TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality trivia
reality is the state of things as they actually exist
may 18, 2024
Real News Today
(for previous day's articles see "what's inside" below)
comment/tweet of the day
stupid people of alabama vote to remain in poverty which is no surprise look at what the elect to pulic office
Mercedes-Benz workers in Alabama vote against unionizing in blow to big UAW push Updated 4:04 PM EDT, Fri May 17, 2024 New York CNN -- Autoworkers at a Mercedes Benz plant in Alabama voted against joining the United Auto Workers union Friday, potentially stalling hopes of a rapidly growing organizing wave for autoworkers in the southern United States. The result was a close outcome. Out of the valid votes counted, 56% of workers voted "no," while 44% voted "yes" for unionization, according to Mercedes-Benz. The National Labor Relations Board said Fri
---
scotus is un-american
there should be a minimum of 5 resignations on the current "liars supreme court"
Alito was poised to stop Pence counting Electoral College
---
Bernie Sanders: "This is what oligarchy looks like:
50 billionaires in America with a collective net worth of $1 trillion have spent over $600 million on the 2024 election. Democracy is supposed to be about one person, one vote, not billionaires buying elections. We must overturn Citizens United."
---
thom hartmann
The Last Time Oligarchs Tried to Take Over America It Led to Civil War
Is America in the final stage of the 40-year transition from a forward-looking & still-evolving democratic republic into a white supremacist ethnostate ruled by a small group of fascist oligarchs?
Why are Republicans Quicker to Steal Our Votes than to Take Our Guns?
“Both Texas and Georgia are actually Blue states; the only reason Republicans have as much power as they do in each is because of massive voter roll purges and voter suppression laws.”
Bribery Unleashed: The Supreme Court's Wealth-Driven Corruption Crisis Congress must stand up for what’s right and consistent with American values: Legally bribed politicians and judges isn’t that...
Which "Nobody Knew at the Time" Will it be This November?
The GOP has gotten really good at stealing the White House…
Is Private Equity as Dangerous to Your Dog as Kristi Noem?
Fully 20% of American business is now controlled by private equity, which is draining billions out of our economy every week to stash in the money bins of its morbidly rich owners...
trailer trash former pres threatens biden!!!
Trump flattened for talking about executing Biden before gun owners
Tom Boggioni - raw story
May 19, 2024 8:56AM ET
All three co-hosts of MSNBC's "The Weekend," along with former Donald Trump White House aide Sarah Matthews, pounced on Donald Trump for telling a raucous NRA crowd on Saturday that President Joe Biden deserves to be executed.
During his speech before the gun owners in Texas, the former president told the crowd that "Manchurian candidate" Biden has accepted money from Russia, China and Ukraine before claiming, "If that were a Republican, he would have been given the electric chair, they would have brought back the death penalty."
That led "The Weekend" co-host Alicia Menendez to begin the segment with, "A reminder, in case you needed one, a political candidate alluding to the execution of a sitting president in front of the most prominent organization of gun owners — definitely not normal."
Co-host Michael Steele, the former chair of the RNC, ruefully contributed, "Look, okay, so Trump is a liar, well established, we know that. The projection around Biden taking money from Russia and all these places, we know that. But, when you are standing in front of a group like the NRA, when you are standing in front of a group that has very, very strong views about this administration, the Biden administration and Donald Trump for that matter, what is the signaling, from inside the bubble a little bit with Trump, what is the signaling that is going on there? Is it as blatant as making a comment about executing a president or is it something more or something less, is it just Trump standing there running his mouth?"
'I think that Donald Trump knows this audience that would be at a convention for the NRA are people that are a part of his base. And so he's going to say things like this where it is going to rile them up and get them excited," Matthews replied. "I think he knows that, in his mind, he thinks it is a joke where he's joking about 'Oh, he needs the electric chair,' but you shouldn't be talking about that with anyone in general, but especially not the sitting president."
"And I think he does it because he wants to get a reaction out of them and thinks it'll be entertaining. But I think he doesn't care about how his rhetoric has gotten increasingly erratic and he has this culture of political violence," she added. "It is concerning when we are looking at it, but it follows this pattern we have seen from the 2024 campaign thus far."
She later added, "I think it is sad because we have normalized this rhetoric with Trump. Some Americans don't even think twice when he makes these comments because they are so conditioned and used to him talking like this. But this is not normal, we should not have the Republican candidate for president making jokes about executing the current sitting U.S. president."
During his speech before the gun owners in Texas, the former president told the crowd that "Manchurian candidate" Biden has accepted money from Russia, China and Ukraine before claiming, "If that were a Republican, he would have been given the electric chair, they would have brought back the death penalty."
That led "The Weekend" co-host Alicia Menendez to begin the segment with, "A reminder, in case you needed one, a political candidate alluding to the execution of a sitting president in front of the most prominent organization of gun owners — definitely not normal."
Co-host Michael Steele, the former chair of the RNC, ruefully contributed, "Look, okay, so Trump is a liar, well established, we know that. The projection around Biden taking money from Russia and all these places, we know that. But, when you are standing in front of a group like the NRA, when you are standing in front of a group that has very, very strong views about this administration, the Biden administration and Donald Trump for that matter, what is the signaling, from inside the bubble a little bit with Trump, what is the signaling that is going on there? Is it as blatant as making a comment about executing a president or is it something more or something less, is it just Trump standing there running his mouth?"
'I think that Donald Trump knows this audience that would be at a convention for the NRA are people that are a part of his base. And so he's going to say things like this where it is going to rile them up and get them excited," Matthews replied. "I think he knows that, in his mind, he thinks it is a joke where he's joking about 'Oh, he needs the electric chair,' but you shouldn't be talking about that with anyone in general, but especially not the sitting president."
"And I think he does it because he wants to get a reaction out of them and thinks it'll be entertaining. But I think he doesn't care about how his rhetoric has gotten increasingly erratic and he has this culture of political violence," she added. "It is concerning when we are looking at it, but it follows this pattern we have seen from the 2024 campaign thus far."
She later added, "I think it is sad because we have normalized this rhetoric with Trump. Some Americans don't even think twice when he makes these comments because they are so conditioned and used to him talking like this. But this is not normal, we should not have the Republican candidate for president making jokes about executing the current sitting U.S. president."
Don't fall for MAGA's "election integrity" con job
Journalists — and the rest of us — need to quit parroting Republicans' transparent lies about voting
By KIRK SWEARINGEN - salon
Contributing Writer
PUBLISHED MAY 19, 2024 9:00AM (EDT)
Can journalists please stop repeating the term “election integrity” just because Republicans insist on saying it?
Heck, if they don't offer credible evidence (because there is none), I wouldn’t even quote Republicans when they use the term, at least not without setting the record straight. Election laws being put into place in Republican-controlled states have nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with denying citizens their right to vote and intimidating election officials and volunteers.
The second most crucial Republican policy after cutting taxes for the already wealthy has long been to make voting more difficult for populations that tend to vote Democratic. They accomplished this in recent decades by gerrymandering, limiting polling places and hours, using scare tactics and dishing out election disinformation.
Now, the MAGA party insists on further cheating its way to permanent minority rule by denigrating the idea that voting can be fair — if the other side wins.
If the idea that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election — which he won by more than 7 million votes, with a 306-232 electoral vote victory — is Trump’s big lie, then Republican efforts to ensure “election integrity” around the country are lies metastasizing from the malignant tumor Trump introduced into our democracy. Trump’s con about election fraud is intended to succeed where his multifaceted effort to overturn the 2020 election failed.
Led by disgraced attorney and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani — who claimed the election was stolen way back in 1989, when he lost his first mayoral race against Democratic incumbent David Dinkins — the Trump campaign brought 62 lawsuits claiming some kind of voter fraud or voting improprieties in the 2020 election. Trump's apparatchiks lost 61 of those, either because they lacked standing to sue or because they had no real evidence to offer. (As actual attorneys involved no doubt understood, presenting false evidence in court of law can get you in serious trouble.) Oh, and that one case they won, in Pennsylvania? It was about whether voters should be allowed to correct the identification on their ballot within three days of the election, and did not affect the outcome.
No evidence of significant voter fraud has existed in any recent American election. The most noteworthy instances in recent years have involved individual Republicans attempting to cast false votes, probably because Fox News–style propagandists and right-wing politicians tell them every day that Democrats are cheating.
As usual for Trumpists, every accusation is an admission. Who cheats at elections? You might ask the phony Republican electors charged in Michigan, Georgia and Nevada, or the 10 Republicans who admitted to what they did in the Wisconsin civil case. Ask the 11 phony electors indicted in Arizona, along with officials in the Trump White House who urged them to cheat the American people.
You might ask Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who has been indicted both in Arizona and in Georgia for trying to help Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election. Meadows demanded an end to election fraud and, oh yeah, also registered to vote in three states.
Since 2021, more than half the states have passed new “election integrity” laws that place more responsibilities and potential liabilities on poll workers. Republicans are now bragging or threatening about how many poll watchers they are training to contest all aspects of the upcoming election in swing states. To borrow one of Trump’s con-man locutions, everybody knows this announcement is about scaring voters away and undermining the public’s trust in elections.
I could pause a moment here to mention that a man came up to me the other day — big man, strong man — with tears welling up in his eyes, and he asked me, “Kirk, sir, why do Republican-controlled legislatures pass laws about election integrity when there has been no evidence of voter fraud?” (Well, I “could” mention it — but I won’t, because it didn't happen. Just as it never happens to Trump.)
Trump has been talking up voter fraud since before the 2016 election, claiming at rallies that the only way he can lose is if the other side cheats, repeating the lie to brainwash his followers. Every legitimate study of elections in the U.S. has shown that it's nearly impossible to cast a false ballot without getting caught.
