United Way Of Warren County 2014 Account Manager Call Report: Fill & Download for Free

MYTH # 1Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTDepicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children." A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.THE FACTSAccording to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.MYTH # 2Same-sex parents harm children.THE ARGUMENTMost hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.THE FACTSNo legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.MYTH # 3People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.THE ARGUMENTMany anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will."A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.THE FACTSNo scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College, noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”MYTH # 4LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.THE FACTSThis falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.MYTH # 5Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.THE ARGUMENTThis claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims. "While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.THE FACTSThe Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."MYTH # 6Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.THE FACTSThe claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.MYTH # 7Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.THE FACTSGays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.MYTH # 8Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice," even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.THE FACTSAll major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather, social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.MYTH # 9No one is born gay.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.THE FACTSModern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.MYTH # 10Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.THE ARGUMENTIf people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, "You don't have to be gay!" Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."THE FACTS"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own study in 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”1. “We need to protect marriage.”The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their HomophobiaWhile we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Clearly not a Biology graduate.21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.People actually use this argument.23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”Person B: “That sounds nice.”Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

COST, INTERMITTENCY AND SEVERE WEATHER. Wind and solar power are the most expensive power because they must double up with fossil fuels lack of storage and to cover up intermittency so the lights can stay on. The public are fooled by the deceit of the industry that ignores the reality although Michael Moore figured it out. What has happened across the Northern Hemisphere this February with the massive winter snowstorm has exposed the frail reality of these old fashioned technologies.Coal Rescues Germany from Its Renewable FollyBY IERFEBRUARY 17, 2021Germany’s millions of solar panels are blanketed in snow and ice and its 30,000 wind turbines are doing nothing as the freezing weather has no wind resource to keep the turbines operating. Instead, the solar and wind units are drawing power from the grid powered mainly by coal to keep their internal workings from freezing up. Despite Germany being the poster child of Europe’s renewable future, the country’s Energiewende—transition to wind and solar power—is not working. The Germans have found that dependable, dispatchable coal can work in any weather and is the savior during these cold months. The plan is that Germany will have to rely more on natural gas from Russia, coal power from Poland and nuclear power from France, importing power along huge cables, instead of building a huge fleet of batteries to back up its intermittent renewable power.However, for this unreliability of wind and solar power during this year’s snowy and icy winter, German consumers paid $38 billion ($30.9 billion euros) in subsidies for its renewable energy growth in 2020, despite the financial needs of other sectors of its economy afflicted by the coronavirus pandemic. The renewable energy subsidy is paid directly by consumers in their electricity bills, helping make German residential retail power costs the highest across the European continent and 3 times higher than those of the United States. Americans need only triple their utility bills to get a sense of the burden Germany’s system places on its citizens. The U.S. economy is about 5 times the size of Germany’s, to compare relative expenditures for similar practices. The subsidy only raised renewable energy’s share of Germany’s electricity mix by 3 percentage points—from 43 percent in 2019 to 46 percent last year.Source: BloombergOver the next two years, the German government plans to take a third off the costs that consumers pay by using some of the nation’s budget to share the burden. The costs of the subsidy, known as Renewable Energy Law aid, are expected to peak in 2022-2023 before stabilizing. Germany switched to auctions to expand wind and solar capacity in 2017, abandoning the system of guaranteed feed-in tariffs for all new renewable projects to reduce the increasing expense burden.Joe Biden needs to use caution on his plans for a 100 percent carbon free electricity sector by 2035 and his carbon free U.S. energy sector by 2050 as Germany—the first country to take on the 100 percent carbon free electricity future in Europe—is failing in its ability to keep the lights on using solely carbon free power. Solar and wind power achieve less than half of the energy carbon sources achieve, despite massive subsidies.Europe’s Power Grid Avoids BlackoutExtremely cold weather caused power demand to surge across Western Europe on January 8 and the continent’s electricity network came close to a massive blackout. Europe’s grid, which is usually connected from Lisbon to Istanbul, split into two as the northwest and southeast regions struggled to keep the same frequency. The problem originated in Croatia due to a fault at a substation that caused overloading on other parts of Croatia’s grid. It led to the equivalent of 200,000 households losing power across Europe. Supply to industrial sites was cut in France and Italy.Source: BloombergAs Europe replaces large coal and nuclear stations