One thing that I've noted in particular is this. This is how this is captioned on Stephen Bodio's blog, a link to which appears to the side here:
Thomas McIntyre, 1952–2022
1952 to 2022. Seventy years.
1952 strikes me in particular. I wasn't alive in 1952. Indeed, my parents hadn't yet met in 52. My mother was living in Canada and my father was going to school in Lincoln, Nebraska. They'd meet and marry about six years later, by which time my mother had left Alberta to attend to her sister's wedding in Colorado, and had taken a job here on her way back north. My father had served in the Air Force and was back out and starting a career here in town.
I'd come along in 1963. So there's an eleven-year difference in that.
But there's a nine-year difference, almost ten, between my wife and I. About the same span of years here.
The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away.
Psalms, 90:10.
I'm 59.
Mr. McIntyre made it exactly to the Biblically referenced number of years. That number doesn't amount to, I'd note, a indication that the inspired writer was promising that God was going to terminate your life at that point. No, rather, it indicates that even at that time it people lived just about as long as they do now. Indeed, what's noted is that life tended to be hard and people tended to die around age 70, maybe 80 if they were of strong constitution. Elsewhere, an upper maximum life span of 120 years is mentioned, which in fact does correlate to the rare examples of extreme old age.
Somebody I know well, and have for over 30 years, is very ill. It came out of the blue from nowhere. They're only slightly older than me.
Yesterday, a lawyer I've practiced with for nearly 30 years called and spoke to me. He's had a heart attack and is retiring. After that, a lawyer I know elsewhere in another city was learned to be retiring.
A month ago or so a practicing lawyer I know, probably in his late 60s, died suddenly.
The point?
Well only this. Financial planners may tell you to keep working forever, but you aren't going to live that long.
I've long said that after men reach age 30, they're living on borrowed time. Up at my age, that becomes increasingly obvious for anyone who has eyes to see.
Case Blue, the 1942 German summer offensive on the Eastern Front, came to an end having not achieved its goals, which had been to capture the oil fields of Baku, Grozny and Maikop.
The thought was that without oil, the Soviets couldn't fight, and the Germans would be able to. Indeed, taking Soviet oil production had been part of the original goal of Operation Barbarossa, with the thought being that the Germans needed it to wage war against the United Kingdom.
By User:Gdr - Own work information from Overy, Richard (2019) World War II Map by Map, DK, pp. 148−150 ISBN: 9780241358719., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=443854
It's strategic aims, often criticized, were sound and grasped the importance of petroleum on the ability to wage modern war. Hitler had a major role in forming the campaign's development and direction and frankly, while the campaign is often criticized for redirecting German assets to southern Russia rather than the north, with the focus being Moscow, the plan demonstrated a good gasp on resources and modern warfare, and the protracted nature of the latter. Had the campaign succeeded in its goals, which were problematic in more ways than one, it would have at least deprived the Soviet Union of significant war fighting assets. It probably would not have succeeded in providing those to the Germans, however, as the Soviets would have destroyed oil production facilities prior to the Germans taking them. Whether the Germans had the capacity to restore production is doubtful.
The plan was, moreover, overambitious and its initial success caused the Germans to take actions which reduced its potential effectiveness.
In spite of its ultimate failure, the offensive was remarkably successful at first, which encouraged the Germans to overextend themselves. By November the offensive had lost steam, without succeeding in its goals, and Operation Uranus soon demonstrated that the Germans were now grossly overextended. The Soviets, additionally, managed to increase the size of their army throughout the campaign and by its end had over 1,000,000 more men in the field than the Germans did. The Germans, for their part, lost 200,000 men during the campaign and the Romanian army was effectively ground down to semi ineffective. By the campaign's end, moreover, the Germans were relying on Romanian, Hungarian and Italian troops to a dangerous extent.
The end of the campaign came with the Soviets launching a series of winter offensives.
