The chart here predicts continued use of fossil fuels in our transportation sector for the foreseeable future.
Personally, I doubt, it. And that’s not because humankind is likely to have some sort of epiphany, a kumbaya moment, re: ceasing to bake the planet. Rather, it’s that the extraction, refinement, distribution and sale of decreasing volumes of petroleum will not be economically feasible.
Here’s a guy who appears to have no trace of uncertainty in his life, no doubts to plague him. But do most people envy him for the simplicity of his thoughts–especially these thoughts?
Before the Trump era, I would have said that ignorance on this level was confined to a small fraction, perhaps 10% of the voter base. The last decade has shown me how pathetically wrong I was.
This from the oft-quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson.
I suppose the issue is: How bad are these so-called “bad times?”
I’m as interested in learning as the next guy, but I don’t really want to find out what world fascism or global environmental collapse looks like.
Older readers will recall that libertarian author Ayn Rand had a significant following in the 1970s, as many people perceived, often correctly, that the public sector was defined by bloat, corruption, and, at best, far greater inefficiencies than could be found anywhere in the private sector.
Yet many serious problems with that idea were about to come forward, all centered around greed and private companies’ unwillingness to police themselves. Whether the issue was deregulated banking, auto safety, environmental ruination, drug ineffectiveness and undisclosed side-effects, or, in this case, food safety, the answer was becoming clear: industry players would do anything in order to profit at consumers’ expense.
Project 2025 will eviscerate government regulation across dozens of business sectors and expand Big Money’s ability to capitalize on the misery of the common person.
Since Trump came onto the U.S. political scene in 2015, a huge swath of the American populous has revealed that it has an unlimited appetite for his cruelty and hatred.
The former president has given the worst people in our country permission to show us how truly reprehensible they are.
A reader asks; Why do some people use the word “comfortability” when they can just use “comfort?” Do they mean different things?
This is an example of something we encounter frequently: how we make nouns from adjectives and vice versa. The rule seems to be: make the word as short as possible. If the adjective came from a noun, and you want a noun, just go back to the noun from which the adjective came in the first place.
Some of these are obvious, like comfortability, which, while it is a word in the dictionary, shouldn’t be used, IMO. Other obvious examples are beauty rather than beautifulness, courtesy rather than courteousness, and candor rather than candidness.
Some are more subtle, e.g., grace rather than graciousness.
It depends on what you mean by “wrong.”
If you favor the democratic notion of “one vote to one person,” then, to be sure, this is wrong. The ballots of voters in small states count several times more than those cast in large states. For instance, the ratio of electoral votes to total population in Wyoming is 3.7 times greater than that ratio in California.
On the other hand, if you’re a Republican operative who wants to favor “fly-over” states, then the electoral college fits your agenda very, very well.
Here’s a fellow in a bar in Southern Texas who, perhaps is trying to pick up a woman. He seems to think that broadcasting his religious and right-wing political beliefs will help move the process forward.
Again, this is Texas, so he’s probably correct.
As they say, “If you’re buying Smart Water, it isn’t working.”
Now, are cans better for the environment than plastic bottles? Yes, largely because they are far more likely (more than twice as likely) to be recycled.
Having said that, the best solution for eco-responsible people who wish to stay hydrated is refilling reusable containers with filtered watered. A reverse osmosis system will set you back about $200, and will cost in its lifetime of operation perhaps one one-thousandth of buying water at your local grocery store.
Save money and make the planet a better place for all life forms to live. It’s a win-win, though it’s not a “win-win-win,” insofar as the purveyors of bottled (or canned) water will lose. But does anyone care about the well-being of those whose business model is cajoling consumers and destroying our home?
Some folks think that this guy, with his blatant disregard for honesty, not to mention public safety, should be a heartbeat away from the U.S. presidency.
In large measure, this country has lost its capacity to reason.