with thousands of smaller wind and solar units and as sectors electrify via intermittent sources due to policy edicts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the possibility of blackouts is likely to become more frequent.Large amounts of intermittent electricity create huge swings in supply, which the grid has to be able to handle. European transmission grids need to stay at a frequency of 50 hertz to operate smoothly and any deviations can damage equipment that is connected. The frequency swings on January 8 were reduced within minutes, avoiding damage across the entire European high voltage network, which potentially could have caused blackouts for millions.Europe has not had a major blackout since 2006 when over 15 million households were out of power for hours. In 2019, there was another narrow escape when the frequency dropped dangerously low. Europe’s grid operators have put in automatic responses like splitting the network and triggering standby generation or demand reduction. Spinning turbines of thermal plants connected to the grid create kinetic energy called inertia which helps keep the network at the right frequency. The spinning cannot be created by wind turbines or solar panels.The European near-blackout shows that problems in one nation can rapidly cascade as states become more reliant on their neighbors for power. Continental Europe was separated into two areas due to outages of several transmission network elements in a very short time. Longer, harder to fix disturbances that rip across countries are a real threat.Europe is Not AloneIn Australia, wind power was blamed for a blackout in 2016 that cut supply to 850,000 homes. Australia was the first country to install a 100-megawatt mega battery in 2017, hoping that high-cost battery storage could be the solution.In California, where about a third of its generation is from renewables, record-breaking temperatures caused rolling blackouts as the state’s electricity supplies could not keep up with demand, particularly when solar plants stopped generating for the day and were 33-percent less effective due to the smoke from the state’s wildfires. Like Australia, California utilities are looking to large batteries to help solve the problem of intermittent electricity from wind and solar power, though the state also imports a large amount of power from neighboring states that were also having record-breaking temperatures this past summer and thus, not able to help with California’s energy demandConclusionCountries and states with a great deal of intermittent electricity from wind and solar power are having problems keeping the lights on when the weather does not cooperate. Germany had to turn to coal this past winter when freezing temperatures made its solar and wind units inoperable and it plans to import from neighboring countries to back-up its renewable electricity in the future, as its continues to retire its coal plants. Australia’s answer to its 2016 blackout caused by lack of wind power is to obtain high-cost batteries to store excess energy when the wind does not blow. California, which already imports electricity from neighboring states, got hit by record breaking temperatures and had to use rolling blackouts when the country’s solar and wind units could not meet demand. The state is also planning on using high-cost batteries to store its excess power for later use.Joe Biden’s plans are to put the United States into the same situation as Germany, Australia, and California by his campaign promises to make the U.S. electricity sector carbon free by 2035—10 years earlier than even California has planned—and the U.S. energy sector carbon free by 2050. Americans need to be aware of the situation that other countries are facing when they turn to intermittent renewables. The record so far is not good.Coal Rescues Germany from Its Renewable FollyWhat does this mean? ANSWER wind and solar are a failure to generate much needed grid electricity around the world.10 of 10 “highest-generating U.S. power plants were” not renewables.David Middleton / 22 hours ago September 25, 2020Guest “No energy transition for you!” by David MiddletonSEPTEMBER 25, 2020In 2019, 9 of the 10 highest-generating U.S. power plants were nuclear plantsAccording to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data on power plant operations, 9 of the 10 U.S. power plants that generated the most electricity in 2019 were nuclear plants. These 10 plants generated a combined 230 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2019, accounting for 5.6% of all electricity generation in the United States. The makeup of power plants that generate the most electricity has shifted in the past 10 years from a mix of nuclear and coal plants to almost all nuclear in 2019.In 2010, the top 10 highest-generating power plants in the United States were a mix of nuclear and coal-fired generators. In 2010, coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation was 45%, compared with 23% in 2019. Decreased cost-competitiveness relative to other power resources, especially natural gas, has made coal less economical for electricity generation. Coal plants are also run at lower levels because of tighter air emission standards, which is the primary reason coal plants fell from the top 10.The Palo Verde, Browns Ferry, and Oconee nuclear power plants have consistently been among the 10 largest generators of electricity in the United States because they are the only nuclear plants with three reactor units, which gives them more generating capacity. A plant’s refueling and maintenance schedules may also affect annual electric power generation capacity. For example, Comanche Peak was one of the top 10 highest-generating power plants in 2010 but was not one in 2019 because scheduled refueling and maintenance reduced plant availability in 2019.Electric power plants that have relatively large electricity generating capacities generally also operate at high capacity factors, or utilization rates. The capacity (the maximum amount of electricity a power plant can produce) of the top 10 highest-generating power plants in 2019 ranged from 2,300 megawatts (MW) (Byron) to 3,937 MW (Palo Verde). Although these plants have a lower nameplate capacity than the Grand Coulee hydroelectric facility (6,809 MW of capacity) in Washington, they generate more electric power each year. Grand Coulee operated at a lower utilization rate and generated 16.6 million MWh of electricity in 2019.Nuclear power plants have the highest capacity factor of any energy source in the United States, at 94% fleet-wide in 