Month: July 2018

I heard plastic straws are the real killer.

Via Fox News:

Watch where you sit on San Francisco Bay Area trains – it could be painful.

Conductors there reportedly have taken to the trains’ PA systems to warn riders about hypodermic needles being left on seats by transient drug users as San Francisco fights an uphill battle to clean up thousands of syringes discarded each month all over the city.

“Please look around you for needles before you sit down. There’s at least one needle in car 1551 and there may be others. Thank you,” a conductor said Thursday, according to Buzzfeed technology reporter Caroline O’Donovan.

She said the warning was made over the loudspeaker at every stop.

“Once again, please make sure there are no needles in or around your seat before you sit down,” the Bay Area Rapid Transit conductor said, according to O’Donovan’s Twitter account.

The tweets come after a San Ramon woman in May reported being pricked by a needle after she sat down on a San Francisco-bound BART train.

“When I felt that I got up and looked at what was poking me and I felt it and didn’t know what it was and realized it was a syringe tip,” Linda Quan told KRON4.

Quan said she reported the incident to authorities and, in addition to getting a hepatitis vaccine, she now must have her blood tested every three months until around the end of 2019 to make sure she didn’t contract any diseases from the needle.

This morning in San Francisco, BART conductor on the PA: “Please look around you for needles before you sit down. There’s at least one needle in car 1551 and there may be others. Thank you.”

Keep reading…

If you listen to narratives being spread nowadays, the political right is fascist … while liberals, miraculously, only want an inclusive paradise. Just don’t ask how it will be enforced.

As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That glib maxim has been proven correct throughout history, with some of the most appalling atrocities being committed in the name of leftist utopias promised by the likes of Mao and Stalin.

It turns out that liberal “progress” is sometimes indistinguishable from fascism. The people of California may get a small hint of what the not-so-great future of radical progressivism looks like, and it’s disturbingly Orwellian.

Californians can now be thrown in jail for … wait for it … offering plastic straws to restaurant customers.

Yes, that’s right: The supposedly anti-gun, ultra-tolerant left now wants armed law enforcement officers to toss citizens behind bars for serving milkshakes the wrong way.

TRENDING: Woman Startled as Her Facebook Page Appears to Endorse Politician She Doesn’t Like

“The city of Santa Barbara has passed an ordinance that will allow restaurant employees to be punished with up to six months of jail time or a $1,000 fine after a second offense of giving plastic straws to their customers,” reported National Review.

“The bill was passed unanimously last Tuesday, and covers bars, restaurants, and other food-service businesses,” the magazine continued. “Establishments will still be allowed to hand out plastic stirrers, but only if customers request them.”

This is liberal America in 2018: Straws are essentially banned and their users treated like outcasts or even criminals, while actual murderers and repeat offenders are being allowed across the border without as much as a shrug from the left.

California may now have the highest poverty rate in the nation, but Santa Barbara apparently is fighting the truly important battles. Every straw is now being treated as a serious offense.

“Each contraband straw or unsolicited plastic stirrer counts as a separate violation, so fines and jail time could stack up quickly,” explained Reason Magazine. Their report added that there aren’t exemptions for disabled people, who may rely on straws as a matter of necessity.

Even compostable straws are now contraband; only paper, metal, or bamboo varieties will be permitted. For now.

Here’s the part that really sucks, if you’ll pardon the straw pun: While protecting the environment and keeping unwanted plastics out of the ocean can be a noble goal, the race for liberals to ban straws will have an extremely low impact on the problem.

It turns out that America is actually way ahead of the pack when it comes to staying tidy. The leading source of plastic pollution in the oceans is communist China.

It looks like much-maligned American capitalism isn’t so bad for the environment after all.

RELATED: Nat. Geographic Admits They Were Wrong About Famous Climate Change Polar Bear Pic

“In 2010, 8.8 million metric tons of mismanaged plastic waste in the ocean was traced back to China while 3.2 million metric tons came from Indonesia,” reported Statista, based on research conducted by the University of Georgia environmental science department.

 

The U.S. barely makes the list of plastic offenders. There are eleven countries with worse ocean pollution records, and all of them are developing nations. Of the top twelve plastic waste sources, the United States is responsible for a mere one percent of the problem.

That’s the real issue with this disturbing new law: It does almost nothing to actually solve the underlying mess, while going to extreme — and yes, borderline fascist — lengths to give liberals something to feel smug about.

