Why The Press is Hated . . .

93
9481
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The press wonders – or pretends to wonder – why it’s held in contempt by more than just a small handful of  people. Maybe the pressies should read what they publish.

The other day, Automotive News published the following:

“Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s demand for low-emissions vehicles, just as President Trump seeks to review pollution standards the industry opposes.”

This slurry of dishonest or simply idiotic “reporting” is stupendously revealing – all the more so because it is representative of the norm. Where to begin?

Let’s work from the back, since the worst lie – and that is exactly the correct word – squats toward the end of this vile dreck:

“…to review the pollution standards the industry opposes.”

Utter falsehood. I mean, other than the industry opposing part. Which of course is portrayed as all-but-demonic, with sulfurous undertones that practically waft off the page.

The lie worthy of Dr. Goebbels at his best, though, is this business about carbon dioxide being a “pollutant.” In which case – uh oh! – it is time to put giant cones on top of volcanoes and catalytically converting muzzles on cows and for that matter us, too. Carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” in the same way that di-hydrogen monoxide (water) is a “pollutant.”

It does not foul the air. Even slightly.

It does not cause cancer or respiratory problems or acid rain.

Or even acne.

The Automotive News story is despicable because it purveys without comment or qualifier the package-dealing of an inert, non-reactive gas – C02 – with the byproducts of internal combustion engines that do foul the air, contribute to the formation of smog, irritate people’s lungs, create public health problems and cause acid rain.

Those compounds which are pollutants, properly (scientifically) speaking.

Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent component of the atmosphere, like water vapor and nitrogen and oxygen. To characterize C02 as a “pollutant” is either a titanic imbecility or a purposeful attempt to mislead.

It is of a piece with the progagandizing the media performed for the government when it decided it was time to conflate those who (so they said) attacked America on 9/11 with the Iraqi government. You may recall. One minute, it was al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then – as if a batch fax had been sent to every media organ in the country – it was non-stop Saddam. Just as C02 isn’t a “pollutant,” Saddam didn’t attack America. But the press did its best to purposefully confuse the issue, aiding and abetting a Nuremburg-worthy high crime – aggressive war – that went unpunished. Reichsmarschall Goring is smiling cynically, somewhere above . . . or below.

The new Fake News is that carbon dioxide is something like carbon monoxide, or unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, or particulates – a danger that must be regulated and controlled. Not only is the untrue (see above) but unlike the actually harmful compounds classified (accurately) as pollutants, carbon dioxide can’t be “cleaned up” because of course it’s not “dirty” to begin with. The only thing that can be done – here it comes – is to reduce the volume produced and the only known way to do that is to . . . burn less fuel.

In other words, it’s a fuel efficiency fatwa masquerading as an anti-pollution measure. And the object is not to increase fuel efficiency. It is to reduce the size of engines (and so, cars) and make them expensive – so that fewer people can afford to buy them. This is not spoken of openly, but it is the end goal. It must be; a single fool or demagogue could be dismissed as aberrant; this is systematic, organized.

The government – which is a bunch of people – calculated, drew up ad then decreed (in the waning days of Obama’s presidency, knowing his successor might be  . . . skeptical)  that henceforth carbon dioxide would be considered a ”pollutant.”

The media lapdogged that up. No “excuse me, but…”

Nada.

Just willing, complicit, lazy regurgitation. Or something much worse . . .

The reaction of anyone reading the Automotive News pabulum who is in possession of junior high school-level chemistry knowledge will – rightly – be one of outrage. Unfortunately – deliberately – a working majority of the public is not in possession of junior high school-level knowledge of chemistry.

Next item up for dissection:

“Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s a demand for low-emissions vehicles.”

God, my teeth ache.

Firstly, it’s not not “dozens of cities” who will be buying these force-produced electric Edsels. It is the taxpayers of these cities who will be forced to buy them (but not own them) via the extorted funds they are compelled to provide, so that government workers can drive around in the electric Edsels.

This isn’t supply and demand, market forces. It is make-work and wealth transfer. To characterize it as “demand for low-emissions vehicles” is another despicable upchuck of putrefying propaganda that depends upon the stupefaction (or enstupidation) of the reader, who will only allow the morsel to pass by if he is utterly in the dark about basic economic laws.

And “low emissions”?

Seriously?

How many times must this be whack-a-moled? Electric vehicles do produce emissions, just not at the tailpipe. Does the source of pollution matter? Or just that it is produced?

Bingo, if you picked the latter.

First of all, the raw materials necessary to make the hundreds of pounds of batteries per electric car are not gently taken from Gaia’s willing bosom – and the batteries themselves are mini-Chernobyls of toxic waste. Oh, but they’ll be recycled! Except when they’re not. What then? Out here in The Woods, decrepit olds cars abound, left to rot in the backyard. The same fate awaits even shiny six figure Teslas. Which – one day – will be paint-blotched old hoopties left to rot – and leak – in someone’s back yard. Only instead of one roughly 45 pound led acid battery leaching into the earf, it’ll be 400-plus pounds of life-unfriendly compounds.

Does anyone care? Shouldn’t “environmentalists”?

Electric cars, by the way, also produce C02. In fact, they produce more “climate changing” C02 than a conventional car. Not at the tailpipe, perhaps.

At the smokestack.

At the “tailpipe” of the coal and oil-fired utility plants that generate the electricity which powers electric cars. If hundreds of thousands – if millions – of these electric cars are put into circulation, the demand on the grid will be great and the output of C02 even higher.

What then?

The press does not ask such questions. Instead:

“Demonstrating demand” . . . so reads the subhead in the Automotive News propaganda piece.

And yes, again, propaganda.

Words matter. Using certain words conveys a certain meaning. People who deal in words professionally know this, instinctively. As the hawk knows how to dive.

