Last year the United States duly elected Donald Trump as President. While many events happened last year, the results of the election were not legally contested. The results stand. Unfortunately, the press seems to think they are more "important' than any group of citizens. After all they have the 'correct' view of all the candidates and Donald Trump 'cannot' be President.
The idea that the Press and only the Press can select the President is the definition of a Pressocracy. The press wants us to believe they and they alone can determine the qualities and qualifications of the next President. This is not a democratic idea, but an elitist and classist view of the world. A democratic view is the people rule, even if they make a stupid choice.
I for one, do not wish to live in a Pressocracy and will do everything in my legal right to prevent such an event.
Monday, May 22, 2017
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Middelbury and the Trump Science Budget
"On March 2nd, Several hundred protesters at Middlebury College shouted down guest speaker Charles Murray, a social scientist who wrote a book discussing racial differences in intelligence. The college moved the March 2 talk to another location and live streamed it, but it was drowned out by protesters.
The college says a group of demonstrators angrily confronted Murray, a professor and a college administrator as they were leaving campus. It says someone pulled the professor's hair and she was treated for a neck injury and a concussion." (From an AP story WFSB website).
From CNN on March 16th:
"President Donald Trump's proposed budget, "America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again" (PDF), paints a dramatic picture for the American science and medical communities that is facing huge potential budget cuts."
These two events are related. The simple fact is many in academic profession have been on a mission to eliminate any conservative voices. And there is a consequence of that movement when conservatives win an election: there will be a cut in science spending.
If you want government spending on an issue over the decades, you have to be prepared to have a number of different Presidents and different political viewpoints in charge of the Budget. If you only cater and demand one political view, then when an opposition candidate wins, you will face budget cuts. When you demand extreme political vetting for any science candidate and any science being done, you will face the consequences when the opposite political party wins. And at some point over the decades they will win. Thus, the extreme politicization of American Science will cause large decreases in science budgets.
Some may not agree that conservatives are being targeted, but look at key conservate views on the issue:
Thomas Sowell writes the following:
"Many people seem shocked at the recent savagery of a mob of students at Middlebury College, who rioted to prevent Charles Murray from addressing a student group who had invited him to speak. They also inflicted injuries requiring hospitalization on a woman from the faculty who was with him.
Where have all these shocked people been all these years? What happened at Middlebury College has been happening for decades, all across the country, from Berkeley to Harvard. Moreover, even critics of the Middlebury College rioters betray some of the same irresponsible mindset as that of the young rioters."
Even an editorial at the New York Times on ensuring a diverse (eg including conservative views on college campuses ) was trashed by many progressives. Thus, conservatives believe they are being discriminated against by science and most colleges.
During the coming year, the Congress will vote on the Budget. How many conservatives will defend Science spending when they feel they have been attacked and discriminated against by the University experience?
"On March 2nd, Several hundred protesters at Middlebury College shouted down guest speaker Charles Murray, a social scientist who wrote a book discussing racial differences in intelligence. The college moved the March 2 talk to another location and live streamed it, but it was drowned out by protesters.
The college says a group of demonstrators angrily confronted Murray, a professor and a college administrator as they were leaving campus. It says someone pulled the professor's hair and she was treated for a neck injury and a concussion." (From an AP story WFSB website).
From CNN on March 16th:
"President Donald Trump's proposed budget, "America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again" (PDF), paints a dramatic picture for the American science and medical communities that is facing huge potential budget cuts."
These two events are related. The simple fact is many in academic profession have been on a mission to eliminate any conservative voices. And there is a consequence of that movement when conservatives win an election: there will be a cut in science spending.
If you want government spending on an issue over the decades, you have to be prepared to have a number of different Presidents and different political viewpoints in charge of the Budget. If you only cater and demand one political view, then when an opposition candidate wins, you will face budget cuts. When you demand extreme political vetting for any science candidate and any science being done, you will face the consequences when the opposite political party wins. And at some point over the decades they will win. Thus, the extreme politicization of American Science will cause large decreases in science budgets.
Some may not agree that conservatives are being targeted, but look at key conservate views on the issue:
Thomas Sowell writes the following:
"Many people seem shocked at the recent savagery of a mob of students at Middlebury College, who rioted to prevent Charles Murray from addressing a student group who had invited him to speak. They also inflicted injuries requiring hospitalization on a woman from the faculty who was with him.
Where have all these shocked people been all these years? What happened at Middlebury College has been happening for decades, all across the country, from Berkeley to Harvard. Moreover, even critics of the Middlebury College rioters betray some of the same irresponsible mindset as that of the young rioters."
Even an editorial at the New York Times on ensuring a diverse (eg including conservative views on college campuses ) was trashed by many progressives. Thus, conservatives believe they are being discriminated against by science and most colleges.
During the coming year, the Congress will vote on the Budget. How many conservatives will defend Science spending when they feel they have been attacked and discriminated against by the University experience?
Sunday, March 5, 2017
US Oil Production increasing because of Alaska and Off-Shore.
US Onshore Production is still FALLING.
Contrary to many reports, the actual US onshore production fell throughout 2016. Many have argued that the increased rig counts increased US oil production. But that is false. What is increasing US oil production is offshore legacy drilling and Alaska. Taking out these two sources of oil the US oil production is still falling:
The narrative in the oil market is false. US Shale production takes some time to respond to price and will not be the savor of oil production. The next chart shows EOG Resources oil production over the past years. Notice it is flat. One of the best shale fracking companies has flat oil production. This is not just a simple one off, but a key company if US oil produciton is going to increase.
The oil markets may be underestimating the future US oil production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)