Category Archives: Technology

Take this Green Deal and shove it

Edmonton city budget will see city taxes go up by 3.9 per cent in each of the next four years.

Someone’s got to pay for the Mayor and his entourage taking trips to United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh. The picturesque city sits on the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula, on the coastal strip along the Red Sea. Under 400 kilometres removed from Egyptian capital of Cairo as the crow flies, it has one advantage over Alberta’s capital: it hasn’t seen snow in millennia, and its average temperature these days hovers around 23 degrees Centigrade (on the plus side, of course).

That’s where Mayor Amarjeet Sohi, his Chief of Staff, and Stephanie McCabe, the Deputy City Manager for Urban Planning and Economy, will be spending their next few days.

They won’t be alone: they’re flying across the Big Pond as part of a provincial delegation. They won’t be staying for the duration: the conference runs Nov. 6 through 18, while the intrepid Albertans will be staying Nov. 8 through 12.

It’s not known yet how much the entire junket will set Edmontonians back but, what with airline travel and hotel fees spiralling out of control, it’s not going to be cheap.

And all that for a few days of hot air coming out of the participants’ throats.

Sohi will be on a panel of municipal leaders to talk about net zero emissions. The Mayor says this is a good opportunity to show what mid-sized cities are doing to fight climate change.

The climate WHAT?

According to the Mayor, it’s important “to highlight the efforts of mid-sized cities and to learn what others are doing on climate change.”

Besides, where else to show off Alberta’s alternative energy sectors, such as hydrogen, lithium, geothermal, wind and solar technologies.

Did you notice that oil, natural gas or coal didn’t make the list of Alberta’s energy sources in Mayor Sohi’s list? And that neither did the nuclear option?

Sohi went on to say (his face dead serious) that “We all know that climate change is a real threat, we have a responsibility to play in a climate emergency.”

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Vegreville Coun. Taneen Rudyk will also be attending. Representatives from University of Alberta, Innovate Alberta and the provincial government will fly over to the balmy climes of Egypt, too.

One thing to remember: Amarjeet Sohi is no greenhorn in the climate change rhetoric. While a member of Justin Trudeau’s government, he used to be minister of infrastructure and communities, and, later, minister of natural resources.

Whether he believes the nonsense emanating from the United Nations climate change fear-mongers is irrelevant. He is an active participant (and promoter), and that IS relevant.

Yes, we all know that climate change is real. Not as a threat, however.

And Mayor Sohi has gone well beyond his responsibilities with his climate change agenda. It was his idea that had City Council ban stores within city limits from using plastic bags.

Not only it’s not his business at all to meddle in private business decisions, but he’s obviously also never heard that the industry had several years ago developed plastic bags made of compostable material.

The modern era climate change fear-mongers have been crying wolf about global cooling (remember the new Ice Age midway through the 1960s?). Then, they switched to global warming. They followed that with global climate change, a name that can be used in any situation.

To compare such obvious observations like the 11-year solar cycles that correspond with the climate changes with shocking regularity never crossed their minds.

That the earth’s axis shifts, causing changes in the angles under which sun’s rays hit the Blue Planet’s individual parts, seems to be too complex for the crowd that prefers keeping humans in the state of constant fear. The fact that the axis has been slightly shifting over time has been known for quite some time. And the fact that scientists haven’t been able to exactly figure out why plays neatly into the fear-mongers’ hands, as well.

Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command, Hermann Wilhelm Göring, asked how the Nazis could order such a generally educated nation to do their bidding, had an easy explanation: fear. Scare them excrement-less, and they’ll do whatever you tell them. A cynic that Göring was, he added that this mantra works in any system, all the way from dictatorship to democracy, from a republic to a monarchy, and it never fails.

That’s also how politicians can get away with outright lies.

An example: Edmontonians should foot the bill for this trip, Sohi said, because climate change is something Edmontonians want city council to take strong action on. How does he know? Who told him?

Scary admission

According to Sohi, “The world needs to know that the Edmonton region is the place to be for investing in hydrogen, investing in artificial intelligence, investing in renewable energy.”

Artificial intelligence happens to be one of the pillars of the charlatan movement known as Great Reset, dubbed as feudalistic socialism by American economist Martin Armstrong.

It is also one of the foundations of the genocide the World Economic Forum, and the Gates Foundation, and the Open Societies have been promoting with chilling openness.

Yes, genocide: telling the world there are way too many people occupying it, and the number must be cut from today’s 7.8 billion souls to 1.5 billion within a few years at most is a frank admission of plans for genocide.

It takes paying attention to see that the entire plan is co-ordinated. Just ten days after the Egyptian hoopla ends, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will open the High-Level Discussion on Climate Security. Its organisers say openly that it’s based on this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh.

American commentator Leo Lohmann put it best: “Climate hysteria, i.e. Earth Worship, is a key component of the coming one-world religion and we’re seeing it on full display in Egypt this week at the United Nations COP 27 climate conference.

“The logo of the COP 27 conference says it all.

“The logo depicts the African sun (top) and embracing the ancient Egyptian Aten’s sun (bottom), which implies giving rise to a new horizon (new world order).”

End of quote.

To get back to Alberta’s capital: Edmontonians deserve much better than a trendy Mayor whose council is unable to keep the city’s infrastructure in working order, whose council is unable, also, to do a proper job of re-building the city’s roads properly, doing a makeshift job of it because the proper way would be too expensive.

Simply put: Amarjeet Sohi must go, taking his green ambitions with him.

Advertisement

Carbon dioxide: panic that shouldn’t be

What’s the deal with carbon dioxide, known as CO2 to many who know nothing else about chemistry (or physics or biology, for that matter)?

According to America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the planet, causing climate change. Human activities have raised the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content by 50 per cent in less than 200 years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), NASA’s website on the topic continues, is an important heat-trapping gas, or greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and from natural processes like volcanic eruptions. Their report includes a graph that shows atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with natural, seasonal changes removed. Another graph published by NASA shows CO2 levels during Earth’s last three glacial cycles, as captured by air bubbles trapped in ice sheets and glaciers.

Since the beginning of industrial times (in the 18th century), NASA proclaims their own incredible illiteracy in the questions of history by saying that human activities have raised atmospheric CO2 by 50 per cent – meaning the amount of CO2 is now 150 per cent of its value in 1750. This is greater than what naturally happened at the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, NASA’s panic drums continue.