While there’s vanishingly little fraud in voting, Trump’s brand is fraud:
----
Meanwhile, threats against election officials continue. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that “large numbers of election officials report having experienced threats, abuse, or harassment for doing their jobs” and that those officials have taken steps since the 2020 election to secure the safety of staff and volunteers.
When Republicans talk about fighting for election integrity, you know the opposite is true. By buying into Trump’s lies about elections, Republicans are cheating the rest of us. As a pathological narcissist (as well as the world’s biggest crybaby), Trump cannot allow himself to admit defeat, and Republicans are willing to tear the country apart to appease his toddler-like tantrums.
Republican propaganda around voting happens so often that another glaring example occurred within the last week, while I was finishing this article. House Speaker Mike Johnson held a press conference to announce a bill that would keep non-citizens from voting. But since it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote, journalists immediately called him out on it.
Media outlets must strive not to repeat any Republican permutation of “election integrity” and must patiently spell out the truth again and again — and then again, as tiresome as that may be. They should also report on the larger Republican effort to undermine confidence in elections, pass more rules that make it harder for Democratic constituencies to vote and intimidate those voters who show up anyway.
While the Biden administration is doing what it can to promote voting, Republicans are working diligently to create the illusion that they support free and fair elections, all while creating a system of roadblocks and intimidation. They hope to create a system where voting takes place but the outcome is guaranteed. Trump and his enablers have taken that even further by claiming the only way they can lose is if the other side cheats.
As Timothy Snyder writes in "On Tyranny":
We believe that we have checks and balances, but have rarely faced a situation like the present: when the less popular of the two parties suppresses voting, claims fraud when it loses elections, and controls the majority of the statehouses. The party that exercises such control proposes few policies that are popular with society at large, and several that are unpopular — and thus must either fear democracy or weaken it.
Heck, if they don't offer credible evidence (because there is none), I wouldn’t even quote Republicans when they use the term, at least not without setting the record straight. Election laws being put into place in Republican-controlled states have nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with denying citizens their right to vote and intimidating election officials and volunteers.
The second most crucial Republican policy after cutting taxes for the already wealthy has long been to make voting more difficult for populations that tend to vote Democratic. They accomplished this in recent decades by gerrymandering, limiting polling places and hours, using scare tactics and dishing out election disinformation.
Now, the MAGA party insists on further cheating its way to permanent minority rule by denigrating the idea that voting can be fair — if the other side wins.
If the idea that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election — which he won by more than 7 million votes, with a 306-232 electoral vote victory — is Trump’s big lie, then Republican efforts to ensure “election integrity” around the country are lies metastasizing from the malignant tumor Trump introduced into our democracy. Trump’s con about election fraud is intended to succeed where his multifaceted effort to overturn the 2020 election failed.
Led by disgraced attorney and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani — who claimed the election was stolen way back in 1989, when he lost his first mayoral race against Democratic incumbent David Dinkins — the Trump campaign brought 62 lawsuits claiming some kind of voter fraud or voting improprieties in the 2020 election. Trump's apparatchiks lost 61 of those, either because they lacked standing to sue or because they had no real evidence to offer. (As actual attorneys involved no doubt understood, presenting false evidence in court of law can get you in serious trouble.) Oh, and that one case they won, in Pennsylvania? It was about whether voters should be allowed to correct the identification on their ballot within three days of the election, and did not affect the outcome.
No evidence of significant voter fraud has existed in any recent American election. The most noteworthy instances in recent years have involved individual Republicans attempting to cast false votes, probably because Fox News–style propagandists and right-wing politicians tell them every day that Democrats are cheating.
As usual for Trumpists, every accusation is an admission. Who cheats at elections? You might ask the phony Republican electors charged in Michigan, Georgia and Nevada, or the 10 Republicans who admitted to what they did in the Wisconsin civil case. Ask the 11 phony electors indicted in Arizona, along with officials in the Trump White House who urged them to cheat the American people.
You might ask Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who has been indicted both in Arizona and in Georgia for trying to help Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election. Meadows demanded an end to election fraud and, oh yeah, also registered to vote in three states.
Since 2021, more than half the states have passed new “election integrity” laws that place more responsibilities and potential liabilities on poll workers. Republicans are now bragging or threatening about how many poll watchers they are training to contest all aspects of the upcoming election in swing states. To borrow one of Trump’s con-man locutions, everybody knows this announcement is about scaring voters away and undermining the public’s trust in elections.
I could pause a moment here to mention that a man came up to me the other day — big man, strong man — with tears welling up in his eyes, and he asked me, “Kirk, sir, why do Republican-controlled legislatures pass laws about election integrity when there has been no evidence of voter fraud?” (Well, I “could” mention it — but I won’t, because it didn't happen. Just as it never happens to Trump.)
Trump has been talking up voter fraud since before the 2016 election, claiming at rallies that the only way he can lose is if the other side cheats, repeating the lie to brainwash his followers. Every legitimate study of elections in the U.S. has shown that it's nearly impossible to cast a false ballot without getting caught.
While there’s vanishingly little fraud in voting, Trump’s brand is fraud:
- Trump allegedly falsified business records about payments made to his lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, to reimburse him for the hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to quash her story about having sex with Trump in 2006 — when Melania was at home with their infant son — in an attempt to hide his infidelity from voters before the 2016 election.
- Trump and his accomplices strong-armed election officials in battleground states to change vote counts. “Look, fellas, I just want 11,780 votes,” he said while haranguing the Georgia secretary of state in an infamous phone call.
- Fox News pushed Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election and was sued for defamation by Dominion Voting Systems, eventually settling the case for $787.5 million. Fox Corporation was also sued by Smartmatic, another voting technology company, for more than $2 billion for allegedly making more than 100 false claims about vote rigging. In January, a New York judge ruled that case should proceed.
- Trump sycophants Giuliani and John Eastman hatched the fake elector scheme, intended to throw the 2020 election to Trump by defrauding Biden voters in seven swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (and, by extension, defrauding Biden voters in all 50 states).
- And of course, Trump and many of his supporters and followers, including his “stand back and stand by” pals the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, perpetrated the violent insurrection and attempted coup of Jan. 6, 2021.
----
Meanwhile, threats against election officials continue. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that “large numbers of election officials report having experienced threats, abuse, or harassment for doing their jobs” and that those officials have taken steps since the 2020 election to secure the safety of staff and volunteers.
When Republicans talk about fighting for election integrity, you know the opposite is true. By buying into Trump’s lies about elections, Republicans are cheating the rest of us. As a pathological narcissist (as well as the world’s biggest crybaby), Trump cannot allow himself to admit defeat, and Republicans are willing to tear the country apart to appease his toddler-like tantrums.
Republican propaganda around voting happens so often that another glaring example occurred within the last week, while I was finishing this article. House Speaker Mike Johnson held a press conference to announce a bill that would keep non-citizens from voting. But since it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote, journalists immediately called him out on it.
Media outlets must strive not to repeat any Republican permutation of “election integrity” and must patiently spell out the truth again and again — and then again, as tiresome as that may be. They should also report on the larger Republican effort to undermine confidence in elections, pass more rules that make it harder for Democratic constituencies to vote and intimidate those voters who show up anyway.
While the Biden administration is doing what it can to promote voting, Republicans are working diligently to create the illusion that they support free and fair elections, all while creating a system of roadblocks and intimidation. They hope to create a system where voting takes place but the outcome is guaranteed. Trump and his enablers have taken that even further by claiming the only way they can lose is if the other side cheats.
As Timothy Snyder writes in "On Tyranny":
We believe that we have checks and balances, but have rarely faced a situation like the present: when the less popular of the two parties suppresses voting, claims fraud when it loses elections, and controls the majority of the statehouses. The party that exercises such control proposes few policies that are popular with society at large, and several that are unpopular — and thus must either fear democracy or weaken it.
american values redefined: greed, racism, hypocrisy
racism: The unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race. Violent behavior towards them. Having the belief that some races of people are better than others. General beliefs about other people based only on their race. Showing this through violent or unfair treatment of people of other races.
greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food
hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people
Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought – report
A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product, researchers have found
Oliver Milman - the guardian
Fri 17 May 2024 10.00 EDT
The economic damage wrought by climate change is six times worse than previously thought, with global heating set to shrink wealth at a rate consistent with the level of financial losses of a continuing permanent war, research has found.
A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product (GDP), the researchers found, a far higher estimate than that of previous analyses. The world has already warmed by more than 1C (1.8F) since pre-industrial times and many climate scientists predict a 3C (5.4F) rise will occur by the end of this century due to the ongoing burning of fossil fuels, a scenario that the new working paper, yet to be peer-reviewed, states will come with an enormous economic cost.
A 3C temperature increase will cause “precipitous declines in output, capital and consumption that exceed 50% by 2100” the paper states. This economic loss is so severe that it is “comparable to the economic damage caused by fighting a war domestically and permanently”, it adds.
“There will still be some economic growth happening but by the end of the century people may well be 50% poorer than they would’ve been if it wasn’t for climate change,” said Adrien Bilal, an economist at Harvard who wrote the paper with Diego Känzig, an economist at Northwestern University.
“I think everyone could imagine what they would do with an income that is twice as large as it is now. It would change people’s lives.”
Bilal said that purchasing power, which is how much people are able to buy with their money, would already be 37% higher than it is now without global heating seen over the past 50 years. This lost wealth will spiral if the climate crisis deepens, comparable to the sort of economic drain often seen during wartime.
“Let’s be clear that the comparison to war is only in terms of consumption and GDP – all the suffering and death of war is the important thing and isn’t included in this analysis,” Bilal said. “The comparison may seem shocking, but in terms of pure GDP there is an analogy there. It’s a worrying thought.”
