Nearly 21 years after 9/11, a drone takes out al-Zawahiri
The wheels of retribution grind slow:
President Biden announced Monday that the U.S. government killed the leader of al Qaeda, Ayman Al Zawahiri in a “successful” counterterrorism operation in Afghanistan that removes the terrorist from the battlefield “once and for all,” and degrades the terror network’s ability to operate.
The United States government, on July 30 at 9:48 p.m. ET, and 6:18 a.m. Kabul time, undertook a “precision counterterrorism operation,” killing Al Zawahiri, who served as Usama bin Laden’s deputy during the 9/11 attacks, and as his successor in 2011, following bin Laden’s death.
Al Zawahiri was seventy years old. I can’t imagine he’s still completely vital to the terror networks.
Biden will of course brag about this and hopes it gives him a political lift, much as Bin Laden’s killing did for Obama. But I really don’t think it will matter much at this point, because people’s beefs with Biden are much more up close and personal – and recent – than anything about 9/11. I would guess that probably about a third of voters (or more?) don’t even know who al Zawahiri is[was] at this point.
Biden also tried to convince US voters that his shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan didn’t matter, and that this makes up for it:
The president, speaking to his decision to withdraw U.S. military assets from Afghanistan last August, said that he decided that “the United States no longer needed thousands of boots on the ground in Afghanistan to protect America from terrorists who seek to do us harm.”
“And I made a promise to the American people that we continue to conduct effective counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and beyond,” Biden said. “We’ve done just that.”
Biden said that the killing of Zawahiri helps to “never again allow Afghanistan to become a terrorist safe have[n] because he’s gone.”
Krugman doubles down on his “O’Brien-crossed-with-Humpty-Dumpty” persona
Paul Krugman is a case of someone who has no problem contradicting himself, saying inane things that defy common sense, and doing it all with no sense of shame or apology but on the contrary with a sense of proud superiority. He’s not alone in this, but he’s one of the most shameless practitioners, and he’s been given a bully pulpit to do it for a long time.
Does anyone consider this person an authority anymore? Probably.
I wrote about Krugman recently in this post, but I feel the need to do it again after reading this at Ace’s, a post that dives into an interview Krugman gave to CNN’s Brian Stelter Sunday. It’s worth looking at just to see the mental gymnastics involved, and the breezy dismissal of the common sense perceptions of most of us as well as a century of economic descriptive terms:
“Are we in a recession and does the term matter?” Stelter asked.
Krugman responded, “No we aren’t, and no it doesn’t.”
Such a relief to know.
Krugman has the Zen approach:
“None of the usual criteria that real experts use says we’re in a recession right now. And what does it matter? You know, the state of the economy is what it is. Jobs are abundant although maybe the job market is weakening. Inflation is high, although maybe inflation is coming down. What does it matter whether you use the ‘r’ world or not?” he said.
More:
“There’s been a kind of negativity bias in coverage. The press should be giving people – people have their own personal experience. And if you ask people how are you doing, they’re pretty upbeat,” Krugman claimed, adding that some will complain about gas prices. “If you ask people how is your financial situation, it’s pretty favorable. If you ask them how is the economy, oh, it’s terrible. That’s a media failing. Somehow we’re failing to convey the realities of what’s going on to people.”
I don’t know anyone who is “pretty upbeat.” But then again, Krugman and I run in different circles. I have no trouble assuming that the people he asks aren’t in financial difficulty, nor is he.
But it’s that last sentence that would serve as the motto of the left these days: “Somehow we’re failing to convey the realities of what’s going on to people.” That leads us to the question: What is “reality”? The left truly thinks it can define its way out of the reality of people’s daily lives with words. Perhaps they think that all reality is subjective and that there is no truth except how we define it, and that only people’s pesky and stubborn perceptions sometimes stand in the way of the leftist-intellectual-defined reality. And for a lot of people who support the current administration, Krugman and the others are not wrong, as more and more pundits and politicians jump onboard to tell people that their perceptions and memories are wrong and their betters are right.
