* * *
I can't believe they'd be this stupid but if the Democrats really do want to impeach Trump they're gonna try it, and it's going to be a disaster for them.
Here is the problem: Trump is popular. He consistently polls higher than Obama did. Polarizing as he is, the folks that like him really like him. To make matters worse, he's a "protest" President; his election took place because GOP voters rejected the mainstream candidates that ran against him in the primaries. To further exacerbate the situation, then, there's the fact that he's doing what he said he'd do, and his policies are working--hence the popularity.
So, with a bit more than three months left in 2019, we're effectively heading into primary season with the Democrat Congress working on impeachment. Understand, that impeachment must be concluded before the new Congress is seated in January of 2021, because one Congress cannot force another to do anything. You can't "hold over" articles of impeachment--or, indeed, any bill--from one Congress to the next. They'd have to start over with the new Congress in 2021, and that assumes the Democrats retain control of Congress, which is itself doubtful in the event that Trump retains his Presidency. A lot of folks are predicting "Trumpslide", and in that case the coattails effect will mean--at least--that the Democrat majority in Congress is reduced.
And what are they going to try to impeach him on? They're claiming "collusion" again, this time with the Ukraine government, ignoring the very real scandal of Vice-President Joe Biden withholding $1 billion in aid to Ukraine in exchange for letting his son off the hook--a real, provable quid-pro-quo that actually happened, and which is not hearsay.
In many ways I think their desire to impeach Trump--their incontinent need to get rid of him--is eclipsing their ability to think rationally about what it costs them to try. After Congress under Newt Gingrich successfully impeached Bill Clinton, the only person who lost his job was...Newt Gingrich. He won re-election and would have been a shoo-in for Speaker again but for the dirty laundry in his own closet (extramarital affair etc) the discovery of which ended up forcing him out of office entirely. It ended his career.
And Bill Clinton had actually committed a crime--perjury--unlike the gigantic nothing that the Democrat-media complex has found on Trump.
The Ukraine story is more of the same. There's a vast difference between a sitting Vice-President applying pressure to a foreign government to let his son go uninvestigated (by withholding funds allocated by Congress), and a sitting President suggesting that a foreign government investigate someone, apropos of nothing.
Worse, it comes on the tail of the whole "Russiagate" investigation, which turned out to be a gigantic nothing, which was obviously nothing from the start, and which was--equally obviously--entirely due to Democrats being sore losers. How tired do you think the people are of hearing Democrats complain about corruption in the Trump administration? Specifically, the corruption no one can seem to find any evidence for?
Although it is possible to fool the electorate, it's generally smart enough to understand that if there is no fire without smoke--and no matter how loudly the Democrats are screamimg about the fire, there's simply no smoke to be found.
Ultimately, that makes all this look like a partisan witch hunt (not surprising, because that's what it is) and that nonsense does not play well. And that is why it's a mistake for Democrats to impeach Trump.
* * *
50 years' worth of failed predictions. Yet the latest bugaboo is that we only have "twelve years left" before...something.
In that article, there is an image of a prediction from 1970 that says that pollution will "obliterate" the sun and cause an ice age. The same "scientist" predicted that if the human race continued to build electrical generating capacity, "the demands for cooling water will boil dry the entire flow of the rivers and streams of continental United States." We're told that, in 1970, this was going to happen in "the first third of the next century". So, by 2033, the Earth is cloaked in darkness, the Ice is coming, and the rivers and streams have been boiled dry by the waste heat of power plants.
That's a lot of waste heat. I doubt it's enough to make up for the absence of sunlight, but even so, that's a lot--probably a great deal more than any reasonable projections for the expansion of electrical power generation starting in 1970.
Let me put it this way: in order to "boil dry" all the streams and rivers in the United States, we'd have to build power plants dedicated specifically to doing just that, by the thousands, because even if our economy had gone asymptotic and was growing 100% per year, the organic demand for power could not increase to that point. Not even if we electrified everything.
Now, maybe if we moved the entire world population to the continental United States, all the people and the attendant economic activity, maybe then that scenario could take place; but that would leave the rest of the world unoccupied and unexploited, and it would rapidly revert to its natural state.
By the way, the entire current world population could fit comfortably within the "lower 48"--and by "comfortably" I mean comfortably. Everyone would have reasonable amount of elbow room; it wouldn't be three families to a flat and "get your elbow out of my eye!" I haven't done the math recently but I believe it comes out to approximately a quarter-acre per family, which is approximately the density of suburban America.