2019, because nuclear plants generally operate around-the-clock until they are taken offline for maintenance or refueling. Capacity factors for the nine nuclear plants in the top 10 range from 89% (Browns Ferry) to 99% (Byron and Peach Bottom). Natural gas combined-cycle units have the second-highest capacity factor in the United States, at 57% fleet-wide in 2019. The natural gas plant that was among the top 10 highest-generating power plants in 2019, West County Energy Center, operated at a capacity factor of 65%, slightly higher than the fleet-wide capacity factor.Almost all of the U.S. power plants that generated the most electricity in 2019 were in the eastern half of the country, and they tended to be close to areas with high electricity demand such as major cities or industrial production centers.More information about the fleet of power plants in the United States is available in the latest Annual Electric Generator Report, released on September 15, 2020.Principal contributor: Paul McArdleTags: nuclear, power plants, electricity, generationUS EIANatural gas combined cycle power plants can actually deliver 85% or better capacity factors, but generally aren’t operated 24/7 at full capacity.Over the same time period, renewables generation doubled in the US, due to “massive” solar and wind capacity additions. Despite this and the lack of nuclear power capacity additions…Top Ten Power Plants 2008Figure 1. 6 Nuclear generating stations and 4 coal-fired power plants.Top Ten Power Plants 2018Figure 2. 9 Nuclear generating stations and 1 natural gas-fired power plant.To paraphrase The Soup Nazi from Seinfeld:No Energy Transition for You!Figure 3. Can you spot wind and solar on this chart?Figure 3. Too fracking funny! US EIA10 of 10 “highest-generating U.S. power plants were” not renewables.Advancing subsidies for renewables is a deadly mistake when they cause heat poverty and brown outs that threaten hospital safety.Adelaide Hills pharmacist Kirrily Chambers forced to throw out medicine from the fridge after a blackout. Picture: Kelly Barnes/The AustralianWind and solar fail to replace fossil fuels and when added to the grid increase the cost causing fatalities from heat poverty. Also there is no grave problem of climate change because it is natural. The term climate change does not mean human caused global warming as words matter. Renewables are irrelevant to that debate because of their abysmal performance.Transition to wind and solar renewables makes electricity go up. :..people will die if this renewable energy idiocy continuesSolar and wind taking over the world We hear it all the time Only it is wrong Now: 0.8% 2040: 3.6%Wind Power: Unfolding Environmental Disaster – Entire Ecosystems CollapsingNovember 9, 2017 by stopthesethings 8 CommentsAs STT followers are well-aware, this site doesn’t mince its words: wind power is the greatest economic and environmental fraud in human history.Pull the subsidies, and this so-called ‘industry’ would disappear in a heartbeat.For the best part of 20 years, the wind cult has attempted to justify the hundreds of $billions squandered on subsidies for wind power, as being all for the greater good.Armchair environmentalists – who have never planted trees to prevent erosion on creek lines or dragged junk and gunk out of polluted waterways – claim ‘mission accomplished’, every time a new wind turbine whirls into (occasional) action.Obsequious charlatans (like Simon Holmes a Court) even encourage naïve and gullible virtue signallers into ‘investing’ in so-called community wind farms (see our post here). They never get their money back, but at least they can tell their mates at Getup! that they’ve done their bit for the environment.And yet, when the trifling amount of electricity generated by these things across the planet is compared with the grief caused to communities, neighbours and the environment itself, it’s hard for anyone gifted with our good friends, logic and reason, to make a case for wind power. Here’s why.Scientists: Expansion Of Wind Turbines ‘Likely To Lead To Extinction’ For Endangered Vulture SpeciesNo Tricks ZoneKenneth Richard5 October 2017When pondering the future of wind power and its ecological impacts, it is well worth re-considering this seminal analysis from Dr. Matt Ridley.[W]orld energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, […] it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area half the size of the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year.If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area half the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfill the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.The profound costs to wildlife of future-planning to expand wind energy to the levels demanded by “green” advocates — just to meet the world population’s additional energy demands with 350,000 more turbines each year — has been increasingly documented by scientists.The last remaining vulture species native to southeastern Europe is “likely” faced with extinction in the next few decades due to an “eight to ten times greater” mortality rate associated with the rapid expansion of wind energy projects in the region (Vasilakis et al., 2017).Bat species can be found dwelling in a wide variety of terrestrial habitats, including deserts and along sea coasts. Each species may play a fundamental role in its local ecosystem. For example, Kuntz et al., (2011) indicate that 528 different plant species rely on bat pollination and seed dispersal for sustainability. Boyles et al., (2011) estimated that by controlling pest populations (insects), the agricultural benefits of bats may reach $22.9 billion (U.S.D.) annually in the continental U.S. alone.In addition to White Nose Syndrome, deaths connected to collisions with wind turbines are now the leading cause of multiple mortality events in bats (O’Shea et al., 2016). Roughly 25% of North American bats are now classified at risk for extinction (Hammerson et al, 2017), in large part due to the explosion of wind turbines across the landscape. If the expansion of wind turbines continues at its current pace, the hoary bat population is projected to be reduced by 90% (Frick et al., 2017) within the next 50 years. As Hein and Schirmacher (2016) conclude, the “current and presumed future level of fatality [for bat populations] is considered to be unsustainable.”Even large mammals like the already endangered Portuguese wolf (“between 200 and 400 individuals” left) has had its reproduction rates reduced by the recent addition of nearly 1,000 new turbines in their shrinking