Milan Kundera wrote about this over thirty years ago. I’ve quoted him many times before (for example, as early as 2005), and now I’m going to do it again. This appeared in a book of his from 1990 called Immortality:
For example, communists used to believe that in the course of capitalist development the proletariat would gradually grow poorer and poorer, but when it finally became clear that all over Europe workers were driving to work in their own cars, [the communists] felt like shouting that reality was deceiving them. Reality was stronger than ideology. And it is in this sense that imagology surpassed it: imagology is stronger than reality, which has anyway long ceased to be what it was for my grandmother, who lived in a Moravian village and still knew everything through her own experience: how bread is baked, how a house is built, how a pig is slaughtered and the meat smoked, what quilts are made of, what the priest and the schoolteacher think about the world; she met the whole village every day and knew how many murders were committed in the country over the last ten years; she had, so to speak, personal control over reality, and nobody could fool her by maintaining that Moravian agriculture was thriving when people at home had nothing to eat. My Paris neighbor spends his time an an office, where he sits for eight hours facing an office colleague, then he sits in his car and drives home, turns on the TV, and when the announcer informs him that in the latest public opinion poll the majority of Frenchmen voted their country the safest in Europe (I recently read such a report), he is overjoyed and opens a bottle of champagne without ever learning that three thefts and two murders were committed on his street that very day.
Sometimes a conspiracy is really a conspiracy and not just a theory
[quoting from this article in Time]”…[F]ar-right figures and conspiracy theorists have also gotten involved. Twitter is filled with posts linking the Netherlands’ nitrogen policy to the Great Reset—a theory that claims international elites are trying to use the COVID-19 pandemic to establish an authoritarian global government.”
Let me clue the folks at Time (not that they care): when you launch into that kind of language – “far-right” and “conspiracy theorist” and “claims” – it is a transparent attempt to label something false rather than demonstrate its falsity. The sad thing is that the Great Resetters have said plenty themselves that indicates they are indeed using the pandemic, plus climate change and other crises, to do just that: establish an authoritarian global government or at the very least a series of leftist national governments that are all on the same page. This isn’t some wacky hidden-conspiracy theory; this is what they’ve indicated by their own public words.
Today I see this essay called “How the World Really Works”:
The mere existence of the W.E.F., an international conference of billionaires and CEOs who fly in annually to a remote Alpine resort to discuss how the world should be governed, to which prime ministers, presidents, and “opinion formers” are flattered to be invited, arouses my curiosity. It sounds (and acts) like a sinister conspiracy in a dystopian novel…
Even so we shouldn’t exaggerate the independent power of the W.E.F. It exercises some power and more influence as the leading edge of the large overall institutional bureaucracy—including N.G.O.s, transnational bodies such as the European Union, multi-national corporations, and governments in whole or in part—that goes under the name of “global governance.” John Fonte, the Hudson Institute scholar, has revealed in detail how global governance really works: it proceeds issue by issue by making international treaties on everything from trade to transgenderism that commit the signatory governments to implement them in domestic law but that were negotiated secretively in a wilderness of committees in Brussels or New York and have never been the subjects of serious democratic debate.
We then enjoy the spectacle of government ministers being unable to explain why they are passing laws which they personally dislike as well as fear that the electorate won’t stand for them. Such treaties empower the bureaucrats who negotiated them, the corporations that influenced their drafting, the N.G.O.s that go to court to compel governments to implement them, and the courts that will finally interpret them. They disempower the voters, their elected representatives, the government ministers who have to tailor their policies to fit the undemocratic straitjacket of the treaty. And they lead eventually to a clash between the voters and the global governance bureaucracy.
