The politicization of science has a staggeringly high body count

As I’ve watched the media coverage of the Coronavirus pandemic unfold over the past several months I am continually amazed at how all aspects of the science associated with this crisis has been politicized.

Right from the beginning, when the computer models predicted a death total in the millions, the politicization was evident.  Those scientists that were predicting a far lower death count did not get anywhere near the same news converge, especially on the mainstream news stations. Could it be that the liberal journalists and politicians thought if they could generate enough hysteria governors would have no option other than shutting down states, collapsing the economy in the process just so they could influence the 2020 election?  How many businesses were destroyed because of the lockdowns?  How many deaths will result from suicides and delayed diagnosis thanks to the lockdowns? How many will have died needlessly because of the media attacks on the drug hydroxychloroquine? That was done solely because President Trump praised the drug.  Requiring masks is another example of the politicization of science.

The politicization of science is not new.  In the 1960s it led to the banning of the pesticide DDT.  This article sheds a lot of light on that deadly fiasco: Millions Died Thanks to the Mother of Environmentalism

Since the mid-1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.

The science behind the banning of DDT did not hold up at all.

Environmentalists have argued that when it came to DDT, it was pick your poison. If DDT was banned, more people would die from malaria. But if DDT wasn’t banned, people would suffer and die from a variety of other diseases, not the least of which was cancer. However, studies in Europe, Canada, and the United States have since shown that DDT didn’t cause the human diseases Carson had claimed.

The politicization of science reached an absurd level with all of this global warming, climate change, global climate disruption nonsense.  It is difficult to measure a body count associated with that scientific malpractice but it is there because of impacts on developing nations being denied the use of cheap fossil fuel energy sources.

No politicization of science is more deadly that the politicization associated with abortion.  Only absolute scientific fraud can deny the unmistakable scientific evidence that an unborn child is actually a live human being.  The website Wordmeter documents just how many abortions happen worldwide:

According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately125,000 abortions per day.

One Point that Ed AND Stacy Missed in this Piece on Racism in the Climate Change Movement

A few days Ago Stacy McCain noted that the real news in this piece linked by Ed Driscoll was the Communist insurgency and death squads in the Philippines where things were so bad the people voted for someone who would wipe them out using extralegal methods.

Now all of this is important but I want to note one other point that is being missed here:

As Sherwood-O’Regan said, “As we grow and climate change becomes a harsher reality, privileged activists need to learn to de-centre themselves and meaningfully support Indigenous, disabled, queer, global south, POC, and other marginalized people who are on the frontlines 

That these activists are a bunch of privileged bigots is not a big surprise because you’re basically dealing with a movement that came from the Green parties (high funded by the Soviets during the cold war) who were supported by a lot of bureaucrats hoping to cash but let me ask one question that seems to be missing here.

If this person actually believes that “Climate Change” is a danger to the planet and that millions will die from it, why would you be more worried about the ethnic makeup of the leadership since if they fail, it won’t matter since everybody would die anyway?

Now if you think these European voices are ineffective that’s fine, if you think they are not making headway that’s fine too, but if, as you say, we have to act NOW then the top concern has to be effectiveness not diversity.

Either you out to save the world or you’re not.

Now as I see this for the grift that it is, I don’t particularly care one way or the other about the feelings involved here, but I think it’s interesting to see where the priorities of all these folks are.

The Massachusetts Senate Wants to Turn this State into California

The Massachusetts Senate announced on January 23rd that they very much want to turn ths state into California.  The announced this by declaring that they want to enact a California style Climate Cap and Trade package.  Nothing would speed this sate into turning into a hell hole like California faster than a Cap and Trade System.

I first heard about this disastrous effort when I say this article online: Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance article California Style Regulations in Massachusetts!