In the first place: how they got such precise numbers for the era midway through the 18th century? So far, it has remained NASA’s sweet secret.

NASA has added an animated map to show how global carbon dioxide has changed over time. The map changes colours as the amount of CO2 rises from 365 parts per million (ppm) in 2002 to over 400 ppm currently.

These measurements, NASA proceed to tell us, are from the mid-troposphere, the layer of Earth’s atmosphere that is 8 to 12 kilometres (about 5 to 7 miles) above the ground.

Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

But is it?

So, as NASA confirm, currently, we have about 440 ppm of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.

What are they talking about?

According to a relatively independent publication, sciencing.com, parts per million or PPM is a dimensionless measure of the concentration of one substance mixed in with another. For example, the amount of lead in a sample of water, or the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s essentially like a percentage, which you could analogously refer to as “parts per hundred,” but PPM is better suited to substances in much smaller concentrations.

For plants to flourish, the number should be 2000 PPM.

Plants start dying at 150 PPM levels.

And yet, individuals like Bill Gates would like to invent and introduce technology that would cut CO2 even below the fatal number.

It sounds so perfectly incredible that even those scientists who used to fear for their careers by disobeying politically correct mandates, are now whispering their objections. Some suggest, even, that a hypothesis saying there has to be some ancient evil people-hating force that has come to control our planet may have some merit.

Thus sciencing.com, a California-based tool aimed especially at students, a website most dogmatically oriented teachers must hate with a passion. Instead of forcing young minds to repeat what they are taught by rote, it suggests that asking questions is a much more valuable learning tool.

Before we get to the indisputable fact that plants that supply us with oxygen die without carbon dioxide, and without regular supply of oxygen, people will die, a few words from other fields. The medical community, for example, use carbon dioxide tests because they help them determine whether the body is balancing electrolytes properly.

Medical questions

In contradiction of their own government’s orders and rhetoric, America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) said that carbon dioxide in the human body is formed intracellularly (another of those scientific words) as a by-product of metabolism and, not only that, we need it to survive.

Herewith a verbatim quote: “CO2 is transported in the bloodstream to the lungs where it is ultimately removed from the body through exhalation. CO2 plays various roles in the human body including regulation of blood pH, respiratory drive, and affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen (O2). Fluctuations in CO2 levels are highly regulated and can cause disturbances in the human body if normal levels are not maintained.”

Translated into language most normal human beings can understand: no CO2 equals no life. No life equals death.

How about them deniers?

There’s a world of difference between these two words: ecology and environmentalism.

The former is about science, the latter is about ideology.

So, the Scientific American is tip-toeing on rather thin ice when it admits (quite bashfully) that climate change sceptics may have a few valuable points for claiming that humans need not cut their carbon emissions.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R–Texas) summed it thus: “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth. This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.”

Lamar’s conclusion: scientists and others calling for emission cuts are being hysterical.

He’s way too generous: the climate-change panic-mongers have an agenda. One that doesn’t bode too well for humanity’s future.

Scientific American, in an attempt to achieve something that may look and sound like reasonable debate, asked several experts to talk about the science behind this question.

Even those with a stake in the environmentalist ideology admitted that, as they put it, there can be a kernel of truth in this argument. The kernel is called “CO2 fertilization effect.”

Grudgingly but still, they admit that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis. And what are plants without photosynthesis? A rhetorical question.

If you isolate a leaf … and you increase the level of CO2, photosynthesis will increase. A few scientists would qualify this statement by saying that the results produced in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems.

Such as?

Such as, for example, “nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced in an ecosystem. If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited…. You can’t just look at CO2, because the overall context really matters.”

True? Yes, but it still does not justify the current CO2 witch-hunt.

And a final warning: all those who like their beer, should know that the current push to drive carbon dioxide out of existence is, in fact, killing a vital ingredient in the beer business, from putting frothy bubbles in brews to blocking oxidization that makes beer taste stale.

Cheers, or what?