It’s about feeling superior while fixing nothing and throwing anybody who thinks differently into jail. In a way, that’s an apt summary of what is wrong with all of modern leftism.

Where does it end? As California slips further into poverty and mediocrity, will even more useless and over-the-top rules be put in place so that progressives can feeling self-satisfied about “saving the world,” while their own communities sink?

At some point, enforcing a flawed vision of paradise requires so many regulations and uniformed enforcers that it becomes indistinguishable from a gulag.

We are not there yet, but California seems to be sliding that way fast … and throwing citizens behind bars for plastic offenses just might be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

One of these days we’re going to see some good news for the people of Venezuela, but that day is not today, my friends. On top of the rest of their woes, inflation has been rapidly growing as the nation implodes under the burdens of socialism. Last year we were seeing figures approaching 100%. Then it was in the multiple hundreds. By this spring the inflation rate was in the thousands. But now, according to the IMF, Nicolas Maduro’s inflation rate is threating to reach one million percent.

Is that even possible? That’s the question being asked by Matt O’brien at the Washington Post. The answer is… sort of. But it’s complicated.

And nobody knows how much worse this is going to get. That, at least, is what Johns Hopkins professor Steve Hanke, one of the world’s foremost experts on hyperinflation, told me. “You cannot forecast the course and duration of hyperinflations,” he said, and it’s “irresponsible” for the IMF to even try. That’s because hyperinflation is more a political phenomenon than an economic one, to the extent that it’s about governments choosing to continue to print money even after it has started to kill their currencies, so it can last a lot longer than you’d think.

Part of the problem is that this kind of self-destructive behavior by the government isn’t always self-destructive for the government. In fact, the opposite. Regimes that are going through hyperinflation, you see, will often try to deny that it’s happening by setting an official exchange rate that says it’s not, an exchange rate to which only party leaders and their corporate cronies have access.

So O’brien’s conclusion is that Venezuelan inflation isn’t really at one million percent, but if the government hangs on long enough without any dramatic changes in policy being made, it could reach that point. What are the limiting factors which might end the slide? If the hyperinflation is to be stopped it will require the people of the country to simply abandon the currency and “dollarize” combined with some sort of barter system or the government will run out of the ability to keep printing more money.

That second option involves a curious factoid I hadn’t been aware of. Venezuela doesn’t print their own money. They outsource that job to a foreign printer, and Maduro is quickly approaching the point where he won’t have sufficient real money to order more worthless bolivars. Running out of new currency won’t do anything to stabilize the economy but it would, in theory at least, stop the advance of hyperinflation.

The one point in the linked article where the author falls flat is his discussion of how things got so bad in Venezuela to begin with. He describes it as follows:

How has Venezuela gotten to this point, though, where we’re debating whether its inflation rate is about to reach either “only” five figures or seven? Well, the Chavista regime’s spending plans have been so extravagant, and its management of its state-owned oil company so inept, that it hasn’t had enough petrodollars to pay its bills even when oil was $100 a barrel — so it really doesn’t now that the shale revolution has sent crude prices down so much. Which is to say that it’s always had to print a little money, but now it has to print a lot. The result has been a downward spiral that has sent prices on an ever-faster upward trajectory, to the point that, going by black-market rates, Venezuela’s currency has lost 99.9997 percent of its value in the past 6½ years.

I’ll readily acknowledge that those two items were definite factors in Venezuela’s economic woes. O’brien blames “the Chavistas” rather than calling out Nicolas Maduro by name, but his administration is predominantly composed of former Hugo Chavez loyalists. They spend a lot of money and falling oil prices and “inept management” of the state-owned oil company has been bad. But that’s laughably far from the entire story.

Maduro’s government isn’t just “inept” in running the oil industry. It’s completely corrupt and people who have escaped the country tell horror stories of how the government blatantly robbed the petroleum profits. But they also destroyed the nation’s agricultural industry. Farms located on rich soil sit dormant because the government sets the prices they can charge for their produce, bankrupting most of the farmers. And in order to do any business to begin with there are always bribes to be paid. Any dissent or protest of these policies is met with violence by the government.

In short, what really destroyed Venezuela’s economy (and the lives of most citizens) was socialism. For some reason, we still have too many people in the media who seem unwilling to speak those words aloud. But these are the wages of socialism on display and this is how socialism always ends… eventually. It’s just happening so fast in Venezuela that you might miss it if you blink.

In an article titled “The Lincoln Model: How Trump Can Shut Down the Democrat Plantation,” which must be considered the most insightful – or the boldest – of the year so far, Dinesh D’Souza links Lincoln and Trump.  Who knew? 