On January 23rd 2020, the Massachusetts Senate came out with a Climate Change package that would drastically increase regulations on how you live your daily life. The senate is seeking to tax you on necessities such as driving your car and heating your home, and simply raise prices on EVERYTHING! This package includes three separate bills and is going to be taken up by the Senate on THURSDAY:

I don’t think the people of Massachusetts are expecting to see a drastic price increase in all aspects of their lives, which is what will happen if the climate change legislation is enacted.  The politicians always seem to gloss over the price increase aspect when claiming that they are saving the planet.

Here are the details if the plan:

(S 2477) is a straight Carbon Tax that will increase the cost of living exponentially. It establishes net-neutral greenhouse gas emissions standards by 2050. It accomplishes this by adopting sector-based statewide greenhouse gas emissions sub-limits including, but not limited to, electric power, transportation, commercial and industrial heating and cooling, residential heating and cooling, industrial processes, solid waste, agriculture and natural gas distribution and service. This simply means you will pay more for electricity, gas, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, trash disposal, food, and any other goods and services that uses any of these things to be made for you or to get to you.

It sounds ridiculously expensive doesn’t it?  How will senior citizens and low income individuals afford necessities?  How will businesses survive?

There is more to the proposed legislation.

(S 2478) Substantially expands the Massachusetts Appliance Efficiency Standards Act to include higher standards for a wider variety of consumer and commercial products. What will it do?
-It requires cooking appliances, air ventilation systems, and lamps to meet federal Energy Star guidelines
-It adopts California energy regulations for computers and computer monitors
-It establishes specific flow volumes required for plumbing fixtures, including shower heads, faucets, toilets, and urinals
-It sets an effective date of January 1, 2022, after which products covered in this act must meet their new regulations in order to be sold or installed in Massachusetts
-Maintains existing federal water and energy efficiency requirements in Massachusetts in the event they are withdrawn or repealed. 

Are you ready for air conditioners that don’t actually cool rooms or dishwashers that need to run twice as long.  All appliances will function poorer and be way more expensive.  That is what happens when energy standards are applied by government. 

I also found this article Carbon pricing is a cornerstone of Senate climate package from the Hannover Manner Local News.

The Massachusetts Senate plans to take up a far-reaching package of climate bills whose major components include an electric MBTA bus fleet by 2040, carbon-pricing mechanisms for transportation, homes and commercial buildings, and a series of five-year greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements that ramp up to net-zero emissions in 2050.

The three bills, teed up for debate on Jan. 30, with amendments due by Monday, amount to what Senate President Karen Spilka called a “comprehensive plan for the state” to respond to an international issue – global climate change.

“This is a race against time,” Spilka told reporters. “Climate change is changing not only Massachusetts and the United States, it is changing the face of our planet, and our planet’s survival is at stake.”

As you can see, saving the planet from the mythical climate change monster is the justification for this disaster.

The good news so far is the House of Representatives is not ready to enact this legislation yet.

“For several years the bill struggled,” Barrett said. “We did not find traction in the House in particular. I want to be respectful of the legislative branches and respectful of the governor. It seemed to me after two or three years that we weren’t moving quickly enough. I decided I wanted to put a price on carbon by any path we could lay our hands on, so I backed away from my preferred method.”

The Bad news is that our Governor embraces the idea.

This year’s bill allows the governor to choose among a revenue-neutral fee, a revenue-positive tax, or a cap and trade system like the Transportation Climate Initiative Gov. Charlie Baker is pursuing with other states. It would require a carbon-pricing mechanism to be in effect for the transportation sector by Jan. 1, 2022, for commercial, industrial and institutional buildings by Jan. 1, 2025, and residential buildings by Jan. 1, 2030.

Our State elected officials are trying to hammer this mess into actual legislation that will pass both houses and be signed by the Governor Baker.

Backing from the governor and the leaders of the two legislative houses creates likelihood that some version of a net-zero emissions policy becomes law this session. Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides said she plans to issue a letter of determination in the coming weeks to establish a policy of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

We must call our elected officials and tell them no.  We must also work hard to get more true republicans elected into State Office to keep Massachusetts from being turned into California.