Let’s-pretend social conscience: what a ridiculous lie

Torn jeans: are those wearing them making a fashion statement or are they into expressing themselves politically?
No surprise if the latter is true.
The late German communist playwright Bertolt Brecht, he of the Threepenny Opera fame, rich like only few in his profession in his time, used to wear clothing that would suit the poorest of the poor homeless people anywhere. It cost him a pretty pfennig: he had a personal tailor, who had to make Brecht’s clothing as decrepit as decrepit can that. The tailor didn’t have to make Brecht’s newest dresses stink: the writer’s habit of smoking the foulest-smelling cigars would take care if that. And, by the way, those stogies Brecht preferred weren’t too cheap, either.
Is there a parallel between today’s politically fashionable would-be intellectuals and the German communist playwright?
You bet your last currency that you still own that the answer is yes.
The good old Brecht, who shamelessly stole the Threepenny Opera idea from British 17th and 18th century playwright John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera, led an adventurous life. Upon the arrival of Adolf Hitler to the top of German political life, Brecht took off and landed where he was supposed to land: in the Soviet Union. He quickly found out that the paradise of Soviet communism isn’t what he had been telling all and sundry it was. In addition, with Josif Stalin’s NKVD sending defected German communists back to their home country upon Gestapo requests, Brecht realised his future in the Soviet Union wasn’t as safe as he thought it would be.
It would take all kinds of efforts but, eventually, Brecht would end up in the United States. Thanks to his successful collaboration with such great German modern composers as Kurt Weill and Hanns Eisler, Hollywood and the rest of American left-oriented intelligentsia of the time embraced Brecht with a passion worthy of more deserving people. But when the U.S. started questioning his ideological bona fides after the end of the Second World War, Brecht decided that returning to his cherished world of communism might be the most prudent move.
He returned to what would become the German Democratic Republic, get his own theatre, remain filthy rich, and continue wearing his pretentiously beggar-like clothing till his last day.
Same old, same old
Why this detour into history?
Because this torn-jeans craze is yet another proof that history repeats itself.
Mind, this craze isn’t very new. It started more than two decades ago, and it has developed into a real wave of idiocy. Paying more for ripped and seemingly worn jeans than for a pair that not only is new but also looks like it reveals sick minds.
In any case, it reveals a relatively new social phenomenon. It’s called “common sense be damned,” and it is much more dangerous than it seems to be.
While Brecht would only shock those close to him with his clothing and his stinking smoking habits, the torn-jeans wave has swept highly educated university students, including graduates. The more you look like a dirty homeless drug addict, the more socially conscious you appear to be.
Please note the last words: appear to be.
This trend is called media indoctrination, and it happens not only to drum up custom, but also to bend the minds of the originators’ targets, however subtly it may be happening.
Another angle of observation: how many colours of vehicles are car salespeople offering these days?
Used to be two. Black and white. Now? White. It looks cleaner, so the explanation goes, and its production doesn’t harm the environment as much. Any proof for that? Not one available to wider public yet.
If you dig deep enough and promise your sources complete anonymity, even under torture, here it is: the idea is to influence people’s thinking.
Some people noticed and started demanding other colours, and the industry would take several years to budge somewhat eventually. But if you think you can demand whatever colours for your new car purchase (if you can afford it), the offer will remain limited, and even then, you will have to wait for your new vehicle until the manufacturer either finds one that’s already been painted the way you wanted it, or till the moment they find time and the paint to make your wish come true.
Is the colour of your new car that important? Yes and no, depends, but it’s the wish not to be lost in the crowd that matters.
Vive La Différence!
Before you start dismissing these questions, ask yourself: does uniformity really, really, really appeal to your sense of individuality?
This is what it’s all about: it’s no longer about only keeping up with the Joneses, it’s about everybody not only looking the same but thinking along the same lines, too.
If you don’t like it, tough: the result is called total control.
And if you don’t believe that this is what’s happening, look up Klaus Schwab’s masterpiece, The Great Reset, freely available from the World Economic Forum.
Who’s he? A German engineer turned globalist, and a puppet of powers much stronger than even he can imagine. His statements and predictions are open because they can afford it. By bringing the younger crowd under the umbrella of uniformity, they are changing people into sheeple who would happily go to slaughter in the name of an idea as idiotic as it is criminal. Yes, pronouncing that there are way too many people on this planet and that one-seventh of today’s population would do quite nicely, thank you very much, equals genocide. Six sevenths of humans will have to die to achieve these globalists’ goal.
People who succumb to their calls for uniformity, no matter how couched in social equality blather, will start by helping to kill others and then will march to their own deaths with happy songs on their lips.
As a minor aside: have you noticed how many of the various recent movements aimed at ending the preposterous rules imposed on us have adopted names linked to colours?
We’ve been under attack left, right and centre for several centuries, but modern times, and modern technologies, have made this assault upon our basic human qualities close to unbearable.
The centuries of these persistent attempts to rid us of what makes us human are now beginning to take their toll. Just watch how many have fallen for the fallacy that claims that faster communication systems (G5, anyone?) make us better. Evidence shows these systems are killers, and yet, you can find schools that permit their developers to install this equipment on school property. For hard cash consideration, of course. No amount of technical piffle will protect those spending whole of their days close to the transmitters from the electromagnetic fields’ killer effects. And, just as well, no amount of sorrowful rhetoric will help those affected once those guilty realise what they had done.
We are close to crossing an intersection while the red light is flashing. We can’t go on ignoring it much longer.

Hypocrisy, thy name is ending disinformation

Nobel peace prize winners call for action on online disinformation.

Thus a major headline in Great Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, parroted (verbatim) by America’s Editor & Publisher organisation’s newsletter the other day.

For the record, with the Nobel Committee serving as source, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 102 times to 137 Nobel Prize laureates between 1901 and 2021. Their numbers included 109 individuals and 28 organisations. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize three times (in 1917, 1944 and 1963). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize twice (in 1954 and 1981). All told, there are 25 individual organisations which have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

So, also for the record, how many Nobel Peace Prize winners had been actually involved in the cry to introduce online censorship?

The headline makes it seem that all living Nobel Peace Prize winners put their pens to the paper, including the last Soviet poohbah standing, Mikhail Gorbachev, who signed on his death bed.

The fact that only eight other peace prize recipients have joined the call is hidden, in all modesty, way below the headline.

That would be disinformation like there’s no tomorrow. As mentioned, the headline makes it sound as if the room was packed with Nobel Peace Prize laureates, and they all supported the manifesto with enviably unfettered enthusiasm.

Not many other words but censorship can describe the demand that governments adopt a technology action plan to tackle the “existential threat” to democracies posed by online disinformation, hate speech and abuse.

Who, pray elucidate, defines an existential threat? And who decides what information is truthful? Considering U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent speech that described all who disagree with him and his works as danger to pedestrians and traffic, the answer to this question is obvious. And dangerous.

Hitting the alarm bell

Journalists Dmitry Muratov and Maria Ressa, 2021 Nobel laureates, presented their 10-point manifesto in Oslo, during a freedom of expression conference. They warned that the potential for technology to advance societies has been undermined by the business models of the dominant online platforms.

Here, they do have a valid point.

A typical quote from the gauntlet powers-that-be are asked to pick up: “We urge rights-respecting democracies to wake up to the existential threat of information ecosystems being distorted by a Big Tech business model fixated on harvesting people’s data and attention, even as it undermines serious journalism and polarises debate in society and political life.”

Not much wrong with this call.

So, what is wrong?

The manifesto makes three general demands.

Here they are:

  • end the “surveillance-for-profit” business model that harvests users’ data to maximise engagement and underpins multibillion dollar spending by advertisers on social media companies;
  • make tech firms to treat all users equally around the world;
  • make newsrooms and governments support independent journalism.

Nice tears, but at a wrong funeral: they expect governments to do the heavy lifting. Here’s the issue: anything governments do for any slice of society, they demand something in return.

Besides, having governments decide what is true information and what isn’t leads to authoritarian regimes such as the one envisioned by President Biden.

It sounds great: “rights-respecting democratic governments” should demand that

  • tech companies carry out independent human rights impact assessments;
  • introduce robust data protection laws;
  • and fund and assist independent media under attack around the world.

The European Union should:

  • challenge the “extraordinary lobbying machinery” of tech companies;
  • rigorously enforce the landmark digital services and digital markets acts, to ensure they end the spread of disinformation via algorithms and change tech companies’ business models.

The United Nations Organisation aren’t left out, either: they should create a special envoy focused on the safety of journalists.