habitat range (Ferrão da Costa et al., 2017 ).So what, exactly, are we gaining in exchange for increasingly endangering critically important wildlife species? Slightly above nothing.According to the IEA, wind energy provided for 0.39% of the world’s total energy demands as of 2013.At what point may we ask: Are the benefits of wind energy worth the ecological and wildlife costs?Wind Power: Unfolding Environmental Disaster – Entire Ecosystems CollapsingLawrence Solomon: Are solar and wind finally cheaper than fossil fuels? Not a chanceVirtually every major German solar producer has gone underA wind turbine spins amidst exhaust plumes from cooling towers at a coal-fired power station in Jaenschwalde, Germany.Getty ImagesLawrence SolomonApril 27, 2018“’Spectacular’ drop in renewable energy costs leads to record global boost,” The Guardian headline reported last year. “Clean Energy Is About to Become Cheaper Than Coal,” pronounced MIT’s Technology Review. “The cost of installing solar energy is going to plummet again,” echoed Grist, the environmental journal.Other sources declare that renewables are not only getting cheaper, they have already become cheaper than conventional power. The climate-crusading DeSmogBlog reports that “Falling Costs of Renewable Power Make (B.C.’s) Site C Dam Obsolete” and that “Coal Just Became Uneconomic in Canada.” It implores us to discover “What Canada Can Learn From Germany’s Renewable Revolution,” as does Energy Post, an authoritative European journal, which described “The spectacular success of the German Energiewende (energy transition).”Virtually every major German solar producer has gone underHere’s what Canada can learn from Germany, the poster child for the global warming movement. After the German government decided to reduce subsidies to the solar industry in 2012, the industry nose-dived. By this year, virtually every major German solar producer had gone under as new capacity declined by 90 per cent and new investment by 92 per cent. Some 80,000 workers — 70 per cent of the solar workforce — lost their jobs. Solar power’s market share is shrinking and solar panels, having outlived their usefulness, are being retired without being replaced.· Wind power faces a similar fate. Germany has some 29,000 wind turbines, almost all of which have been benefitting from a 20-year subsidy program that began in 2000. Starting in 2020, when subsidies run out for some 5,700 wind turbines, thousands of them each year will lose government support, making the continued operation of most of them uneconomic based on current market prices. To make matters worse, with many of the turbines failing and becoming uneconomic to maintain, they represent an environmental liability and pose the possibility of abandonment. No funds have been set aside to dispose of the blades, which are unrecyclable, or to remove the turbines’ 3,000-tonne reinforced concrete bases, which reach depths of 20 metres, making them a hazard to the aquifers they pierce.The cost to the German economy of its transition to renewables is estimated to reach 2 to 3 trillion euros by 2050Those who hoped that Germany’s newest coalition government would provide the renewable industries with a reprieve were disappointed last week when Germany’s new economic minister indicated that there would be no turning back. All told, the cost to the German economy of its much-vaunted energy transition to renewables is estimated to reach 2 to 3 trillion euros by 2050.Germany’s experience is being replicated throughout Europe — as subsidies fall, so does investment in wind turbines and solar plants, and so do jobs in these industries.As Warren Buffett said wind farms don’t make sense without the tax creditIn the real world of business and commerce, the cost of renewables makes them unaffordable without intervention by the state. As Warren Buffet explained in 2014, “on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”In the imagined world of politicians and environmental ideologues, renewables are not only affordable, they are inevitable. The difference in cost cited by those in the real and imagined worlds is called wishful thinking. This wishfulness is propped up through academic exercises that provide a stamp of authority on the ideologues’ beliefs.One method for proving that renewables have arrived is something called “levelized cost of electricity,” which the U.S. Energy Information Administration says is “often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies.” Environmentalists cite levelized costs as if you can take them to the bank, but they are really no more than predictions of what the costs of various technologies will be over subsequent decades. By assuming that costs of producing solar panels and wind turbines will drop and the costs of fossil fuels will rise over the 30-, 40- or 50-year lifetime of a new plant a utility must build, and describing those levelized costs as if they were current costs, studies state authoritatively that renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels.Today’s claims that renewables are cheap and getting cheaper are familiar. They harken back to the first Earth Day in 1970, whose message of “New Energy for a New Era” was all about accelerating the transition to renewable energy worldwide. Then, as now, the belief in the viability of a renewable energy future was twinned with the conviction that fossil fuels, being finite, would inevitably become scarce and price themselves out of the market. To the ideologues’ never-ending dismay, peak oil never comes. Instead comes shale gas, shale oil, and peak renewables.Lawrence Solomon executive director of Toronto-based Energy [email protected] Grant Matkin ·In the real world of business and commerce, the cost of renewables makes them unaffordable without intervention by the state." The data supports this conclusion of Lawrence Solomon. Australia, Denmark, Germany and Italy are highest in electricity costs and wind and solar output: > 40 Euros / Kwh. US is lowest in renewables and lowest in electricity costs: 15 Euros / Kwh. In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent.https://climatism.blog/.../climate-activist-if-solar-and.../http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-are-solar-and-wind-finally-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-not-a-chanceRenewable energy’s dreadful costs and awful electricityUnreliable capacity and excessively high costs make renewable energy nothing more than a ‘green’ idealogue’s dream. Subsidies are a great waste and are being abandoned around the world so market forces will be the