Anyway, to return to the main point: in the 1970s, the climatology folks wanted us to believe that fine particulate emissions from burning fossil fuels would trigger an ice age "in fifty years". Some estimates said "by 2070" but most were "5 to 50 years". Guess what? 2020 is fifty years after 1970. Where's the ice age?
Oh--global warming happened. Right.
Right in the middle of the nonsense is my old favorite, the ozone hole. That same seasonal phenomenon which was discovered in 1956, explained, and forgotten by all but certain meteorologists until DuPont invented hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants. There's a graph there that says the ozone hole's area was zero prior to about 1979, which is bullshit because Dobson discovered the thing in 1956.
Every year it forms, reaches a certain magnitude, and then quietly goes away. It's done this every year since we discovered it in 1956. The magnitude has not changed materially and the ozone layer over the Antarctic has recovered to normal every time.
Then it's back to more of the "cooling" stuff, followed by acid rain, then on to "warming".
All the dire predictions: wrong.
Turns out the current poster child for climate change is autistic, has an OCD, and selective mutism.
But we're not allowed to point that out; it's suddenly wrong to be critical of children again. Of course we are never allowed to be critical of leftist mouthpieces, regardless of age, even though the left may destroy any kid who crosses them.
"The Progressive Left has turned scaring our children into blubbering hysteria into a multi-billion dollar political industry."
Propaganda and violence is all the left has, and they threaten violence when propaganda does not get them what they want. If the threat of violence isn't enough, they commit it.
But there is still no proof that human activity has an effect on the climate. You know what? I want a number. If "anthropogenic climate change" is "settled science" then someone should be able to tell me how much change is due to human factors. You should be able to tell me A) what is the correct global temperature; B) what the current deviation from that temperature is; and C) how much of that deviation is due to human factors. If you cannot provide those three numbers to some reasonable accuracy--I will accept an accuracy of half of a degree--then you have not settled anything.
Iron-age artifacts found beautifully perserved by glaciers. This suggests that people had to get out quickly, leaving tools and weapons and other goods behind. It also suggests that areas currently under glaciers were not covered by glaciers within historic times. You know what that means, don't you? It means Earth was warmer than it is now, and recently at that.
"Some of the artifacts date as far back as 4,000 B.C.," it says. Um...that's Neolithic Age, isn't it? Iron Age is typically about 1200 BC through roughly 500 AD. Bronze Age started around 2000 BC and ran through the beginning of the Iron Age. (Late Bronze Age ran to 500 BC, in fact. Yes, they overlapped. Not everyone had iron, after all.)
Understand, though, that this underlines the viewpoint of people who've been labeled "science deniers": that the climate has always changed. It's been both warmer and colder within historic times and there's no reason to suspect that was any different in prehistory. Certainly it's changed over geologic time. The climate changes all the time, and it did so long before humans came on the scene. Right now we can't even tell if its warming or cooling, but we "deniers" know one thing for certain: it's not because of anything we're doing.
* * *
Rosanna Arquette? Who the hell pulled her chain?
The reply to her ejaculation was particularly apt, though I would have said "raped" rather than "abused" because--after all--Roman Polanski was in fact convicted of raping the girl.
* * *
This is, in fact, true. Milk men, delivering milk and eggs using electric trucks, and picking up the empty bottles. Back when everyone had moral standards and you could leave your house unlocked.
You know, back before Christianity was dismissed as superstition.
* * *
The humanitarian contribution to our society from islamic sources is lacking.
* * *
You know what? This is right.
I would be ecstatic to trade every American Leftist for every Hong Kong protester because clearly there is more American blood in the veins of those Hong Kong protesters than in the veins of American Leftists.The American leftists would leave the US for good, trading their lives in a first-world country for lives in a different first-world country. There would be absolutely no change to their standard of living.
...except that the first time they said anything critical about their new government, they'd abruptly find themselves in jail. But that's the government they want for all of us here in the US, so that'd be just fine. Meanwhile, we'd replace them with people who want freedom.
Just remember the saying: "Those who would trade freedom for a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."
* * *
Of course it's a "cost plus" program. The nice thing about SpaceX is that they are defying that model, offering "per flight" rather than "cost plus". The main reason they can do that stems from the fact that they've spent under a billion dollars on developing their platform, and--what's more--it's reusable.
Ditto for the Dragon spacecraft. Will Orion be reusable? Somehow I doubt it.
* * *
Took me long enough to wake up; and when I had, it was to ravenous hunger, so I popped out to Culver's. Once I've eaten, then I get to run all my errands for the day. *sigh*