“Demonstrating demand” is a statement, as if of fact, that an entirely fictitious and fraudulent thing is the same thing as the real thing.

Government buying things isn’t “demand” anymore than one is a “customer” of the IRS.

Whatever “demand” is created, is artificial – dependent on wealth transfer, on the coercive power of the government. It is the same sort of “demand” that built the Volga canal in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Automotive News quotes – without comment – a statement made by a Seattle bureaucrat named Chris Bast, who is a “climate and transportation policy adviser” to the city of Seattle:

“If you build it, we will buy it.”

He means: If the government forces car companies to build electric cars, the government will force taxpayers to buy them. This, of course, is not translated thusly.

The loathsome “news” article concludes:

“Tailpipe fumes (my italics) are crucial in the fight to stop global warming.”

The illiteracy is almost as striking as the dishonesty – or the imbecility, you decide which.

Note the conflation – the inert, non-reactive gas (C02) is now a fume. And it is “crucial” in “the fight to stop global warming.”

Not the galloping unchecked assumptions; the blithe acceptance, as of gravitation, of the political “science” of “global warming.”

The awful construction would be enough to make my teeth feel loose. But the oily proselytizing is just too much.

And they ask me why I drink . . . .

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who send in $20 or more to support the site. 

  

Share Button

93 COMMENTS

  1. Dear Eric,

    Just read this in an email from libertarian political commentator Jon Rappaport. He describes his own excommunication from the MSM. It closely echoes your own ordeal, as well as my own. So don’t feel like the Lone Ranger.

    Many, many years ago, I had a good relationship with a media outlet. Then one day, the man in charge told me I was “positioning myself” outside the scope of his audience. I was speaking to “different people,” and therefore I should “go my own way.” I could tell he wasn’t happy about saying this, because he thought of himself as an independent, but there it was. He was bending to the demands of “his people.” So we parted company.

    I was now further “out there” than I had been before. I was “independent of an ‘independent’ media outlet.” It took me about five minutes to see the joke. A good and useful joke.

    As the years rolled on, I kept finding myself in a more independent position, which meant I was writing what I wanted to write, and in the process I was discovering deeper levels of what I wanted to write.

    Understanding this changed my political view. If I didn’t stand for the free and independent individual, what did I stand for? If I didn’t keep coming back to THAT, what could I come back to?

    It made sense to me then, and it makes sense to me now.

    This is why I keep writing about collective, the group, the mass, and the generality, those fake representations of life.

    The individual is always free, whether he knows it or not. And therefore, he can choose.

    This is what the Chuck Schumers of this world vaguely apprehend on the horizon. They can’t believe what they’re seeing; it’s too horrible a prospect. They reject it as a fantasy. A random nightmare.

    But it isn’t a random nightmare.

    It’s the potential for an open future.

    Decentralized.

    Alive.

    Back from obscurity.

  2. Can we please stop with the Goebbels defamation? He wasn’t saying “LET’S lie a thousand times and people will believe us”, but “THEY lie a thousand times, and people believe them”. Big difference

      • PtB, it seems to me Goebbels was singled out because he answered questions truthfully. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t part of an evil cabal but he infuriated people with his honesty. Never speak truth to power.

        • Hi Eight,

          Yup. It was the Little Doctor who coined the term, Iron Curtain… which Churchill stole.

          Pretty sure I have the flu. I’m wrecked.

          • eric, in my decrepit old age i have depended for years on half a juiced lemon with 10 ounces of water first thing every morning. It the largest infusion of Vit. C you can get other than IV and that doesn’t sound very inviting every morning. I also do the complex vit. B sublingual as many times per day as I can remember. The C is the deal for keeping things like the flu at bay and for curing it too. I still used the $4 juicer I got at Wally……every morning.

            Good luck shedding whatever it is you have. Several years have gone by and I’d be at the doc for regular checkups and the populous would be sick in big numbers. The docs would always say “Well, you have the same flu that’s going around and here’s an antibiotic to take that’s been bringing everybody around in a few days”. I’ve never heard anyone say anything except ‘thank you’ but the doc and I both know it ain’t the flu if antibiotics are curing it. CDC makes a living calling plain old bronchitis and respiratory infection “influenza” when those true cases are rare. What ever though bud, take care and get well. Wish I had a shiny hiney I could send to you and at least make you feel better for awhile. Just a kind smile and some TlC goes a long way.

            • I use emergen-c and 5000 unit vitamin D when I catch some bug. Works well.

              Of course various forces are trying to get such things outlawed or only available with a doctor’s permission slip.

              • Next time at the doc I’m going to get a script for liposomal Vit. C to have on hand when the wife or I get sick. It’s quite a life saver if you have influenza. A few yeas back when some cases of swine flu were identified in Texas in the Dallas area some people died from it. One man didn’t appear to be going to live and his doctor would only give him IV C once not knowing what liposomal C had done for others. His family got some liposomal C and snuck it to him on what was soon to be his death bed and brought him back from what would surely have been death.

                I have stopped being amazed at some doctor’s egos. When I was 21 or so I had come down with some intestinal problem that was running rampant all over with everybody having the same symptoms. I feel like hammered stuff and go to a doc I had never seen. He asked me “So what’s wrong with you today?”. I replied I guess I had the stuff everybody else was suffering with(his waiting room was full of people suffering the same malady as me). The guy goes off the deep end and tells me that HE was the doctor and he’d decide what I had and ranted for a good minute or so and slammed out of the room. I figure the guy isn’t having a good day but I’m sorta in shock at getting an ass-chewing for answering the very question he’d asked. He returned in 15 minutes or so and apologized for going off the deep end, my second shock of the visit. He gave me some depositories to stop the puking. It worked. C’est la vie.