…[W]hether or not those who protest are indulged or crushed depends in part on whether their demos and lawsuits are aimed at obstructing the global governance agenda or advancing it. The Dutch farmers trying to save their land from Net-Zero environmental regulations enshrined in treaties get crushed; the Extinction Rebellion protesters using violence and property destruction to ensure the enforcement of such property seizures are joined by dancing policemen at jolly street parties.
Democracy in these circumstances becomes a façade for authoritarian rule by remote bureaucracies…
…[T]he Progressive Left controls the unaccountable institutions of global governance along with cultural, legal, bureaucratic, and economic power almost all the time. So the Left is able to block most of the Right’s policies in government, but the Right has no similar restraints on the Left.
As with many movements on the left, the people who are part of this are a combination of those who are in it strictly for the power, those who believe they are superiors doing it “for your own good” and that the peasants and kulaks just can’t understand because they’re not bright enough, and those who are mostly clueless but to whom it sounds just fine.
Meanwhile, let’s hear from a Dutch farmer:
[ADDENDUM: Richard Fernandez explains how AI might fit in.]
Get ready for the new questions
Today I was making a doctor’s appointment, and the person I was speaking to on the phone said she needed to update my records and ask me a few questions. I could decline to answer if I so chose.
The first one you can probably predict: how do I identify, female or…I very quickly answered “female” before she got to the rest of the choices, and by my tone she could tell I was annoyed. After all, they’ve been seeing me for well over a decade, and I have never filled out any form with anything other than “female.” I could have declined all the questions, but my calculation was that doing so could be interpreted by some number-cruncher as meaning I had no sex. So I answered them all.
Next came, “Have you always identified as female?” My answer was, “I have always been female.” And next came, “Were you assigned female at birth?” My answer was, “I was born a female.” At that point the woman (she was a woman) asking the questions apologized to me for asking them, and I said I know it’s not her fault.
So, prepare yourself to be asked this sort of thing in various venues from now on.
Do you think it’s better to decline to answer? Or is it best to answer the way I did? Or what?
Open thread 8/1/22
I cannot believe it’s already August. And yet I must believe.
Because it is.
What to do with Mrs. Barrie’s earrings?
I’ve recently been trying to organize my belongings better, and believe me there’s a lot of room for improvement. I’m not a pack rat, but I think I fall into that vast middle group who save too much stuff anyway. For me, a lot of it involves papers and photos I inherited when my mother died, which happened close to a decade ago. My brother has some of it, but I have a lot too, and it’s compounded by the fact that my mother was the only child of an only child and a great deal of memorabilia came down to her and to her alone.
In addition, my family came to this country in the 1840s, and so there’s a lot available and a lot of it is pretty old. Some of them were scrapbook keepers – for example, my great-grandfather, born in New York before the Civil War. His scrapbook contains things like his wedding invitation and the last letter his father (born around 1815) wrote before death. It’s in German, but my mother had it translated. There are also photos from the early days of photography, although to my great regret some of them were not labeled back when people still knew who they were.
Label your photographs!
Gone is the Victorian mourning jewelry made of the hair of the dead, which my grandmother showed me when I was a child. I think my mother threw it away over fifty years ago when my grandmother died.
I find that I can’t bear getting rid of the bulk of the other memorabilia and photos, so my goal now is to organize them better. At the moment, they’re stashed in many boxes in a corner of a room. The other evening I spent hours going through my mother’s old but more recent photos, of us and of her grandchildren. This was easier – much of it was redundant, and I saved only a small percentage of the best. I could be ruthless about that.
So, who is Mrs. Barrie? She’s not a relative; she was my ballet teacher, who died in 1957. She was a British woman whom I remember as being tremendously strict. She used to play the piano for class herself, not even looking at it, while she fastened an eagle eye on us. Mrs. Barrie used to test us on our memory of steps by making us turn on our backs and having us each do the combination one by one, alone. If we didn’t know it ourselves, we couldn’t look at others and draw from their knowledge.
