“You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns; you shall not crucity mankind upon a cross of gold”-William Jennings Bryan, July 9, 1896

Bryan was a Presidential candidate in the 1896 election, and his speech has gone down in history as a rallying cry of the poor man against the big money of the day.  The fight was those like Bryan who believed in “bimetallism” where silver and gold would be the standard for the U.S. dollar as opposed to only gold which was seen as an attempt to keep down the masses.  Bryan went on to lose the election and his case when the way of the dodo bird.
Four years later, Frank Baum wrote and publised the world famous “Wizard of Oz” which became a huge best seller.  Little did Baum realize how popular his book would be and certainly he never envisioned the famous movie.  There are those who believe that his book is an allegory for Bryan’s fight over bimetallism.  There is no documentation for this theory, but let us take a look at some of the players:

“If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion”-Gerorge Bernard Shaw

The claims from the left that math is racist and that CRT needs to be the basis for our educational system all in the name of equity come at the cost of the death of merit and an assault on science.  The threat to our society, our standard of living both now and in the future are very real as we condemn literally millions of our children to a world ruled not by science and facts, but rather by an ideology which is grounded on the inability to deal with facts.  Not since the Soviet experiment under Stalin and Lysenko has a society been so threatened by an attack on science.  Those on the left who gleefully claim to “believe in science” do not condemn the attack on science, fact, and merit in their support of the goal of equity.  In doing so, they kowtow to the rule of the lowest common denominator.  Our “friends” in China are taking a different tack and must be amazed at our willingness to do harm to ourselves.  Check out this excellent article on how the U.S. is failing in the STEM race. https://quillette.com/2021/08/19/as-us-schools-prioritize-diversity-over-merit-china-is-becoming-the-worlds-stem-leader/

It is amazing that we are lectured to “follow the science” but on the issue of masks, there seems to be an amazingly small amount of actual scientific evidence. What there is, is often politicalized and of poor quality when examined. Follow the link below to an excellent article which reviews numerous studies, both good and bad regarding the value of masks. https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-of-the-evidence

True gender identity is rare, impacting about 0.01% of the population, most of whom are male. Yet today, we see literally thousands of young girls electing “gender affirming” therapy (without the parents’ consent), doctors misrepresenting the effect of puberty blockers, organizations who claim they wish to protect women steering teenage girls into medications which the FDA has never approved for halting puberty, while a new industry has sprung up which lobbies and receives tax payer dollars to support their self-interests. In the UK, there has been a 4,400 per cent increase in girls seeking treatment at national gender clinics. At the same time, gender ideology seeks to eradicate girls’ and women’s safe spaces. In California and Washington State, hundreds of biological males have suddenly found their true gender and are applying for transfers to women’s units. Who are the drivers behind this warped movement and what is their goal? The excellent article by Abigail Shrier in Imprimis examines both the problem and the need for parents to be aware of the terrible damage that is facing our young, mostly, girls. Paste this link for the article and remember that you can subscribe to Imprimis at no charge. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/gender-ideology-run-amok/

It seems that the UN is taking a lesson from the US Congress in that their reports like the bills from Congress are getting longer and longer. At almost 4,000 pages, I was amazed to hear, within minutes of its release, a list of its conclusions, all of which were dire for humanity.  One report even said that if we stopped all energy related activity, the environment would continue to degrade until at least 2050!

Fortunately, responsible individuals (which seems to exclude most reporters) have had an opportunity to read the report and they are now stepping up with their analysis. In the article linked below, some key bits of information are revealed which somehow managed to be ignored by the talking-heads of the news agencies. Poor modeling, comparisons to past activities in the past, the slowing of trends, etc. are revealed while the UN report also downplays the ability to forecast hurricanes and other weather activity with the technology and computer models currently in use. As Holman Jenkins writes in the WSJ (8/10/21), “Green subsidies as now designed will have no effect on emissions and therefore, no effect on climate change”. But hey, they feel good to many people and isn’t virtue signaling enough?

Hopefully, the UN report will be read more fully and be a point from which more realistic options for dealing with our environment will be adopted; but I doubt it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intergovernmental-panel-climate-change-ipcc-un-united-nations-global-warming-floods-wildfire-stevens-palmer-koonin-11628631428?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

One of the reasons I enjoy Bjorn Lomborg is that he wants to protect the environment but he also wants to help humanity. He offers solutions and ideas that can help each of us protect the planet without moving bravely into the 14th century. The destruction of the recent floods in Germany could have been lessened had the German government fulfilled their responsibility, but instead the politicians cover their failure with loud exclamations and calls for spending more money. In this article, Lomborg points out that while there can be negatives to a changing climate, there can also be positives and it is up to us to keep the challenge in perspective. I hope you enjoy the article at https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-natural-disasters-ahr-river-flood-germany-wildfire-risks-11628177742?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

During the past two weeks, billions of dollars have been lost by investors as the Chinese Communist Party has decided to tighten controls on some segments of their economy and it was “discovered” that many Chinese companies on New York and other exchanges had little value. It never ceases to amaze me that so many economist, politicians and business leaders fail to realize that the Chinese Communist Party does not play by any rules other than their own. For decades China has played gullible foreigners for all they are worth and this article points out how investors in many Chinese companies have little recourse, say so or hope of doing anything other than to played as suckers. When will people ever learn? Trusting the CCP is just another version of Russian roulette. https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-education-stocks-vie-variable-interest-entity-emerging-markets-11627575751?mod=opinion_featst_pos3

Isn’t it funny that when the true cost of a program is known, it suddenly is not as attractive. For years, the failed “green” programs of Germany have been there for all to see; electricity costs that are 3x the rest of Europe, dependence on fuel from a state run by a dictator, slow growth, etc. but it never dawns on people that replicating some of those very policies in their back yard will cost them without any noticable improvement in their lives; in fact, those failed policies will end up decreasing their standard of living. Follow the link below to an article on how reality is posing a problem for the “green” agenda. Altruistic ideals are fine until they hit you in the pocketbook. https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-summit-cop26-cost-esg-carbon-11626297240?mod=opinion_featst_pos1

The link at the end of my comments will take you to a proposed “solution” from a group of university researchers who believe in global warming (or is it global climate change?). In the end, they believe that all we need do is cut our energy usage by 90%, wash less frequently, have fewer clothes, and give up much of international travel. The problems with their “solution” are many, such as for example, with less international travel, millions will be thrown out of work for in the service and hospitality industries and how will they earn a living; does the decrease in international travel mean decreased manufacturing and longer lead times with the resulting decline in the maintenance of equipment which will lead to a further decreased standard of living. They also base their projection of energy production to include nuclear power, but that source is condemned by most of the environmental movement. It is easy to “solve” a problem if one ignores the impact on real world individuals. It seems that their “solution” in the end flies in the face of all human history, in which humanity has endeavored to improve its standard of living and refused to accept failure. Perhaps their “brave new world” is based on a model of humanity that has only been dreamed of by totalitarians. https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/