  3. “If they build it, we will buy it.”

    Apparently, they borrowed that motto from East Germany, the home of the Trabant. Or maybe Yugoslavia, the birthplace of the Yugo.

    Two automobile disasters forced onto the world, from two equally defunct nations.

    Those nations no longer exist in their past form, but maybe some of those disaster cars are still around. Because there’s always a government that needs a demonstration of what happens when a government designs and builds a car.

  4. More co2 means more plant life, which means less co2 in the air. Why the greenies can’t understand that is beyond me.

    Besides, the biggest polluter of all is the military. And the government now is causing people to need multiple jobs with extra commuting because of their stupid laws, like obamacare which caused so many people to have to leave their full time jobs for multiple part time jobs.

    I’m not holding my breath to see if Trump fixes any of that; so far he’s just as bad as all the rest.

  5. Publicly funded (read “taxpayer”) science has always been subject to the whims of those government agencies and “lugenpresse” fake media outlets and those organizations providing the funding. In all cases, FOLLOW THE MONEY. . . Here are a number of examples:

    First was the marijuana “study” that was funded during the Nixon administration. The “results” of the study showed marijuana to be relatively innocuous and safe. Since the “results” of the study did not “square” with what those who funded it wanted, it was quietly closed. The government agency wanted the results to show marijuana as a “dangerous drug”.

    Global warming (aka “climate change”) has been shown to be a fraud (climate is always changing) and has attracted the snake charmers (al gore) and hustlers out of the woodwork. The so-called “hockey stick” model has been shown to be fraudulent. The attempts to foist “carbon credits” and other scams on the public was unsuccessful. Once again FOLLOW THE MONEY.

    Fraud in science is not only limited to those who are providing the funding. There was a case in the Pacific northwest where so-called scientists “planted” lynx fur in certain forests to make them “off-limits” to logging. Fortunately, these government Fish and Wildlife Service scientists were caught. Of course, they received NO punishment for their behavior. The so-called “endangered species act” is actually more detrimental to humanity . . . species are always changing . . .

    Environmentalists have been some of the most dishonest people in their misguided attempts to “save the planet”. Our earth is much more resilient than they would have you believe. Environmentalists see humans as a “pestilence”. They would like to see the human population reduced (by any means necessary) by around 90%. The survivors would be walled-off in soviet-style high-rise apartments, riding bicycles, taking trains and buses while the wilderness areas would be available only to the “anointed” environmentalists.

    I, for one, have no use for these limp-wristed, birkenstock-wearing, prius-driving, tofu-eating poor excuses for human beings. I would suggest that environmentalists take their own advice and eliminate themselves first.
    Environmentalists are like watermelons–green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside. It’s always been about control.
    I CHEER when I hear a of a “greenpeace” ship getting blown out of the water. . .

  6. I think it is easy to see a massive “plan” within government as an explanation for how it all seems to roll towards the same end.

    I think there is a more basic explanation. Power and relevance. Take the EPA, they need to make themselves look needed. They would never say, Okay we did good, lets just maintain. No. They view them selves as great, they do great work, it’s huge. If they can dictate 30mpg then why not 35, then 40. The sky is the limit. What all these agencies see is they make a demand and everyone jumps to follow it. They think they are great.

    Take anything the government does and it is the same thing, it might have started out useful and doing good, it soon grows into a beast that no one can control. It’s not some great plan to control us, it’s just people hooked on their own power and greatness.

  7. Really?
    And what, you’re trying to fill the vacuum?
    That’s hilarious.
    You failed on 2 counts.
    One, this was meant to be a critique of the mainstream media (I’m assuming), which failed.
    And two, this ended up being a rant about the nefarious practice of renewable energy.
    On the 1st point, if you take the high moral ground on an issue, then you better have oodles of integrity, and completely objective about the issue you’re discussing/criticizing.Clover
    And 2nd, your rant about fossil fuels versus renewable energy, is just that, a disingenuous hyperbolic rant. Do you really think, that you are any better than the mainstream media?
    Hypocrisy abounds with you libertarians, and proponents of Alt-right ideology.
    You are making the same mistakes as the mainstream media, but the only difference here, is that you are just writing more confirmation bias BS, so the other like-minded Neanderthal’s come in, and post like-minded comments, which gives you the misguided belief that you must be right.
    In other words, you are just pissing in each other’s pockets, and then telling each other what a nice warm feeling it is.
    And what annoys me, is when the so-called “libertarians,” who use their limbic system to view the world, quote George Orwell.
    George Orwell would have nothing to do with you Knuckle Draggers.Clover
    In fact, he would probably despise your misanthropic attitudes towards much of humanity, where your simplistic nonsense is based on two false narratives.
    1.Altruism equals Socialism, and 2. Utilitarianism equals Communism.
    Before you go quoting any intellectuals from recent history, do your homework on them.
    I’ve always found it extraordinary that, a country, like the United States of America, which is the most affluent and wealthiest in the history of the human race, would churn out such dropkicks.
    But as you Americans like to say; “you cannot make this shit up.”

    • You are just another lying statist ass, Peter.

      FORCED altruism equals socialism. Utilitarianism equals “the ends justify the means.”

      The only thing “nefarious” about renewable energy is when a cadre of armed thugs (“government”) decides to force the issue. If it were simply competing on its own merits with traditional energy sources it is unlikely that Eric or anyone else here would have a problem with it.

      You should at least put forth a small effort to try making your lies and distortions a little less transparent.