When Mrs. Barrie became ill and stopped teaching, my mother made the obligatory sickbed call to her and discovered, to her surprise, that away from the classroom she was a charming and charismatic lady and they got along famously. So from then on, about every week, my mother visited her – which was a long trip. I remember that my mother was distraught when Mrs. Barrie died, and afterwards my mother always took care to be kind to her widower. He was quite a character himself, the quintessential British actor (here he is: Leslie Barrie) of a certain era, who had anecdotes about all the great stage actors of his time.
A few years after Mrs. Barrie died, Mr. Barrie was struck by a cab crossing Madison Avenue and badly injured. He wasn’t at all rich, and he was sent to Bellevue and then released before he was ready to live on his own again. Where did he go? To our place. He stayed for a couple of months in the room next to mine, and I could hear him groaning in the morning when he got up – he was still in considerable pain. The other thing I remember most about him was that he would say to me, whenever I referred to my mother with the pronoun she, “Who’s ‘she’, the cat’s mother?” I didn’t understand his remark at all; my mother had to explain it to me.
A few years later Mr. Barrie met a younger woman, married her, and they moved back to England. But his letters – those tissue-thin Aerogrammes – would arrive regularly, written in a tiny spidery hand that packed a ton of words into each missive. As he became older, he unfortunately got dementia, and his second wife took valiant care of him till he died in his eighties.
My mother saved the letters, plus some items from his first marriage that he gave her – including photos, and jewelry that had belonged to his wife, my long-ago dance teacher. The jewelry is worth next to nothing in monetary terms, and I’m not really attached to it. But still, I find I can’t dispose of this stuff, either. At least, not yet. It seems so callous and final to throw them out.
Here are the jewelry items:
Sinema, the supposed mystery vote
There was a lot of excitement and publicity about getting Manchin onboard with the Democrats’ new tax and energy bill. But if you do the voting math, unless at least one Republican signs on, too (which certainly could happen, knowing Republicans), the Democrats would need every single Democrat to vote for it. The Senate is 50/50, and Harris can only break the tie if there is a tie in the first place. It can be passed by a simple majority in the Senate because the Democrats are using the now-familiar reconciliation route.
That means Kyrsten Sinema, the other sort-of-moderate-compared-to-the-rest Democrat. At first glance, it would seem odd that she wasn’t consulted when Schumer was ironing it out with Manchin, but apparently she wasn’t, at least according to the WSJ:
Ms. Sinema, who played a central role last year in paring back elements of President Biden’s agenda, wasn’t consulted or briefed on the secret talks between Mr. Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and learned of the agreement when it became public, according to a person familiar with the matter. When news of the deal rippled through the Senate floor Wednesday, she and other senators were blindsided by news. “What’s going on?” she asked.
Ms. Sinema is studying the legislation and may not announce her view of the bill for days. She didn’t attend Mr. Schumer’s party meeting about the deal on Thursday morning.
This wouldn’t seem to be the way to woo her vote.
Then again, most of what’s in it was already cleared with her, it seems:
The question of whether Ms. Sinema will back it could hang over Democrats for days, if not weeks. A spokeswoman said she would need to review the text and the outcome of a review with the Senate’s nonpartisan parliamentarian, a necessary step for Democrats to pass the legislation using the reconciliation process…
Ms. Sinema reshaped Democrats’ policy plans last year—before Mr. Manchin put them on ice for much of 2022—and much of the current deal reflects changes she sought.
Ms. Sinema opposed raising marginal income rates on top earners and the corporate rates, forcing Democrats to search for alternative ways to raise taxes on very high-income Americans and large corporations. Two of the solutions they arrived at, a 15% corporate minimum tax and beefing up the Internal Revenue Service’s enforcement, are now elements of the deal between Messrs. Manchin and Schumer. After nixing much of Democrats’ tax agenda, Ms. Sinema worked last fall with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) on the corporate minimum tax.