First, D’Souza has to allay the fears of conservatives who yearn for the days of gentlemanly politics during the Reagan administration.  This yearning is not realistic today and will get us nowhere, because “we are where we are.”  It is time to fight.  Yes, Reagan fought the left, but the Democrats were saner back then, seen by Tip O’Neill, who was willing to work with Reagan.

I came of age in the Reagan area, and I too prefer a more civil political climate.  But that is not the America we live in now.  Reagan’s policies and style were perfectly calibrated to deal with the specific problems and specific political environment of the late 1970s.  Today, however, a good deal of Reaganism is obsolete.  Not only has stagflation disappeared and the Soviet Union collapsed but Reagan himself would be a fish out of water in the dark, roiled currents of today.

But Lincoln wouldn’t.  His political environment was even more roiled than the one we have now.  And Lincoln would have seen that, in this environment, an environment made by a gangster clan of Democrats like Obama and Hillary, you don’t get very far with Reagan’s gentlemanly style.  In short, Trump is the man of the hour, not Reagan.  Trump has the chance to do what Reagan never even dreamed about, taking a page from Lincoln and smashing the Democratic plantation.

When President Trump first announced his candidacy, I yearned for him to leave.  It was a publicity stunt.  However, the outcome on the election day and, most importantly, his policies outcomes proved me wrong (to date).  I misjudged the times we are living in now – with gangsta Democrats.  They are the one who have “roiled” American politics, and by comparison, the GOP were the only gentlemen and gentlewomen left.  Too polite, too courteous, however.  Admirable qualities, but still they must fight – fight while smiling and saying, “Thank you,” and “God bless you,” as they debate and rip the Democrat’s head off.

For D’Souza, where Lincoln and Trump align is on two issues: tariffs and immigration.  Lincoln favored protecting a young America’s interest as this nation launched out into the oceans.  Trump does, too, and recently scored a victory for our side when Europe blinked.  As for immigration, D’Souza has to say Lincoln favored freeing the slaves at the start of the Civil War and only gradually favored extending civil rights to them.  From this fact – or his interpretation of this belief about Lincoln – he concludes that Lincoln would have been a strong proponent of limiting immigration.  That is a leap – but is it a leap too far?

The most striking paragraph is this one, in which he mentions the Stockholm syndrome among conservative intellectuals.

For too long conservatives and Republicans have allowed big lies to take over the culture and, in some cases, their minds.  This progressive cultural hegemony has polluted our education system and our media with fake narratives and fake history.  It has also created a kind of Stockholm syndrome among conservative intellectuals.  ”In our hearts we know we’re wrong.”  But we’re not wrong.  We’ve been lied to.  It’s time for us to stop apologizing – we have nothing to apologize for – and go on the offensive.  Truth is our deadliest weapon, if we will deploy it.

When I was putting myself through graduate school, I wrestled with conservatism and liberalism.  I never left conservative philosophy, but I may have been suffering from a minor case of Stockholm syndrome.  ”In my heart I know I’m wrong about conservatism.”  Or “In my heart conservatism makes the most sense of the world.”  Mental tennis match.  Progressive cultural hegemony polluted my mind, up to a point.  I returned to conservatism long ago.

To key off what D’Souza wrote, I was wrong about Trump – or I let his deficient personality and rhetorical skills blind me to what conservatism really needed: a fighter.  I caught a glimpse of it when he climbed a fence and stomped through sage brush to get to an arena, because the howling left had blocked his limo during the campaign.  But I dismissed this gesture.  Maybe Reagan would have done it, because he did walk on to a University of California campus when protesters were there.  But they kept silent and made a path for him.  Would he have stomped through the brush?  Tough to say.  But one gets the impression that Lincoln would have – since he had lived a hardscrabble life.

To sum up, one area where Lincoln and Trump are definitely aligned is that they are both fighters.  Lincoln was willing to sacrifice thousands and thousands of lives to preserve the Union.  Thankfully, Trump does not have to wage a military civil war, but he is preserving the Union in small ways and big ways: SCOTUS nominees, tax cuts, reining in the bureaucracy, being tough on Russia (he really is), and negotiating with a man-child named Kim.

D’Souza capitalized on this similarity, too.

James Arlandson’s website is Live as Free People, where he has posted A Glimpse at God’s Creation on Mars and Grace to You.