death nell of this nonsense.12 DECEMBER 2018 - 13:55 ANDREW KENNYWind turbines are not the way to go, says Andrew Kenny, just ask Germany.Picture: THINKSTOCKSA is stumbling towards energy disaster. On top of Eskom’s failures comes the calamitous Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2018, a plan for ruinously expensive electricity. (The IRP 2018, drawn up by the department of energy, plans SA’s electricity supply.) The IRP is mad, based not on the real world but on a fantasy world of computer models.The IRP’s “least-cost option” is in fact the most expensive option possible, which has seen electricity costs soaring wherever it has been tried. This is a combination of wind, solar and imported gas. It was drawn up by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and supported by the IRP. It is a recipe for calamity.It seems strange that SA should forsake its own huge resources of reliable energy and depend on foreign sources. Worse is its reliance on unreliable solar and wind.South Australia actually did implement something like the CSIR’s “least-cost option”. It closed coal stations, built wind turbines and some solar plants, and supplemented them with natural gas, which Australia, unlike SA, has in abundance. The result was soaring electricity prices, reaching, at one point in July 2016, the astonishing figure of A$14,000/MWh (R140/kWh). Eskom’s average selling price is R0.89/kWh. The “least-cost solution” resulted momentarily in an electricity price more than 150 times Eskom’s. It would be worse here because we don’t have much gas.The renewable energy companies and the greens seem to have captured the department of energy (quite legally, quite differently from Gupta capture)It also caused two total blackouts for South Australia. In panic it ordered the world’s biggest battery from Elon Musk. Jaws dropped when people discovered how expensive it was and how inadequate (with 0.5% of the storage capacity of our Ingula Pumped Storage Scheme).The IRP and CSIR refuse to recognise the essential cost that makes renewables so expensive. Here is the key equation: cost of renewable electricity equals price paid by the system operator plus system costs.The system costs are the costs the grid operator, Eskom in our case, has to bear to accommodate the appalling fluctuations of wind and solar power so as to meet demand at all times. The renewable companies refuse to reveal their production figures but I have graphs of total renewable production since 2013, the beginning of renewable energy independent power producers (IPPS) procurement programme. The graphs are terrible, with violent, unpredictable ups and downs.In March 2018, power output varied from 3,000MW to 47MW. To stop this dreadful electricity shutting down the whole grid, Eskom must have back-up generators ramping up and down to match the renewables; it must have machines on “spinning reserve” (running below optimum power), and extra transmission lines. These cause system costs, which can be very expensive. The renewable companies don’t pay for them; Eskom does, and passes them on the South African public.NonsenseThe system costs, ignored by the IRP and CSIR, are one of the reasons their models are nonsense. They explain an apparent paradox. Week by week we hear that the prices of solar and wind electricity are coming down; but week by week we see electricity consumers around the world paying more as solar and wind are added to the grid. Denmark, with the world’s highest fraction of wind electricity, has just about the most expensive electricity in Europe. Germany, since it adopted the absurd Energiewende (phasing out nuclear and replacing it with wind and solar) has seen electricity costs soaring.The answer lies in the green desire for conquest. Nuclear power, as you can see driving past Koeberg, works in harmony with nature. The greens don’t like that. They want to conquer and dominate natureThe renewable energy IPP procurement programme, hailed by renewable companies as a huge success, has forced on SA its most expensive electricity ever — and its worst. Eskom’s last annual report, for the year ending 31 March 2018, revealed it was forced to pay 222c/kWh for the programme’s electricity compared with its selling price of 89c/kWh. But the system costs make it even more expensive.We get an idea how much more from the one renewable technology that does provide honest electricity and covers its own system costs. This is concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage, where sunshine heats up a working fluid, which is stored in tanks and used for making electricity for short periods when required. The latest such plants charge about 500c/kWh at peak times. So the best solar technology, with an award-winning project, in perhaps the world’s best solar sites, produces electricity at more than 10 times the cost of Koeberg and about five times the cost of new nuclear.Carbon dioxide realityAfter the procurement programme proved a failure, Lynne Brown, then public enterprises minister, ordered Eskom to sign up for a further 27 renewable power purchase agreements (PPAs), each lasting 20 years. Malusi Gigaba, then finance minister, endorsed her.Nuclear reduces carbon dioxide emissions; renewables don’t. The Energiewende has turned Germany into the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in Europe, because wind and solar, being so unreliable, had to be supplemented with fossil fuels, especially coal.Two reasons drive renewables: money and ideology. Renewable energy companies make a fortune when they persuade governments to force their utilities to buy their awful electricity.But why do the green ideologues love wind and solar? Not because of free energy, which is actually very expensive. Tides, waves, solar, wind and dissolved uranium in the sea can all provide free energy but, except for the uranium, it is always very costly to convert it into usable power. (Uranium from the sea would be naturally be replenished but it is cheaper to buy it from a commercial mine.)I think the answer lies in the green desire for conquest. Nuclear power, as you can see driving past Koeberg, works in harmony with nature. The greens don’t like that. They want to conquer and dominate nature. They love the idea of thousands of gigantic wind turbines and immense solar arrays dominating the landscape like new totems of command. Wind and solar rely entirely on coercion by the state, which the greens also love (in a free market nobody would buy wind or solar grid electricity).SA NEEDS TO DIVERSIFY ENERGY SOURCES TO DELIVERSA is not taking advantage of the clear lead the country has in solar and wind resources.OPINION 2 months agoThe renewable energy companies and the greens seem to have captured the department of energy (quite legally, quite differently from Gupta capture). If they get their way, the rest of us are going to suffer.Since 1994, Eskom has been wrecked by bad management, destructive ideology and corruption. Because it didn’t build stations timeously, the existing stations have been run into the ground and are failing. Its once excellent coal supply has been crippled. There is massive over-staffing and Eskom is plunging into debt. Seasonable rains threaten another fiasco to match January 2008, which shut down our gold mines.The last thing Eskom needs now is to be burdened by useless, very expensive renewable electricity. Recently, the parliamentary portfolio committee on energy, after listening to submissions on IRP 2018, recommended that coal and nuclear should remain in our energy mix. Perhaps a ray of hope for sanity.