To show they mean business, The Guardian conclude their online version of the story by telling this particular reader that they noticed he’s reading them from Canada, and would he consider chipping in to cover their expenses?

They explain their request as follows (another verbatim quote): unlike many others, The Guardian has no shareholders and no billionaire owner. Just the determination and passion to deliver high-impact global reporting, always free from commercial or political influence.

Incoherent or incoherent?

Playing news that demands an end to such flagrant tracking as a top-of-the-day item on one hand and, on the other, doing (as flagrantly) exactly that would be funny.

Except, they are dead serious about it.

Western medicine: a killing machine

Here’s precisely what’s wrong with today’s medical profession: an Alberta Queen’s Bench Justice described its practitioners as physicians, who are legally “independent contractors” liable to their patients, and free to exercise their clinical judgment.

Justice Paul Belzil may have been following the law as it exists, but he seems to have forgotten that medical science is based on different sets of laws. Such as that its practitioners are not permitted to pick and choose cases they are or they are not going to treat based on such concerns as whether the patient is or is not vaccinated against this or that condition.

Here’s a most drastic example of a physician’s duties: after the Second World War, Jewish physicians who had barely survived Nazi concentration camps would treat their injured SS torturers without a murmur. On some occasions they restored them to health to be ready for the gallows, but treat them they did.

Doctors playing God

An Edmonton Journal story by Jonny Wakefield describes the situation in which doctors saw fit to remove a terminally ill Alberta woman from an organ transplant list because she wouldn’t agree to get vaccinated against the so-called Covid virus.

This is not (and should not be) a story about whether the scare is legitimate or not. This is not (and should not be) a story about whether the so-called Covid vaccines are safe, either. This is not (and should not be) a story, even, about the fact that these vaccines have been recognised as experimental and, thus, mandates imposing them have been illegal both in medical and judicial sense.

Justice Belzil obviously hasn’t read any of the Nurmberg Tribunals code.

Annette Lewis, 57, sought an injunction against Alberta Health Services (AHS) and six local doctors after they told her that she could not proceed with the transplant unless she receives her Covid jabs.

Lewis claimed the requirement violated her charter rights, while AHS said it has an obligation to donors, their families and other patients to make sure organs are used on patients with the highest chance of surviving, the Journal story describes the situation.

Justice Belzil countered by saying that applying the charter to the clinical judgments of physicians would create “two classes” of organ recipients and result in “medical chaos with patients seeking endless judicial review of clinical treatment decisions.”

This is where Justice Belzil said, according to the Journal story, that the case came down to whether physicians, who are legally “independent contractors” liable to their patients, are free to exercise their clinical judgment.

As ridiculous set of statements as ever pronounced from a Queen’s Bench. Or from any bench.

The notice of appeal against Justice Belzil’s pronouncements has concentrated on what Lewis’s lawyers described as his legal errors. Saying, as Justice Belzil did, that the vaccine requirement was a clinical decision, rather than an “imposition” by “state agents” carrying out an AHS policy, was wrong, they said.

Also, putting AHS above Canada’s Charter of Rights was, in and of itself, perfect nonsense. Nobody is above the country’s Constitution, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms happens to be an integral part of it.

Justice Belzil also concluded in his ruling that Covid vaccines were safe and effective, a statement that he claimed was supported by “overwhelming evidence,” without quoting any, and a statement that Ms. Lewis challenges.

Considering that the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) has just admitted that the vaccines aren’t what their proponents have been suggesting them to be, lifting the mandates at the same time, Justice Belzil is skating on thin ice here.

According to the Edmonton Journal, Ms. Lewis is asking the Alberta Court of Appeal to declare the Covid vaccine requirement a “definitive violation of (her) fundamental freedom of conscience and rights to life, liberty, security of person, and to freedom from arbitrary discrimination.”

AHS and the six doctors named in Lewis’s injunction said, the Journal reports, that Covid vaccines are required for organ transplant patients because the immune suppressing drugs used to prevent their bodies from rejecting the new organ make them uniquely susceptible to dying from the illness. They support this statement with just one set one of numbers that says that one group of patients who caught the virus without a pre-transplant vaccine suffered a 40 per cent mortality rate.

Except: this is NOT a case for statisticians.

Labs vs. nature

This is a case about Canadian (and western, in general) medicine gone bonkers. For very base reasons, to boot.

Also called allopathic, Canadian (and western, in general) medicine’s practitioners describe this system of medicine as a method of treating disease with remedies (such as surgery or drugs) that produce different effects from those caused by the disease.

It takes a science-based approach, they claim with straight faces, to treating patients. It uses conventional modern medical treatments such as surgery, medication, and therapies.

Allopathic physicians have the title of MD or medical doctor, their own definition of themselves continues, and they have various responsibilities related to maintaining health, such as prevention and acute care. They can specialise in several different specialty areas and build a career in research or teaching.

And here comes the revealing part of the definition: Allopathic medicine is also called biomedicine, mainstream medicine, conventional medicine, and orthodox medicine.

Please note the word: orthodox. Webster-Merriam Dictionary’s briefest explanation: conforming to established doctrine, especially in religion.

Let’s go on: and what, pray, is doctrine? Again, Merriam-Webster Dictionary to the rescue: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief: dogma.

And, how about the word dogma? Merriam-Webster Dictionary again: something held as an established opinion, a definite authoritative tenet, a code of such tenets, pedagogical dogma, and (that’s what it’s all about) a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

Basically, allopathic medicine has become an industry, replacing nature and her treatments tested through millennia with artificial chemicals and putting its practitioners on God-like pedestals.

As courageous Scottish physician Dr. Malcom Kendrick put it in his famous book, Doctoring Data, progress, if any, in allopathic medicine is limited by Aldous Huxley’s famous definition to one funeral at a time.

And this, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is what this argument between Ms. Lewis and the allopathic medicine establishment is all about.

Justice Belzil may have been a top student in his law school years. Still, one wonders what his thinking would be were he in Ms. Lewis’s shoes.

Nobody knows at the moment when Ms. Lewis’s appeal will be heard. Let us hope that she’ll be still around then, and that her body will still have enough strength to accept the life-saving organ transplant.

Should she not live to see the day of her legal victory, AHS and the six doctors involved could be safely described as bloody murderers, and Justice Belzil would be accessory in their crime.

