The Economist Concerned About Decrease In Global Poverty

                London’s The Economist recently touted an article about the many people around the globe who are rising out of poverty and are now able to afford to add meat to their diet. The magazine took to Twitter to promote the article, which was published in May and titled “Global meat-eating is on the rise, bringing surprising benefits.”

                The Twitter piece stated, “More people are eating meat around the world. That means they will live longer, healthier lives, but it is bad news for the environment.” Don’t they know how selfish they look? Geez, take one for the team, please! Save the environment, screw your health, budding meat eaters! Go back to eating grass and pinecones. Or at least use your newfound wealth to purchase macaroni and cheese, SpaghettiOs and Ramen noodles-- and spare the environment.

                The Economist’s take on the decrease in world poverty is ironic to say the least. It is also akin to saying, “The D-Day Invasion was successful and ultimately led to the defeat of Hitler and the rebirth of freedom across much of Europe, but it used up an awful lot of gasoline and petroleum products.”

    Who says the media focuses on the negative?  

The 11th Hour With Brian Williams

The 11^th Hour with Brian Williams

MSNBC—Thursday, August 29^nd, 2019

Brian Williams: “Welcome everyone to The 11^th Hour with Brian Williams. We’re going to do something a bit different tonight. Former vice president and current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, Joe Biden, is in studio with us tonight. Mr. Biden has kindly—and courageously-- consented to be interviewed on a full range of subjects. A pleasure to have you with us tonight, sir!”

Biden: “My pleasure, Brian. That’s the truth. And it is a fact.”

Williams: “What are your thoughts on the recent horrific mass shootings and on gun violence in general, sir?”

Biden: “Well, as you know, those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president, when other elected officials were basically cowering, not wanting to see them. Let’s face it, they did not want to face it on camera, ha, ha. So, I haven’t run from the issue.”

Williams: “Indeed. Where were you during the horrific mass shootings earlier this month?”

Biden: “The infamous tragedies in Houston and Michigan. So sad! I was actually in Houston when that mass murder took place. I just wish I would have been in that Wal-Mart. Maybe I could have saved some of the lives that Trump—and guns-- took.”

Williams: “I know what it’s like to be in harm’s way. You’ll recall that I was in a helicopter that was shot down over Iraq in 2003.”

Biden: “Yes, I remember it well. I was vice president at the time.”

Williams: “Sir, you were a Senator from Delaware from 1973 until 1999. What was your proudest achievement during that long, tumultuous time?”

Biden: “Well, Brian, I helped Al Gore invent the internet—I think we called it the ‘inter-web’ back then—and I was instrumental in helping end the Cold War. That’s something I take great pride in.”

Williams: “Understandably so, sir. Understandably so. I too take pride in the small role I played in helping to end the Cold War.”

Biden: “And what was that role, Brian?”

Williams: “It’s not common knowledge, for whatever reason, but I wrote President Reagan’s ‘Brandenburg Gate’ speech.”

Biden: “Wow. If I recall correctly, I was vice president at the time.”

Williams: “Here’s something that may stun the audience. Do you remember when you told me I was too young to be on Apollo 11? Fortunately, I was determined to go to the moon and Aldrin and Armstrong were cool about it.”

Biden: “That rings a bell. I think I was vice president at the time…”

                                                 [fade}

San Francisco Overhauls Language To Avoid Offending Criminals

                San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has mandated new and improved language for referring to criminals and addicts. The new lingo is sanitized for their protection. (Certainly not ours). The city’s officials adopted the changes recently, banishing words they feel marginalize criminals in favor of more politically correct terms.

                The word “offender” is out, as it is offensive. Duh! We’re afraid to offend offenders? “Addict” has been shown the door as well, because-- I guess-- it makes one sound like someone who’s addicted to something. From now on a criminal released from prison will be known as a “formerly incarcerated person,” or a “returning resident,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Returning resident? That sounds like Aunt Edna coming back from vacation, not an ex-con coming back from the slammer.

                A drug addict will become “a person with a history of substance use,” while a convicted felon will henceforth be called a “justice-involved person.” That makes it sound like he or she is a good guy, probably in law enforcement, certainly not a dangerous criminal. Similarly, a juvenile “delinquent” will henceforth be termed a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.” It will then be unclear if he was the perpetrator or the victim. That is likely the point. To progressives, there’s no difference between perps and law-abiding citizens, really, just as there’s no objective difference between men and women.

