J.J. Sefton at AoSHQ says it best.
In the wake of the horrific mass shooting at the New Zealand mosques, the politicization by the Left via demonization of Trump, guns, Judeo-Christianity, America and free market capitalism continues apace along with the concomitant obfuscation of the 1,500-year-old gorilla in the room: Radical Islam (pardon the redundancy). Though doubtless there are truly innocent victims in Christchurch, it pains me to say that all things considered I am finding it very difficult to really care all that much. When one considers the rivers of blood shed by innocent people in the name of - and as instructed by - the faithful in the practicing of this "religion" (many of whom are fellow devotees, incidentally), which is either ignored or excused by the enemies of their enemies on the Left, sad to say it's just a local crime story more than 10 miles away.I did not react to the story because, to be honest, I was just not appalled by it. I stop far short of cheering for this kind of thing, as I am not a savage, but when I consider the target neither am I able to summon any sympathy.
And please spare me the complete myth of "there are extremists on both sides" bromide. In the grand scheme of things, the pure unvarnished truth is that Islam, and its fellow travelers on the Left, have as its/their avowed policy the subjugation of humanity by every means at its disposal including violence as a political/military weapon. There is no equivalent organized "right-wing," Judeo-Christian movement that practices this on anything even remotely resembling the frequent, regular basis as Islam. The body count speaks for itself, just as the motives of the perpetrators.
The simple fact is that muslims--even the non-radical ones--are gladdened by the deaths of non-muslims. You do not see any muslims condemning violence committed by islamic terrorists--and I mean it never happens. They never speak out against it. None of them ever gets up and says, "This is not islam!" They don't have workshops and conferences on how to stop the slaughter of non-muslims. No; when there's a terror attack, the first and only thing out of muslims' mouths--other than cheers!--is, "We need to prevent islamophobia!"
I don't condone what the jerkwad did in Christchurch; but I find that I can't condemn it, either. This is the game that muslims want to play; they want their radical elements to terrorize and bomb and shoot and maim and kill non-muslims. As long as that's what they do, they should not complain when radical elements on the other side decide to fight back in kind.
If islam wants me to be appalled by this kind of thing, they will first have to get their own house in order and stop perpetrating this shit on others. But until islam stops the mass murder and joins the rest of us in the 21st century, all I can do is shrug and say, "Oh, well."
Kim du Toit said it best: jihad cuts both ways.
* * *
This is going to suck. Basically, it's Donkey-Teeth's manifesto, scaled down to Illinois size.
The Illinois bill’s central goals are 100% carbon-free electricity production by 2030, and 100% renewable everything across the state by 2050. Importantly, that means the 2050 goal precludes even nuclear energy, which currently accounts for about half of Illinois’ electricity production.Perfect. But this is even better:
Under the Illinois bill, natural gas would be history. Rip out all those gas ranges, gas furnaces (that heat 77% of Illinois homes) and the rest over the next 30 years. The entire natural gas infrastructure, pipelines and all, would be abandoned.This, they cannot do. Which is to say, they can make laws outlawing the use of natural gas, but in the process they'll cause a huge exodus of people from IL as the cost of heating homes skyrockets.
Electricity is only good for heating if it's dirt cheap; but under this scheme, it'll be much more expensive because they're getting rid of the nuclear plants at the same time they're cutting out coal and natural gas.
Because the goal isn't to reduce carbon emissions. The goal is to make the proles suffer.
* * *
Humans are not herbivores. They are omnivores. It is impossible for a human to remain healthy on a diet consisting only of plants.
* * *
Reuters sits on story about Democrat until after the election. Might believe this was not an example of press bias if it didn't keep happening.
* * *
Someone explain to me why we even have the FAA?
Most of the certification compliance testing and documentation is not done by the FAA any more. It's done by the company itself which "self-certifies" that everything is all wonderful, great, and has sufficient redundancy and protections to be safe to operate in the base, certified configuration. In short there is no requirement that a third, non-conflicted and competent party look at everything in the design and sign off on it -- and thus nobody did, and the plane was granted certification without requiring active redundancy in those sensors.Emphasis removed.
So: Boeing doesn't submit aircraft to the FAA for flightworthiness or anything; Boeing simply sends the FAA a form signed by various parties inside the company stating that the place meets or exceeds FAA airworthiness regulations blah blah blah fishtank hatstand Mr. Coffee, etcetera. The FAA just accepts that form, files it somewhere, and never says a word about it.
Which is stupid.
Stupid, that is, if your point is regluatory oversight of aviation, which is supposed to be the reason for the FAA's existence. It's less stupid if your point is employing bureaucrats.
The FAA does not need to be as big and expensive as it is if the only thing they're doing is processing paperwork, making sure that the documents have the right boxes filled in and the right signatures affixed. But doing that does not make aircraft safe.
As we've seen.
Boeing is not blameless, here, either; this issue has revealed some shocking cock-ups. This demonstrates rather handily why the FAA should not accept self-certification from anyone, Boeing included.
I would wager that whoever was in charge of the 737MAX program has gotten a fat raise and a nice promotion out of it. He belongs in jail, though.
* * *
That's a great idea. I even agree: we should stop letting the people who don't believe in science make decisions for us.
(You see where this is going, don't you?)
I agree that people who alter data, and write programs that always interpret data one way, those kinds of people have no business making up our minds for us. I think people who refuse to look at the facts and instead insist everyone else is wrong, those people should be ignored. I particularly think people who try to silence those who speak against their assertions are probably not good people. Certainly none of those people believe in science; because if they did, they wouldn't be acting the way they do.
* * *
Today has been incandescently Monday. I want to go back to bed now.