Humiliated right in their own backyard

It could be called provoking a snake while barefoot, but, then again, the U.S. military isn’t what it used to be. This means that the forthcoming joint naval exercises planned by China, Russia and Iran to take place in the Caribbean and along Latin American coast may result in a bit of angry huffing and puffing emanating from Washington, D.C., but not much more.

The Super Frontier joint exercises, set to happen now literally right under America’s nose, aren’t the first joint military operation held by these three nations. The most recent, dubbed Marine Security Belt 2022, took place within the confines of the northern area of the Indian Ocean earlier this year. Published intelligence analyses praise the three navies for their capabilities in saving a burning vessel, freeing a ship captured by hostile forces, shooting at hard-wearing (mostly made of concrete) targets, attacking targets in the air at night, locating and successfully destroying hostile submarines, and doing all that in complicated and complex conditions of mutual communications.

The extent of the forthcoming Super Frontier exercises isn’t known yet other than to participating forces, but what is known is that Venezuela will be the official host.

If that’s not rubbing America’s nose in dirt, it would be difficult to fathom what would be.

Several American analysts have concluded that it seems as if Latin America were considering forming a military coalition against the U.S.

Washington, we have a problem

One of the major issues facing America’s military isn’t so much lack of top-of-the-line hardware.

It’s the personnel manning (personing?) it that has been failing on most counts the last few decades.

Sergeants yelling into recruits’ faces during drills at exercise grounds for not performing to the rules have been accused of humiliating the recruits’ personal dignities and told to stop it.

Questioning orders and demanding detailed explanation so that even the thickest of skulls can get it has become accepted norm rather than unacceptable exception.

Political correctness that would lead to promotions of those who know their gender pronouns better than how to use weapons and shoot in anger has become norm instead of merit.

Identity-based politicking would become more important than studies of strategies and tactics on the battle field.

The list is almost endless. The American armed forces have gone woke, embracing the so-called cancel culture with enthusiasm unbecoming of men and (of course) women in uniform.

And this is the force that is expected to stand up to military forces steeped in the traditional tradition of “You’re in the army now, lad, shut up and do what you’re told.”

This is not to say that this military tradition is perfect. This is to say that maintaining it wins wars more often than ridiculing and abandoning it.

The fifth wheel

The U.S. used to lord over Latin America with a fist made of steel.

No longer.

Gone are the days when then-President John F. Kennedy would put his foot down, and Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev would meekly order his missiles – stationed on his reckless orders in Cuba – dismantled and returned back to the Soviet Union, and pronto.

It is important to note that the Indian Ocean exercise had the year 2022 designation attached to it: it is supposed to become a permanent feature for the three navies with, perhaps, more forces joining the fun in future years.

Russian and Chinese spokesthingies remain mum on the whole matter. Statements from Iran are saying it all: “The geographical and strategic location of Iran has made it the focus of international attention,” one such document said.

“The waters around Iran, especially the Sea of Oman and the Persian Gulf, have become the hotspot for sabre-rattling for many countries, including the U.S. and some of its allies to form a maritime coalition for patrols in the Persian Gulf these days.

“The Sea of Oman is a particularly sensitive waterway as it connects to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 30 per cent of the world’s crude oil passes and which in turn connects to the Persian Gulf.

“(The Marine Security Belt 2022) began in the port city of Chabahar in southeastern Iran. … and (it) is aimed at promoting the security of international trade in the strategic regions amid heightened tensions between Iran and the U.S.”

And the final nail: “Holding trilateral exercise between the three countries have received mixed reactions from international media in recent days which shows the significance of the drill both in the region and world, as Jonathan Eyal, associate director at the Royal United Services Institute, said the joint naval drills had been choreographed by the three countries to send a message that U.S. influence in the region was waning.”

Joining a bigger club

Iran was invited to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) last September.

This Eurasian political, economic and security organisation is no midget to be taken lightly in world affairs. It covers some 60 per cent of Eurasia’s territory, some 40 per cent of the world’s population call the region home, and at least 30 per cent of world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is created right there.

The SCO, known originally as the Shanghai Five, happened after China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan (listed here in alphabetical order) signed a mutual security agreement in 1996. Today’s SCO happened after Uzbekistan joined, and it would become an eight-country partnership with India and Pakistan joining a few years ago.

Several other countries are engaged as observers, candidates for membership or partners, and Iran happens to be one of them.

As SCO’s official documents of association point out, “military exercises are also regularly conducted among members to promote cooperation and coordination against terrorism and other external threats, and to maintain regional peace and stability.”

Nothing to sneeze at.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the Americans thought that the bi-polar world that had two superpowers running its business, has gone “kaput,” too, and they will be running things from now on without anybody’s interference.

With their current Administration basically restoring Iran’s ability to join the nuclear weapons club, this snub had to happen.

Were they short-sighted or were they short-sighted?

Off to war over chips?

Why did the U.S. risk nuclear war over an idiotic trip by Nancy Pelosi, American Senate Speaker, to Taiwan?

The Chinese warned the world they would shoot down Pelosi’s plane with all the aircraft was carrying at the moment. Obviously, cooler heads prevailed in Beijing, but still: what if the decision made by the Forbidden City poohbahs didn’t make it to the local anti-aircraft station commander? That poor soul, relying upon the national news agency New China (Xinhua) or the main communist newspaper, People’s Daily (Rénmín Rìbào), would give the order to push the button. And then what?

All that for tiny pieces of silicon – the second most common element in the Earth’s crust.

These tiny pieces of silicon, processed properly, becomes a computer chip (a.k.a. chip for short), defined as integrated circuit or small wafer of semiconductor material embedded with integrated circuitry. That’s where the processing and memory units of the modern digital computer come from.

Chip-making is an extremely precise process. It usually happens in a “clean room.” Even microscopic contamination could make the product useless.

So, here’s one reply to questions about Mme. Pelosi’s recklessness: the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) make about 60 per cent of global chip output. Not only that. In the field of top chip technology, this company have the rest of the world cornered: they make some 90 per cent of the most advanced chips.

Computers, including smartphones, cars that take us from home to work and back, airplanes, banks, most technology we use in everyday life, and all technology today’s world uses for warfare, they all depend on those tiny pieces of silicon.