• Kenny is a professional engineer with degrees in physics, mathematics and mechanical engineering.Let’s look at the current picture, according to the Energy Information Administration.So-called renewables comprised just over 11% of U.S. energy consumption in 2017. Of the renewable sources, hydro, geothermal, and biomass aren’t going to grow enough to achieve any of the Green New Deal’s goals.Rep.-elect Ocasio-Cortez must be counting on wind and solar to power her plan. Together they supply just 3% of total energy consumed.If we confine the discussion to power generation, wind and solar comprise just 7.6% of the 4 trillion kilowatt-hour total. (Source: What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?)If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?Wind intermittency makes coal a necessary and expensive partnerMichael Shellenberger via ForbesOVER the last year, the media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines.People who read these stories are understandably left with the impression that the more solar and wind energy we produce, the lower electricity prices will become.And yet that’s not what’s happening. In fact, it’s the opposite.Between 2009 and 2017, the price of solar panels per watt declined by 75 percentwhile the price of wind turbines per watt declined by 50 percent.And yet — during the same period — the price of electricity in places that deployed significant quantities of renewables increased dramatically.Electricity prices increased by:51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy from 2006 to 2016;24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017;over 100 percent in Denmark since 1995 when it began deploying renewables (mostly wind) in earnest.What gives? If solar panels and wind turbines became so much cheaper, why did the price of electricity rise instead of decline?Electricity prices increased by 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy.One hypothesis might be that while electricity from solar and wind became cheaper, other energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas became more expensive, eliminating any savings, and raising the overall price of electricity.But, again, that’s not what happened.The price of natural gas declined by 72 percent in the U.S. between 2009 and 2016 due to the fracking revolution. In Europe, natural gas prices dropped by a little less than half over the same period.The price of nuclear and coal in those place during the same period was mostly flat.Electricity prices increased 24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017.Another hypothesis might be that the closure of nuclear plants resulted in higher energy prices.Evidence for this hypothesis comes from the fact that nuclear energy leaders Illinois, France, Sweden and South Korea enjoy some of the cheapest electricity in the world.The facts are the most expensive retail electricity comes from countries with the most renewables!Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’February 18, 2019 by stopthesethings 21 CommentsBill says it’s time to stop jerking around with wind & solar.When the world’s richest entrepreneur says wind and solar will never work, it’s probably time to listen.Bill Gates made a fortune applying common sense to the untapped market of home computing. The meme has it that IBM’s CEO believed there was only a market for five computers in the entire world. Gates thought otherwise. Building a better system than any of his rivals and shrewdly working the marketplace, resulted in hundreds of millions hooked on PCs, Windows and Office. This is a man that knows a thing or two about systems and a lot about what it takes to satisfy the market.For almost a century, electricity generation and distribution were treated as a tightly integrated system: it was designed and built as one, and is meant to operate as designed. However, the chaotic delivery of wind and solar have all but trashed the electricity generation and delivery system, as we know it. Germany and South Australia are only the most obvious examples.During an interview at Stanford University late last year, Bill Gates attacks the idiots who believe that we’re all just a heartbeat away from an all wind and sun powered future.Gates on renewables: How would Tokyo survive a 3 day typhoon with unreliable energy?Jo Nova BlogJo Nova14 February 2019Make no mistake, Bill Gates totally believes the climate change scare story but even he can see that renewables are not the answer, it’s not about the cost, it’s the reliability.He quotes Vaclav Smil:Here’s Toyko, 2p7 million people, you have three days of a cyclone every year. It’s 23GW of electricity for three days. Tell me what battery solution is going sit there and provide that power.As Gates says: Let’s not jerk around. You’re multiple orders of magnitude — … — That’s nothing, that doesn’t solve the reliability problem.Bill GatesDuring storms, clouds cut solar panel productivity (unless hail destroys it) and wind turbines have to shut down in high winds.The whole interview was part of a presentation at Stanford late last year:Cheap renewables won’t stop global warming, says Bill GatesThe interview by Arun Majumdar, co-director of Stanford Energy’s Precourt Institute for Energy, which organized the conference, can be watched here.When financial analysts proposed rating companies on their CO2 output to drive down emissions, Gates was appalled by the idea that the climate and energy problem would be easy to solve. He asked them: “Do you guys on Wall Street have something in your desks that makes steel? Where is fertilizer, cement, plastic going to come from? Do planes fly through the sky because of some number you put in a spreadsheet?”