Climate Change is not responsible for the Australian bushfire crisis

Almost immediately after the apocalyptic nature of the Australian bushfires became apparent claims that the infernos are either caused by, or made worse, by climate change began to fill news reports and the internet.   A large majority of the Australia bushfire stories falsely point fingers directly at climate change.  

Fortunately there are articles such as this Breitbart article Delingpole: Environmentalists Made Australia’s Bush Fires Worse which actually uses science, historic data, and real facts to determine the true cause of this catastrophe.  I highly recommend reading the original article, it is full of supporting scientific data and charts.  With this quote you can see that there was nothing extreme about the lack precipitation the area has been experiencing

As Paul Homewood pointed out last month, there has been no significant long-term decrease in rainfall or increase in temperatures in the affected regions.

Yes, it has been dry in New South Wales (where most of the worst fires are), but there have been several years, especially pre-1960, when it was drier

The same holds true for the temperature, which rules out climate change.

The same applies to temperature. Yes, this has been a hot spring in New South Wales. But there have been times when it has been much hotter — making a nonsense of all stories in the Australian media about temperatures being the hottest evah

This next quote points the blame directly where it belongs.

So, to be clear, there is zero evidence of any change in climatic conditions that might have increased the likelihood or severity of these bush fires. This is not — repeat NOT — a man-made climate change story, and anyone who claims otherwise is either a gullible idiot or a lying charlatan.

There is, nonetheless, good reason to believe that the stupidity and irresponsibility of man is at least partly to blame for this disaster — just not quite in the way that the left-liberal MSM and the green wankerati would have you believe.

Arson is the number one cause of the catastrophe.

Man-made culprit #1: all the firebugs who have been deliberately starting fires in New South Wales, Queensland, and elsewhere. You won’t be surprised that their involvement has had very little coverage in the left-liberal MSM.

Bad forest management caused by environmentalists is the number two cause.

Man-made culprit #2: well-meaning idiots who don’t understand that unless you manage forested areas with controlled burns, you’re going to end up with out-of-control wildfires.

Jo Nova has a damning story about locals in East Gippsland in the state of Victoria who successfully stopped a planned controlled burn at Nowa Nowa. Two of them were pictured holding signs saying, “Spring burns kill baby birds alive” and “Stop burning nesting birds”.

A you can see from the next three quotes, bad laws passed to solve the mythical boogie man climate change are also to blame.

Man-made culprit #3: Greens  The people most to blame for the Australian bush fires are the greens. Just like in California, their tree-hugging Gaia worship blinded them to the reality that forests need regular clearance and maintenance if they are not to become a major fire hazard.

in large parts of Australia, it remains illegal to remove trees from your land even in order to create fire breaks and protect your property — despite the obvious risk this ban creates to homeowners living in potential bush-fire zones. Trees have been designated a ‘carbon sink’, which supposedly offset Australia’s CO2 emissions.

Liam Sheahan is an Australian fireman who in 2002 was fined $50,000 – and paid another $50,000 in costs – for illegally clearing the trees round his home in rural Victoria. In 2009 he was vindicated when his property was only one left standing after bushfires destroyed his town.

This Breitbart article Police in Australia Begin Massive Criminal Investigation into Bushfire Arson documents just how large a role arson has played in causing the catastrophe

The Conversation reports experts estimate about 85 percent of bushfires are caused by humans. A person may accidentally or carelessly start a fire, such as leaving a campfire unattended or using machinery which creates sparks.

Research has shown about 8 percent of officially recorded vegetation fires were attributed to malicious lighting, and another 22 percent as suspicious. However, about 40 percent of officially recorded vegetation fires did not have an assigned cause.