            The local officials claim the new language will help change people’s views about those who commit crimes. One can almost hear them thinking: “We certainly don’t want to stigmatize crime and bad behavior! Wonder why we have so much crime and bad behavior?”

                Leftists don’t understand the simple laws and realities of life. Or they refuse to accept them. They are generally unfamiliar with Natural Law, don’t approve of the idea of supply and demand, and refuse to acknowledge that there are only two sexes.

                We already call illegal aliens “undocumented immigrants.” Can’t accuse them of breaking the law, even though that is precisely what they did—the very first thing they did-- upon entering the country. If a man thinks he’s a woman, or wishes he were one, we call him a woman. Crazy isn’t “crazy,” it’s “exceptionally unusual,”  “thrilling,” “non-standard,” or “differently-excited and acted out.”

You inevitably get more of what you tolerate, subsidize, and welcome—and less of what you stigmatize and punish. San Francisco is reeling from one of the highest crime rates in the country. It is awash in homeless people, used hypodermic needles and human feces. And it keeps begging for more.

Democrat's Green New Deals Would Make The World See Red

                16 trillion. If you’re a candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president—and who isn’t—that’s the amount, in dollars, that the green energy program you propose should cost. Ballpark. Base figure. Give or take a trillion or so. This will put you squarely in line with your peers. It may seem like a lot of money to some folks, but you know the figure is low. Hell, we’re already 20-something trillion in debt, so what’s roughly doubling that figure going to do? And, you also know it doesn’t matter, no one seems to care anymore, anyway.

                This is why Bernie Sanders recently released details of his version of a “Green New Deal,” which he claims will cost us a mere $16.3 trillion. Sanders’ plan declares climate change a national emergency, calls for the U.S. to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2050 in favor of solar, wind and geothermal power, and commits his country to fork over $200 billion to help poorer nations deal with climate change.

                Sure, misers like Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren have plans overtly calling for spending only $1.7 trillion or $2 trillion over a period of years to combat climate change, but others, such as Alexandria Occasional-Cortex’s own—and original-- Green New Deal, may cost upwards of $93 trillion over a ten year period. Therefore, to be considered a moderate like Sanders, say your plan will cost around $16 trillion. (Even though you know it will cost double or triple that amount).

                Bernie claims his plan will “pay for itself” over the course of just 15 years. Famous last words. He also avers that it will somehow create 20 million new jobs, an amazing assertion given that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were just 6.7 million job openings and 6.4 million workers available to fill those openings in 2018. Sanders’ “plan” would in reality saddle the fossil fuel industry with onerous new fees and taxes, driving up the cost of energy, dramatically increasing the price of almost everything, and crashing the economy, resulting in millions of lost jobs as companies went under and people were forced to spend less. It is an impossibility for his plan to pay for itself. In truth, the fewer remaining job holders/income-tax payers would be forced to pay for Sanders’ plan, and all those in the fossil fuel industry who were necessarily displaced, and the entitlement benefits of everyone else who was rendered unemployed by the economic collapse.

  But they could only pay for a portion of the plan. A new Heritage Foundation study found that, even if those with annual incomes above $200,000 were taxed at a rate of 100% and all corporate profits were summarily seized, the revenue generated in this way would still be $13.2 trillion shy of the amount required to fund the lowest estimate for Medicare for All and the Green New deal.

 David Burton, Heritage’s senior fellow in economic policy, recently wrote of the study results: “It is arithmetically impossible to pay for progressive promises by ‘taxing the rich.’ Progressive promises are too expensive—and the amount of income earned by the rich is too small. Even using lower cost estimates, confiscating every dollar earned by every taxpayer with incomes of $200,000 or more would only pay for about half of the progressive agenda.” But, of course, if every dollar of those making $200,000 a year or more were taken away from them, and if every dollar of profit was confiscated from businesses, no “wealthy” people would work…and there would be no businesses. So, there would be no wealthy from whom to take money, nor businesses whose profits government could confiscate. And those who’d formerly held lucrative jobs-- and run successful businesses-- would now be eligible to collect benefits themselves. The result of these plans would be an apocalyptic economic disaster, one that would throw the entire planet into chaos, depression and despair.