The paper places a much higher estimate on economic losses than previous research, calculating a social cost of carbon, which is the cost in dollars of damage done per each additional ton of carbon emissions, to be $1,056 per ton. This compares to a range set out by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that estimates the cost to be around $190 per ton.
Bilal said the new research takes a more “holistic” look at the economic cost of climate change by analyzing it on a global scale, rather than on an individual country basis. This approach, he said, captured the interconnected nature of the impact of heatwaves, storms, floods and other worsening climate impacts that damage crop yields, reduce worker productivity and reduce capital investment.
“They have taken a step back and linking local impacts with global temperatures,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia University who wasn’t involved in the work and said it was significant. “If the results hold up, and I have no reason to believe they wouldn’t, they will make a massive difference in the overall climate damage estimates.”
The paper found that the economic impact of the climate crisis will be surprisingly uniform around the world, albeit with lower-income countries starting at a lower point in wealth. This should spur wealthy countries such as the US, the paper points out, to take action on reducing planet-heating emissions in its own economic interest.
Even with steep emissions cuts, however, climate change will bear a heavy economic cost, the paper finds. Even if global heating was restrained to little more than 1.5C (2.7F) by the end of the century, a globally agreed-upon goal that now appears to have slipped from reach, the GDP losses are still around 15%.
“That is still substantial,” said Bilal. “The economy may keep growing but less than it would because of climate change. It will be a slow-moving phenomenon, although the impacts will be felt acutely when they hit.”
The paper follows separate research released last month that found average incomes will fall by almost a fifth within the next 26 years compared to what they would’ve been without the climate crisis. Rising temperatures, heavier rainfall and more frequent and intense extreme weather are projected to cause $38tn of destruction each year by mid-century, according to the research.
Both papers make clear that the cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels and curbing the impacts of climate change, while not trivial, pale in comparison to the cost of climate change itself. “Unmitigated climate change is a lot more costly than not doing anything about it, that is clear,” said Wagner.
A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product (GDP), the researchers found, a far higher estimate than that of previous analyses. The world has already warmed by more than 1C (1.8F) since pre-industrial times and many climate scientists predict a 3C (5.4F) rise will occur by the end of this century due to the ongoing burning of fossil fuels, a scenario that the new working paper, yet to be peer-reviewed, states will come with an enormous economic cost.
A 3C temperature increase will cause “precipitous declines in output, capital and consumption that exceed 50% by 2100” the paper states. This economic loss is so severe that it is “comparable to the economic damage caused by fighting a war domestically and permanently”, it adds.
“There will still be some economic growth happening but by the end of the century people may well be 50% poorer than they would’ve been if it wasn’t for climate change,” said Adrien Bilal, an economist at Harvard who wrote the paper with Diego Känzig, an economist at Northwestern University.
“I think everyone could imagine what they would do with an income that is twice as large as it is now. It would change people’s lives.”
Bilal said that purchasing power, which is how much people are able to buy with their money, would already be 37% higher than it is now without global heating seen over the past 50 years. This lost wealth will spiral if the climate crisis deepens, comparable to the sort of economic drain often seen during wartime.
“Let’s be clear that the comparison to war is only in terms of consumption and GDP – all the suffering and death of war is the important thing and isn’t included in this analysis,” Bilal said. “The comparison may seem shocking, but in terms of pure GDP there is an analogy there. It’s a worrying thought.”
The paper places a much higher estimate on economic losses than previous research, calculating a social cost of carbon, which is the cost in dollars of damage done per each additional ton of carbon emissions, to be $1,056 per ton. This compares to a range set out by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that estimates the cost to be around $190 per ton.
Bilal said the new research takes a more “holistic” look at the economic cost of climate change by analyzing it on a global scale, rather than on an individual country basis. This approach, he said, captured the interconnected nature of the impact of heatwaves, storms, floods and other worsening climate impacts that damage crop yields, reduce worker productivity and reduce capital investment.
“They have taken a step back and linking local impacts with global temperatures,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia University who wasn’t involved in the work and said it was significant. “If the results hold up, and I have no reason to believe they wouldn’t, they will make a massive difference in the overall climate damage estimates.”
The paper found that the economic impact of the climate crisis will be surprisingly uniform around the world, albeit with lower-income countries starting at a lower point in wealth. This should spur wealthy countries such as the US, the paper points out, to take action on reducing planet-heating emissions in its own economic interest.
Even with steep emissions cuts, however, climate change will bear a heavy economic cost, the paper finds. Even if global heating was restrained to little more than 1.5C (2.7F) by the end of the century, a globally agreed-upon goal that now appears to have slipped from reach, the GDP losses are still around 15%.
“That is still substantial,” said Bilal. “The economy may keep growing but less than it would because of climate change. It will be a slow-moving phenomenon, although the impacts will be felt acutely when they hit.”
The paper follows separate research released last month that found average incomes will fall by almost a fifth within the next 26 years compared to what they would’ve been without the climate crisis. Rising temperatures, heavier rainfall and more frequent and intense extreme weather are projected to cause $38tn of destruction each year by mid-century, according to the research.
Both papers make clear that the cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels and curbing the impacts of climate change, while not trivial, pale in comparison to the cost of climate change itself. “Unmitigated climate change is a lot more costly than not doing anything about it, that is clear,” said Wagner.
Lab-grown meat's PR problem offers an opportunity for plant-based products
Alabama announced Tuesday they would follow Florida's lead in banning lab-grown meat
By ASHLIE D. STEVENS - salon
Food Editor
PUBLISHED MAY 14, 2024 3:30PM (EDT)
Slop. This is the four-letter word Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman used to describe lab-grown meat on social media, while seemingly begrudgingly praising “Crash-and-Burn Ron” Desantis after the Republican governor banned the manufacturing and sale of cultured meat in the state of Florida.
“I co-sign this,” Fetterman wrote. “As a member of @SenateAgDems and as some dude who would never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with our American ranchers and farmers.”
This is just the tip of the iceberg. As cultured meat has entered the culture wars, and questions around its production and distribution have become political fodder — for instance, on Monday, Alabama followed Florida’s lead in banning the products — its detractors have hurled a series of colorful descriptors its way. DeSantis has described its limited introduction to the market as part of the “global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish,” while Tennessee representative Bud Hulsey said in a March hearing that “some folks would probably like to eat bugs with Bill Gates, but not me.”
American politicians aren’t alone in their trepidation around lab-grown meat, which is produced by culturing animal cells in a bioreactor, where they multiply and differentiate into muscle tissue, and which is then harvested and processed to create an alternative to conventional meat production. A March survey-based report out of Purdue University’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability found that “many consumers view conventional meats as both tastier and healthier than laboratory-grown alternatives.”
Joseph Balagtas is a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue, who also led the university’s recent report about consumer attitudes regarding cultivated meat. His research team found “similar results when evaluating consumers’ willingness to try conventional and cultivated meats in a restaurant setting.”
For common meats, such as beef, chicken and pork, the researchers found that about 90% or more of consumers are willing to try conventional or non-cultivated meats.
“The proportion of consumers willing to try the cultivated versions of these meats is around 30 percentage points lower, though it is still a majority, about 60%,” Balagtas said. “Given the fact that cell-cultured meat is not widely available, these results reflect consumer distrust of the unknown when it comes to food, which is a barrier for any novel food trying to break into the market.”
As a result, many conventional meat manufacturers are already beginning to tailor their public messaging about their products. For instance, as one lamb and beef producer in the United Kingdom told researchers as part of a recent survey they thought “marketing their produce as ‘the real stuff’ might give them a competitive edge compared to protein produced in a bioreactor.”
However, farmers and ranchers aren’t the only ones who see a potential marketing opportunity from lab-grown meat’s simmering PR crisis. Plant-based meat companies are also starting to adapt their packaging in an effort to appeal to new customers, especially those who may want an alternative to factory-farmed meat but aren’t keen on the idea of cultivated meat (which isn’t available to purchase commercially in the States currently, even if one wanted to).
One major way plant-based companies are doing this is through the use of color. As Charlotte Pointing wrote for VegNews on Tuesday, “red is the new green” when it comes to packaging for vegan meat substitutes because its a color often associated with fast-food, and thereby quick, easy flavor — especially when trying to target “flexitarians” or omnivores.
For instance, Impossible Foods, one of the leading plant-based meat brands in the country, debuted new, red packaging — a departure from their current cyan labels — today at Natural Products Expo West. The packaging will be seen for the first time on the packaging for their new Impossible Beef Hot Dogs.
“We’re the fastest-growing plant-based company in America, so it’s a good time to evolve from a position of strength. We wanted packaging that lived up to and reflected the deliciousness of our products while really popping on the shelf,” Peter McGuinness, president and CEO of Impossible Foods, said in a statement.
One of Impossible Foods’ main competitors, Beyond Meat, is taking a different tack. As Food Business News reported on Monday, the company has spent the last three years working with groups like the American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association to meet the organizations’ respective criteria for endorsement. Those endorsements are now reflected on Impossible Foods’ packaging because “Beyond Meat’s management team believes marketing messages focused on the nutrition profile of its products will provide a point of differentiation in the market.”
During a May 8 conference call, Ethan Brown, the chief executive officer of Impossible Foods, said the product has “been so well received by not only the medical community, but the nutrition and registered dietitian community, that we have high confidence that it addresses the No. 1 issue in the category.”
It also sounds like some of the ire that has been previously directed at plant-based meat products has found a different target with the proliferation of cultivated meat, which also potentially indicates a larger opening in the market for vegan burgers, hot dogs and tenders.
“You can trust that this product has the health benefits that you’d expect it to have,” Brown said. “And, so, that’s a very different scenario than [the] one we were facing a year ago, when there was just so much negative noise that was being drummed up about the category.”
“I co-sign this,” Fetterman wrote. “As a member of @SenateAgDems and as some dude who would never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with our American ranchers and farmers.”
This is just the tip of the iceberg. As cultured meat has entered the culture wars, and questions around its production and distribution have become political fodder — for instance, on Monday, Alabama followed Florida’s lead in banning the products — its detractors have hurled a series of colorful descriptors its way. DeSantis has described its limited introduction to the market as part of the “global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish,” while Tennessee representative Bud Hulsey said in a March hearing that “some folks would probably like to eat bugs with Bill Gates, but not me.”
American politicians aren’t alone in their trepidation around lab-grown meat, which is produced by culturing animal cells in a bioreactor, where they multiply and differentiate into muscle tissue, and which is then harvested and processed to create an alternative to conventional meat production. A March survey-based report out of Purdue University’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability found that “many consumers view conventional meats as both tastier and healthier than laboratory-grown alternatives.”
Joseph Balagtas is a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue, who also led the university’s recent report about consumer attitudes regarding cultivated meat. His research team found “similar results when evaluating consumers’ willingness to try conventional and cultivated meats in a restaurant setting.”
For common meats, such as beef, chicken and pork, the researchers found that about 90% or more of consumers are willing to try conventional or non-cultivated meats.
“The proportion of consumers willing to try the cultivated versions of these meats is around 30 percentage points lower, though it is still a majority, about 60%,” Balagtas said. “Given the fact that cell-cultured meat is not widely available, these results reflect consumer distrust of the unknown when it comes to food, which is a barrier for any novel food trying to break into the market.”
As a result, many conventional meat manufacturers are already beginning to tailor their public messaging about their products. For instance, as one lamb and beef producer in the United Kingdom told researchers as part of a recent survey they thought “marketing their produce as ‘the real stuff’ might give them a competitive edge compared to protein produced in a bioreactor.”
However, farmers and ranchers aren’t the only ones who see a potential marketing opportunity from lab-grown meat’s simmering PR crisis. Plant-based meat companies are also starting to adapt their packaging in an effort to appeal to new customers, especially those who may want an alternative to factory-farmed meat but aren’t keen on the idea of cultivated meat (which isn’t available to purchase commercially in the States currently, even if one wanted to).
One major way plant-based companies are doing this is through the use of color. As Charlotte Pointing wrote for VegNews on Tuesday, “red is the new green” when it comes to packaging for vegan meat substitutes because its a color often associated with fast-food, and thereby quick, easy flavor — especially when trying to target “flexitarians” or omnivores.
For instance, Impossible Foods, one of the leading plant-based meat brands in the country, debuted new, red packaging — a departure from their current cyan labels — today at Natural Products Expo West. The packaging will be seen for the first time on the packaging for their new Impossible Beef Hot Dogs.
“We’re the fastest-growing plant-based company in America, so it’s a good time to evolve from a position of strength. We wanted packaging that lived up to and reflected the deliciousness of our products while really popping on the shelf,” Peter McGuinness, president and CEO of Impossible Foods, said in a statement.
One of Impossible Foods’ main competitors, Beyond Meat, is taking a different tack. As Food Business News reported on Monday, the company has spent the last three years working with groups like the American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association to meet the organizations’ respective criteria for endorsement. Those endorsements are now reflected on Impossible Foods’ packaging because “Beyond Meat’s management team believes marketing messages focused on the nutrition profile of its products will provide a point of differentiation in the market.”
During a May 8 conference call, Ethan Brown, the chief executive officer of Impossible Foods, said the product has “been so well received by not only the medical community, but the nutrition and registered dietitian community, that we have high confidence that it addresses the No. 1 issue in the category.”
It also sounds like some of the ire that has been previously directed at plant-based meat products has found a different target with the proliferation of cultivated meat, which also potentially indicates a larger opening in the market for vegan burgers, hot dogs and tenders.
“You can trust that this product has the health benefits that you’d expect it to have,” Brown said. “And, so, that’s a very different scenario than [the] one we were facing a year ago, when there was just so much negative noise that was being drummed up about the category.”
A "CHRISTIAN" Nation? ...
NanceGreggs - du
Even most non-Christians know Jesus's admonitions to his followers to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and care for the sick and dying.
Now let's acknowledge the bleedin' obvious, shall we?
There isn't a self-proclaimed-Christian Republican who would ever run for office espousing those principles, because they know no self-proclaimed-Christian Republican would ever vote for them.
Show me a Republican candidate running on a platform of making healthcare more affordable, or providing free meals to the poor, and I'll show you a candidate who will be shouted down by the "good Christians" in his party for wanting to give away their tax dollars to undeserving, lazy deadbeats.
Show me a Republican office-seeker campaigning on the promise of housing the homeless, and I'll show you a candidate whose first campaign speech in front of his Bible-thumping Republican base will be his last.
Given today's hate-the-browns-and-blacks climate in the GOP, dare I even mention Christ's directive to "welcome the stranger"? That's the kind of rhetoric that could get you crucified these days - and those self-proclaimed-Christian Republicans would gladly supply the wood and the nails.
The only time you'll hear a Republican politician invoke their alleged Christianity is when they rail against abortion and homosexuality - two topics Christ never even spoke about - or to ask for thoughts-and-prayers after a mass shooting perpetrated by someone with an automatic weapon that, as Republicans will tell you, he had a God-given right to own.
I don't know where all the real Christians are these days - but it's pretty obvious they aren't in the GOP.
Now let's acknowledge the bleedin' obvious, shall we?
There isn't a self-proclaimed-Christian Republican who would ever run for office espousing those principles, because they know no self-proclaimed-Christian Republican would ever vote for them.
Show me a Republican candidate running on a platform of making healthcare more affordable, or providing free meals to the poor, and I'll show you a candidate who will be shouted down by the "good Christians" in his party for wanting to give away their tax dollars to undeserving, lazy deadbeats.
Show me a Republican office-seeker campaigning on the promise of housing the homeless, and I'll show you a candidate whose first campaign speech in front of his Bible-thumping Republican base will be his last.
Given today's hate-the-browns-and-blacks climate in the GOP, dare I even mention Christ's directive to "welcome the stranger"? That's the kind of rhetoric that could get you crucified these days - and those self-proclaimed-Christian Republicans would gladly supply the wood and the nails.
The only time you'll hear a Republican politician invoke their alleged Christianity is when they rail against abortion and homosexuality - two topics Christ never even spoke about - or to ask for thoughts-and-prayers after a mass shooting perpetrated by someone with an automatic weapon that, as Republicans will tell you, he had a God-given right to own.
I don't know where all the real Christians are these days - but it's pretty obvious they aren't in the GOP.
Welcome to RepublicanDebt.org
This site tracks the current Republican Debt.
The Republican Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States
is attributable to
the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush,
George W. Bush, Donald J. Trump,
and
the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.
As of Monday, May 13, 2024 at 5:09:11PM PT,
The Current Republican Debt is:
$16,706,572,395,225.40
which means that in a total of 24 years,
these four presidents have led to the creation of
94.70%
of the entire national debt
in only 9.6774% of the 248 years of the existence of the United States of America.
Revealed: Trump campaign allegedly took ‘excessive’ contributions
Mark Alesia - Raw Story
May 17, 2024
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign received a nastygram from the Federal Election Commission again — this time, in the form of a 243-page letter flagging suspected illegal contributions.
Trump’s campaign appears to have accepted dozens of donations that exceed federal contribution limits — $3,300 per person to a candidate per election — from supporters who often made miniscule but repeated donations in a bizarre, seemingly random, manner.
Take Gail D. Lopez, listed in public documents as a retiree from Lacombe, La., who made 1,450 separate contributions to Trump’s campaign in less than 17 months.
Of those, 116 were for one penny.
Lopez made 228 additional contributions for less than a nickel.
And 1,000 contributions were for less than a dollar.
Her total giving was $4,272, some of which the Trump campaign listed as having refunded. But even with the refunds, she nickel and dimed herself well over the legal limit without the Trump campaign adequately stopping her, according to the FEC.
Contributions that exceed federal limits are supposed to be refunded by a campaign — or redesignated by the donor from, say, a primary election to a general election.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to Raw Story’s request for comment. The FEC, a independent federal regulatory agency with the power to issue fines for campaign finance-related violations, gave Trump's campaign until June 17 to respond to its inquiry.
Donor Karen Anjoorian, listed in FEC records as being retired and from Suffolk, Va., made 12 contributions for nine cents, including two such contributions on the same day.
She made numerous other contributions for odd amounts — 18 cents, 23 cents, 32 cents.
Her total giving of $3,523.49 went over the federal limit.The FEC lists more than 100 people whose contributions to Donald J. Trump For President 2024, Inc., violated election law.
While Trump’s campaign has experienced habitual problems keeping track of donors who give too much, many large-scale federal campaigns, particularly presidential campaigns — Republican and Democratic alike — have also struggled with such accounting from time to time.
Trump, meanwhile, frequently boasts about his wealth.
But the former president, who is facing 88 felony counts across four criminal cases against him, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in civil judgments against him, is not self-funding his 2024 presidential campaign in any meaningful way.
Trump’s campaign appears to have accepted dozens of donations that exceed federal contribution limits — $3,300 per person to a candidate per election — from supporters who often made miniscule but repeated donations in a bizarre, seemingly random, manner.
Take Gail D. Lopez, listed in public documents as a retiree from Lacombe, La., who made 1,450 separate contributions to Trump’s campaign in less than 17 months.
Of those, 116 were for one penny.
Lopez made 228 additional contributions for less than a nickel.
And 1,000 contributions were for less than a dollar.
Her total giving was $4,272, some of which the Trump campaign listed as having refunded. But even with the refunds, she nickel and dimed herself well over the legal limit without the Trump campaign adequately stopping her, according to the FEC.
Contributions that exceed federal limits are supposed to be refunded by a campaign — or redesignated by the donor from, say, a primary election to a general election.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to Raw Story’s request for comment. The FEC, a independent federal regulatory agency with the power to issue fines for campaign finance-related violations, gave Trump's campaign until June 17 to respond to its inquiry.
Donor Karen Anjoorian, listed in FEC records as being retired and from Suffolk, Va., made 12 contributions for nine cents, including two such contributions on the same day.
She made numerous other contributions for odd amounts — 18 cents, 23 cents, 32 cents.
Her total giving of $3,523.49 went over the federal limit.The FEC lists more than 100 people whose contributions to Donald J. Trump For President 2024, Inc., violated election law.
While Trump’s campaign has experienced habitual problems keeping track of donors who give too much, many large-scale federal campaigns, particularly presidential campaigns — Republican and Democratic alike — have also struggled with such accounting from time to time.
Trump, meanwhile, frequently boasts about his wealth.
But the former president, who is facing 88 felony counts across four criminal cases against him, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in civil judgments against him, is not self-funding his 2024 presidential campaign in any meaningful way.
in the land of stupid!!!
THE DAILY TRASH REPORT FEATURING TODAY'S DESPICABLES
THOMAS JEFFERSON CALLED THEM "WASTE PEOPLE" AND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN CALLED THEM "RUBBISH" WE CALL THEM "MAGA PEOPLE" and the worthless media gives them a voice.
'Most succential': Trump ridiculed after speech in which he 'confused his criminal cases'
'Partygoers started screaming': Giuliani served with indictment during his birthday party
"Some partygoers started screaming and one woman even cried as Giuliani was served," the Post's Lydia Moynihan wrote.
Alabama
Poultry plant could be closed for 30 days for allegedly hiring minors
Who is most to blame for climate change? Regardless of the answer, global cooperation is critical
The U.S. is the world's top polluter, which incentivizes us to lead on climate change
By MATTHEW ROZSA - salon
Staff Writer
PUBLISHED MAY 13, 2024 5:30AM (EDT)
Climate change is one of the biggest existential threats to humanity, but in the ongoing struggle to fight it, a debate rages on over which countries are most responsible for emitting the greenhouse gases accelerating the crisis. China currently emits more CO2 than the U.S., but both countries are the world's top producers of the heat-trapping compound. Yet doesn't just matter who currently emits the most, but also how long they've been doing it and what those countries are doing to curb emissions.
The stakes could not be higher. Humans are experiencing the hottest months in recorded human history, with scientists warning that humanity is living on "borrowed time." As climate change worsens people can expect frequent and intensified tropical storms, wildfires, droughts and heatwaves, as well as rising sea levels and resource scarcity. This has put a spotlight on the issue, as well as on questions of how to fix the problem. Salon spoke to several climatologists about America's role in both causing and solving climate change, and all of them agreed on two things: First, America is the world's largest legacy climate polluter — that is, they have put more total carbon pollution into the atmosphere than any other nation; and second, a heavy burden therefore falls on America to take responsibility.
"In 2023, global temperatures came close to 1.5º C above pre-industrial levels – and the US is by far the biggest contributor to that," said Dr Simon Evans, Senior Policy Editor at the policy website Carbon Brief, which among other things keeps track of greenhouse gas emissions. Evans said that their analysis shows that more than one-fifth of all the warming currently being experienced on Earth was caused by America's cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. Even though China has a much larger population than the United States (1.4 billion versus 333 million), their total role in causing global warming is only around half of America's contribution. Furthermore, China is the leader of transitioning to renewable energy.
It is "relatively easy" to estimate any country's contribution to climate change — or, for that matter, any industrial sector's contribution, Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Salon. He referred interested parties to a website that helps ordinary citizens acquire that information for themselves. When they do so, it is important for them to understand the science behind how climate change is happening.
"The dominant driver of current climate change is CO2 emissions, and they have a property that means (roughly speaking) that the impact on climate is related to the accumulated emissions of CO2," said Schmidt. "This is different to the impact from air pollution or methane whose effects are really just related to current emissions. So that means you can relatively easily estimate any country’s (or any sector’s) contribution to current climate change by just looking at their cumulative CO2 emissions."
By doing that, it's clear that the United States has had the largest impact, followed by the European Union, China and the United Kingdom.
According to some climatologists, America's disproportionate role in causing climate change puts a burden on the United States to take the lead in addressing the issue.
"This means that it is absolutely essential that the U.S. take a leadership role in global climate action," said Dr. Michael E. Mann, a climatologist at the University of Pennsylvania. He said this should include "reducing carbon emissions by 60% over the next decade. Without American leadership, it’s easy for other countries to come up with excuses and do less, and even back-pedal."
Mann added, "That’s what we saw during the Trump presidency, when the U.S. signaled to the rest of the world it was no longer serious about climate action."
Dr. Peter Kalmus, a NASA climate scientist who emphasized his opinions are his own, criticized the United States for not doing more to tackle climate change.
"The U.S. needs to get its own climate ducks in a row before the other nations of the world will listen to it on climate policy," said Kalmus. "The U.S. has the wealth and technology to be a powerful global leader on climate action, but instead continues to double down on fossil fuels, which is so incredibly stupid. We've squandered the chance to do good in the world and in doing good in the world to ensure a strong post-carbon economy for ourselves. It's just so stupid. "
Salon also spoke with Dr. James Hansen, a climatologist at Columbia University whose 1988 Senate testimony was a landmark event in the history of spreading public knowledge about global warming. Hansen said that "the fossil fuel industry decided to deny climate change rather than begin to invest in carbon-free energies." Because they discovered "it was easier to buy off politicians" than invest in green technology, oil companies have stymied efforts to spread public awareness about climate change and thereby cultivate the collective will to implement solutions. According to Hansen's recent paper in the journal Oxford Open Climate Change, feasible solutions do exist.
"That means a simple honest rising price on carbon, implemented in a way that the public will accept, i.e., with the funds collected from the fossil fuel industry distributed to the public," Hansen said. "Additional details include the need for 'clean energy portfolio standards' not 'renewables-only portfolio standards.'"
Hansen said that although President Joe Biden has attempted to address this issue — and he, unlike Trump, recognizes the scientific reality of climate change — his policies fall far short of what is needed. Hansen described the Inflation Reduction Act, which included environmental measures, as a bill that "produces inflation by borrowing huge sums from our children and grandchildren, but which has only [a] slight effect on reducing global emissions."
Now that America has failed to take the lead globally, Hansen argues that they may have permanently forfeited their world leadership on this front.
"Given that we failed to help get effective global policies, China is now the greatest source of present and future emissions," said Hansen. He said that "we should give priority to working with China. Instead we are intent on painting them as our enemy, an approach that tends to be self-fulfilling. The hope now is that Europe will be smart enough to not follow that lead."
The bottom line is that pointing fingers at who is the "worst" polluter is probably not a very productive use of time and energy, especially as the clock is ticking to avoid the worst effects of our changing climate. International cooperation will be key — after all, global heating is a global problem.
"Speaking personally, I think that obliges the U.S. to be a leader in the energy transition — i.e. you broke it, you fix it," Schmidt said. "But I don’t think it means that it’s all on the U.S. Rather, all the big emitters need to get their emissions down."
The stakes could not be higher. Humans are experiencing the hottest months in recorded human history, with scientists warning that humanity is living on "borrowed time." As climate change worsens people can expect frequent and intensified tropical storms, wildfires, droughts and heatwaves, as well as rising sea levels and resource scarcity. This has put a spotlight on the issue, as well as on questions of how to fix the problem. Salon spoke to several climatologists about America's role in both causing and solving climate change, and all of them agreed on two things: First, America is the world's largest legacy climate polluter — that is, they have put more total carbon pollution into the atmosphere than any other nation; and second, a heavy burden therefore falls on America to take responsibility.
"In 2023, global temperatures came close to 1.5º C above pre-industrial levels – and the US is by far the biggest contributor to that," said Dr Simon Evans, Senior Policy Editor at the policy website Carbon Brief, which among other things keeps track of greenhouse gas emissions. Evans said that their analysis shows that more than one-fifth of all the warming currently being experienced on Earth was caused by America's cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. Even though China has a much larger population than the United States (1.4 billion versus 333 million), their total role in causing global warming is only around half of America's contribution. Furthermore, China is the leader of transitioning to renewable energy.
It is "relatively easy" to estimate any country's contribution to climate change — or, for that matter, any industrial sector's contribution, Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Salon. He referred interested parties to a website that helps ordinary citizens acquire that information for themselves. When they do so, it is important for them to understand the science behind how climate change is happening.
"The dominant driver of current climate change is CO2 emissions, and they have a property that means (roughly speaking) that the impact on climate is related to the accumulated emissions of CO2," said Schmidt. "This is different to the impact from air pollution or methane whose effects are really just related to current emissions. So that means you can relatively easily estimate any country’s (or any sector’s) contribution to current climate change by just looking at their cumulative CO2 emissions."
By doing that, it's clear that the United States has had the largest impact, followed by the European Union, China and the United Kingdom.
According to some climatologists, America's disproportionate role in causing climate change puts a burden on the United States to take the lead in addressing the issue.
"This means that it is absolutely essential that the U.S. take a leadership role in global climate action," said Dr. Michael E. Mann, a climatologist at the University of Pennsylvania. He said this should include "reducing carbon emissions by 60% over the next decade. Without American leadership, it’s easy for other countries to come up with excuses and do less, and even back-pedal."