When unassigned bushfires were investigated by fire investigators, the majority were found to be maliciously lit

Climate change alarmism is causing a lot of harm to children

Children today are being bombarded with a consent stream of dire warnings about climate change. The constant stream is causing children a great deal of anxiety, as documented by this Climate Change Dispatch article titled Only A Monster Would Afflict Children With ‘Eco-Anxiety’.

What kind of monster afflicts children with eco-anxiety by telling them they will be dead in 12 years? I’ll tell you who: the child abusers in the establishment media, the environmental movement, and the Democrat Party — that’s who.

What’s especially disturbing is that children are being taught the opposite of empathy. Empathy is the most important value an adult can impart to a child. But what these kids are being encouraged to become is nothing less than wild-eyed, religious fanatics where non-believers are fingered as the enemy, as heretics looking to destroy the world and kill everyone. And this is always the result of such things, of the moral certainty of a zealot mixed with intolerance.

This anxiety has become  so widespread it has even been noticed by the American Psychological Association, according to this Ecowatch.com article Climate Change Is Causing Us ‘Eco-Anxiety’

A growing number of people report feelings of loss, grief, worry and despair amid news that climate change is making natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires worse and more common, that polar ice is melting faster than we thought and that we only have 12 years to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

The American Psychological Association has come up with a term for these “resounding chronic psychological consequences” related to how we process the climate crisis: eco-anxiety.

Eco-Anxiety, which the APA describes as a “chronic fear of environmental doom,” isn’t listed anywhere in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the handbook for diagnosing mental illnesses

What makes the anxiety caused by fear over climate change even more despicable is the fact it is all based on a lie, a monstrous lie that has reached the level of indoctrination.  The American Thinker article Scaring the children on climate is cruel, cynical, and dangerous describes the far reaching nature of this indoctrination.

It is dangerous when teenagers who have been indoctrinated their entire lives are treated as if they have knowledge on climate change and fossil fuels.  They are just repeating talking points when trotted out on media outlets and before Congress as if they were experts.  They have been discouraged from doing research and critically thinking because they have been told the science is settled.  They know that anyone who says the climate is changing and has always changed naturally is de a climate change denier; to get good grades, they need to repeat what they are told.

It is more dangerous when almost all journalists and other Democrats repeat the same talking points instead of doing research and asking questions.  Instead of pointing out to the teenagers that temperatures, sea levels, storm activity, droughts and floods have always fluctuated naturally, and previous dire predictions have been 100% wrong, they just go along.

This New York Post article The climate strike is all about indoctrination, not science has much more to about the indoctrination.

Unfortunately for students, the movement is not about education but indoctrination. One of the final demands, “comprehensive climate change education,” is to be aimed at children ages 5 through 14 because “impressionability is high during that developmental stage.”

If the climate threat eventually leads to radical national action, it will only be because the concept is drilled into youngsters “from the beginning.” Of course, it’s unclear why such a long-term strategy is necessary, given that we have only “11 years” left to avert disaster.

Judging from the bizarre, extremist, sloppily composed manifesto, the students who have the city Education Department’s blessing to attend this event clearly won’t be learning much of anything truly “science-based.” The rest of us, however, are learning quite a lot about the climate change movement, and it’s not pretty.

The Breitbart article Watch: Climate Strike Activist Says Climate Change Activism and Socialism Are ‘Inseparable’ explains just why this hoax was originally perpetuated and why it is still being crammed down the throats of children in the United States and across the world.

The fight against climate change is intricately connected to the push for socialism, according to a climate change alarmist who flocked to the nation’s capital to participate in the global climate strike on Friday.

Thousands of activists participated in the Greta Thunberg-inspired global climate strike in Washington, DC — and around the world — on Friday. Participants in D.C. were heard shouting, “Hey hey, ho ho, climate change has got to go,” and, “Don’t eat cows; eat the rich.”

One activist told Breitbart News that he was there to not only fight against climate change but to actively “fight for socialism,” calling the two “inseparable.”