      • You mention knuckle Draggers and Neanderthal’s, and right on cue, they reinforce your point with mindless drivel, and Alt-right talking points.Clover
        And how come the moderator of this dodgy website, put a few clovers between my paragraphs?
        Is it he’s way of displaying his dislike about what I said?
        From what i have experienced before, is that the moderators on these extremist right-wing websites, who claim to be libertarians, and therefore love free-speech, never respond directly to my comments.Clover
        Maybe they don’t have the balls and/or the brains to undertake the task.
        So it’s a rhetorical question, but who are the real snowflakes??

        • Clover,

          That you equate Libertarianism with “right wing” (“extreme” or otherwise) clearly reveals that you know nothing about Libertarianism.

          And: I replied at length to your original eructation of non sequiturs. Have a read, perhaps.

          • Probably a government employee. (I won’t dignify those by referring to them as “workers.”)

            Maybe retired, worst kind. They sit on their loathesome, spotted behinds after retiring early, drawing comfortable pensions and enjoying generous medical benefits on the backs of people who have no pensions and no benefits. Of course they feel perfectly/arrogantly justified in this because they “served the public.” (SERVICED the public is more like it.)

        • Peter,

          I responded directly to the few intelligible comments you made, all of which showed a complete ignorance of what you attempted to critique. The rest of what you wrote was just a string of insults.

          Cheers,
          Jeremy

          • “The rest of what you wrote was just a string of insults.”

            Only playing by your rules Jeremy.Clover

            But as I said, hypocrisy is the prize currency of you libertarians.
            And also, I’ve asked the rhetorical question, who are the real snowflakes.

              • Peter is quite the bard and not difficult to tell who he shills for. He begins his philosophical discussion with the equivalent of “Do you still beat your wife?”. If he’d just go back to servicing Chuck Schumer and Co. Next, he’ll be bringing up gun control and asking what your stance is although it won’t be anything that straightforward.

    • Hahahahahaha, telling people to do their homework when you have clearly failed to do yours. What a true clover you are!

    • Hi Peter,

      Thank you! That was immensely enjoyable. You managed to string together a lot of words while offering not a single substantive criticism of anything actually written in the article.

      Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some homework on what libertarians actually believe. Here are a few hints:

      – There is no inherent relation between libertarianism and misanthropy. Misanthropy is compatible with any political ideology. I suspect that self described progressives are most susceptible to misanthropy and that self described libertarians are least susceptible. After all, progressives often justify their coercive plans by insisting that most people are unwilling or incapable of taking care of themselves or doing the “right” thing. Libertarians are often dismissed as naive for challenging this view.

      – For the most part, those who consider themselves part of the alt-right are either hostile to libertarianism or dismiss it as naive.

      – Libertarianism is not based on either of your “false” narratives. It is true that Rand, who insisted she was not a libertarian, criticized “altruism”. However, she did so because she believed that living for the sake of another was a denial of one’s humanity. BTW, most libertarians neither accept her definition of altruism nor share her contempt for it. No libertarian believes that utilitarianism = communism. Some believe that utilitarianism cannot be the basis for a rational ethics. Some believe that utilitarianism is the only basis for a rational ethics. This is mostly a philosophical debate about whether natural rights or “utility” should serve as the foundation of ethical action. Murray Rothbard is perhaps the best proponent of the natural rights view, while David Friedman is probably the best proponent of the utilitarian view.

      – Most of us “knuckle-draggers” base our ideas on the obviously hateful belief that it is illegitimate to initiate violence against others to get what one wants.

      Unfortunately, I doubt you are interested in learning anything about the philosophy you so ignorantly mock. However, criticism is more effective if you actually know something about what you are criticizing.

      Jeremy

      • “– Libertarianism is not based on either of your “false” narratives. It is true that Rand, who insisted she was not a libertarian, criticized “altruism”. However, she did so because she believed that living for the sake of another was a denial of one’s humanity. BTW, most libertarians neither accept her definition of altruism nor share her contempt for it. No libertarian believes that utilitarianism = communism. Some believe that utilitarianism cannot be the basis for a rational ethics. Some believe that utilitarianism is the only basis for a rational ethics. This is mostly a philosophical debate about whether natural rights or “utility” should serve as the foundation of ethical action. Murray Rothbard is perhaps the best proponent of the natural rights view, while David Friedman is probably the best proponent of the utilitarian view.”Clover

        Ok, point taken.

        Then, what is your position Jeremy?
        Or, is that quote your position?

        • Altruism isn’t the issue, Clover.

          The issue is forced altruism.

          The Libertarian position is: You own yourself; you therefore have every right to use yourself as you like, including in the service of others, if that is your wish. But you do not have the right to coerce the altruism of others, which wouldn’t even be altruism since it was coerced.

    • Peter,

      Do you know why I refer to people such as yourself as Clovers?

      They have a number of common characteristics, such as:

      They take me to task for things I never stated. You write:

      “…this ended up being a rant about the nefarious practice of renewable energy.”

      Please show me a statement of mine describing renewable energy as nefarious. My argument is not with any form of energy per se, it is with force-feeding politically approved versions, such as electric-powered cars. Oh, and by the way… since most of the generating capacity in the U.S. is coal or oil-fired, you might want to rethink the “renewable” thing.

      Clovers such as yourself also have no idea what Libertarianism is – else you wouldn’t attempt to package-deal it with the “alt right,” whatever that is. Libertarians are the only people who respect the absolute right of the individual to not be coerced – to be left in peace – provided he himself is peaceful. We believe in voluntary cooperation and free association; in live – and let live.

      Every other political ideology rests on coercion – and collectivism.

      Clovers are also always dishonest about their ideas. The comment about altruism, for example. No Libertarian opposes the right of an individual to sacrifice himself for the benefit of others, if that is his free desire. What Libertarians oppose is using force against individuals to coerce their “helping” others.

      You accuse me of being a Neanderthal, but at least I am not a hyena!