Case Blue brought the Germans to their high water mark of World War Two. Its failure was followed by losing ground in the East in the winter of 1942, which they were also doing in North Africa at the same time. Indeed, due to its failure it should have been obvious to the Germans that wining the war was not impossible.
Rabbi Wise.
Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the World Jewish Congress, held a press conference in which he revealed information leaked from Europe of German atrocities against the Jews.
Rabbi Wise had the information for three months, but has been asked not to reveal it by the U.S. Government as it could not be confirmed, which of course it could not. At this point, however, he correctly felt that releasing the information was necessary.
Wise had been born in Hungary, but came to the US as an infant with his parents. His father and grandfather were also rabbis.
Peadar Kearney, writer of the Irish National Anthem A Soldiers Song, "Amhrán na bhFiann" died at age 58.
The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, having resolved to enter into a compact under the Act of the Congress of the United States of America approved August 19, 1921 (42 Statutes at Large, page 171), and the Acts of the Legislatures of the said States, have through their Governors appointed as their Commissioners:
W.S. Norviel for the State of Arizona,
W.F. McClure for the State of California,
Delph E. Carpenter for the State of Colorado,
J.G. Scrugham for the State of Nevada,
Stephen B. Davis, Jr., for the State of New Mexico,
R.E. Caldwell for the State of Utah,
Frank C. Emerson for the State of Wyoming,
who, after negotiations participated in by Herbert Hoover appointed by The President as the representative of the United States of America, have agreed upon the following articles:
ARTICLE I
The major purposes of this compact are to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water, to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods. To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the Colorado River System is made to each of them with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made.
ARTICLE II
As used in this compact-
(a) The term “Colorado River System” means that portion of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the United States of America.
(b) the term “Colorado River Basin” means all of the drainage area of the Colorado River System and all other territory within the United States of America to which the waters of the Colorado River System shall be beneficially applied.
(c) The term “States of the Upper Division” means the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
(d) The term “States of the Lower Division” means the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada.
(e) The term “Lee Ferry” means a point in the main stream of the Colorado River one mile below the mouth of the Paria River.
(f) The term “Upper Basin” means those parts of the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River System above Lee Ferry, and also all parts of said States located without the drainage area of the Colorado River System which are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted from the System above Lee Ferry.
(g) The term “Lower Basin” means those parts of the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River System below Lee Ferry, and also all parts of said States located without the drainage area of the Colorado River System which are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted from the System below Lee Ferry.
(h) The term “domestic use” shall include the use of water for household, stock, municipal, mining, milling, industrial, and other like purposes, but shall exclude the generation of electrical power.
ARTICLE III
(a) There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River System in perpetuity to the Upper Basin and to the Lower Basin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which shall include all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist.
(b) In addition to the apportionment in paragraph (a), the Lower Basin is hereby given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use of such waters by one million acre-feet per annum.
(c) If, as a matter of international comity, the United States of America shall hereafter recognize in the United States of Mexico any right to the use of any waters of the Colorado River System, such waters shall be supplied first from the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified in paragraphs (a) and (b); and if such surplus shall prove insufficient for this purpose, then, the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, and whenever necessary the States of the Upper Division shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply one-half of the deficiency so recognized in addition to that provided in paragraph (d).
(d) The States of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years reckoned in continuing progressive series beginning with the first day of October next succeeding the ratification of this compact.
(e) The States of the Upper Division shall not withhold water, and the States of the Lower Division shall not require the delivery of water, which cannot reasonably be applied to domestic and agricultural uses.
(f) Further equitable apportionment of the beneficial uses of the waters of the Colorado River System unapportioned by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) may be made in the manner provided in paragraph (g) at any time after October first, 1963, if and when either Basin shall have reached its total beneficial consumptive use as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b).