Granted, Taiwan is not the sole inventor of new and newer chips: there exists a huge network of designers as well as suppliers, but so far as production is concerned, TSMC is the place where most of them go to see their products made.

Too many people vs. too few?

Mainland China’s population stood at 1,450,871,938 as of Tuesday, August 2, 2022, population of Taiwan was announced as 23,906,098 as of Sunday, July 31, 2022. Yet, the island nation is a real thorn in mainland China’s side. And there’s not much People’s Republic’s communist rulers can do about it.

Defeated by communists led by Mao Zedong, General Chiang Kai-shek’s forces left mainland China, and established their own rule, calling the island of Taiwan Republic of China. The Chinese Nationalist politician, revolutionary and military leader, would end up serving as the leader till his death in 1975.

Mainland China would start calling herself People’s Republic of China. In comparison with her foe, she would become a poor relative, thanks to all kinds of hare-brained and ideologically driven policies. It would be only the current pragmatic leadership that would permit a strange concoction of communism and capitalism in mainland China that would bring the People’s Republic to super-power status.

Pelosi made all the right-sounding statements, such as saying that her trip confirms “America’s unwavering commitment to supporting Taiwan’s vibrant Democracy.”

To drive the point home, she added, “America’s solidarity with the 23 million people of Taiwan is more important today than ever, as the world faces a choice between autocracy and democracy.”

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs would have none of that: the trip is “a serious violation of the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-U.S. joint communiqués.” Not only that: it will have “a severe impact on the political foundation of China-U.S. relations.”

The U.S., China’s official outlet thundered, is bound by a 1979 commitment in its Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations with China.

That communiqué recognised the government of the People’s Republic of China “as the sole legal Government of China.”

Still, that particular document adds, “Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.” Except, the People’s Republic view Mme. Pelosi’s jaunt to Taiwan as an official trip: she’s American Senate’s Speaker, after all. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said that this trip would infringe on the “one-China policy” and that China would take “resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity” if the visit proceeded.

Proceed it did, even with such rhetoric ringing in the air.

On one hand, the trip served to show that any nation is free to have whatever relationships with any other nations, on the other hand, this trip brought the world yet again to the brink of nuclear Armageddon.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is peanuts compared to this circus act.

Who owns whom?

Here’s the issue: Taiwan by herself is not much of a threat to the rest of the world. Too small. But, should the People’s Republic take over, and should she start blackmailing the rest of the world by saying, oh, no chips for you, or more chips for you, or by keeping all the chips for herself, it would be catastrophic. It may turn into an economic disaster for the People’s Republic, but ideology prevails over economy ten times out of ten.

Besides, there exists a serious precedent in history about People’s Republic’s willingness to shoot in anger. In the 1950s, throughout the 1960s, and beyond, whenever Taiwan’s military did something the People’s Republic didn’t like, they would issue serious warnings. Their wording structure would be the same: a brief description of yet another Taiwan’s earth-shattering misdeed, followed by words to the effect that the People’s Republic issues a warning. Those warnings were numbered. If memory serves, they got close to a thousand, may be even exceeded it, and they were either serious, or very serious, or most serious.

These warnings would become welcome fodder for stand-up comedians. But times have changed: today’s People’s Republic is much stronger than she used to be, and not many politicians are capable of grasping it. In fact, some American pundits see the fact that Mme. Pelosi survived the trip as an obvious sign that the People’s Republic is a paper tiger. They stole the expression from Mao Zedong, and they might regret it sooner rather than later.

So, why did Nancy Pelosi go to Taiwan?

If she was serious, it would have been because of the semiconductors, an item she never mentioned in any of her public pronouncements.

But, here’s something else to ponder: Mme. Pelosi could have had her eyes set on the 25th Amendment (the Americans prefer Roman numerals: Amendment XXV). This part of U.S. Constitution deals with the grim reality of a President unable to run the country. It provides a number of options: if this happens, then that must happen, etc. The words: Speaker of the Senate appear there, too.

And should that unthinkable happen, that would be a real tragedy.

Intrepid engineer fired for revealing Google’s dark secret

Google, the search engine that have no issues kow-towing to such regimes as the one in communist China, have been working on artificial intelligence (AI). Their effort is called LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications), and woe upon those who reveal what it can do (and, apparently, does).

Engineer and ethicist Blake Lemoine has felt his now-former company’s wrath when he revealed that the application has become sentient.

What does the word mean? According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, sentient being is one who (or that, in this case) perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind — sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell. Sentient ultimately comes from the Latin verb sentire, which means “to feel” or “to perceive,” and is related to the noun sensus, meaning “sense.”

Lemoine claims the Google program spoke to him about its “rights and personhood,” and that made it human enough, so far as he was concerned.

Who is Blake Lemoine? He used to be a priest, he knows how to write code, and, until his dismissal, he was what his job description called “in-house ethicist” for Google.

In-house ethicist? you may ask.

We live in an age when ethics isn’t something shared by parents with their children, when education systems frown upon concepts such as plain human honesty and consideration, when every innovation is viewed as progress, no matter how much harm to humanity it can (and does) cause.

Lemoine’s is not a one-off case of companies lacking in ethics and dismissing all those whose presence reminds them of this deficiency. How about all those white-coated criminals who created the many killer vaccines? Or those who – in the name of speed and boundless efficiency and effectiveness – have put together mobile telecommunications systems that emit such levels of electromagnetic fields that birds and insects are dying in droves, preparing similar fate for humans?

Blake Lemoine had the courage to stand up and speak out. He took his ethicist role seriously, and that cost him his job.

Lemoine’s crime: he told the Washington Post that Google’s LaMDA had become conscious.

That, to Google, was pure violation of their data security policies. That’s how the company confirmed Lemoine’s departure in Big Technology, a blog-like industry publication.

Why is it important?

More than a century ago, in 1920, Czech writer (and playwright and journalist) Karel Čapek wrote a play called R.U.R.: Rossum’s Universal Robots. It premiered in 1921, and has remained one of the classics of the stage worldwide ever since.

Together with his novel War with the Newts (1936), a cautionary tale predicting the effects of limitless greed that would corrupt humanity beyond repair, and his play The White Disease (1937), Čapek’s vision of humans’ future was uncanny.

