhanced national security and strengthened U.S. leverage in foreign relations.

Kavanaugh Accuser’s couples therapy records, partially leaked to WaPo, may hold the key

“Odd that the memory of the alleged assault was recovered during couples therapy, and the therapist records were selectively leaked by the accuser.”

[Update 9:30 p.m. – Ford’s lawyer says she will not testify until after an FBI investigation.]

Well, that just further confirms this is nothing more than a shoddy smear by the demoncraps. Chairman Grassley should cancel the Monday hearing and proceed to the original committee vote this Thursday.

When The Washington Post broke the story that Christine Blasey Ford was the person who accused Supreme Court nominee of assault dating back to high school, there were several aspects of the WaPo story that struck me as particularly strange.
First, there was a suggestion that this is a repressed and recovered memory case:

“Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If this is a case of repressed memory, then it changes everything. It’s a convenient explanation for why Ford said nothing to anyone for 30 years despite herself being a clinical psychologist. Repressed and recovered memory, however, is of questionable veracity and admissibility in court.

Second, that repressed memory allegedly was recovered in 2012 during couples’ therapy,

Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.

Why in couples therapy, not in individual therapy? That seems like an odd time to recover memory, particularly for a clinical psychologist who likely underwent or practiced various forms of psychological therapy during her long career.  This suggests that perhaps there was some marital problem which implicated an earlier trauma, if this story is true, or invented an earlier trauma as an excuse, if the story is not true.

Third, Ford volunteered the therapist’s notes to WaPo, but only selective portions chosen by Ford:

The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

It seems odd for an alleged sexual assault victim to volunteer psychiatric records, particularly since the odious “nuts and sluts” defense so frequently is used against accusers. And why were only selective portions shared? This seems particularly calculating and defensively preemptive.

My gut tells me the therapy records hold a key to what did or did not happen here. Having voluntarily shared a part of those records with a newspaper, it’s hard for Ford to argue confidentiality.

It becomes even more important in light of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s statement today that Ford “is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted, on this..I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.”

Kavanaugh already has agreed to testify under oath at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday, September 24, 2018. As of this writing, it’s not clear if Ford will appear (though I assume she will).

Without the full couples therapy records Ford already partially shared with the Washington Post, I’m not sure we’ll ever really know how and why this allegedly repressed memory was recovered, or whether it actually is a memory.

Breaking: Kavanaugh Accuser Speaks To WaPo

Proggie Professor; Winner of the Anita Hill smear-alike contest.

“Christine Blasey – Ford is a professor at Palo Alto University who teaches in a consortium with Stanford University, training graduate students in clinical psychology.”

Gah. Clinical Psychology; a voodoo ‘science’ concocted by a couple of German doctors – Sigmund Freud & Carl Jung who figured that every mental problem could be boiled down to a child’s sexual fixation on their parents. Seems that quite a lot of the people that go into Psychiatry always seem to have their own mental problems.

 

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

Barack Obama reminds us why Donald Trump is president.

“How hard can that be? Saying that Nazis are bad,” former President Barack Obama asked a crowd in Illinois over the weekend. Well, probably no harder than saying the words “radical Islam,” I imagine.  Or maybe it’s slightly less difficult than not sending billions of dollars to Holocaust denying terror regimes that have both the means and intent to murder Jews—in 2018, not 1942. And it’s definitely a lot easier than not meeting, posing and then smiling for a picture with Louis Farrakhan. But thanks for the lecture.

Obama may well find the presence of a few hundred pathetic white supremacists more perilous than a deadly worldwide ideological movement with millions of adherents. But just as Obama’s sins do not excuse Trump’s inexplicable answer to the Charlottesville riot, Trump’s words don’t excuse the most divisive modern president, a man whose unilateralism and contempt for the process and the constitution helped create the environment America now find itself in.

While Obama’s self-reverential speech was crammed with revisionism, the most jaw-dropping contention from the former president was probably a defense of his record on free speech: “I complained plenty about Fox News,” the scandal-ridden Obama explained, “but you never heard me threaten to shut them down, or call them ‘enemies of the people.’”