Mann added, "That’s what we saw during the Trump presidency, when the U.S. signaled to the rest of the world it was no longer serious about climate action."
Dr. Peter Kalmus, a NASA climate scientist who emphasized his opinions are his own, criticized the United States for not doing more to tackle climate change.
"The U.S. needs to get its own climate ducks in a row before the other nations of the world will listen to it on climate policy," said Kalmus. "The U.S. has the wealth and technology to be a powerful global leader on climate action, but instead continues to double down on fossil fuels, which is so incredibly stupid. We've squandered the chance to do good in the world and in doing good in the world to ensure a strong post-carbon economy for ourselves. It's just so stupid. "
Salon also spoke with Dr. James Hansen, a climatologist at Columbia University whose 1988 Senate testimony was a landmark event in the history of spreading public knowledge about global warming. Hansen said that "the fossil fuel industry decided to deny climate change rather than begin to invest in carbon-free energies." Because they discovered "it was easier to buy off politicians" than invest in green technology, oil companies have stymied efforts to spread public awareness about climate change and thereby cultivate the collective will to implement solutions. According to Hansen's recent paper in the journal Oxford Open Climate Change, feasible solutions do exist.
"That means a simple honest rising price on carbon, implemented in a way that the public will accept, i.e., with the funds collected from the fossil fuel industry distributed to the public," Hansen said. "Additional details include the need for 'clean energy portfolio standards' not 'renewables-only portfolio standards.'"
Hansen said that although President Joe Biden has attempted to address this issue — and he, unlike Trump, recognizes the scientific reality of climate change — his policies fall far short of what is needed. Hansen described the Inflation Reduction Act, which included environmental measures, as a bill that "produces inflation by borrowing huge sums from our children and grandchildren, but which has only [a] slight effect on reducing global emissions."
Now that America has failed to take the lead globally, Hansen argues that they may have permanently forfeited their world leadership on this front.
"Given that we failed to help get effective global policies, China is now the greatest source of present and future emissions," said Hansen. He said that "we should give priority to working with China. Instead we are intent on painting them as our enemy, an approach that tends to be self-fulfilling. The hope now is that Europe will be smart enough to not follow that lead."
The bottom line is that pointing fingers at who is the "worst" polluter is probably not a very productive use of time and energy, especially as the clock is ticking to avoid the worst effects of our changing climate. International cooperation will be key — after all, global heating is a global problem.
"Speaking personally, I think that obliges the U.S. to be a leader in the energy transition — i.e. you broke it, you fix it," Schmidt said. "But I don’t think it means that it’s all on the U.S. Rather, all the big emitters need to get their emissions down."
Should Billionaires Exist?
by Robert Reich | the smirking chimp
May 4, 2024 - 6:07am
Do billionaires have a right to exist?
America has driven more than 650 species to extinction. And it should do the same to billionaires.
Why? Because there are only five ways to become one, and they’re all bad for free-market capitalism:
1. Exploit a Monopoly.
Jamie Dimon is worth $2 billion today… but not because he succeeded in the “free market.” In 2008, the government bailed out his bank JPMorgan and other giant Wall Street banks, keeping them off the endangered species list.
This government “insurance policy” scored these struggling Mom-and-Pop megabanks an estimated $34 billion a year.
But doesn’t entrepreneur Jeff Bezos deserve his billions for building Amazon?
No, because he also built a monopoly that’s been charged by the federal government and 17 states for inflating prices, overcharging sellers, and stifling competition like a predator in the wild.
With better anti-monopoly enforcement, Bezos would be worth closer to his fair-market value.
2. Exploit Inside Information
Steven A. Cohen, worth roughly $20 billion headed a hedge fund charged by the Justice Department with insider trading “on a scale without known precedent.” Another innovator!
Taming insider trading would level the investing field between the C Suite and Main Street.
3. Buy Off Politicians
That’s a great way to become a billionaire! The Koch family and Koch Industries saved roughly $1 billion a year from the Trump tax cut they and allies spent $20 million lobbying for. What a return on investment!
If we had tougher lobbying laws, political corruption would go extinct.
4. Defraud Investors
Adam Neumann conned investors out of hundreds of millions for WeWork, an office-sharing startup. WeWork didn’t make a nickel of profit, but Neumann still funded his extravagant lifestyle, including a $60 million private jet. Not exactly “sharing.”
Elizabeth Holmes was convicted of fraud for her blood-testing company, Theranos. So was Sam Bankman-Fried of crypto-exchange FTX. Remember a supposed billionaire named Donald Trump? He was also found to have committed fraud.
Presumably, if we had tougher anti-fraud laws, more would be caught and there’d be fewer billionaires to preserve.
5. Get Money From Rich Relatives
About 60 percent of all wealth in America today is inherited.
That’s because loopholes in U.S. tax law —lobbied for by the wealthy — allow rich families to avoid taxes on assets they inherit. And the estate tax has been so defanged that fewer than 0.2 percent of estates have paid it in recent years.
Tax reform would disrupt the circle of life for the rich, stopping them from automatically becoming billionaires at their birth, or someone else’s death.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing against big rewards for entrepreneurs and inventors. But do today’s entrepreneurs really need billions of dollars? Couldn’t they survive on a measly hundred million?
Because they’re now using those billions to erode American institutions. They spent fortunes bringing Supreme Court justices with them into the wild.They treated news organizations and social media platforms like prey, and they turned their relationships with politicians into patronage troughs.
This has created an America where fewer than ever can become millionaires (or even thousandaires) through hard work and actual innovation.
If capitalism were working properly, billionaires would have gone the way of the dodo.
America has driven more than 650 species to extinction. And it should do the same to billionaires.
Why? Because there are only five ways to become one, and they’re all bad for free-market capitalism:
1. Exploit a Monopoly.
Jamie Dimon is worth $2 billion today… but not because he succeeded in the “free market.” In 2008, the government bailed out his bank JPMorgan and other giant Wall Street banks, keeping them off the endangered species list.
This government “insurance policy” scored these struggling Mom-and-Pop megabanks an estimated $34 billion a year.
But doesn’t entrepreneur Jeff Bezos deserve his billions for building Amazon?
No, because he also built a monopoly that’s been charged by the federal government and 17 states for inflating prices, overcharging sellers, and stifling competition like a predator in the wild.
With better anti-monopoly enforcement, Bezos would be worth closer to his fair-market value.
2. Exploit Inside Information
Steven A. Cohen, worth roughly $20 billion headed a hedge fund charged by the Justice Department with insider trading “on a scale without known precedent.” Another innovator!
Taming insider trading would level the investing field between the C Suite and Main Street.
3. Buy Off Politicians
That’s a great way to become a billionaire! The Koch family and Koch Industries saved roughly $1 billion a year from the Trump tax cut they and allies spent $20 million lobbying for. What a return on investment!
If we had tougher lobbying laws, political corruption would go extinct.
4. Defraud Investors
Adam Neumann conned investors out of hundreds of millions for WeWork, an office-sharing startup. WeWork didn’t make a nickel of profit, but Neumann still funded his extravagant lifestyle, including a $60 million private jet. Not exactly “sharing.”
Elizabeth Holmes was convicted of fraud for her blood-testing company, Theranos. So was Sam Bankman-Fried of crypto-exchange FTX. Remember a supposed billionaire named Donald Trump? He was also found to have committed fraud.
Presumably, if we had tougher anti-fraud laws, more would be caught and there’d be fewer billionaires to preserve.
5. Get Money From Rich Relatives
About 60 percent of all wealth in America today is inherited.
That’s because loopholes in U.S. tax law —lobbied for by the wealthy — allow rich families to avoid taxes on assets they inherit. And the estate tax has been so defanged that fewer than 0.2 percent of estates have paid it in recent years.
Tax reform would disrupt the circle of life for the rich, stopping them from automatically becoming billionaires at their birth, or someone else’s death.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing against big rewards for entrepreneurs and inventors. But do today’s entrepreneurs really need billions of dollars? Couldn’t they survive on a measly hundred million?
Because they’re now using those billions to erode American institutions. They spent fortunes bringing Supreme Court justices with them into the wild.They treated news organizations and social media platforms like prey, and they turned their relationships with politicians into patronage troughs.
This has created an America where fewer than ever can become millionaires (or even thousandaires) through hard work and actual innovation.
If capitalism were working properly, billionaires would have gone the way of the dodo.
PFAS
Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ ubiquitous in Great Lakes basin, study finds
Tom Perkins - the guardian
Sat 18 May 2024 08.00 EDT
Toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” are ubiquitous in the Great Lakes basin’s air, rain, atmosphere and water, new peer-reviewed research shows.
The first-of-its-kind, comprehensive picture of PFAS levels for the basin, which holds nearly 95% of the nation’s freshwater, also reveals that precipitation is probably a major contributor to the lakes’ contamination.
“We didn’t think the air and rain were significant sources of PFAS in the Great Lakes’ environment, but it’s not something that has been studied that much,” said Marta Venier, a co-author with Indiana University.
PFAS are a class of 15,000 chemicals used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. The chemicals are linked to cancer, kidney disease, birth defects, decreased immunity, liver problems and a range of other serious diseases.
They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and are highly mobile once in the environment, so they continuously move through the ground, water and air. PFAS have been detected in all corners of the globe, from penguin eggs in Antarctica to polar bears in the Arctic.
The new paper is part of a growing body of evidence showing how the chemicals move through the atmosphere and water.
Measurements found PFAS levels in the air varied throughout the basin – they were much higher in urban locations such as Chicago than in rural spots in northern Michigan. That tracks with how other chemical pollutants, like PCBs, are detected, Venier said.