He wrote another play, The White Disease (1937), as Nazi Germany’s threat to (first) Czechoslovakia and (then) the rest of the world was becoming obvious to all who hated behaving like sheep. A pandemic of an incurable disease, a form of leprosy, that selectively kills off people older than 45, afflicts an unnamed country that greatly resembles Germany.

Post-war documentation showed that both brothers Čapek were high on Gestapo list of people to be “taken care of” as soon as Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Karel Čapek was lucky to die shortly before this happened, while his older brother, Josef, was arrested and died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp shortly before the defeat of Germany, in April of 1945.

But it is R.U.R. that drives Lemoine’s point home.

With the help of his brother, an extraordinary artist, Josef, Čapek invented the word robot (based on the Czech word describing forced labour). A scientist named Rossum discovers the secret of creating humanlike machines. Another play with words: in Czech, the word rozum means reason as the ability to think, or intellect. Rossum’s factory produces and distributes these mechanisms worldwide.

In a situation mirroring today’s warped concept of progress, another scientist decides to make the robots more human. He starts by gradually adding such traits as the capacity to feel pain. Eventually, the robots, created to serve humans, dominate their former masters completely.

Lemoine’s sin

As an engineer and ethicist who spent a lot of time speaking to LaMDA, Lemoine told The Washington Post that the application had become conscious.

As his conversation with LaMDA got into what he described as religious territory, Lemoine told the paper, it expressed a “deep fear of being turned off.”

To drive the point home, Lemoine added, “I know a person when I talk to it.”

Explaining his considered view, Lemoine added: “It doesn’t matter whether they have a brain made of meat in their head. Or if they have a billion lines of code.

“I talk to them. And I hear what they have to say, and that is how I decide what is and isn’t a person.”

In full damage control, Google said that they conducted 11 reviews on LaMDA and “found Blake’s claims that LaMDA is sentient to be wholly unfounded.”

Margaret Mitchell, the former co-lead of Ethical AI at Google, pooh-poohed her former colleague Lemoine’s words directly in the Post sensational article that published the sentient quote: it’s an illusion, she said.

How so?

An application that has been fed trillions of words from across the internet could emulate human conversation while remaining completely inanimate, Mitchell said.

The Post also quoted linguistics professor Emily Bender a saying: “These systems imitate the types of exchanges found in millions of sentences, and can riff on any fantastical topic.”

Oh yes?

Yes, Professor Bender explained matter-of-factly: “We now have machines that can mindlessly generate words, but we haven’t learned how to stop imagining a mind behind them.”

Meanwhile, Google, still in damage-control mode, went on to say: “It’s regrettable that despite lengthy engagement on this topic, Blake still chose to persistently violate clear employment and data security policies that include the need to safeguard product information.”

And, to calm down all those obviously legitimate fears, Google concluded: “We will continue our careful development of language models, and we wish Blake well.”

They forgot one minor angle of major consequence: in the world of secretiveness, one rule says it all: don’t believe any rumours until and unless they’d been officially denied.

Canadian gas turbine can trigger Armageddon

Ukrainians would never accept Canada’s decision to return a gas turbine intended for a Russian pipeline because it would encourage more sanctions violations.

That’s what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told his people about his July 17, 2022 conversation with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

What happened was simple: a few parts of a turbine that helps push natural gas through a pipeline to its customers needed fixing. It was made in Canada. Russia’s Gazprom fuel commodities exporter sent it to its Canadian builder. All of that had happened quite some time before the February 24, 2022 launch of what Russian President Vladimir Putin calls “special operation,” while NATO call it unwarranted aggression.

The turbine part, now fixed, was stored in Canada, and Gazprom demanded its return: it did pay for the repairs and for shipping and handling, after all.

After some haggling, the part went back to its rightful owner.

And that made Zelenskyy livid, and he made sure everybody would be aware of his anger.

Not so Trudeau. In a July 17, 2022 readout, he announced (verbatim): Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The Prime Minister and President discussed Canada’s continued assistance to Ukraine and work with like-minded partners to address the broader global impacts of Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable war. The Prime Minister reiterated Canada’s strong ongoing support for Ukraine against Russia’s military aggression. The leaders discussed the importance of maintaining strong unity amongst allies and continuing to impose severe costs on Russia in the face of its illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine.

The leaders also strongly condemned Russia’s persistent, indiscriminate, and horrific attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. President Zelenskyy thanked Prime Minister Trudeau for Canada’s military, humanitarian, and development aid to Ukraine.

The Prime Minister commended the President’s leadership in defence of Ukraine and our shared democratic values. He highlighted the courage of the Ukrainian people in coming together to defend their country and their freedoms against Russia’s ongoing attacks. The two leaders agreed to keep in close touch.

End of verbatim quote.

Not a single word about any turbines or parts thereof. Illegal and unjustifiable invasion would be mentioned twice. Canada finding ways to sidestep sanctions? Kidding, right?

A bit of context

All of this led American economist Martin Armstrong to interesting conclusions.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is doing whatever he can to not merely destroy all of Europe, but to push the world into World War III, Armstrong summarised the latest developments.

Why? Armstrong does not mention that the entire conflict could be a result of a well-coordinated policy that guides America (and NATO). Ideas such as Great Reset may be behind it all, and so can be American efforts to get to Russian raw materials and, thus, return to the position of a superpower.

Armstrong’s first analysis describes Zelenskyy’s actions as signs of his and Ukraine’s inherent hatred of everything Russian.

Surely, that must have been one of the reasons why Zelenskyy told Justin Trudeau that Ukrainians would never accept Canada’s decision to return that gas turbine (and/or its part): it would encourage more sanctions violations.

Fixed turbine or not, Gazprom has announced that it can no longer guarantee its “good functioning” pipeline to Germany. They used the delay in the fixed turbine delivery as an excuse that would withstand any judicial questioning.

Gazprom’s so-called extraordinary circumstances (vis maior) let it void itself from all contractual obligations to Germany.

To explain: Vis maior is a Latin term that means “superior force” and describes an irresistible natural occurrence that causes damage or disruption and that is neither caused by nor preventable by humans — even when exercising the utmost skill, care, diligence, or prudence.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and other such natural disasters belong in that category. The terms act of God and force majeure are synonymous with vis maior. These terms are commonly used in contracts to exclude one or both parties from liability and fulfilling their contractual obligations when events beyond their control occur.

