We unlocked, almost 70 years ago, a brand new, truly renewable, and virtually limitless enery source. The fuel is literally everywhere, albiet at very low concentrations in most places, and once you have refined a chunk of fuel, you can recycle it almost ad infinitum. It is safe, clean, and so dense a source that if it were implemented on a large enough scale it could mean electricity that was too cheap to meter.
70 years later, we are still burning coal and oil and natural gas to generate electricity, and the same people who stood in the way of fission power are demanding we start using windmills to generate power, as if this was the 16th century.
Besides being difficult, fusion will be expensive, more expensive than fission power is. And the same Luddites who stood in the way of nuclear power will stand in the way of fusion. And don't think that the companies who produce oil and coal will sit idly by, either; although I don't usually discuss their role in our continued stupid reliance on fossil fuels, they have played a part in keeping fission as far off the table as possible. ("Too cheap to meter" electricity means the end of a market for gasoline, for example, sooner or later.)
But at least the people who sell fossil fuels have a decent reason for opposing progress: besides lining their own pockets, they also employ a huge number of people and actually produce things. They do useful work, even if some aspects have been (or should have been, at least) outpaced by the development of technology. I have some sympathy for them, which is why I ignore their role in anti-nuclear efforts (which is primarily fiscal). It's just business, and that's fine.
The people I don't have sympathy for are the environmentalists. They produce nothing of value, nothing useful, nothing worthwhile; they stand athward technological progress because they hate people. They'd rather have entire continents of people living like savages, in filth and poverty, because that's better for the environment. Meanwhile these same environmentalists don't give up their air conditioning and SUVs and air travel and Starbucks and-and-and; it's sufficient for the rest of the world to live in the dirt while they live like kings. These people fight to keep as many people as possible in conditions where they're starving and slaving to stay alive, where they can't even have basic refrigeration or clean running water because there's no electricity. These people count it a victory when someone starves because the GMO plants which could have fed him have been banned.
There is very little evil which is on par with environmentalism.
* * *
Anyone who finds any of this surprising is a complete idiot. Gee, who would have thought that Obamacare would not, after all, make anything less expensive?
Those of us who opposed that stupidity from the beginning tried to warn the rest of you asshats that it wouldn't fix anything but would only end up making things more expensive. In the best cases it merely failed to fix anything, but "best cases" in this hogwallow are thin on the ground. For the most part, Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster for just about everyone affected by it.
* * *
I'm going to say "probably". Look, we have credible evidence that Facebook allowed the Obama campaign to "scrape" its data archive for useful information. The exact same thing everyone is now up in arms about because a Republican candidate did it, yeah:
Obama's people saw this as a massive advantage, telling the press after the election that it was "the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for the campaign." The press, in turn, heralded Obama for his brilliance at leveraging social media to activate voters and win an election at a time when its approval ratings were low and the economy was doing poorly.But don't worry. At some point, someone will notice this facet of the fooraw and a suit will be filed. It's only a matter of time.
Apparently, Facebook knew its user data was being harvested en masse, but didn't care.
After the Cambridge Analytica story broke, an Obama campaign staffer, Carol Davidsen, tweeted about how "Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized what we were doing." By "whole social graph," she presumably meant profiles of every Facebook user in the U.S.
She went on to tell the Washington Post that "We would ask permission to basically scrape your profile, and also scrape your friends, basically anything that was available to scrape. We scraped it all."
She also said that Facebook officials came to the campaign offices after the election recruiting Obama's tech team, and that "they were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."
* * *
The logical conclusion of overturning the Second Amendment is that we should overturn all of them. I mean, what the hell, who's worried about soldiers showing up at their house and moving in, making you feed them and everything? No one does that anymore!
...and negating the Second Amendment will result in the eventual negation of all of them, anyway, so why not?
* * *
Of course when an anti-gun-nut actually expresses what they all think, they want him to shut the hell up soonest. Because if that gets around--that the repeal of the Second Amendment is their ideal goal--people might take exception to that, and Democrats lose whenever people remember how anti-civil-rights they are.
* * *
Why are you surprised? All those people are hypocrites to the friggin' core.
This guy is Al Sharpton's half-brother, and had only just participated in that "march for our lives" nonsense, when--oh!--he was involved in a murder with a handgun. Admittedly, he's not the one who did the shooting; he was driving the car.
His buddy's car went missing. They drove around looking for it, and when they found the person who they'd thought had taken it, his buddy shot her to death.
Yeah, making guns illegal will really make everyone safe. Sure. Because this winner's buddy was carrying a legal firearm, and he had a CCW permit for it, and he just flew off the handle, right?
Somehow I doubt it.
* * *
Last night we watched Downsizing.
It was a pretty good movie; it was entertaining. The one problem I had with it was the eco-bugaboo that drove the plot; ice melting in Antarctica was releasing methane, and the positive feedback loop was going to trigger a mass extinction event in a couple of hundred years.
In the absolute worst case, the doomsday scenario they used in the movie would cause the global warming all the lefties are so worried about, but it wouldn't doom the entire biosphere of the planet. Far from "mass extinction" we'd see an incredible boom in plant growth, and there literally isn't enough water in the world to cover all the landmass, so while it would be dashed inconvenient, it wouldn't be the end of all life on Earth, or even a significant portion thereof.
Plus side, this nonsense wasn't the primary driver of the film--it was kind of backgroundy--but it did induce enough of an eyeroll that it spoiled my complete enjoyment of the story.
This is the mechanism whereby SJW horseshit ruins movies: people get tired of the endless lectures disguised--poorly--as entertainment.
* * *
So now expect the state of California to get up in arms about its subunits not doing what it says. California is ignoring federal immigration law, but when Orange County cooperates with the feds, expect the California state government to complain about insubordination or WTF-ever, because leftists are hypocrites.
* * *
Well, it's my day off. Time to go do chores. *sigh*