Reminder that Climate Change Activists are Full of It

by baldilocks

School children went on strike in the name of climate change last week. I don’t even feel like checking to see which day it was because I know that the activists who put these kids up to skipping class don’t really care about the climate. If they did, the United States would be far down on the list for castigation.

But the activists are all over Americans and Europeans about climate change and pollution for simple reasons: they know that the West is capable of being shamed about it and that Westerners have money. Activists pretty much ignore the real problem nations, places like India

Twenty-two of the world’s 30 worst cities for air pollution are in India, according to a new report, with Delhi again ranked the world’s most polluted capital.

The Greenpeace and AirVisual analysis of air pollution readings from 3,000 cities around the world found that 64% exceed the World Health Organization’s annual exposure guideline for PM2.5 fine particulate matter – tiny airborne particles, about a 40th of the width of a human hair, that are linked to a wide range of health problems.

Every single measured city in the Middle East and Africa exceeds the WHO guidelines, as well as 99% of cities in south Asia and 89% in east Asia.

… and China.

According to search results, China and Pakistan compete for the most polluted countries in the world. Most of the other top polluters are in South Asia and Africa, as mentioned in the Guardian link.

Some of these lists of Top Ten Most Sh*tholiest Countries slide the United States and other First World countries into the mix, but I wonder, in spite of what we’ve seen lately in Baltimore and in Los Angeles.

Look at this video. It’s said to be from the Dominican Republic.

Look. I understand why none of the activists want to go bother the children of Middle Eastern Muslims, Africans, or the Chinese. I mean who wants to die or get arrested in, say, Nigeria?

But let’s stop pretending that America is the Devil in the religion of climate change.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Michael Mann Hide the decline, at ALL costs!

Jedediah Tucker Ward: It’s not hypothetical to Dr. Pavel, he wrote it

Michael Grazier: So he says.

Jedediah Tucker Ward: So he says under oath

Class Action 1991

PM James Hacker: (On Phone): No, no, leave me out of it. A routine visit. (Listening) All right – a routine surprise visit. (Listening) Well, say they were invited earlier, but the NATO exercise got in the way. Now they’re not needed, they’re going anyway. (Listening) All right. Nobody knows it’s not true. Press statements aren’t delivered under oath.

Yes Prime Minister A victory for Democracy 1986

There is an awful lot going on in the word today of note but I’d say the single most significant story I’d seen lately is this one:

Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case. [emphasis mine]

The significance of this can’t be overstated.

For decades now the media and the left have insisted very loudly that global warming/ climate change or whatever new name they’re giving it these days is going to doom us all and further requires massive tax increases, massive subsidies (coincidentally going to connected firms) and massive conferences (coincidentally always requiring plenty of air travel and taking place at very nice places full of very nice things for all the right people to enjoy) and that anybody who expressed any doubt to this narrative is a “climate denier” the equal to those who deny the slaughter of the jews by the Nazis.

Furthermore they have introduced a curricula to our public schools that has convinced kids that unless these things (which coincidentally enrich all the right people) they will not survive.

Yet when given the chance in a court of law to verify this data produced by one of the leaders of the climate change community, data that people leaned on for years for conclusions. Not only did this gentleman decline to produce the data proving the came to his conclusions honestly but he was willing to do so even if it meant losing his case and paying the costs of the person he sued, rather than let expose his data to the prying eyes of those who might examine it.

I ask any fair minded person is that the act of a scientist or of a fraudster?  If for example Donald Trump was suing a person for libel and refused to produce the recording of an exchange that could confirm said libel or prove it to be false, would you not assume that he was hiding something?

This is a story that should be shouted from the highest heights but will be downplayed by every media outlet in the world, at least until the president starts tweeting about it.

That will be fun.


If you think what we do worthwhile please consider subscribing to help keep our writers and the bills paid.

Choose a Subscription level

Of course one time Tip jar hits and always welcome too.