(g) In the event of a desire for a further apportionment as provided in paragraph (f) any two signatory States, acting through their Governors, may give joint notice of such desire to the Governors of the other signatory States and to The President of the United States of America, and it shall be the duty of the Governors of the signatory States and of The President of the United States of America forthwith to appoint representatives, whose duty it shall be to divide and apportion equitably between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin the beneficial use of the unapportioned water of the Colorado River System as mentioned in paragraph (f), subject to the legislative ratification of the signatory States and the Congress of the United States of America.
ARTICLE IV
(a) Inasmuch as the Colorado River has ceased to be navigable for commerce and the reservation of its waters for navigation would seriously limit the development of its Basin, the use of its waters for purposes of navigation shall be subservient to the uses of such waters for domestic, agricultural, and power purposes. If the Congress shall not consent to this paragraph, the other provisions of this compact shall nevertheless remain binding.
(b) Subject to the provisions of this compact, water of the Colorado River System may be impounded and used for the generation of electrical power, but such impounding and use shall be subservient to the use and consumption of such water for agricultural and domestic purposes and shall not interfere with or prevent use for such dominant purposes.
(c) The provisions of this article shall not apply to or interfere with the regulation and control by any State within its boundaries of the appropriation, use, and distribution of water.
ARTICLE V
The chief official of each signatory State charged with the administration of water rights, together with the Director of the United States Reclamation Service and the Director of the United States Geological Survey shall cooperate, ex-officio:
(a) To promote the systematic determination and coordination of the facts as to flow, appropriation, consumption, and use of water in the Colorado River Basin, and the interchange of available information in such matters.
(b) To secure the ascertainment and publication of the annual flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry.
(c) To perform such other duties as may be assigned by mutual consent of the signatories from time to time.
ARTICLE VI
Should any claim or controversy arise between any two or more of the signatory States:
(a) with respect to the waters of the Colorado River System not covered by the terms of this compact;
(b) over the meaning or performance of any of the terms of this compact;
(c) as to the allocation of the burdens incident to the performance of any article of this compact or the delivery of waters as herein provided;
(d) as to the construction or operation of works within the Colorado River Basin to be situated in two or more States, or to be constructed in one State for the benefit of another State; or
(e) as to the diversion of water in one State for the benefit of another State; the Governors of the States affected, upon the request of one of them, shall forthwith appoint Commissioners with power to consider and adjust such claim or controversy, subject to ratification by the Legislatures of the States so affected. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the adjustment of any such claim or controversy by any present method or by direct future legislative action of the interested States.
ARTICLE VII
Nothing in this compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States of America to Indian tribes.
ARTICLE VIII
Present perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River System are unimpaired by this compact. Whenever storage capacity of 5,000,000 acre-feet shall have been provided on the main Colorado River within or for the benefit of the Lower Basin, then claims of such rights, if any, by appropriators or users of water in the Lower Basin against appropriators or users of water in the Upper Basin shall attach to and be satisfied from water that may be stored not in conflict with Article III. All other rights to beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River System shall be satisfied solely from the water apportioned to that Basin in which they are situate.
ARTICLE IX
Nothing in this compact shall be construed to limit or prevent any State from instituting or maintaining any action or proceeding, legal or equitable, for the protection of any right under this compact or the enforcement of any of its provisions.
ARTICLE X
This compact may be terminated at any time by the unanimous agreement of the signatory States. In the event of such termination all rights established under it shall continue unimpaired.
ARTICLE XI
This compact shall become binding and obligatory when it shall have been approved by the Legislatures of each of the signatory States and by the Congress of the United States. Notice of approval by the Legislatures shall be given by the Governor of each signatory State to the Governors of the other signatory States and to the President of the United States, and the President of the United States is requested to give notice to the Governors of the signatory States of approval by the Congress of the United States.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Commissioners have signed this compact in a single original, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Department of State of the United States of America and of which a duly certified copy shall be forwarded to the Governor of each of the signatory States.