      • “Please show me a statement of mine describing renewable energy as nefarious.”
        Clover
        What, you’ve never heard of dog whistling?
        You are undertaking it right here, as evidenced by some who comment in compliance.
        Moreover, it suggests subtle confirmation bias.

        “You accuse me of being a Neanderthal, but at least I am not a hyena!”

        No hypocrisy there?Clover

        And lastly, as I stated earlier, you better do your homework on George Orwell, and he’s ideas and philosophical view of the world.
        Have you ever read 1984, Animal Farm, or Down and Out in Paris and London?
        Seeing you trying to align yourself with Orwell’s version of libertarianism is quite laughable.

        • Well, Clover, I asked you to provide an example of any statement of mine describing renewable energy as nefarious. To substantiate your criticism.

          Your response?

          “What, you’ve never heard of dog whistling? You are undertaking it right here, as evidenced by some who comment in compliance. Moreover, it suggests subtle confirmation bias.”

          In other words, you can’t produce an example of a statement of mine describing renewable energy as nefarious. What you’ve done is spew unintelligible gibberish, such as “You are undertaking it right here, as evidenced by some who comment in compliance.”

          Poor ol’ Clover!

          In re Neanderthal vs. hyena: A hyena is a pack animal that lives by force and violence, which preys on anything weaker. The human form is the coercive collectivist; people such as yourself.

          Did I ever claim Orwell was a Libertarian?

          Reading comprehension is not a Clover’s strong suit!

      • “What Libertarians oppose is using force against individuals to coerce their “helping” others.”Clover

        If that was so prevalent, as you seem to suggest, then give me at least 10 examples.
        And you must demonstrate in your rebuttal, that force is directly applied, and coercion is also directly demonstrated.

        • Clover writes:

          “And you must demonstrate in your rebuttal, that force is directly applied, and coercion is also directly demonstrated.”

          Oy vey. Clovers specialize in Talmudic parsing.

          Look, it’s simple: Force need not be directly applied to be coercive. It’s the threat that matters. I will not, as an example, be immediately the object of force if I do not pay my “fair share” of the taxes I am told I “owe.” But I am under the threat of force if I fail to submit and obey – which means I am under duress. This coerces my obedience, as opposed to my free consent.

          Savvy?

          Libertarians (unlike the “alt right”) consider the individual sovereign. That there is no such thing as collective rights because there is no such thing as a collective being. Only individuals are alive and only living individuals possess rights (equally) including the right to be left alone.

          So, can the “alt right” stuff. Or, feel free – it only undermines your arguments… none of which you’ve even clearly articulated so far.

          All we know for sure is that you believe Libertarians are “hypocrites” and that you have no understanding of Libertarian moral principles.

          • Dog whistle.

            https://ericpetersautos.com/2016/08/14/now-uncle-investing-tesla/

            “It sells primarily carbon credits – a little-known scam the media rarely (if ever) mentions during Fan Boy coverage of Musk and his economically preposterous, functionally ridiculous but very politically correct electric cars.”

            A blowfly conformation bias reply.

            gtc September 5, 2016 at 1:07 am
            “I agree, Brent. I remember driving over old trolley line rails still in the roadbed in the streets of Richmond back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Eventually overpopulation will put an end to the motoring public as we know it here. Either that or we will be looking alot like Asia and India out there on the streets like swarming ants. Meanwhile our lovely beauraucracts (jesus I hate try to spell that word) will just keep on masturbating and legislating us to death over pointless shit like”green cars”, and enviro-friendly energy consumption bullshit.”

            https://ericpetersautos.com/2017/03/06/apocalypse-avoided/

            “The “nudge” given electric cars – heavy subsidies, mandatory production quotas – is of a piece.

            These, likewise, are defined by their cost. Almost no one can afford them. Therefore, almost no one will drive them.”

            Bingo, again.Clover

            The only alternative explanation is that they – these regulatory ayatollahs – really are that stupid. That ignorant of mundane things like the cost of stuff affecting whether people can afford to buy the stuff. Which could be – given the endlessly succulent teat of taxpayer dollars they have access to.”

            And again, conformation bias reply

            Nunzio March 7, 2017 at 3:12 pm
            “Anything short of shutting down the DEC and NHTSA and EPA won’t be enough anyway- and even if it were, 4 years from now the communists will be complaining that lack of tyranny is causing the dickhole mite to go extinct, and hippies, or hipsters, or drug-addicted idiots or whatever the fad will be at the time, will be chaining themselves to phallic monuments to protest as they carry signs which advocate voting for Al Sharpton, because he will kill all the white people who are responsible for “this catastrophe”.Clover

            And as the rest of your pompous rant, again demonstrates that you are the real snowflake, and that you make an art form of disingenuous nonsense.
            I guess that’s preferable, than to actually answer the question I put to you.
            But as I have experienced before, you disciples of the far right, only make sense to your fellow cult members.

            • Clover,

              You seem to have problems with reading comprehension.

              The criticism is not of renewable energy or electric cars but of force used to push things like electric cars onto the market; of crony capitalist wealth transfers made possible only by the force of government.

              Try again.

              • “The criticism is not of renewable energy or electric cars but of force used to push things like electric cars onto the market; of crony capitalist wealth transfers made possible only by the force of government.”The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.Clover

                Oh, so you support a green world?
                You support green industry’s, and green ideologies?

                “Clover,

                You seem to have problems with reading comprehension.”

                Dropkick,

                Pot, kettle.

                • Fascinating, the way a Clover’s mind works.

                  Rather than deal with my argument – that using force to push something on the market/down people’s throats is a bad thing – Clover comes up with:

                  “Oh, so you support a green world? You support green industry’s, and green ideologies?”

                  And I’m the “uneducated” example of “PWT”?

                  At least I can write complete – and intelligible sentences. And make a logical, reasoned argument.