BTW wild and woolly things are going on with our database which is why the move is not yet complete hopefully they will be resolved by the end of this month.

Quick Thoughts Under the Fedora, Quarterbacks, Portland Antifa, Yes Minister, Stacy Women and Math is hard for Greta

If you are a Patriot’s fan you probably like what you see after two games in the new rookie quarterback Jarrett Stidham so far after two games. I predict that if he continues to do well we are going to hear the same nonsense about trading Tom Brady as we did in the past about Jimmy G. Let me remind everyone of two things:

  1. These games don’t count.
  2. The Patriots QB job is Brady’s as long as he wants and can do it.

Nothing else matters.


Every time I see Antifa beating up people in Portland and the police sitting back and letting them do it I’m reminded of three things.

  1. The people thereof voted for the government that is letting them do it.
  2. There are a lot of liberals nationwide, particularly in my opinion journalists who would like to beat their political opponents in the same way.
  3. I’m damn lucky I didn’t move to Portland when I had the chance 30 years ago.

As John Wayne’s Rooster Cogburn said in the original True Grit “You can’t serve papers on a rat,baby sister, you have to kill them or let them be. ”  It’s the same with Antifa, you have to go in with force to arrest them and defeat them or let them rule the streets.  Portland has chosen the latter.  Although in fairness it’s still my opinion that the left wants one or more of these Antifa guys to get shot and killed to try and Kent State Trump.


The most amazing thing about the television series Yes Minister / yes Prime Minister is how timeless they are. When you watch episodes of them you realize that the very same debates on the very same subjects with the very same dynamics are still going on both in England the United States. Most importantly the division in the show isn’t by party it’s the pols vs the bureaucrats which has always been the division in government.


I was Reading Stacy McCain’s latest who even when he’s listening to the radio on a drive with his wife can’t escape crazy feminists:

 She is a clichéd stereotype of the neurotic liberal woman: “In all honesty, I never even imagined myself becoming a mother. My teen years and early 20s were spent just trying to get my act together. I had an anxiety disorder, depression and was married and divorced from my first husband by the time I was 23 years old.” Her sex life? Also a cliché: “Before I met my husband, I dated a bunch of not-nice guys. I peppered in a few nice guys here and there, but I think I was so insecure and unhappy at that time that I either drove those good guys away or grew bored of their niceness.” 

While I’m always happy to hear about these people added to the list of who I refer to as “Stacy’s Women” as I have a standing prayer intention for them, I’ve noticed that invariably these people have mental illness, admit they have mental illness, yet the left is rushing to embrace the ideas of such people as a model for their lives.

It’s a good thing the left doesn’t hire mechanics to fix their brakes using this standard or there would be bodies all over the highway.


Finally this story demonstrates why it’s a bad idea to leave decisions on how to run your government or business to children:

Climate activist Greta Thunberg causes more greenhouse gas emissions from her sailing trip from the United Kingdom to the United States than if she had flown. About five employees would sail the yacht back to Europe, said Andreas Kling, spokesman for Thunberg skipper Boris Herrmann, on Thursday the taz.
“Of course, they fly over there, that’s no different,” says Kling. Herrmann will also take the plane for the return journey. The sailing trip triggers at least six climate-damaging air travel across the Atlantic. If Thunberg had flown with her father, only two would have been necessary to come to New York.

I know that math is hard but I would have thought young Miss Thunberg could figure out that 6  > 2 .  Moreover if she really cared about her “carbon footprint” why didn’t she just attend the conference via Skype without leaving her house.

Can you imagine what’s going to happen once she hits 21 and the novelty of being the child prophet of climate change is gone?  Let’s hope that in 12 years I’m not reading about her on Stacy’s blog talking about her problems adjusting.

Ever hear of Teleconferencing Greta? Bison attacks? Disney’s Fault! The Bell Rings too Late, Finding who really believes. Evan MacMullen and a Ride on a Bus Under the Fedora

The AP reports noted teenage climate activist is putting her time her month is and crossing the Atlantic in a “high tech sailboat” rather than flying to cut her carbon emissions.