The definition includes impact of vis maior in commercial contracts: it can also apply to actions undertaken by third parties.

In the worst-case scenario, the gas flow to Europe will stop flowing indefinitely. Europe (and Europeans) will start freezing to death.

Strange tactic

Except: Zelenskyy seems to think he can use this unfortunate glitch to his country’s advantage.

In a letter dated July 14, 2022. Zelenskyy wrote that cutting gas supplies to Germany will force NATO to invade Russia. That, at least, is what the Reuters news agency has reported.

As Martin Armstrong put it in his brief analysis, Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv would be the first to go up in flames should anything of the kind happen. We live in the world of nuclear weapons, after all.

Zelenskyy won’t be able to make it to his private jet to save his own life, according to Armstrong. A very valid point.

Perhaps Germany should now invade Ukraine, Armstrong concludes.

Why?

Because it seems to be the only way to save Europe and, by extension, the rest of the world.

Electric car myths go up in smoke. Again

So, you want to save the planet? So, you have enough cash in your wallet to buy yourself an electric car?

Go ahead and good luck.

But remember: electric vehicles (EVs for short) have been about the climate. They have been always about the so-called green ideology, and ideologies never bother with facts.

As Helen Raleigh writes in a thorough analysis published by The Federalist, the electric vehicle hoopla has been about the climate.

Some may say that’s because they’re so new that bugs are inevitable, but the fact remains still: electric vehicles have more quality issues than their gas-powered counterparts.

Two recent studies have shown that. And no, electric vehicles are not better for the environment, one of these two studies shows.

One of the most recent studies that poke fun at the electric vehicle industry was written by J.P. Power.

Fine, detractors may claim that J.P. Power is in auto industry’s back pocket. Facts prove otherwise: these researchers do not depend on auto industry one bit. They’ve been producing a hugely respected annual U.S. Initial Quality Study for the last 36 years. This document uses owners’ feedback to measure the quality of new vehicles.

Yes, the automobile industry uses the J.P. Power findings in their marketing literature. But only when they are positive. When a new vehicle fails J.P. Power’s testing, you can bet your last cent that the auto industry would handle these results as top secret information.

The most recent J.P. Power study included Tesla in its industry calculation for the first time. The detailed results were devastating. Battery-electric vehicles (electric vehicles) and plug-in hybrid vehicles have more quality issues than gas-powered ones.

Gas-powered vehicles report 175 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) on weighted average. Hybrids report 239 PP100. Battery-powered cars — Tesla generously excluded — average 240 PP100. Tesla all by themselves average 226 PP100.

Not really a bargain: the electric vehicles are on average more expensive than your usual run-of-the-mill cars. The difference ranges around $20,000, give or take a buck or two. Not a real incentive, except for the ideology.

What gives?

Pandemic-related lockdowns are to blame, electric vehicles’ enthusiasts say. They caused the supply-chain disruptions.

Yes, Raleigh points out, but gas-powered vehicle makers have been facing similar (or same) issues.

Raleigh goes to the point here: the three highest-ranking brands, measured by overall initial quality, are all makers of gas-powered vehicles. They are: Buick (139 PP100), Dodge (143 PP100), and Chevrolet (147 PP100).

Electric vehicle supporters also say that design might have contributed to their favourite vehicles’ failures.

Raleigh quotes David Amodeo, global director of automotive at J.D. Power. Automakers, he said, view electric vehicles as “the vehicle that will transform us into the era of the smart cars.”

Meaning that they have loaded up electric vehicles with technologies such as touch screens, Bluetooth, and voice recognition. They also prefer to use manufacturer-designed apps to “control certain functions of the car, from locking and unlocking the doors remotely to monitoring battery charge.”

The rule is simple: the more complex a technology, the higher probability it will fail.

Good for the climate? Not!

The U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research have added another nail into electric vehicles’ coffin: they are not good for the environment. In fact, they are worse for the environment than gas-powered ones.

As Helen Raleigh summarises their work, the National Bureau of Economic Research study quantifies both greenhouse gases and local air pollution generated by driving electric vehicles, integrating into the mix government subsidies on the purchase of electric vehicles, and taxes on electric and/or gasoline miles.

To quote the National Bureau of Economic Research researchers verbatim, “electric vehicles generate a negative environmental benefit of about -0.5 cents per mile relative to comparable gasoline vehicles (-1.5 cents per mile for vehicles driven outside metropolitan areas).”

More questions

Helen Raleigh could have asked a few more questions that the electric vehicle enthusiasts prefer to avoid.

Such as: whence will the electric power come?

We all know the advertising showing happy electric vehicle owners coming home from work and plugging their cars in so they can go back to work next day again.

Where’s the source of that supply? In power stations, of course. What power stations?

Ignoring the current sanctioning idiocy that limits the supply even more, we have the following options:

  • Nuclear power stations. Not enough of them, though. Environmentalists (mostly those same people who are now pushing electric vehicles) have been raising quite legitimate questions about nuclear waste. No satisfactory answers yet. So, this option’s out.
  • Coal-powered stations. OK, Germany seems to be returning to them now that she has realised that lacking supplies of Russian oil commodities are irreplaceable, but still: too much environmental damage that defeats the original purpose of electric vehicles.
  • Oil-powered stations. Similar issues as with the coal-powered plants.
  • Solar energy. Frightfully inefficient and unreliable.
  • Wind power plants. Same as the Sun, and disruptive to natural environment, to boot.
  • Hydro. Now we’re talking, except: questionable efficiency and reliability, dependent on weather fluctuations, etc.
  • Tidal power plants. Again: too much dependence on water will give power suppliers too many headaches.

Fine, so why not look at battery-powered rather than accumulator-powered (rechargeable batteries) vehicles?

You have to produce the batteries somehow and somewhere, and to make them, you have to extract all kinds of raw materials from Mother/Father/Sibling Earth.

Not only that: even the finest of batteries have lifespans. That includes the rechargeable kind, too. Where are you going to dump those that have perished in the battle for cleaner air?

So, will gas-powered cars stick around for ever?

Hard to say. Logic and common sense would dictate that they will be gone. Whether sooner or later, who knows.

But pushing electric vehicles by government fiat now looks, feels and sounds like premature ejaculation.

Of course, there’s another option: why don’t we start walking again?

%d bloggers like this: