Guy Chamberlin

The establishment Dems asked both Pete and Amy Klobuchar to drop out prior to Super Tuesday so the party could coalesce around Joe Biden and defeat frontrunner Bernie Sanders. They didn't learn on Elizabeth Warren figuring she would take votes from Sanders. Biden only became viable after he won the South Carolina primary. I think if Buttegieg had broken out of that pack, the Dems might have run with him. But Pete wasn't running circles around anyone, otherwise he would have polled better. He did surprisingly well given his liabilities -- probably less around being gay than his resume as a small city mayor. The establishment Ds most definitely wanted to squash Bernie Sanders. The source of my RFK Jr. observation? Well just click on the Tweets and memes and links of the folks advocating for his candidacy, and within seconds you'll find their true leanings. It shouldn't be surprising that Republicans want Democrats to vote for RFK Jr.

Not sure you have the irony in the right place. If the issue is trans representation, and one of the most prominent trans spokespeople reverses their position to pump a debunked partisan meme, it's entirely reasonable to ask Jenner why she's carrying water for a party that would prefer she remain invisible. Just want to be clear who you think was spewing the vitriol in this hilarious situation.

And among an Easter Morning vomit of 41 unhinged Truth Social posts, billionaire con man and Roman Emperor admirer Donald Trump compared his plight to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

As the first openly gay candidate polling legitimate numbers, Pete Buttegieg had to pay for his own, and he had Buttegieg money, not Perot or Kennedy money. It's funny how RFK Jrs most ardent supporters are people who have no intention of voting for RFK Jr.

I'm guessing the investigation into this will be exactly like every other investigation into hate crimes.

or D. Spending all day posting s#!t about people who believe in things while standing up for nothing yourself.

We already have 365 of them.

Technically, her job was in the journalism business, and if the top line in your resume is the job you did willfully spreading partisan disinformation do the detriment of the nation, it should be a disqualifier. Is Ronna any worse than Rachel Maddow's obsession with Russia? All things considered: yes. She's 42% worse.

For most of my life I never understood why Easter floated around so much. Not only different weeks, but sometimes different months. Then I found out from one of my kid's picture books. Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. Turns out it has much more to do with existing pagan rituals than it does Christianity. In other news, we just hid Easter eggs for our 20 year old son home for Spring Break. They are plastic and filled with money. Felt good. I like Easter.

I thought this only happened in California because we were soft on crime. Fun fact: I had to buy a diuretic at Walgreens for my colonoscopy (anyone else here over 50?) and discovered that unlike all sorts of over-the-counter medications, the diuretics were kept locked up. Why? I asked. High school girls who wanted to lose weight shoplifted them out of shame.

Maybe kinda sorta possibly I can see how being a celebrity could complicate what should be simple home visits to recruits, but I don't get how it offends the nearby recruit you've chosen not to visit because you're not recruiting him. That's just how recruiting works. Does any college coach waste time visiting a recruit he has no intention of recruiting because he doesn't want to hurt the feelings of the player's high school coach? Regardless of his white hot fame and the jealousy that comes with it? Bill Walsh was one of the most famous names and faces in NFL football when a he returned to college coaching at Stanford, and he had no issue flying to Wood River, Nebraska to visit Scott Frost and family. According to Sanders' logic, Walsh should have sent a lackey, because coaches from Grand Island to Ainsworth would have been pestering Bill to come see their kid and have a photo op.

I may not be the first to say this, but my bet is that Zach Edey's game doesn't translate very well to the NBA.

The White House and Zero Carbon sources are aiming way high with their projections, so I have no doubt the realistic percentage is much lower. But I'd bet either the WSJ or the Twitter reposter left out some key context to get it that low. Good chance the Twitter reposter has a doozy of a posting history. At the same time, the Biden administration has overseen some historically robust U.S. petroleum production, which both Democrats and Republicans are keen to ignore for different reasons. Most of the goal-based initiatives are aiming for 2050, and one of the problems with that goal is that there will easily be another billion people on Earth, including those in rapidly developing economies that would have to buy into everything. So I've seen projections that the current pace of EV conversion might only result in a one or two percent carbon reduction by 2050. That's why the initiatives and mandates are getting more aggressive. The people who crunch the numbers contend cost is not an issue in converting to alternative energy sources, consumers could save $1,000 a year, billions of dollars in health related costs could be eliminated, and a green energy industry could be a boon to the U.S. economy. The issue is political will, including state and federal cooperation. The chances of things not working exactly as promised are 100%, but that was the case with everything we now deem a success. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220602095102.htm China and Russia have taken the lead on nuclear power plant production, which could bode well. Or not, if they are substituting speed for safety. I have a couple conservative friends who repost rightwing memes on Facebook, and a couple weeks ago the memes went all in on bashing EVs, which they've tied to liberalism in general. Pretty sure that's an orchestrated effort. It would be fun to see where the Venn diagram intersects on EV bashing and Elon Musk supporting.