Professor Says We Don't Need Wealthy People Only Their Wealth

Nick French, a philosophy instructor at the University of California-Berkeley, is teaching a summer course titled “Individual Morality and Social Justice,” in which he argues that wealthy people are inherently immoral, no matter what they do with their money. They are evil even if they donate much of their wealth to worthy causes.

French, in a recent Jacobin Magazine op-ed, argued that people should “dispossess the benevolent rich of their ill-gotten gains.” You can’t make this up. Jacobins were members of a “democratic” club established in Paris in 1789. They were the most radical and ruthless of the political groups formed in the aftermath of the French Revolution, carrying out the Terror of 1793-1794. They “dispossessed” France’s rich of their money…and their heads. Now some academic clown named French wants to see history repeated in today’s America. The Jacobin also states that French is a member of the East Bay Democratic Socialists of America. Well blow me down.

The first half of French’s course is dedicated to addressing “how individuals ought to live,” a topic near and dear to leftist’s hearts. Then students will be expected to analyze “the justice of social arrangements.” They will also face questions such as “What makes an action right or wrong, good or bad?” Duh. An action is “right” or “good” when it is in keeping with how French thinks one “ought to live.” It is “wrong” or “bad” when it isn’t.

In his Jacobin op-ed, called: “Even Nice, ‘Generous’ Rich People Are Not Your Friends,” Frenchy McFrenchface states: “Rich people love to give away money for charitable causes to convince you that they’re not so bad after all. Don’t be fooled: we need to dispossess the benevolent rich of their ill-gotten gains, too.” So, simply having money makes you, by default—no questions asked, no dissent brooked—a “bad” person? That’s an intolerant, bigoted, money-shaming generalization, is it not?

The Jacobin wannabe philosophy professor purports to believe that capitalists are predisposed to be “socially destructive” due to their exalted “position in the economic structure.” French flatly states: “Bernie Sanders is right. We need to build a mass movement powerful enough to take on the millionaires and billionaires, so we can take control of socially created wealth and subject it to public, democratic control. Then we can start to solve the problems that the rich can’t.” Historically, this has been a recipe for complete disaster, and is so yet today. Socialist nations like Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba can’t even feed their own citizens. They are tragically short on medicines. Even potable water is in short supply. And the only millionaires are at the head of the governments. Governments assuredly not of, by, and for the people, despite what the regimes’ nomenclature might imply.

Mr. French avers that “the very existence of capitalists” creates the problems of poverty, disease, and “other social ills.” Actually, the existence and rise of capitalism lifted untold millions—if not billions—out of poverty and disease, leading the world as a whole to take a 5,000 Year Leap forward.

French wrote, “We don’t need the wealthy, just their wealth.” Say again? How does French suggest we confiscate the wealth of the wealthy…if there are no wealthy?

 It is ironic that he doesn’t care for those whom he claims care only about money and not people-- and surpassingly hypocritical that he wants to take their money.

To paraphrase an old pop/rock song by Ten Years After: Tax the rich, feed the poor, ‘til there are no rich no more? Tell me, where is the sanity?

               

(Poison) Ivy League Professor Savages Trump

                Steve Cohen, Columbia University professor and Senior Vice Dean of Professional Studies, recently wrote an article savaging President Trump for allegedly being an “anti-environmental” source. The piece, titled “Resisting Trump’s Relentless Attack on the Environment,” was published on the school’s official website as part of the Columbia Earth Institute’s news publication, “State of the Planet,” according to campusreform.org. Campus Reform states that the publication has no opinion section and that the piece is in no way represented as being editorial or opinion-based in nature.

                Which is amusing in that it refers to the president as “the mean and small-minded man in the White House,” and focuses on the need to “resist” the president’s agenda. Cohen is aghast—aghast I tell you!-- that Trump “sees the natural environment as a resource to exploit.” He claims Trump has a mindset of “Dig it, mine it, pump it, turn it into condos and a golf course,” which he characterizes as “macho and moronic.”