In an article titled “The Lincoln Model: How Trump Can Shut Down the Democrat Plantation,” which must be considered the most insightful – or the boldest – of the year so far, Dinesh D’Souza links Lincoln and Trump.  Who knew? 

First, D’Souza has to allay the fears of conservatives who yearn for the days of gentlemanly politics during the Reagan administration.  This yearning is not realistic today and will get us nowhere, because “we are where we are.”  It is time to fight.  Yes, Reagan fought the left, but the Democrats were saner back then, seen by Tip O’Neill, who was willing to work with Reagan.

I came of age in the Reagan area, and I too prefer a more civil political climate.  But that is not the America we live in now.  Reagan’s policies and style were perfectly calibrated to deal with the specific problems and specific political environment of the late 1970s.  Today, however, a good deal of Reaganism is obsolete.  Not only has stagflation disappeared and the Soviet Union collapsed but Reagan himself would be a fish out of water in the dark, roiled currents of today.

But Lincoln wouldn’t.  His political environment was even more roiled than the one we have now.  And Lincoln would have seen that, in this environment, an environment made by a gangster clan of Democrats like Obama and Hillary, you don’t get very far with Reagan’s gentlemanly style.  In short, Trump is the man of the hour, not Reagan.  Trump has the chance to do what Reagan never even dreamed about, taking a page from Lincoln and smashing the Democratic plantation.

When President Trump first announced his candidacy, I yearned for him to leave.  It was a publicity stunt.  However, the outcome on the election day and, most importantly, his policies outcomes proved me wrong (to date).  I misjudged the times we are living in now – with gangsta Democrats.  They are the one who have “roiled” American politics, and by comparison, the GOP were the only gentlemen and gentlewomen left.  Too polite, too courteous, however.  Admirable qualities, but still they must fight – fight while smiling and saying, “Thank you,” and “God bless you,” as they debate and rip the Democrat’s head off.

For D’Souza, where Lincoln and Trump align is on two issues: tariffs and immigration.  Lincoln favored protecting a young America’s interest as this nation launched out into the oceans.  Trump does, too, and recently scored a victory for our side when Europe blinked.  As for immigration, D’Souza has to say Lincoln favored freeing the slaves at the start of the Civil War and only gradually favored extending civil rights to them.  From this fact – or his interpretation of this belief about Lincoln – he concludes that Lincoln would have been a strong proponent of limiting immigration.  That is a leap – but is it a leap too far?

The most striking paragraph is this one, in which he mentions the Stockholm syndrome among conservative intellectuals.

For too long conservatives and Republicans have allowed big lies to take over the culture and, in some cases, their minds.  This progressive cultural hegemony has polluted our education system and our media with fake narratives and fake history.  It has also created a kind of Stockholm syndrome among conservative intellectuals.  ”In our hearts we know we’re wrong.”  But we’re not wrong.  We’ve been lied to.  It’s time for us to stop apologizing – we have nothing to apologize for – and go on the offensive.  Truth is our deadliest weapon, if we will deploy it.

When I was putting myself through graduate school, I wrestled with conservatism and liberalism.  I never left conservative philosophy, but I may have been suffering from a minor case of Stockholm syndrome.  ”In my heart I know I’m wrong about conservatism.”  Or “In my heart conservatism makes the most sense of the world.”  Mental tennis match.  Progressive cultural hegemony polluted my mind, up to a point.  I returned to conservatism long ago.

To key off what D’Souza wrote, I was wrong about Trump – or I let his deficient personality and rhetorical skills blind me to what conservatism really needed: a fighter.  I caught a glimpse of it when he climbed a fence and stomped through sage brush to get to an arena, because the howling left had blocked his limo during the campaign.  But I dismissed this gesture.  Maybe Reagan would have done it, because he did walk on to a University of California campus when protesters were there.  But they kept silent and made a path for him.  Would he have stomped through the brush?  Tough to say.  But one gets the impression that Lincoln would have – since he had lived a hardscrabble life.

To sum up, one area where Lincoln and Trump are definitely aligned is that they are both fighters.  Lincoln was willing to sacrifice thousands and thousands of lives to preserve the Union.  Thankfully, Trump does not have to wage a military civil war, but he is preserving the Union in small ways and big ways: SCOTUS nominees, tax cuts, reining in the bureaucracy, being tough on Russia (he really is), and negotiating with a man-child named Kim.

D’Souza capitalized on this similarity, too.

James Arlandson’s website is Live as Free People, where he has posted A Glimpse at God’s Creation on Mars and Grace to You.