DONE at the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, this twenty-fourth day of November, A.D. One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-two. W. S. NORVIEL W. F. McCLURE DELPH E. CARPENTER J. G. SCRUGHAM STEPHEN G. DAVIS, JR. R. E. CALDWELL FRANK C. EMERSON
When I was young, there was no such thing as "free and reduced lunches" served at schools. There was no lunch served by anyone at grade school whatsoever. You either walked home for lunch, or your parents packed a lunch for you.
If your parents didn't pack a lunch, word would have gotten out, and they would have gotten a visit from the authorities.
By the time I was first practicing law, the concept had arrived that some kids were sent to school hungry, and the school district started serving free breakfasts and also free, or reduced price, lunches.
This in the early 1990s.
In the 1970s, those parents, which would have included very few "single" parents, would have been visited, as noted, by officialdom and if they couldn't feed their own kids that they had caused to come about in the world, the kids would be taken from them.
The point?
This.
In the 2000s, there was concern over the expense of the school food program. When it came up in the district, there was outrage. By that time, which hadn't taken long, the School District feeding children was regarded as a right that parents could expect, and a duty that the district had to provide.
Parents of my parents' generation, when we were young, would have been horrified over such a thought.
And yes, this has a connection.
Out of kindness, Americans have caused their government to provide all sorts of benefits to people conceived of, or indeed who are actually, disadvantaged. But those things go from help, to a right, and a way of adults maintaining a lifestyle of a sort on the government dole. It's well established that people are at first embarrassed to accept the dole and then acclimate their lives to it, in an effort to avoid taking on that duty themselves once again, thereby making the situation permanent.
Free and reduced lunches become a government duty allowing parents to avoid it. Aid to single mothers morphs into marrying the government on the part of some women and abandoning children by fathers.
And sending money to people in times of crisis seems like a great idea.
But the consequences of the government becoming a charity, and then a sort of parent, are rarely thought out.
Colorado Springs shooting suspect Anderson Aldrich is a registered member of the Mormon church, spokesman confirms
So what?
I note this as this does seem to be the sort of headline that imports next to no useful information but which reporters, because of a bias, believe it does. It's impossible not to read this and think that the suggestion is that Anderson Aldrich shot up a gay club because he's a Mormon.
I'm rather obviously not a Mormon, but I'm confident that the LDS church does not advocate this sort of thing in any sense.
This is, I'd note, just a stone's throw from suggesting that all members of any conservative religion that generally holds conservative social views is a menace to society, a suggestion I've seen in news articles more than once.
The father turns out to be a pornography performer, and a mixed martial arts competitor, with a criminal history.
Somehow, this is now less surprising. As is the fact that Aldrich identifies as "non binary", a sociological category existing only in the minds of western sociologists.
Poster that shows up in wide circulation, and posted here via the Fair Use exception. I don't know who the author is, but this was used as long ago as 1987 on the cover of Fifth Estate magazine, which is apparently a left wing British journal. They have an online presence you may find. Anyhow, this seems to sum up what some regard as the view of the youngest generations entering work, but at the same time, this image is so old that it predates my legal career. . .what's that say?
Some of my friends in the business and legal worlds very much insist, sometimes with real anger, that there is something going on here. What they generally seem to feel is that during COVID-19 the Federal Government acclimated millions of Americans, including millions of young Americans, to doing nothing. Indeed, some insist that younger people aren't working as they're on the Federal dole, although those programs have run out.
I'd note, if that's true, the entire thing would be one big failed "Universal Basic Income" experiment.
I think something is going on, but as I've noted before, I think people are generally misreading it. Here's what I've recently stated.
Much of what we see today in general family trends is merely a return to the past. Adult children who are not married living at home is a return to the past. Even married children living in a parent's home is a return to the past. Not really feeling like moving all over the country, and focusing on work to support your life, rather than it being your life, well. . . that is in some ways too.
But I think my view here is a minority one.
Maybe nothing is really going on at all. Or maybe what we're seeing is purely economic. With a worker shortage, people don't have to sell their labor as dear, and can afford to be choosy in all sorts of ways.