                Yet Cohen, learned academician that he is, then states: “The environmental rules that Trump attacks will outlast him because we are all living creatures dependent on the planet for the air, water and food.” Air, water and food? Those are all resources each of us must exploit to survive, something the hypocritical moron obviously failed to recognize.  

                Cohen continued, saying the president “separates children from parents,” and labeling Trump’s actions a “disheartening and sometimes scary display of mindlessness,” while admitting he is “still supported by about 40% of the country.” He added, “I have resisted directly attacking the president until recently, as the polling data indicates there is a broad American consensus favoring environmental protection.” And I thought he had the courage of his convictions.

                It is amazing how those in academia and science join those in the mainstream media in portraying themselves as unbiased pillars of truth and objectivity, simply laying out the facts for the rest of us to internalize, while mocking Trump for his mean tweets and exaggerations. Yet, they nearly always reveal themselves to be nothing more than charlatans, agenda-driven hucksters and authoritarian ideologues with comments like Cohen’s.

                Cohen—and those like him in the elite establishment—are apparently unaware of their own lunacy, hubris and hypocrisy when they make statements such as: “President Trump, who any sane person can clearly see is crazy, is desperate to destroy the planet’s ecosystem(s). The Zionist-coddling, fast-food-loving sleazebag with the itty-bitty penis wants to bring back slavery and exterminate gays and lesbians while essentially turning the United States into a giant Monopoly board. President Poopy Pants is not only against women’s health, but also the health of our planet. He will not be truly—and demonically—happy until life on Earth ceases to exist.”

                 It is time to resist the left’s relentless attacks on standards and logic.

               

U.S. To Purchase Greenland?

                 The White House’s top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, recently confirmed that President Trump is seriously exploring the possibility of purchasing Greenland. Kudlow, Director of the U.S. National Economic Council, told Dana Perino during an interview on “Fox News Sunday” that the president is interested in the ‘huuuge’ arctic island due to the enormous strategic value it would bring to the national security and economic interests of the United States. He added, “Denmark owns Greenland. Denmark is an ally. Greenland is a strategic place up there and they’ve got a lot of valuable minerals. I don’t want to predict it now. I’m just saying the president, who knows a thing or two about buying real estate, wants to take a look at a potential Greenland purchase. Look, it’s an interesting story. It’s developing. We’re looking at it. We don’t know.” Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark, naturally, says Greenland isn’t for sale. But one never knows, does one?

                And what’s not to love about Greenland? It is essentially one massive sheet of ice. The sun doesn’t rise at all in December and January. Its national dish is boiled seal meat, rice and onions. In Nuuk, the capital city on the balmy southwest coast, July is the only month with an average high of 50 degrees Fahrenheit or more. (The average high is exactly 50 degrees Fahrenheit). Greenland is known as “Kalaallit Nunaat,” or the Land of People. As of 2017 there were exactly 56,171 of them. Total. It is the 12^th largest nation on Earth physically, but the least densely populated, with a 2019 density of 0.357 per square mile.

               What’s next for the Real Estate Mogul-in-Chief? Perhaps he has eyes on Antarctica? My guess is he wants to purchase Baffin Island from Canada. And Ellesmere Island, too. And why not? Greenland, Antarctica, Baffin Island, Ellesmere Island… all do have strategic worth. 

                If the U.S. doesn’t buy them, you can be sure that Russia or China will try to steal or annex them. And that wouldn’t be good for anyone, especially those that live there.

               

Oregon Law Says All Eggs Must Come From Cage-Free Hens

                Oregon legislators recently passed a new law stipulating that all eggs sold in the state must come from cage-free hens by 2024. The legislation will require farm operations with more than 3,000 hens to provide “a cage-free housing system” for the birds and also mandates that the fowl are afforded “enrichments…including, at minimum, scratch areas, perches, nest boxes and dust bathing areas.” Violation of the law could result in significant fines.

                The Humane Society of the United States applauded the measure as a “monumental win for hens,” adding that “with Oregon’s new law, the entire West Coast region of the United States now has the strongest laws in the world for egg-laying hens.” I guess if you’re an egg-laying hen-- or an illegal alien-- the West Coast is the place to be.

