Leaderboard

Today we celebrate Martin Luther King and all he did for racial equality. But it wasn't always this way. During his life he was vilified by most Americans. He was doing too much. He was a communist. He was hurting more than he was helping. He just wanted government handouts. MLK: "When we come to Washington in this campaign we’re coming to get our check." And polls backed this up. Just before his death, he had an "unfavorable" rating of 63%. In 1964 he was the second least respected man in America, losing out only to George Wallace the famous segregationist. Half of white Americans thought he was hurting the Civil Rights movement. A third said he had brought his assassination upon himself. Almost half felt no negative emotions about his death. And yet in hindsight it became clear what he did for the cause of civil rights, and is now rightly celebrated for his work. I think about this whenever anyone attacks BLM, or the woke movement, or John Lewis, or LGBT organizations, or defends the murder of George Floyd. Is it just that they don't have the necessary perspective yet on the importance of civil rights? Do they really see some difference in all those unpopular activists? Or is it just that they have not died yet and so society has not yet moved on? Does progress have more to do with the deaths of the people opposed to civil rights? I would like to think that's not true, that people can learn and change over the course of their lifetimes. But I have seen little evidence of that.

Wow! Novak Djokovic exited the Australian Open after missing only 2 shots!

Marriage is the process of finding out what kind of man your wife would have preferred.

Nah, she just thinks we're obsessed with them when we make bad jokes. The simple reality is that many of us still have the 'junior high' mentality. For example, farts are always funny.

I didn't think the irony scale could peg out that far, but . . . Andrew Sullivan

He's a drinking man, apparently. Probably meant glazed donuts at Tim Horton's. No matter, I think he's right that the desire for cheap immigrant labor will prevail over principals eventually.

Piece by piece. We’re not as far apart on the topic of as you like to make out; we value the long term and short term differently I also don’t think that EVs will overtake ICs in the next three years. For one thing, even if they were to in segments of the market, there is a gigantic installed base. But the direction is towards EV; it’s the least bad that reasonably fits the lives many of us already live. 110 years ago, making the system better for IC was a much smaller proposition than moving the technology. The Green New Deal, as exactly proposed (in all the many forms, depending on the person), won’t happen. But, again, it’s the direction we should head. If nothing else, conserving resources is better than using them up so you get your “fair share.” It’s more responsible. Eventually fossil fuel will be a niche product, kind of like leaded gasoline. Not in our lifetimes, but my lifetime isn’t the only one that matters. Nor even leaving the most moola and stuff to my offspring. BTW, he agrees with me. On exactly how many ppm of CO2 will be the tipping point; I don’t want to stumble into it. Is that how we should manage our lives — spend everything and then hope something comes through? That’s kind of like using the lottery as your safety net. And I agree that levels will continue to rise; I just don’t think that’s a good thing. The whole thing about pursuing low and zero carbon policies is to reflect the actual (as we understand it now) cost; not the short term “we’ll solve that problem when we have to” cost. Because we’re suffering the costs of lack of planning — crumbling infrastructure, toxic waste and air that have to be dealt with, etc. As far as temperatures skyrocketing, I think that if you consider the number of people who depend on a fairly narrow range of temperatures, and who will be displaced by that range changing or widening (maybe they’ll want to come to Pennsylvania), maybe the definition of “skyrocketing” isn’t one that you’re qualified to make. As far as the NASA prediction of corn, do you have any basis other than wanting to see them wrong for your assertion? Or if it’s 24% reduced, will you come back and say “told ya!” Or if we’ve discovered a new strain of grass that’s even better so no one wants to plant corn any more? So we can agree on some facts and likelihoods. However, I rather doubt that any acknowledgment will come other than something to the effect of “Wendy thinks I’m right — as usual.” Which is utter and arrant bullshit, because individual facts paint a story; if a story is what you’re after, more power to you, but understand it’s just a story. Wendy P.

It must mean that EV cars are doomed and will never succeed and Tesla will go bankrupt. You are so good at predicting and proving your statements!

Apologies for the downtime without much warning. We moved to a new host with some improved resources, we're hoping this can resolve some of the intermittent downtime that users have been experiencing for a while. While we've tested a number of pages, if you notice anything out of place since the server move - just drop me a DM.