That definitely wasn't the case when I was young.
And I've been hearing this about younger generations since I was a child. According to the Baby Boomer generation, no generation after them wanted to work. But according to their parents, that generation was lazy and didn't want to work, when it was young.
Maybe the young are never keen on entering work if they don't have to, and hold some of their cards back. Or maybe a feature of modern industrial work, as opposed to more traditional distributist type work, creates this perception.
Poppies. Poppy seeds were added to Italian bread in the middle ages by the poor, specifically to keep themsleves stoned most of the time. This was because their lives were bad. The German army passed out booze, and sometimes drugs, late in World War Two to "motivate" troops, or in other words stone them before they went into horrors. Somehow, we're headed back into the Italian situation.
Headline from The Denver Post:
Gov. Polis tells Bill Maher he’s
“excited” about medical ‘shrooms after voters pass psilocybin legalization
Colorado becomes the second state after Oregon to establish a regulated system for substances like psilocybin and psilocin.
Because Americans aren't stupid enough already, and Denver isn't enough of a giant doped up smelly dump.
Seriously, the march of intoxicants in this society ought to be an alarm bell going off. Something is really screwed up and the only thing a lot of people, and governments, can think to do is to keep people stoned.
A walk thought Denver's capitol city should show anyone, including Governor Polis, how messed up Colorado is as an example of this. Truly, and I'm not a teetotaler, if there's one thing that could have been done to help keep the country from getting where it now is, that we could go back and do, not repealing prohibition would be it.
Panem et circenses?
It seems so.
Bias?
Colorado Springs shooting suspect Anderson Aldrich is a registered member of the Mormon church, spokesman confirms
So what?
I note this as this does seem to be the sort of headline that imports next to no useful information but which reporters, because of a bias, believe it does. It's impossible not to read this and think that the suggestion is that Anderson Aldrich shot up a gay club because he's a Mormon.
I'm rather obviously not a Mormon, but I'm confident that the LDS church does not advocate this sort of thing in any sense.
This is, I'd note, just a stone's throw from suggesting that all members of any conservative religion that generally holds conservative social views is a menace to society, a suggestion I've seen in news articles more than once.
Bias confirmation
Most folks here no doubt don't follow it, but there's a thing called "Catholic Twitter", which is made up of Catholics, on Twitter.
The main thing about Twitter is the gross exaggeration of any one topic until it's at the screaming level. Most of the people on Twitter don't take Twitter all that seriously to start with, and they shouldn't, and any one topic that's on it is not likely to be all that important or reflective of what is going on in the real world.
Anyhow, below is a part of a conservation that got rolling and rapidly morphed into "blind my eyes to the evidence". How it got started I'm not sure, as it involves the now actually relatively old story of Catholic cleric's abusing some sexually.
It's worth noting that this story is horrific in general. But at the same time it was a minority of clerics, and most of this story is now really old. To the extent that it remains a real present story it is is because the Church has a lot of older leaders, much like American society in general, who haven't done a good job of confronting this, in part because they seem to have ignored it and don't quite get the story.
Anyhow, one Priest noted.
Fr Matthew P. Schneider, LC
@FrMatthewLC
The majority of victims of clerical sex abuse were post-pubescent males who were still minors.
Allowing men who were sexually attracted to post-pubescent male teens become priests likely had a part to do with the abuse (whatever name you give that).
Quote Tweet
Joshua McElwee
@joshjmac
·
Asked about prior comments that gay clergy were responsible for the Catholic clergy abuse crisis, new US Catholic bishop president Archbishop Broglio claims: "It's certainly an aspect of the sexual crisis that can't be denied." Academic studies have found no such relationship.
·Twitter for Android
Fr. Schneider is correct. Most of the abuse that occurred was male on male, and most of that was on post pubescent males who were legally minors.
Let's take a diversion here for a moment.
Just recently a French Cardinal publically confessed and condemned himself for what was translated as "an affair" with a 14-year-old female back many years ago when he was a priest, not a bishop.