                Two proposed amendments to the bill were narrowly defeated, however, though proponents vow to revisit them in the near future. One proposed rider would have mandated that all hens be given two weeks of vacation each year, while the other would have necessitated providing the hens with unlimited access to cable television, including premium channels. Both amendments would do away with the pernicious “pecking order.”

                Animal rights activists touted Oregon’s move and said it paves the way for further progress in the immediate future. The head of one such group told this reporter that activists are closely watching California’s legislature to see what becomes of a bill now being considered that would improve the lives of milk cows. This bill, they say, would require that all milk sold in the state come from free-roaming cows in unfenced pastures. It would outlaw machine-based milking, mandating that only the softest, un-calloused human hands be used to coax the animal’s teats into giving up the precious dairy product. Moreover, the bill would stipulate that cows have 24/7 access to the choicest cud, and that they receive relaxing back and neck massages while Barry White music plays softly during the period when they are being milked.

   The cows would be provided access to free legal advice if they felt marginalized, underappreciated, discriminated against, overworked or harassed, sexually or otherwise. 

                #MeTooMoo.

Biden Campaign Fundraiser

Biden Campaign Fundraiser

Portland, Maine

August 29, 2019

(Candidate Biden steps up to a podium, acknowledges the crowd, and begins to speak)

Biden: “I am truly happy to be here in Portland today. Oregon is a great state. Go Ducks! And Beavers! I understand Oregon is home to the only leprechaun colony west of Ireland-- and is the only state with an official nut. If you don’t count New York’s Donald Trump, hee, hee.” (Audience appears confused. Aide approaches Biden and whispers in his ear, telling him that he is in Portland, Maine….not Oregon).

Biden (looking chagrined): “Alright, so I’m a gaffe machine. But, my God, what a wonderful thing compared to a guy that can’t tell the truth, right? I know my staffers want me to limit my public appearances so I don’t embarrass myself in front of potential voters, but how would that look? I mean, who campaigns for Prime Minister by hiding? No one, that’s who. And, speaking of which, I was pleased to meet with Prime Minister Thatcher a few weeks ago. Wonderful lady. I asked her how Brexit was going and if she thought France would really end up leaving the Eurasian Union. Know what she told me? She said, and I quote: ‘Over my dead body.’ And that’s the spirit we need in this country. Despite Trump’s divisive rhetoric, despite the fact that he is fueling a literal carnage across the country, we need to come together as one people, indivisible, under God or Allah or Shiva or Satan……or whatever. As I was telling East Germany’s Chancellor Adolf Merkel at the same meeting, if the U.S. can stay together, and the B.U can stay together, maybe one day the whole darn world can live as one. Who’s to say we can’t make Russian President Viacheslav Putin and Xi Jinping, Lieutenant Secretary of the Communist Party of China -- and Resident of the Citizen’s Republic of China—see the light? As former President Barack Obama used to say to me: ‘Bite me, Biden, if you doubt that someday there’ll be a one-world government…led by folks exactly like ourselves.’ And just like you folks here in Oregon! Go Ducks!”

                                                                               [fade]

Brazilian President: Poop Every Other Day

                A journalist recently asked Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro whether it was feasible to—simultaneously-- spur economic growth, feed the planet’s hungry, and preserve the environment. Bolsonaro replied: “It’s enough to eat a little less. You talk about environmental pollution. It’s enough to poop every other day. That will be better for the whole world.” I’m on it.

               Bolsonaro, who has been heavily criticized for a surge in deforestation of the Amazon region since he took office, recently sacked the head of the government agency that reported the increase in deforestation. If his advice is heeded, perhaps he will promote the head of the government agency that someday reports the decrease in defecation.

   Bolsonaro went on to recommend that folks pee only twice a day, sneeze no more than once a week and limit coughing to the noon hour of the first Thursday of every month.

   Some are accusing Bolsonaro of stealing neighboring Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s plan for saving the planet, as most of Venezuela’s citizens are already down to pooping once a week…… and many will never defecate again (as they have crapped out). These last are climate heroes all. Posthumous awards to follow, hopefully.

  Perhaps Bolsonaro should be encouraged to talk to the homeless in London, Baltimore, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle. Maybe he could inspire them to poop only every other day, as well.

  Let’s clean up the Earth, one street and sidewalk at a time. Thanks, President Bolsonaro. No shit.