Forgetting for a moment all the carbon that was produced in making the ships stores that she will spend days or weeks consuming on her trip, if she was really looking to cut the carbon for this conferencewhy not have the entire conference done by teleconference? That way nobody has to travel at all. Think of all the carbon that would save!

Alas Greta does not yet understand that such events, like climate change hysteria itself, exist for the perks not for the cause.


Another person has been injured by a charging Bison in a national park.

Officials at Theodore Roosevelt National Park say the 17-year-old girl from Colorado was on a trail Saturday and walked between two bull bison that had been fighting. One bison charged the teen who was struck in the back, gored in the thigh and tossed about six feet in the air

I blame Disney. Before they started portraying animals as cute harmless things people knew and understood that animals, particularly wild ones are dangerous but generation of Disney movies and the lack of real knowledge of animals in the wild means that fools are going to have to learn about reality the hard way.


Remember the lifestyle pushed by the show Sex in the City that convinced a generation of women that despite centuries of experience teaching otherwise women didn’t need families to be fulfilled. Well guess what the very wealthy 60 year old creator of the series says now:

Her best-selling book and the racy TV series it inspired taught a generation of women that they could ‘have it all’.
But Sex and the City creator Candace Bushnell, 60, has admitted that she regrets choosing a career over having children as she is now ‘truly alone’.

She’s very rich and can console herself with her millions and botox but alas a lot of women who fell for that spiel and aren’t as wealthy as here aren’t going to be able to do the same.


One of the things I’ve been saying for the last decade is that as Christianity becomes more persecuted and more ostracized by the culture we are going to find out who really believes and who doesn’t. A prominent protestant pastor has now fallen away very publicly and Stacy McCain has some thoughts:

What happened to Josh Harris? Honestly, I don’t know. He quit the pulpit in 2015, and by 2017 was promoting himself as a consultant offering businesses “branding and content strategy.” He announced his separation from his wife in sensitive blue-pill language (they “will continue our life together as friends . . . to create a generous and supportive future for each other and for our three amazing children”). We don’t know what we don’t know, but we may speculate that his wife — who had fallen in love with him when he was a evangelical superstar — lost interest in her husband once he ceased to be a celebrity. The Mahaney scandal must have inflicted collateral damage on Josh’s reputation and status as a leader, and what is the church to such a Christian celebrity except a source of status, an adoring audience for his performances? Necessarily, the celebrity pastor’s wife becomes part of the performance, playing the role of Perfect Christian Wife, and what happens when the show is over? What happens when the pastor leaves the pulpit and there is no longer an audience for this performance?

PJ media describes this as a celebrity culture in evangelicalismwhich makes Christ the means to the end of celebrity and that never ends well.

We should pray for this man because for the rest of his life the left/media culture will celebrate him, fete him and give him all the celebrity that he was no longer getting from faith. I’m sure that they will honor support and laud him for the rest of his natural life…

…after that however, he’s on his own.


Newsbusters wrote about Evan McMullin on MSNBC opining on the dangers of a Trump re-election with Joy Reid a few days ago and I could not help but remember being on a bus in Denver with a group of conservative bloggers covering a school choice conference were a very sincere fellow spent his time on our trip back to the hotel from a school we were visiting trying to convince me that Donald Trump would be a disaster for conservatism and urging me to throw my support to McMullin.

Recently I got another raise at work. My pay counting employee contributions to a medical savings account has gone up over 52% in the 32 months since the day of the election of Donald Trump after having dropped 55% over the Obama years. If my wage continues to rise at this rate during a 2nd Trump terms I will be back at the wage I was making when Obama was elected (not adjusted for inflation) just before the 2022 midterms.

I wonder where by pay rate would be if enough people had taken the advice of that earnest conservative on that bus?