“The idea that we have the current tools and it’s just because these utility people are evil people and if we could just beat on them and put (solar panels) on our rooftop—that is more of a block than climate denial,” Gates said. “The ‘climate is easy to solve’ group is our biggest problem.”If he only looked at the numbers in the climate science debate…Jo Nova BlogGreen New Deal? Wind Power ‘Dropped Off’ The Grid During Polar VortexAs Congress debates the Green New Deal, which calls for a massive increase in renewable energy use, new reports show wind energy “dropped off” as frigid Arctic air descended on the eastern U.S. earlier this year.“An earlier than expected drop in wind, primarily caused by cold weather cutoffs, increased risk of insufficiency for morning peak,” according to a report from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which oversees electricity delivery across 15 states.The wind power shortfall triggered a “maximum generation event” on the morning of Jan. 30 when temperatures plummeted, MISO reported Wednesday of its handling of the historic cold that settled over the eastern U.S. in late January.Unplanned power outages were higher than past polar vortex events, MISO reported, much of it because wind turbines automatically shut off in the cold. Coal and natural gas plants ramped up production to meet the shortfall and keep the lights on.“This what happens when the government starts mandating and subsidizing inferior energy sources,” Dan Kish, a distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.Kish, a Green New Deal opponent, said the proposal would “double down with more ‘Rainbow Stew’ sources” that “don’t work when you need them the most.”Kish isn’t alone in his concern. Energy experts for years have been exploring the feasibility of integrating more solar and wind power onto the grid. The Green New Deal brought that debate to the forefront.While the Green New Deal doesn’t explicitly ban any fuel sources, it does call for achieving “net-zero” emissions within 10 years by “dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources.”The bill’s main champion, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said the Green New Deal was about “transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy,” at a press conference introducing the resolution in early February.Green New Deal supporters say wind and solar are necessary to fight global warming, but critics say increasingly relying on intermittent renewables poses a threat to grid reliability.The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report Tuesday that detailed how “[w]ind generation dropped off … mainly caused by wind plants reaching their cold weather cutoff thresholds.”Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on MISO dataWind turbines are shut off when temperatures dip below minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit, as happened in the upper Midwest and Great Plains — an area often dubbed the “Saudi Arabia” of wind energy. On top of that, when it gets, say, minus 45 degrees Fahrenheit, there’s not much wind.EIA said that “wind accounted for an average of 5%, ranging from 5% to 15% on surrounding days” on Jan. 30, while “coal supplied about 41% of MISO’s load and natural gas supplied about 30%.”The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment, but the group did publish a blog post in February on the polar vortex.AWEA’s research director Michael Coggin said wind energy’s performance was “strong” during this year’s polar vortex. Coggin said high voltage power lines allowed wind power from the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic to send power westward.Read more at Daily CallerJanuary 21, 2019Why 'Green' Energy Is Futile, In One LessonAustralia’s poor left powerless by soaring prices and green energyIT’S 100 years ago next month that Lenin forced communism on to Russia, sending armed thugs to storm the Winter Palace in St Petersburg.Yet even though he, Stalin, Mao and Castro then put their people in chains and kept them poor, faith in Big Government is miraculously on the rise again in Australia.See, green is the new red. Global warming is the excuse that has brought back the commissars who love ordering people how to live, even down to the things they make and the prices they charge.All big parties share the blame. Even the Turnbull Government forces us with its renewable energy targets to use more electricity from the wind and solar plants it subsidises.True, this green power is expensive, unreliable and driving cheap coal-fired power stations out of business, leaving us dangerously short of electricity for summer.But the government now has an equally crazy $30 million scheme to fix that, too: it will bribe Australians with movie tickets and $25 vouchers to turn off their electricity when they most need it — like during a heatwave, when a million air conditioners are switched on.Movie tickets are a bribe only the poor would take.That’s a bribe only the poor will take. Would Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull really turn off the switches at his Point Piper mansion for two free tickets to Hoyts?And with power prices so high, the very poor would have little real choice. Conclusion: the poor will sweat so the rich may have air con.But it was actually Greens leader Richard Di Natale who last week took out the Lenin Prize for useful idiocy.Asked on the ABC about our soaring gas prices, Di Natale suggested a solution once found in a Soviet Five Year Plan: “The simple way of dealing with the problem … is government has got to step in and regulate prices.”Same deal with electricity prices, which Greens MP Adam Bandt has urged be “capped”.“Governments absolutely need to step in,” insisted Di Natale.