That compromise endures despite Mr. Manchin spending much of this year calling for Democrats to adopt tax increases, including raising the corporate rate and raising the top capital-gains rate, that Ms. Sinema opposed.
Ms. Sinema was also a central negotiator in the prescription-drug price proposals, squaring off with progressives over the number of drugs that should be subject to government negotiation. The proposal included in the current deal largely reflects those talks.
And while Ms. Sinema has, like Mr. Manchin, raised concerns about government spending worsening inflation, she has also been supportive of measures to fight climate change, at one point telling lobbyists that she would support a tax on carbon emissions, according to a person familiar with the remark.
So far, so good for the Democrats.
But then there’s this:
…[A] central sticking point in the current talks could be a proposal to raise taxes on a key source of private-equity managers’ income, so-called carried interest.
During a fundraiser last summer, Ms. Sinema told a group of donors and lobbyists that she would oppose raising taxes on carried-interest income, along with raising the corporate rate and top capital-gains rate.
Mr. Manchin said this week that he would insist on including the carried interest proposal, which raises roughly $14 billion in revenue over a decade, in the deal, and it is not known if he would accept a deal that drops the provision.
Aha! That might be the key to why she was excluded. At least, that’s my guess. One of the things that Manchin insists upon (supposedly) is the very thing that (supposedly) is a sticking point for her. So my hunch is that, once Manchin got publicly on board, and she was the sole holdout, the Democrats and the Democrat base would put enormous pressure on her to capitulate. And since they were giving her a great deal else that she wanted, she’d agree.
Manchin isn’t up for re-election until 2024, and at that point he’ll be 77. Will he even want to run again? He says he does, but I wonder. If not, it doesn’t matter what the people of West Virginia think of his vote. Likewise, Sinema is up for re-election that same year, but she’s a whole lot younger and almost certainly wants to run again. What’s more, according to that WSJ article:
But in public statements, she has repeatedly said that she has opposed tax increases that she thinks would harm U.S. economic growth. Business groups in Arizona, a swing state where Ms. Sinema has tried to present herself as a moderate, have also encouraged her to oppose the tax hikes.
Ms. Sinema has received roughly $2.2 million in donations since 2017 from individuals and committees in the securities and investment industries, more than from any other sector, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracker.
…A political-action committee called “Primary Sinema Project” quickly blasted out a statement calling on her to support the package, saying “All eyes on Kyrsten Sinema.”
…Rep. Ruben Gallego (D., Ariz.) has said he is considering a primary challenge in 2024.
I think the bill will ultimately pass, after a bit of tweaking. The Democrat leaders are desperate to get what they consider a win, and they consider this bill to be a win. But I don’t see why people who weren’t already going to vote for them would like this bill. It’s not helping Americans with the many serious problems that face them right now, and in fact it could make those things considerably worse.
The Biden corruption investigation in Delaware
The Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office investigating Hunter Biden lacks the wherewithal and resources to adequately probe the dubious financial dealings of the Biden family and their business partners, according to three current or former Department of Justice officials.
“If any single one of the dozens of issues had been alleged about the Bush or Trump families, a special counsel would have been appointed immediately,” said one career official familiar with the probe. “[The Delaware office] needs help. There’s no way it can tackle everything it needs to, even if it tried.” Two other officials also expressed concern about resources available to the investigation, particularly given the political sensitivity and complexity of the underlying issues…
Sources told the Times that a grand jury continues to gather evidence “in a wide-ranging examination” of Biden’s international business dealings, with prosecutors considering charges for tax fraud, criminal foreign lobbying, and money laundering.
It’s a long article by Margot Cleveland, with a lot of information – some of it already discussed on this blog or in articles from periodicals on the right. There’s also this:
Calls for a special counsel have been percolating since April when a group of nearly 100 House Republications wrote Attorney General Merrick Garland to demand he appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. “We are concerned that in the case of Hunter Biden the Department has an actual conflict of interest and certainly has the appearance of a conflict of interest that could prevent a fair and impartial investigation of his activities,” the lawmakers wrote, adding, “You were nominated to your position by Hunter Biden’s father and ultimately work for him.”