                  Clover, on the other hand . . .

                  • Your disingenuous attempts at avoiding answering my questions are becoming a little tedious.Clover
                    But I guess that’s preferable, than to make one look stupid, by failing to answer a question in a meaningful way.

                    • Clover,

                      I have replied directly and specifically to all of your comments; you’ve so far not been able to do the same yourself.

                      Instead, you disgorge impenetrable gibberish such as the following:

                      “But I guess that’s preferable, than to make one look stupid, by failing to answer a question in a meaningful way.”

                      Bix nood!

              • “Clover,

                You seem to have problems with reading comprehension.”Clover

                “Every other political ideology rests on coercion – and collectivism.”

                Co·er·cion

                Noun
                The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

                Try again?

                  • “Are you illiterate?

                    PS: It’s not persuasion when you coerce someone.”Clover

                    Its a dictionary interruption, not mind.

                    For someone that was complaining earlier, about non sequiturs…
                    But of course, you and your ilk have hypocrisy on your breakfast cereal instead of milk.

              • “…and collectivism.”Clover

                And in your mind, what exactly is wrong with “collectivism?’

                Is it something to with Hyenas??

                    • Clover,

                      I’ll leave it to the readers as to whether my brains are sufficient. As far as balls… I’m not here to compare genitalia and besides, the circumference and heft of my balls is immaterial.

                      The issue at hand is the moral rightness or wrongness of coercion and collectivism.

                      You support both.

                      I oppose both.

                  • At least i have answered a couple of questions that you put to me.
                    However, you have avoided answering my questions.Clover
                    The best you can do is, bat it away with a lot of ostentatious prolix.

                    • But Clover,

                      You haven’t answered any of my questions! Well, you haven’t answered any of the points I’ve made. Instead, you’ve confected out of whole cloth things I never stated and then argued (incoherently) against those points I never made!

                    • Clover,

                      Do you have anything besides insults in your kit bag?

                      You haven’t yet responded directly to any of the arguments I’ve made. All you’ve done is assert that I am a hypocrite, “PWT” and “alt right.” And claimed I’ve said/argued things I haven’t and then argued against those things you confected.

                      You appear to be unable to discern the difference.

                      I’m enjoying this, though. Because it’s so entertaining to dissect a Clover publicly!

                    • Most, if not all.

                      Including his war diaries and commentary on language.

                      I am well aware that Eric Blair was a socialist.

                      It doesn’t lessen his mastery of the language or the worth of his observations about politics.

        • You live in a welfare-warfare state and you need examples of people being coerced?

          Let me guess, you’re one of those people who can’t see the coercion. The government sends a bill so pay it. No coercion because you never even consider the possibility of not paying. What happens when you refuse. What happens when you resist paying. You just pay the bill because “you’re supposed to”. You believe in the “social contract”. One of those people who think freedom is being able to make the choice between paying the government or going to prison. The later or worse doesn’t count as coercion. It’s just the natural consequences of not doing what you’re supposed to do.

          Ug. Sometimes I wonder how some people remember to breath.

          • Hi Brent,

            I’m sure you’ve noticed the common habits of these Clovers – in particular, their taking me (and you) to task for things we never said. Their lack of precision with words being of a piece with their lack of precision with their thinking… such as it is.

            And, of course, their fundamental dishonesty about what they advocate.

            • It’s the slave mindset that really gets me. They are like Bertrand Russell’s sheep.

              My precision with language was developed through the fires of engineering and usenet so I can deal with the imprecise because all people don’t come from such backgrounds. It’s the not grasping the basics of how human society is set up. How it operates. If we have half or more of the people that can’t even see the coercion that permeates human society how ever can it advance?

              But I digressed and forgot ten examples… off the top of my head: SS, Medicaid, medicare, fannie, freddie, WIC, SNAP, TANF, NEA, Section 8. That took about 20 seconds. A comprehensive list is even longer and I intentionally avoided purely state, county, and municipal programs. I could just go through the tax levies on “my” property and probably come up with a considerably longer list.

    • The term “fossil fuel” was coined in the 1950s when not much was known about the nature of naturally-occurring hydrocarbon products. Environmentalists have used this misconception about naturally occurring oil to their advantage; hence, the now-discredited concept of “peak oil”.
      Oil is abiotic in nature, being produced deep within the earth by yet-unknown processes. Russian oil interests have been drilling deep wells, as much as 30,000 feet deep and coming up with oil deposits–far deeper than that of decayed plant and animal materials.
      It turns that many of our depleted oil wells are “filling back up”; oil is migrating from deep within the earth, upward to many of our present drilling sites.
      There are certain interests that do not want to see oil as a plentiful natural resource–FOLLOW THE MONEY…
      As to vehicles, it’s about CONTROL. The powers that be want us OUT of our vehicles, relegated to high-rise, soviet-style apartments using bicycles, trains or buses for transportation–limiting us to certain areas. Of course, the pristine “wilderness” would be restricted to the “elite” with their “dachas” would be reserved for the “elite” environmentalists and their ilk…
      I remember when it was discovered, years ago, that there are oceans of liquid hydrocarbons on Saturn’s lifeless moon, Titan. I thought to myself: Wait a minute. All my life, I’ve been told hydrocarbons are the result of the decay of organic matter… but there is no plant or animal life on Titan…

  8. Curse the media for relaying science. The fact that even Fox News doesn’t give much of a voice to deniers should tell them something.Clover

    • Clover,

      When it’s necessary to use terms such as “climate change” – inherently unscientific – and then demagogue people who ask questions as “deniers,” it ought to tell you something about the shakiness of what’s being peddled.

      Also, the shady misuse of the word pollutant. The conflating of things like HC and NOx with C02 is risible.