Nuclear power is an interesting example. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island definitely had folks pumping the brakes and environmentalists up in arms, but the U.S. continued to be the world leader in nuclear power generation. When the issue became framed as nuclear vs coal and supported by solid evidence, public sentiment shifted --- including the same environmentalists. The Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act created 30% tax breaks for building new nuke plants, and they finally opened a new one in Georgia. This should mean a green light from all quarters for building more, but the Georgia plant came in way late and way over budget, so they're going to have to get that figured out, along with the waste issues that have always been a problem. The industry wants to move towards some smaller capacity but faster and cheaper nuke plants. So yeah, nuclear fits into the low-carbon, energy efficient picture, along with solar and wind and EVs. They all bring fresh and counter-productive problems to the table. Some people forget that, but a lot of people don't. The environmentalists and scientists concerned about global warming are often the same people publicizing the fact that EV batteries introduce profound problems with mining and disposal. That doesn't mean mocking or dismissing EVs, it's just another problem that needs to be solved. The rap sheet on internal combustion engines remains pretty long, too. I've worked for a couple entities in the EV world over the last 30 years, and nobody takes government mandates as law because they aren't. Gov. Schwarzenneger enlisted mandates for automakers to reduce emissions by 25% by 2009, and of course nothing came close to that. There's political value to declaring mandates and it does spur some innovation and cooperation, but corporations generally don't do things if they can't find a way to make money on it.

Back in the 1960s, the Left protested Lyndon Johnson because he was the President presiding over the Vietnam War. They didn't protect him because he was a Democrat, or give him a pass for his Civil Rights work. They were protesting the immorality of the war. In hindsight, everyone wanted to believe they were against the Vietnam War. The Left wasn't loony. They were just ahead of the curve. As they were with Civil Rights. And other stuff. But when the action spills into the street, it makes people nervous enough to vote for Richard Nixon. And that's where we are now. Except Nixon would be considered far too liberal for today's Republican Party.

Doesn't the vast majority of discussion take place in the center of this diagram? Perhaps it's a subset of We Should Take Care of Our Environment, but one might think this diagram deserves a circle Ignoring Climate Change is Dangerous (and Not Hysterical), as that's where a lot of the scientists reside. But given the parameters of We Should Take Care of Our Environment, what does a good Libertarian suggest? The words Our Environment are tricky for individualists.

I know you're joking, but a lot of your posts genuinely read like this. You accuse people with reasonable concerns of having comic over-reactions, based on something that happened to a guy you knew, once.

BTW = By The Way. Can't believe you Teach our precious children.

How do you know the Earth's climate has changed over billions of years? How do you know that the Earth didn't used to have glaciers? I mean, I knew that, too. I was a geology minor at UNL. Always found it fascinating. The Earth has been through its share of extremes long before humans came along, much less AOC. The reason we know all this about the Earth is because scientists dedicated their lives to studying it. And it's those same scientists who know perfectly well about the Earth's violent past who are tracking the 100%* undeniable fact of global warming, glacial melt, climate change and severe weather increase. These f#&%ers are so smart they took that cold week in Omaha into account. When asked for a reason for this rapid of a change in this particular Earth window, some theorize that the trillions of tons of carbon thrown into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution could easily have that effect. Some point out that volcanoes do the same thing. But the smart ones point out that human industrialization can affect the Earth's climate just like historic eruptions do. One hardly excuses the other. It was the tree huggers at the Pentagon who identified climate change as the worst threat to global stability. Maybe you could take it up with them. In the meantime, under the cloak of socialism, the push to more efficient energy usage turns out to have a strong business innovation, jobs creation, and American intellectual property component. I guess horse manufacturers were threatened by the arrival of the automobile back in the day, but we survived, and somehow managed to live with a lot less horses#!t. * Mathematical probability, not racist.

Fine. I'll never use it again.

That's a willfull misreading of what I actually said. A handy technique for pretending things are not racist, btw.

You know what happened with the okay hand symbol? People still use it. It typically requires context. As mentioned: Damian Lillard hits a three pointer, no problem. Cop holds it up at a George Floyd rally, worth looking into. Don't recall the "okay" issue coming up the last couple years. Don't expect the 100% controversy to disrupt the math community. Totally expect the worst douchebags on the internet to stir up outrage wherever they find it. Can't let it dilute legitimate outrage. Because when Nick Fuentes is a dinner guest of the once and future President of the United States, you can't make fun of dog whistles anymore.

But what if that agenda is to expose the racism that some people pretend is fake?

That certainly ignores everything I just went to the trouble of posting.

Well in the example provided, the people who monitor right wing and extremist messaging are alerting us that the racist community is using 100% as one of its codes for white supremacism. It shouldn't mean that everyone using the 100% symbol is racist, but it's a fact that it's been co-opted by organized racists and prison gangs. They also alerted us that the "okay" finger symbol had been co-opted by white supremacists -- as was Pepe the Frog -- which didn't mean that Damian Lillard was a racist for celebrating a three pointer, but some police officers on a social media post most definitely were. I mean, I never knew that 6MWE was code for "6 Million (Jews) Weren't Enough" until insurrectionists put it on t-shirts, just one reason why January 6 was such a teachable moment. If you take a gander at the rest of Not The Bee's content, he loves context-free over-reactions. He seems almost giddy that the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed in crime-ravaged Baltimore due to a boat from an immigrant country and that the ramifications will hurt the economy under Joe Biden's watch.