That’s exactly why it will never happen. Garland isn’t worried about the appearance of a conflict of interest; he’s a partisan party guy and I’m pretty certain that he feels immune to any repercussions, and rightly so. The only way such a special counsel appointment might be made would be if they decide that Joe has to go. But it’s far far more likely that, if and when they decide Joe is a liability as president or as 2024 candidate, that they will threaten to appoint a special counsel in order to get him to voluntarily leave.
The Delaware investigation is in its third year – just another example of how the legal system is inadequate to deal with the problem of a corrupt executive, a party that defends and supports him, and a compliant media that protects him. In addition, I have a feeling that many (perhaps most?) Biden voters don’t care how corrupt he is. He’s doing the left’s bidding, and he’s not Trump, and that’s enough for them.
The Dutch kulaks farmers continue to protest
Once again, the Dutch farmer situation reminds me of the Soviets, who didn’t hesitate to sacrifice the kulaks for the cause. In fact, to them it was a feature, not a bug. There is something very independence-minded, as well as grounded in the realities of life rather than abstractions, about farmers, and those bent on authoritarian control don’t tend to like those qualities in their subjects. I use the word “subjects” purposely, because – as our own Founders knew – top-down control without representation is tyranny.
The revolt by the Dutch farmers is ongoing; I’ve written about it before, here. The title of of this more recent article on the subject interested me enough to cause me to click on it: “Farmer Protests in the Netherlands Show Just How Messy the Climate Transition Will Be.” “Messy” – like making an omelet. All those oozy broken eggs. Messy, but necessary, say those in power to those not in power:
“That’s what you get when you make people so very angry,” Sieta van Keimpema, secretary of the Farmers Defense Force (FDF), said July 27 as the group launched a fresh round of demonstrations.
What’s driving the dispute? Manure. The Netherlands’ intensive livestock farming system produces an unusual excess of animal feces. When mixed with urine, those feces give off ammonia and nitrous oxide. The former is a pollutant that can leak into air and water, harming local wildlife. The latter is a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat in our atmosphere: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says nitrous oxide accounts for around 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
This is the rhetoric being used by the government:
The government said it was leading an “unavoidable transition” for agriculture.
Here’s the bottom line:
Trienke Elshof, a dairy farmer with 250 cows in the northern province of Friesland, says farmers feel blindsided: for decades, governments have encouraged them to increase yields. Meanwhile, other high-polluting industries, such as aviation, construction, and transport, have yet to face such severe environmental rules. “We know we have to do something about nitrogen, but not in this top-down way, and not at this speed,” she says. “It feels like they want to get rid of all the farmers in the Netherlands.”
The is the kind of seeming self-sabotage we’ve seen in so many countries lately, including ours. Government of the people, by the people, for the people? Hardly.
More:
…[F]ar-right figures and conspiracy theorists have also gotten involved. Twitter is filled with posts linking the Netherlands’ nitrogen policy to the Great Reset—a theory that claims international elites are trying to use the COVID-19 pandemic to establish an authoritarian global government.
Let me clue the folks at Time (not that they care): when you launch into that kind of language – “far-right” and “conspiracy theorist” and “claims” – it is a transparent attempt to label something false rather than demonstrate its falsity. The sad thing is that the Great Resetters have said plenty themselves that indicates they are indeed using the pandemic, plus climate change and other crises, to do just that: establish an authoritarian global government or at the very least a series of leftist national governments that are all on the same page. This isn’t some wacky hidden-conspiracy theory; this is what they’ve indicated by their own public words.
More (emphasis mine):
This may be just the beginning of much wider global unrest over agriculture. Scientists say dealing with climate change will require not just gradual reform, but a rapid, wholesale transformation of the global food system. As one of the world’s most densely farmed nations, the Netherlands is one of the first countries to grapple with how that upheaval will impact farmers—and how messy the transition will be. It won’t be the last.
Nah, no global plan there, right? And notice that gradualism will not do – this must be immediate and harsh, you kulaks! You don’t understand, but we do.
Even the Dutch farmers seem to be admitting there actually are some problems from the effects of too much manure. They’re objecting, however, to the speed of these demanded changes and the fact that they are generated completely top-down and are destructive to one of the main engines of the Dutch economy. What’s more, making The Netherlands much less self-sufficient in food production will make it more dependent on other countries for its food – can’t imagine that that will be a good thing.
It’s not just the Dutch, as we already know:
Farmers in Spain, Ireland, and New Zealand have all staged demonstrations in their capitals to challenge green reforms in the last few years. Populists in the U.S. and Europe, including France’s Marine Le Pen, are seizing on the protests to cast climate action as a conflict between rural heartlands, working people, and urban elites.
Populists seize!!!
Those “urban elites” will really love it when cities become “food deserts.”
The focus is on the farmers:
Van Maanen says farmers are being unfairly targeted: “If you come for us and our families, you come at a farmer’s soul,” he says. “We’ve proposed all kinds of solutions but we are ignored. And finally, they come up with a plan for a reduction in livestock. No other sector has reduced nitrogen in the last 30 years [as much as] we have. This is why there’s a lot of emotion and pain.”
It’s supposedly due to a court decision:
After a landmark court ruling in 2019, it needs to reduce nitrogen emissions in order to allow building projects to go-ahead in the country.
There is no choice, says Rudi Buis, spokesperson for the agriculture ministry. “Even if you stop with the policy tomorrow, the problem doesn’t go away. If you want to build a house or a road, a lawyer will say: first reduce nitrogen and then you get a licence. We have to do something. It’s not a luxury. It has to happen.”
This is why, he says, the farming sector was addressed first in parliamentary briefings which asked provincial governments to come up with detailed plans for reductions within a year.,,
The government plans, reports the Financieele Dagblad, will affect five times more farmers than is strictly necessary.
It’s to comply with EU regulations, according to this site:
Now, in a show of solidarity, German, Albanian, Italian, Spanish and Polish farmers have launched protests, in what is fast becoming an EU-wide campaign against “anti-farming” policies.
The farmers fear they could be next and that their governments will seek to impose similar climate policies to comply with EU rules, which they say would threaten their livelihoods and disrupt global food supplies.
Did the powers-that-be think these protests wouldn’t happen? I suspect that they knew they would happen and didn’t care. They are confident they can suppress the farmers and their supporters for the Greater Good.
NOTE: If you want a view on climate policy from a person I consider a very reasonable climate scientist, see Judith Curry’s essay on Plan B.
Open thread 7/30/22
What a story. He doesn’t have the gorgeous voice of his father, or the songwriting ability – but then, that would be too much to ask. I wish him well:
How the media polarized us
We’ve certainly become more polarized in recent years, and the MSM has certainly played a large role.
This article advances a theory as to why:
Throughout the twentieth century, journalism relied for its funding predominantly on advertising. In the early 2010s, as ad money fled the industry, publications sought to earn revenue through subscriptions instead of advertising. In the process, they became dependent on digital audiences—especially their most vocal representatives. The shift from advertising to digital subscriptions invalidated old standards of journalism and led to the emergence of post-journalism.
It probably had a role in worsening and reinforcing the situation. But it did not cause it. I recall the problem being quite bad much earlier in time. It predated even Watergate, but Watergate gave the media the idea that it was composed of warriors fighting for the cause of righteousness against evil, and reporting became “journalism” and attracted more people from the left who’d never served much of an apprenticeship in life prior to entering the profession – which became a “profession” as opposed to a job.