That’s the thing. We often hear Donald Trump’s hyperbolic, and sometimes destructive, attacks on the press. Thankfully, as of yet, the president hasn’t applied the power of the state to inhibit anyone’s free expression. And this is no thanks to the eight-year efforts of liberals to empower the executive branch when it was useful.

It’s worth remembering that it was Obama who called out the Supreme Court during a State of the Union speech for defending the First Amendment in the Citizens United case, and his allies who still argue that state should be able to ban political documentaries – and, yes, books. Let’s also not forget the IRS admitted and then apologized for cracking down on conservative political groups. It was the Obama administration that blamed the Benghazi attack on free speech, apologizing to tyrannies for the excesses of free expression, and then, for good measure, throwing the amateurish videomaker behind  “The Innocence of Muslims” into jail.

But, most of all, let’s not forget that Obama did a lot more than complain about Fox News. The administration was so preoccupied with the cable news network (the only major station that could reasonably be seen as the opposition) that top-ranking administration officials like Anita Dunn, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod all engaged in concerted effort to openly delegitimize its coverage. That was unprecedented, but ok. Less ok, though, was that not long after that effort, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to spy on a Fox journalist—shopping his case to three separate judges, until he found one who let him name reporter James Rosen as a co-conspirator in a crime of reporting the news.

The Permeation of Propaganda in the College Student Brain

In 1937, an editorial in The New York Times declared that “what is truly vicious is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.” Thus begins an article titled “Propaganda Techniques of German Fascism,” written by Clyde R. Miller and reprinted in the fifth edition of Modern English Readings (1946). This text was used by college students. There is nothing dealing with gender, white privilege, social justice, the religion of peace, or alleged microaggressions.

When pundits discuss the culture wars, it is essential to see how so many present-day textbooks have contributed to generations of young people who have, for the most part, never been exposed to how America’s ideals have shaped the country. Instead, students are indoctrinated by public school teachers with connections to Antifa. More chilling is that these same teachers publicly acknowledge they would not protect the rights of students who disagree with them.

Thus, the article by Miller is quite apropos at a time when the education establishment, as well as the hi-tech companies’ “monoculture,” seeks to monopolize the information highway.

Atlantic Council Explains Why We Need to be Propagandized for Our Own Good

I sometimes try to get establishment loyalists to explain to me exactly why we’re all meant to be terrified of this “Russian propaganda” thing they keep carrying on about. What is the threat, specifically? That it makes the public less willing to go to war with Russia and its allies? That it makes us less trusting of lying, torturing, coup-staging intelligence agencies? Does accidentally catching a glimpse of that green RT logo turn you to stone like Medusa, or melt your face like in Raiders of the Lost Ark?

“Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions,” is the most common reply.

Okay. So? Where’s the threat there? We know for a fact that we’ve been lied to by those institutions. Iraq isn’t just something we imagined. We should be skeptical of claims made by western governments, intelligence agencies and mass media. How specifically is that skepticism dangerous?…

Paul Craig Roberts: In the Western World, Truth is an Endangered Species

Nowhere in the Western world is truth respected. Even universities are imposing censorship and speech control. Governments are shutting down, and will eventually criminalize, all explanations that differ from official ones. The Western world no longer has a print and TV media.

In its place there is a propaganda ministry for the ruling elite.

New MRE Headed for the Front Lines Includes Mini Spinach Quiches.

I’ve eaten different ‘generations’ of the MRE over a period of 25 years. None of them could be described as ‘taste tempting’. 

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Army debuted new meals ready to eat including pizza that’s coming down the pipeline soon and special compact, gourmet rations for close combat that will include mini quiches for the front line.

The new food items, which were displayed in the Pentagon courtyard late last week, are an effort to improve soldiers’ nutrition while still offering troops an MRE they’d actually want to eat.

In this vein, the military is planning on testing an array of vacuum-sealed dried fruits and veggies such as the banana compressed to about a third of its size.

The taste-tempter expected to be on the menu for downrange soldiers next year, and at some locations possibly earlier than that, is the pepperoni pizza MRE, which officials said has been a longstanding request from troops and was put into development in 2012.