That's horrific.
The headlines, however, rapidly went from "an affair" to "rape", or at least the Twitter ones did.
Here's the thing. Under the applicable French law, she was over the age of consent and could do just that. So the act was icky, gross, immoral, inexcusable, but not illegal. It wasn't rape as the law of that land, at the time, defined it.
FWIW, as that surprised me, I looked it up. The age of consent in France is now 15.
I always think of the age of consent being 18, but by and large in most of Europe, Ireland I think aside, the age of consent is lower than 18, with ages in the mid-teens not uncommon. I'm not going to post them all, but that's interesting in part because Europeans like to criticize the US for having legal pathways to "child marriage" while they have legal pathways to what we'd regard here as rape.
Anyhow, this is an example of following the evidence.
And the evidence generally is that most priest abusers were engaging in homosexual abuse, as legal line or not, "post pubescent" is a legal, not a physical, line.
Occam's Razor holds that the simplest answer is generally the best, because it's generally correct. The simplest explanation here is that most of the abusers were homosexuals.
Indeed, they pretty clearly were.
No, that doesn't make all homosexual men abusers, but if you put anyone in a situation in which they have no legitimate means for an outlet, problems arise. The real question, therefore, is how did enough homosexual men end up in the priesthood (and in Boy Scout leadership positions) for this to be statistically observable.
I've posted on it before, but my view is, on the priesthood, that this occurred as it gave homosexual Catholic men a place to professionally hide. That seems to be where the evidence leads. They weren't there because they were homosexuals per se, but because it gave them a socially acceptable excuse for not being married and, even more than that, not exhibiting any interest in women.
Well, of course, the Twitterverse couldn't accept that. The competing explanation, violating the principal of pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, was that the abuse was male on male only males were around, and therefore they were the only targets of opportunity.
That explanation leaves a lot lacking. For one thing, males aren't the only humans around. The French example, which has become two examples, demonstrates that, and an example in our own diocese of many years ago demonstrates that as well.
And while all male environments do give rise to this, it's not quite in the same fashion. Those examples tend to be instances in which not only are only males around, but their virtually cloistered for long periods of time. Groups of straight conscripts, for example, don't start engaging in male on male sexual contact as there aren't women around. Indeed, studies have shown that in areas where there are only males for long periods of time, what tends to happen is that their testosterone levels plummet on their own, and they're simply less interested.
But because we must maintain this fiction socially now, we can't entertain the possibility that the abusers were homosexuals. We can't even really engage in the possibility that a small number of homosexuals are abusers.
The Zeitgeist.
What about the Boy Scouts?
I haven't researched it, but I'd guess that those abusers were attracted to those leadership roles specifically for the target of opportunity situation. So that situation was different yet. The difference, therefore, is that in the priest example I suspect homosexual men put themselves into that situation to avoid suspicion as to their inclinations, and then yielded in crossing a line which they should not have, and which in the US is illegal, but in the same country, at a time when pornification of child models was common, isn't surprising. In the Boy Scout example, that was probably a group of men who were abusers in the first instance, but with homosexual inclinations.
And no, that doesn't mean all homosexuals are abusers.
Less government?
The State gave out $6,600,000 in rent relief, funded by the Federal Government, last month.
This program has stopped now, but its interesting in that there's been so much howling in the state about Federal money. As other examples have shown, people can howl about the dangers of Federal money and take it at the same time.
Credit Cart Sales and Firearms
A recent headline read:
Guns bought through credit cards in the US will now be trackable
So what?
In the United States, you have a right to keep and bear arms. We all know this. But that really doesn't mean that private companies can't track it.
They're already tracking everything else.
If we really don't like this, what we ought to do is simply ban credit cars, which are inherently inflationary to start with.
Misplaced Complaints
A lot of people are complaining about Elon Musk buying Twitter and treating it like a toy.