      If C02 is a “pollutant,” then so is water vapor.

    • What tells me something is when the father of the modern discipline of climate science, Reid Bryson, refers to the idea of man-made global warming (now referred to as “climate change” to hedge bets) as “a bunch of hooey.”

      What you have in the “science” of man-made climate change is cherry picked and falsified data, with much original data conveniently “lost,” plugged into faulty computer models spewing out 2+2=5. Dissent against this bilge is ruthlessly suppressed. Governments see man-made “climate change” as the road to unlimited power and political acquisition of wealth (that is, theft) and therefore have much to gain. They push the idea to the limit. Environmentalists have always been liars with their own agenda and also delight in the possibilities this phony “science” brings to the table. It’s all about money and power; the desire to forcibly control others.

      Then we have the rank-and-file useful idiots for whom these lies are a religion. They even use language like “deniers” for their opponents, in a transparent attempt to equate them with holocaust deniers. The fact is that it is the climate change sycophants who are the deniers, blind to the reality that they are being used and played by those who stand to gain from imposing this errant nonsense on the rest of us.

      Donald Trump certainly has his faults but we are very fortunate indeed to have elected a president who is an unbeliever and rejects this junk science.

    • Who relays on science? If you relied on science, you would know what total scam and hoax the nonsense being peddled by the MSM is.

    • Gil,

      What exactly do you think “deniers” deny? I’ve asked this of you before and you have failed to respond. In an honest world, it would be understood that anyone using the term denier is not acting as a scientist, but rather as a fanatic. Labeling people such people as Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, John Chritie, etc… as deniers is ethically abhorrent and scientifically fraudulent. That term is intended to invoke “holocaust denial”, it is intended to vilify the skeptic and prevent honest, rational discussion.

      Do they deny that the average global temperature has increased?
      Do they deny that atmospheric CO2 has increased?
      Do they deny that human action is the primary driver of the recognized increase in CO2?
      Do they deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, an increase of which should lead to a temperature rise?
      Do they deny that, ignoring feedback mechanisms, the temperature rise should be about 1 degree celsius per doubling of CO2?

      No “denier” denies any of this. Those you castigate as deniers question the belief, with good reason, that global warming will be severe and catastrophic.

      The scientific debate, that you claim does not exist, is primarily about climate sensitivity. No one is alarmed at the possibility of a 1 degree rise in temperature. The alarm stems from the potential consequences of climate sensitivity. Alarmists believe that feedback mechanisms are net positive and will increase the warming by a factor of 2.5 – 5.0. Skeptics believe that the feedback mechanisms are net negative or neutral. This debate over climate sensitivity is very real and very important. Denying that it exists is dishonest and dangerous.

      It is your side that is anti-science.

      Jeremy

    • oh YOU again.
      One of Eric’s main points is that the media do NOT write about science, as it is. No, they use a fw “scientific ” terms, put them out of context, obfuscate, and turn what may have some semblance of truth into blatant lies, and slip them past the deliberately uneducated/dumbed down population.

      When I was in high school and college we had SCIENCE… as in, looking at our surrounds and understanding how certain hemical/physical.electrical relationships work. Things like carbon dioxide is essential for lant growth, it is colourless, it does not reflect heat, that it follows certain patterns of distribution and combination, and that the oceans regulate the concentration in the atmosphere, such that when there is MORE CO2 in the air, plant growth is more fecund…..

      Consider this idea: if CO2 was REALLY a pollutant, do you really think the EPA and other gummit frauds would have waited this long to ban carbonated beverages, beer, the uce of “dry ice”. or the use of CO2 as a preservative in food packaging? Or, how about the consumption of coffee…. after those beans are roasted, they produce carbon dioxide in rather large volumes for four or five days, and if brewed when still fresh, the brew blows HUGE amounts of CO2 into some really fun bubbles….so surely, if the CO2 was REALLY an issue, those things would all be banned…… else the EPA would be revealed as the fraud it really is.

      Get back down into Mama’s basement and curl yourself back up under that rock in the corner.

  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

    Nothing ever changes… Except since 2012, the State Department has been releasing propaganda in the US media too:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2013#Smith-Mundt_Modernization_Act_of_2012

    It’s pretty well known that the CIA has “assets” in all the mainstream media outlets. It’s quite simple for them to get their story out. In Soviet Russia everyone knew to bring an umbrella if Pravda’s forecast was calling for sunny skies. After decades of nonstop marketing telling us our media was unbiased the good people of the US decided it was time to take a look around them and see if reality matched up with what the TV news was telling us. And they saw that Hillary wasn’t on their side, Syria isn’t our problem, and cross dressers are just weirdos in a dress who want attention.

    I take part in a monthly opinion survey. It’s always amazing to me how much the questions are completely slanted and only allow for a narrow opinion to be expressed. Beyond the usual “Coke -vs- Pepsi and not even RC Cola” political questions, there are usually a lot of questions about scientific research and global warming. Of course they’re all multi-guess. This last one focused a lot on alternative vs mainstream media. The end of the survey had a comment section, which I used to point out that there’s plenty of evidence (above link) that the CIA really is involved in shaping the news. It’s not a conspiracy theory when it is happening in broad daylight.

  10. When I read stuff like this, I assume the author has bought into the “Government is suppressing the 100mpg carburetor” theory. They automatically assume that any rule or law that Congress passes is automatically implementable. “Well, they wouldn’t have passed the law unless the auto makers could make a car that can get 100 mpg. GM just doesn’t want to do it.”

    The reporter has no engineering background. And it’s likely that they don’t know anyone with an engineering background either. And if they did, they’d just hand-wave what the engineer is saying as uninterpretable tech stuff.

    And so they can’t understand that there are some things that the human race just can’t do. Like have combustion of a carbon containing molecule without it producing CO2.

