A Biden staffer wants no orthodox Catholics, Muslims or Jews in the courts, eagerly awaiting the day when such retrograde people are regarded as taboo.
Their campaign's vice-presidential nominee is way ahead of her on this, as I've mentioned before.
But do you really think the true believers on the left are to just patiently wait for objectors to their creed to fade away?
That's what smearing membership in the KofC and cancel culture are all about.
Revolutions don't mark time--they march.
Brace for impact.
This is off topic, just a bet with Todd as I promised I would write my opinion on something to see how well his predictive power is.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with global warming / climate change (whatever it's being called today) is basic logic.
Premise 1) The globe is warming - This is trivially true. If you were to take all temperature around the world and average them together, there are only two directions to go: up or down. If the globe is not cooling, then it must be warming.
If 1 then Premise 2) Humans have an impact on the globe's climate. Again, trivially true as ALL things on the planet - even the tiniest microbe have a non-zero impact on the global climate.
If 2, then Premise 3) Humans have a significant impact on global climate. Now we reach areas over which debate is to be held. Significant is a word that can be tricky to define. After all, with 7 billion of us on the planet, that's 16.1 billion pounds of CO2 we produce per day JUST by breathing. On the other hand there's a lot of factors that go into the climate. There's like... 7 little wobbles in the earth's rotation and revolution around the sun. How much impact does a galactic adjustment in distance from our sun impact climate? This is - in theory - where the science should be working.
If 3, then Premise 4) Global warming/climate change will have a negative impact upon humanity. This is, quite frankly complete invention. From the simple fact that we don't know what all impacts will occur. After all, one can note that increase in temperature, CO2, and water all tend to be things that plants like. So changes could lead to an increase in plant growth, leading to an increase in food for everybody. Is a negative impact in one area of the planet worth a positive impact in a different area of the planet? You can't say without more data - and we don't have it. At best we have "some guesses."
And given that the guesses in premise 4 have repeatedly been wrong multiple times within my lifetime, I'll avoid the panic for now.