Well, he's super rich and for him, it probably is a toy. He's probably loving seeing people complain as they dance to his tune. And that probably explains why he let Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene back on Twitters.
Just ignore it.
Twitter really doesn't matter. I noted this all the other day here:
Elon Musk has bought Twitter and is busy making changes to it internally. This, in turn, has resulted in a lots of righteous anger about his behavior.
Here's the real question.
Who cares?
We have a Twitter Feed. You can see it on the bottom right-hand corner of this page. That doesn't stop the fact that Twitter is basically stupid.
A person can't say anything worth saying in as few of words as Twitter restricts you to. All Twitter really is for us is redirection to this blog. Does it work? Who knows. But as far as weighty conversation, not happening.
Indeed, the fact that people seem to think its weighty shows how dim the American intellect has become, as if there wasn't plenty of proof for that otherwise.
Now, I have some feeds that I follow I really like. Some do nothing other than what this one does, direct you to other things Some are basically photo feeds, much like Instagram.
But as far as news or anything worth reading, not going to happen.
Some people seem to think that Musk shouldn't be allowed to own Twitter or, if he does, he shouldn't be allowed to wreck it. Well, why not? He owns it. If you are uncomfortable with that, as many are, the real argument is that a person shouldn't be allowed to amass the size of fortune that Musk has. Musk was born into a wealthy South African family, and he's made more money, showing I suppose that being born to a wealthy family is a good way to get richer.
It also shows how screwed up American immigration laws are, as Musk apparently lives in Texas. Why was he allowed to immigrate here? No good reason at all, and in a society whose immigration laws made sense he'd be back in South Africa, or perhaps someplace in what's left of the British Commonwealth.
His personal life also shows how Western morality has declined. Musk has ten children by three women, the first six by his former wife Justine Musk, then two by Claire Elise Boucher, the Canadian singer who goes by the absurd stage name Grimes, and finally twins via Shivon Zilis. If nothing else, this proves that vast amounts of money will get the male holder of the same money and sex, but it's not admirable and that this sort of conduct is no longer the type that is regarded as scandalous, although it should be.
None of which is a reason to get all in a twitter about Twitter. If he wrecks it, well, he bought it.
Who cares?
A bigger topic regarding Must, really, is should a just society allow one person to have so much of the planet's resources.
I risk sounding like Huey Long on this, but I really don't think so. There shouldn't be billionaires at all. Before you reach a billion in assets, indeed, before you reach $500,000,000, you simply ought to be taxed down to size. And no, I don't believe that disincentivises a person from "developing the economy". And if it does, well, I don't care.
We're now past the election, but speaking of that and I guess twitter, it's really time for John Barasso to stop coming on Twitter and complaining about the price of gasoline.
Here's how the price of gasoline works.
It's made from petroleum oil.
Petroleum oil is produced in certain spots of the globe and sold all over the planet before it's refined.
Most of the world, the United States included, uses more oil than it produces. This is true of the US even though its a major petroleum producer.
US petroleum is expensive to produce. Normally, Mexican, Venezuelan, Arabian and Russian oil, are not.
If the price per gallon is low (West Texas is $79.19/bbl as I write this. . . low), a lot of North American oil becomes uneconomic to produce. Just about $60.00/bbl is that point for the US.
If the price per gallon is high, it means that a lot of North American oil is economic to produce.
Wyoming only makes money on petroleum when the price is relatively high.
An unstable price doesn't benefit anyone.
Russia invaded Ukraine, and for a variety of reasons this has driven up the price of oil. OPEC+, which includes Russia, has operated to try to keep the price high.
Want lower prices?
Lower demand or increase cheap supplies.
We have no cheap supplies in North America.
Joe Biden doesn't set the price of gasoline.
Scary
North Korean is rapidly becoming a frightening menace.
The question is what, if anything, can be done about this short of military action, and will we reach a point where this seems necessary to any administration other than a Trump administration, which probably wouldn't.
.jpg)