    • The really crazy (stupid?) thing is that if we did do away with combustion engines, and other ‘anthropogenic’ sources of CO2, and were able to significantly reduce the atmospheric levels of CO2, then the plant life would decrease, and the oxygen levels would decrease, and then human life would decrease. But that’s what the hard-core Gaia lovers want. Except they would not be able to pick and choose, so the animal life would recede along with the humans. It could very well result in a ‘death spiral’ which would bring and end to ‘Mother Earth’ herself.

    • People are brought up to believe various myths. The myth of technological achievement through government edict I think begins with JFK and the man on the moon. It worked once so it must always work. Then there are a few pollution, business, and market myths that add on to it. In the end it comes down to the myths created by the establishment and the media that serve them.

      It doesn’t take an engineering degree to get the basics. Just a decent logical mind with some mechanical aptitude. The basics of combustion and emission controls are something any decent mechanic should know. When I was about 14 I read “Automotive Engines” by William Crouse. The book is about as old as I am. I found it on my dad’s bookshelf and I’ve had it since. It was written as a text book for students to be auto mechanics. It teaches from the chemistry and physics up. It’s not difficult stuff to grasp on the level an automotive journalist needs. They just don’t bother learning it.

      • HI Brent:

        “The myth of technological achievement through government edict I think begins with JFK and the man on the moon.”

        You’re right.

        I’d argue that maybe that didn’t even “work.”

        People only see the “seen” and ignore the “unseen.” In this case – they see cool rockets and moon walks.

        What they don’t see is everything that never came into existence with the untold billions of dollars in wealth (probably trillions adjusted for inflation) that were spent on the whole space program.

        Perhaps we might even have something remarkable like teletransporation, or affordable LASER guns, or something else really cool, had the market been able to allocate these resources to their highest use instead of forcing them to be extracted from taxpayers at gunpoint – then spent on a space program running on a “cost plus” business model. The cost plus model is never an efficient way to allocate resources since there is no reward for cost savings. Not only that, but this model actually encourages higher cost since profit is a percentage of cost.

        But we’ll never know what could have been…

  11. Probably should be di-hydrogen MONoxide. Technically oxide is one or more oxygen atoms but usual interpetation defaults to 2 or more since that’s what is required to form oxides of metals.

  12. Considering gunvermin spending, or even gunvermin mandated spending, as ‘demand’ makes as much sense as counting all gunvermin spending as part of Gross Domestic ‘Product’. They don’t ‘produce’ anything, at least not anything ‘demanded’ by the public.

  13. – ABC News President Ben Sherwood, who is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national-security adviser to President Obama.

    – At CBS, news division president David Rhodes, is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign-policy specialist.

    – CNN’s deputy Washington bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Tom Nides, who until earlier this year was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    – White House press secretary Jay Carney’s wife is Claire Shipman, a veteran reporter for ABC.

    – NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to a lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, who joined the White House counsel’s office in April.

    – The Post‘s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William B. Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services.

    – [VP] Biden’s current communications director, Shailagh Murray (a former Post congressional reporter), is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal‘s top political reporters.

    Remember this when you read a negative report about Trump and hear very little to nothing about the illegal and corrupt actions of Clinton…..

  14. Media lies and fabrications have been going on ever since there were “journalists” (I use that term loosely). The difference today, is that “professional journalism” is now blatantly showing its liberal communistic bias.
    From “Remember the Maine” in the Spanish-American war (actually a powder magazine explosion–not an attack) to walter duranty’s extolling the “virtues” of communism while one of the greatest artificially-engineered (by communists)famines in the Ukraine was taking place, in order to force the “collectivization” of privately-held farms, to walter cronkite outright lying about the American military’s effectiveness during the 1968 Vietnam “Tet offensive” (in which much enemy life was lost) journalism has always been a “nasty craft”. In cronkite’s case, the North Vietnamese were ready to settle (and capitulate) until cronkite’s lies about the supposed American “defeat” were publicized. Cronkite’s lies gave the North Vietnamese new resolve, as they realized that they had the American “news media” on their side. There has always been a certain sympathy for communism and totalitarianism in the so-called “mainstream media”. All one has to do is to look at the journalists fawning over Cuba’s Fidel Castro and how wonderful life is in that communist “paradise”.
    Journalists HATE the internet because it exposes their “profession” for what it really is…with the internet, anyone can be a true journalist. This is why the same “mainstream media” is calling for the “licensing” of journalists–something that would have been unheard of (and treasonous) in previous decades…
    Professional journalism is its own worst enemy…

      • The media pushes the agenda of its owners and shows the conditioning of the writers who made it through school.

        The ability to be a radical has largely been extinguished and most of those that the conditioning didn’t work on are too dominated by debt to get out of line.

        • when some 95% of all media in the US are owned by one of the same six owners is there any surprise when they all say the same things at the same time?

    • anarchyst, thanks for that list. Judging from what total strangers say to me(something about me just draws them in for reasons i don’t understand), I’d say at least older people and millenials have seen through the facade. Just last week a fellow around my age was approaching the same corner began speaking to me and hadn’t even looked at me at that point. We had a heated discussion, spoke of the same points(it was the destruction of cash that first started him), he even mentioned the meeting at Jekyl Island in 1910 and we finally parted after ranting to one another. I had a similar conversation started by a women checker at another Wally one day.

      All these lies and prevarication assimilated by the MSM don’t go unnoticed or unchallenged by folks my age. That’s one reason the pols love all the idiot immigrants and are willing to take every dime us working folks have to provide a base of no-nothing, glad to be here on the dole voting blocs. And Trump is being attacked from every base that draws it’s money supporting immigration and blatant ignorance.

LEAVE A REPLY