But levels in rain were consistent throughout the basin – virtually the same in industrialized areas such as Chicago and Cleveland as in Sleeping Bear Dunes, a remote region in northern Michigan. The finding was a bit “puzzling” Venier said, adding that it probably speaks to the chemicals’ ubiquity.
PFAS “background levels” are now so high and the environmental contamination so widespread that the atmospheric counts, including in rain, are relatively consistent. The PFAS in rain could be carried from local sources, or have traveled long distances from other regions. Regardless, it is a major source of pollution that contributes to the lakes’ levels, Venier added.
Water contamination levels were highest in Lake Ontario, which holds the most major urban areas, such as Toronto and Buffalo, and is last in line in the lake system’s west to east flow. Lake Superior, which is the largest and deepest body with few urban areas on its shores, showed the lowest levels.
PFAS tend to accumulate in Lake Superior and Huron because there’s little water exchange, while Lake Ontario relatively quickly moves the chemicals into the Saint Lawrence Seaway and Atlantic Ocean.
The study did not address what the levels mean for human health and exposure, but fish consumption advisories are in place across the region, and many cities have contaminated drinking water.
The levels found in water and atmosphere will probably increase as scientists are able to identify more PFAS, most of which cannot be detected by currently reliable technology.
“We need to take a broad approach to control sources that release PFAS into the atmosphere and into bodies of water … since they eventually all end up in the lakes,” Venier said.
The first-of-its-kind, comprehensive picture of PFAS levels for the basin, which holds nearly 95% of the nation’s freshwater, also reveals that precipitation is probably a major contributor to the lakes’ contamination.
“We didn’t think the air and rain were significant sources of PFAS in the Great Lakes’ environment, but it’s not something that has been studied that much,” said Marta Venier, a co-author with Indiana University.
PFAS are a class of 15,000 chemicals used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. The chemicals are linked to cancer, kidney disease, birth defects, decreased immunity, liver problems and a range of other serious diseases.
They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and are highly mobile once in the environment, so they continuously move through the ground, water and air. PFAS have been detected in all corners of the globe, from penguin eggs in Antarctica to polar bears in the Arctic.
The new paper is part of a growing body of evidence showing how the chemicals move through the atmosphere and water.
Measurements found PFAS levels in the air varied throughout the basin – they were much higher in urban locations such as Chicago than in rural spots in northern Michigan. That tracks with how other chemical pollutants, like PCBs, are detected, Venier said.
But levels in rain were consistent throughout the basin – virtually the same in industrialized areas such as Chicago and Cleveland as in Sleeping Bear Dunes, a remote region in northern Michigan. The finding was a bit “puzzling” Venier said, adding that it probably speaks to the chemicals’ ubiquity.
PFAS “background levels” are now so high and the environmental contamination so widespread that the atmospheric counts, including in rain, are relatively consistent. The PFAS in rain could be carried from local sources, or have traveled long distances from other regions. Regardless, it is a major source of pollution that contributes to the lakes’ levels, Venier added.
Water contamination levels were highest in Lake Ontario, which holds the most major urban areas, such as Toronto and Buffalo, and is last in line in the lake system’s west to east flow. Lake Superior, which is the largest and deepest body with few urban areas on its shores, showed the lowest levels.
PFAS tend to accumulate in Lake Superior and Huron because there’s little water exchange, while Lake Ontario relatively quickly moves the chemicals into the Saint Lawrence Seaway and Atlantic Ocean.
The study did not address what the levels mean for human health and exposure, but fish consumption advisories are in place across the region, and many cities have contaminated drinking water.
The levels found in water and atmosphere will probably increase as scientists are able to identify more PFAS, most of which cannot be detected by currently reliable technology.
“We need to take a broad approach to control sources that release PFAS into the atmosphere and into bodies of water … since they eventually all end up in the lakes,” Venier said.
STUCK ON STUPID!!!
elected officials who owe their offices to stupid voters
GOP Farm Bill decried as pro-corporate, anti-family 'waste of everyone's time'
'Delusional': Trump gets laughs for bragging he's a 'better physical specimen' than Obama
Right Wing Group Tries To Credit Trump For Biden's Success
The MacIver Institute, a right wing group, tries to credit Trump for Biden's success in major Microsoft development.
Chris capper Liebenthal — crooks & liars
May 16, 2024
Six years ago, Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan and others gathered in Racine County to make a lot of noise about Foxconn promising to build a giant plant there that would create tens of thousands of jobs. But like all of Trump's promises, this promise was as empty as his head and his wallet. Foxconn never built that big plant and never created those jobs.
Fast forward to last week, when President Dark Brandon showed up on the same spot and made an announcement that, if you will pardon the expression, was a big fucking deal. He announced that Microsoft was going to invest $3 billion of its own money to build a huge AI data center where Foxconn was supposed to be. Microsoft president Brad Smith credited and thanked Biden, saying that it was only happening because of Biden's infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
It was such a big deal that former Republican Wisconsin lawmakers and even Fox News admitted that this was a big win for the people of Wisconsin and for Biden.
However, a few petulant Republicans tried to say Biden had nothing to do with it. That line of bull reached a crescendo on Tuesday when the Bradley Foundation-subsidized MacIver Institute went so far as to try to give credit to Trump and his Foxconn failure.
They start their fractured manufacturing fairy tale by saying Trump just happened to be flying over the area and just so happened to look up from his mean tweets to look out the window and just so happened to say that it would be a good spot for a Foxconn plant.
Then the unnamed MacIver writer said that Biden had nothing to do with Microsoft, and that Brad Smith was a big, old, snot-faced, poopy-headed liar for trying to credit Biden.
They wrapped things up with this ridiculous drivel which actually goes a long way to explain why the author did not want to be identified:
Republicans certainly did dig a hole six years ago in Mount Pleasant, and Microsoft just laid a foundation in it.
Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, and all the other Republican leaders who helped forge the Foxconn deal should be taking a victory lap over Microsoft’s $3.3 billion project. Instead, everyone seems mostly content with letting Biden take the win. That’s a big mistake. Wisconsin is the only battleground state where Biden is leading Trump. Letting him take credit for Microsoft, while bashing the Foxconn deal, is going to help Biden put Wisconsin in the bag early and focus on other states.
Furthermore, it’s dangerous to let a company like Microsoft allow Biden to turn its event into a campaign rally. In a very real sense, Biden just enjoyed a $3.3 billion in-kind campaign contribution from Microsoft. That company stands to benefit enormously from that act if Biden wins the elections, and they know they have never to worry about if he doesn’t. Without any fear of repercussions, other companies would be foolish not to follow suit.
Man, talk about sour grapes!
If they are this bad now, I'd hate to see just how petulant they will get in November when more of Trump's failures turns into more of Biden's wins.
Fast forward to last week, when President Dark Brandon showed up on the same spot and made an announcement that, if you will pardon the expression, was a big fucking deal. He announced that Microsoft was going to invest $3 billion of its own money to build a huge AI data center where Foxconn was supposed to be. Microsoft president Brad Smith credited and thanked Biden, saying that it was only happening because of Biden's infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
It was such a big deal that former Republican Wisconsin lawmakers and even Fox News admitted that this was a big win for the people of Wisconsin and for Biden.
However, a few petulant Republicans tried to say Biden had nothing to do with it. That line of bull reached a crescendo on Tuesday when the Bradley Foundation-subsidized MacIver Institute went so far as to try to give credit to Trump and his Foxconn failure.
They start their fractured manufacturing fairy tale by saying Trump just happened to be flying over the area and just so happened to look up from his mean tweets to look out the window and just so happened to say that it would be a good spot for a Foxconn plant.
Then the unnamed MacIver writer said that Biden had nothing to do with Microsoft, and that Brad Smith was a big, old, snot-faced, poopy-headed liar for trying to credit Biden.
They wrapped things up with this ridiculous drivel which actually goes a long way to explain why the author did not want to be identified:
Republicans certainly did dig a hole six years ago in Mount Pleasant, and Microsoft just laid a foundation in it.
Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, and all the other Republican leaders who helped forge the Foxconn deal should be taking a victory lap over Microsoft’s $3.3 billion project. Instead, everyone seems mostly content with letting Biden take the win. That’s a big mistake. Wisconsin is the only battleground state where Biden is leading Trump. Letting him take credit for Microsoft, while bashing the Foxconn deal, is going to help Biden put Wisconsin in the bag early and focus on other states.
Furthermore, it’s dangerous to let a company like Microsoft allow Biden to turn its event into a campaign rally. In a very real sense, Biden just enjoyed a $3.3 billion in-kind campaign contribution from Microsoft. That company stands to benefit enormously from that act if Biden wins the elections, and they know they have never to worry about if he doesn’t. Without any fear of repercussions, other companies would be foolish not to follow suit.
Man, talk about sour grapes!
If they are this bad now, I'd hate to see just how petulant they will get in November when more of Trump's failures turns into more of Biden's wins.
Bites from Real News
*5/19/2024*
*Formerly Incarcerated People Face “Forever Punishment” in Collateral Sanctions Collateral sanctions enable the power structure to penalize those it deems “unworthy” and “undesirable.”
*‘A history that’s been suppressed’: the Black cowboy story is 200 years old
Historians estimate a quarter of settlers of the US west were Black, moving cattle on horseback, settling towns and keeping the peace
*Chicago
Can mayor tackle environmental racism in one of the most segregated US cities?
*Schools and Parents Still Fight Segregation 70 Years After “Brown v. Board” Integration within the Pasadena Unified School District has been a focus of national attention since 1970.
*a fake democracy: Segregation Academies Still Operate Across the South. One Town Grapples With Its Divided Schools.
Seventy years after Brown v. Board, Black and white residents, in Camden, Alabama, say they would like to see their children schooled together. But after so long apart, they aren’t sure how to make it happen.
*Vermont Passes Historic Bill to Make Big Oil Pay for Climate Disasters
If the bill becomes law, Vermont will be the first state to hold Big Oil accountable for damages caused by its products.
Massachusetts Placed Homeless Families in Shelters With Sex Offenders, Report Says
WORRYING
Edith Olmsted
Breaking News Intern
Published May 17, 2024 5:32PM EDT
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
The state government of Massachusetts has been assigning hundreds of unhoused families, many of which have young children, to shelters where sex offenders live or work, according to The Boston Globe. Offenders convicted of crimes against children such as child rape, child pornography, and child battery were found to live or work in at least six of the hotels and dorms which have been designated as Emergency Assistance shelters, a program which primarily serves families with children and pregnant women, about half of which are newly-arrived migrants. None of the offenders identified are migrants, the outlet reported. A 2019 audit found that the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities was not regularly checking shelters against the Sex Offender Registry Board, and concluded that the agency had failed to alert families to the presence of sex offenders. Now, they say they check every six months. While the Globe has not identified any issues from the presence of these offenders, they also found no evidence that any of the families had been alerted to the presence of offenders determined to have a moderate or high-risk of reoffending. On Thursday, a spokesperson for the housing agency said they were in the process of removing the identified sex offenders.
Republican Congresswoman Confirms Relationship Amid Affair Rumors
COZY COLLEAGUES
Edith Olmsted
Breaking News Intern
Updated May 17, 2024 1:55PM EDT /
Published May 17, 2024 1:41PM EDT
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
Representative Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) has confirmed that she is dating Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA), just one day after news of his divorce broke, and his wife dropped a cryptic hint that the two had engaged in an affair. On Thursday, Van Duyne confirmed reports that the two have become more than casual, conservative colleagues. “His marriage has been over for quite some time as I understand it, he’s filed for divorce,” Van Duyne told the Daily Mail. “I’m single. We’re both parents of adult children and empty nesters. We are happily engaged in a relationship and beyond that it's a personal issue,” she added. McCormick filed for divorce earlier this month, amid reports that he and Van Duyne were seen getting cozy in the House chambers, reportedly holding hands beneath a table.
the key to republican support
*What's Inside*
SHATTERING DECEPTIVE MIRRORS: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE THE CHANCE TO BUCK THE BEAUTY INDUSTRY SCAM(REALITY)
BOTTLED WATER CONTAINS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PLASTIC BITS: STUDY
REALITY
THE GREAT MEDICARE ADVANTAGE MARKETING SCAM
CORPORATE CRIMINALS
2023 SAW RECORD KILLINGS BY US POLICE. WHO IS MOST IMPACTED?
GESTAPO USA
AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN UNITED. SO HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER?
COMMENTARY
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS: THE HIDDEN DANGERS AND THREATS TO PATIENT CARE
REALITY
A NEW STUDY DESCRIBES IN GROTESQUE DETAIL THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ULTRARICH HAVE PERVERTED THE CHARITABLE GIVING INDUSTRY.
REALITY
HOW TRUMP AND BUSH TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES BROKE AMERICA
REALITY
FROM 1947 TO 2023: RETRACING THE COMPLEX, TRAGIC ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
REALITY
RED STATE CONSERVATIVES ARE DYING THANKS TO THE PEOPLE THEY VOTE FOR
REALITY
HOW TEXAS BECAME THE NEW "HOMEBASE" FOR WHITE NATIONALIST AND NEO-NAZI GROUPS
AMERICA
HOW THE GOP SUCKERED AMERICA ON TAX CUTS
REALITY
ADVOCATES SUE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR FAILING TO BAN IMPORTS OF COCOA HARVESTED BY CHILDREN(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
RACISM AT HEART OF US FAILURE TO TACKLE DEADLY HEATWAVES, EXPERT WARNS
WHITE SUPREMACY
'MISLEADING': ALARM RAISED ABOUT MEDICARE ADVANTAGE 'SCAM'
REALITY
SLAVERY ISN’T JUST BLACK HISTORY — IT’S US HISTORY
RACE MATTERS
*late news of interest*
A Meditation On Practical Applications Of Stupidity
The Mystery of Anti-Vax & Anti-Mask
Kat Ignatz - DAILY KOS
Sunday August 01, 2021 · 5:00 AM PDT
...“The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity” seems as good a way as any to explain the insane situation we’re in. It’s speculative, but in my opinion, guessing is all we’ve really got right now.
In his essay, Cipolla divides human beings into four categories and builds his theory on these characteristics.
His categories are:
And he presents his theory as five laws:
Taking Cipolla’s laws and looking for correlations with anti-vax/mask behavior, you can map out anti-vax/mask actions like this:
And you could do the same matching of Cipolla’s laws with anti-vax/mask actions, and together, we could come up with a big, five-part list of parallels between Cipolla’s theory and the anti-vax/mask movement.
And it would prove nothing.
But looking at it might make you wonder, like me, if there’s anything but dangerous, illogical, and incomprehensible behavior there.
Cipolla doesn’t explain stupid people. He simply says that they exist, and they’re irrational, unpredictable, and hazardous. He states that irrational people can’t be understood by rational minds and cautions against getting involved with irrational people because it always comes with a cost that’s often a big cost.
He says the only hope is for rational people to create more gains than the losses that irrational people cause. He was an economist so his theory is all gains and losses, and another way to think about his four human traits is total gain, loss/gain, gain/loss, and total loss.
And maybe that’s the real answer here. Maybe, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with why anti-vax/maskers act like they do. Perhaps, we should simply accept them as an incredible danger to our country, states, cities, friends, families, and selves, and we should just do everything we can to do more good than they do harm.
I like Cipolla’s theory, and I find it to be a compelling model for many of the problems we’re experiencing—like, for instance, Republicans.
In this writings, Cipolla makes a point of dividing bandits into Intelligent Bandits and Stupid Bandits. Intelligent bandits cause an equal amount of loss and gain, and they get everything they take from others. Stupid bandits cause more loss than gain, and they only get part of what they cause others to lose.
When I read that, I think about how Republicans are actively working to crash the US so they can keep their wealth and power. And then I think that they’re going so far with it that they may have moved from being stupid bandits to fully stupid because it’s irrational to think they’ll keep much of anything if the country collapses.
I also start thinking about how prevalent stupid banditry is in the world—as if it’s the only way to do business. The “bigs” are especially dangerous: big agriculture, apparel, chemical, electronics, oil, pharmaceuticals, retail, etc.
We’re all losing our lives in one way or another to these dubious ventures.
But that’s my mind drifting on to a topic for another diary, and I’ll stop this one here.
In his essay, Cipolla divides human beings into four categories and builds his theory on these characteristics.
His categories are:
- Intelligent People whose actions benefit others and themselves
- Helpless People whose actions harm them but benefit others
- Bandits whose actions harm others but benefit them
- Stupid People whose actions harm others but don’t benefit them and may, in fact, harm them, too
And he presents his theory as five laws:
- Everyone always underestimates how many stupid people there are.
- Stupidity is unrelated to any other human trait.
- Stupid people cause losses to others without gain and, possibly, with losses to themselves.
- Non-stupid people always underestimate how harmful stupid people are.
- Stupid people are the most dangerous type of person.
Taking Cipolla’s laws and looking for correlations with anti-vax/mask behavior, you can map out anti-vax/mask actions like this:
- How many: 30% of the US population is hesitating, resisting, or outright refusing to get a coronavirus vaccine.
- Unrelated to other traits: Health care workers are protesting against getting vaccinated.
- No gain and possible losses: Not even the threat of death is changing anti-vax/mask behavior.
- How harmful: Who would have predicted that Missouri would end up in such terrible condition?
- Most dangerous: Anti-vax/maskers are bringing the systems we rely on for our safety and health to the brink of crashing.
And you could do the same matching of Cipolla’s laws with anti-vax/mask actions, and together, we could come up with a big, five-part list of parallels between Cipolla’s theory and the anti-vax/mask movement.
And it would prove nothing.
But looking at it might make you wonder, like me, if there’s anything but dangerous, illogical, and incomprehensible behavior there.
Cipolla doesn’t explain stupid people. He simply says that they exist, and they’re irrational, unpredictable, and hazardous. He states that irrational people can’t be understood by rational minds and cautions against getting involved with irrational people because it always comes with a cost that’s often a big cost.
He says the only hope is for rational people to create more gains than the losses that irrational people cause. He was an economist so his theory is all gains and losses, and another way to think about his four human traits is total gain, loss/gain, gain/loss, and total loss.
And maybe that’s the real answer here. Maybe, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with why anti-vax/maskers act like they do. Perhaps, we should simply accept them as an incredible danger to our country, states, cities, friends, families, and selves, and we should just do everything we can to do more good than they do harm.
I like Cipolla’s theory, and I find it to be a compelling model for many of the problems we’re experiencing—like, for instance, Republicans.
In this writings, Cipolla makes a point of dividing bandits into Intelligent Bandits and Stupid Bandits. Intelligent bandits cause an equal amount of loss and gain, and they get everything they take from others. Stupid bandits cause more loss than gain, and they only get part of what they cause others to lose.
When I read that, I think about how Republicans are actively working to crash the US so they can keep their wealth and power. And then I think that they’re going so far with it that they may have moved from being stupid bandits to fully stupid because it’s irrational to think they’ll keep much of anything if the country collapses.
I also start thinking about how prevalent stupid banditry is in the world—as if it’s the only way to do business. The “bigs” are especially dangerous: big agriculture, apparel, chemical, electronics, oil, pharmaceuticals, retail, etc.
We’re all losing our lives in one way or another to these dubious ventures.
But that’s my mind drifting on to a topic for another diary, and I’ll stop this one here.