“They can regulate prices. We’ve got a plan … We build battery storage technology. We get more solar and wind in the system …“It’s good for prices, it’s good for jobs and most of all, it’s good for the planet.”All lies, of course. Look at South Australia: the state with the most wind power has the world’s most expensive electricity and Australia’s worst unemployment.Adelaide’s Salamon family reading by candle and torch light during South Australia’s frequent blackouts.And it’s all for nothing, because our emissions are just too tiny.As Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has admitted, even if Australia ended all emissions from cars, power stations, factories and cows, the difference to the climate would be “virtually nothing”. But the difference to the economy would be devastating.To Commissar Di Natale, it all sounds simple: just force business to charge less for the product they risked a fortune to find, extract, market and transport. But which business would risk a dollar to find more gas if they were then forced to charge prices so low that they’d lose their shirts?Already, Labor and the Greens have frightened off investment in new coal-fired power stations or even in big upgrades to existing ones, which is why we now face summer blackouts.That’s dragged even the Turnbull Government into considering whether to itself finance a new coal-fired plant, just as Lenin would have done and as Nationals MPs now demand.But Labor last Saturday proposed its own Big Government fix. In a speech in South Australia, federal leader Bill Shorten actually praised the state government for having “climate-proofed” the electricity supply.Adelaide Hills pharmacist Kirrily Chambers forced to throw out medicine from the fridge after a blackout. Picture: Kelly Barnes/The AustralianNever mind that it’s left the state with power prices so high that businesses have been driven broke.Shorten on Saturday promised South Australia relief, but not by dropping his own lunatic promise to force all Australia by 2030 to take 50 per cent of its electricity from renewable energy.No, he simply promised more subsidies — a $1 billion Australian Manufacturing Future Fund to hand out cheap business loans no bank would risk.Shorten said this new fund for manufacturers would be like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which hands out cheap government loans for the kind of renewable energy schemes that have helped to destroy our electricity system.The circle is complete: Labor in effect promises to subsidise business to survive the electricity crisis caused by subsidising green power, while the Liberals subsidise the poor not to use it at all. Meanwhile, we all pay. And all for nothing.Only Big Government could cause such a dog-chases-tail circus. We didn’t learn from Lenin, did we?Andrew Bolt on energy crisis: Poor will be left powerless by soaring prices and green energy | Herald SunjamesmatkinwritingsNovember 2, 2017 at 7:09 amWhat a mess we have from the political distortion of climate science. The AGW theory is “thought experiment” dubbed “meritless conjectures” by major research relying on > 100 peer reviewed references. See http://www.scirp.org/journal/Pap...The alarmists have been duped by the hidden role of chance. See –https://www.academia.edu/3363839...https://climatism.wordpress.com/...RENEWABLES AND CLIMATE POLICY ARE ON A COLLISION COURSEDate: 09/12/18Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy EditorThose advocating climate change mitigation policy have hitherto wagered everything on the success of renewable energy technologies. The steadily accumulating data on energy and emissions over the period of intense policy commitment suggests that this gamble has not been successful. Pragmatic environmentalists will be asking whether sentimental attachment to wind and solar is standing in the way of an effective emissions reduction trajectory.For almost as long as there has been a climate policy, emissions reduction has been seen as dependent on the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Policies supporting this outcome are ubiquitous in the developed and developing world; markets have been coerced globally, with varying degrees of severity it is true, but with extraordinary force in the OECD states, and particularly in the European Union. The net result of several decades of such measures has been negligible. Consider, for example the global total primary energy mix since 1971, as recorded in the International Energy Agency datasets, the most recent discussion of which has just been published in the World Energy Outlook (2018):Figure 1: Global Total Primary Energy Supply: 1971–2015. Source: Redrawn by the author from International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics 2017 and 2018. IEA Notes: 1. World includes international aviation and international marine bunkers. 2. Peat and oil shale are aggregated with coal. 3. “Other” Includes geothermal, solar, wind, tide/wave/ocean, heat and other.It is perfectly true that the proportional increase in modern renewables, the “Other” category represented by the thin red line at the top of the chart is a significant multiple of the starting base, but even this increase is disappointing given the subsidies involved, and in any case it is almost completely swamped by the increase in overall energy consumption, and that of fossil fuels in particular. Renewables in total, modern renewables plus biofuels and waste and hydro, amounted to about 13% of Total Primary Energy in 1971, and in 2016 are almost unchanged at somewhat under 14%. Thirty years of deployment, almost half of that time under increasingly strong post-Kyoto policies, has seen the proportion of renewable energy in the world’s primary energy input creep up by about one percentage point.Furthermore, what is true at a global level is also true in every national jurisdiction of importance, with the exception that in the less economically vibrant parts of the developed world, including the EU and the UK, energy consumption is actually declining, largely due the transfer of much manufacturing to other parts of the world, principally China.It should therefore come as no surprise to anybody that emissions not only continue to rise, but have recently started to increase at the highest rate for several years, a point that is revealed in the latest release of the Global Carbon Budget, 2018, and can be conveniently illustrated in the chart derived from this paper’s data and published in the coverage of the Financial Times:Figure 2: Global Emissions 1960 to 2018. Source: Financial Times, 6 December 2018, drawn from Global Carbon Budget Report 2018.These dismal facts are producing the obtuse reaction that the current renewables dependent policies are insufficiently aggressive, or, to use the accepted jargon, ambitious, and that the world must try harder. The reaction of the BBC’s Matt McGrath may be typical. He asks: “Why are governments taking so long to take action?”.But this is a misplaced question. The plain reality is that the global market coercions, and related policy pressures favouring renewables are already intense and incessant, and have been so with growing intensity for over fifteen years. Many economies, large and small, have tried very hard indeed, but the global energy markets have barely moved. Why? Because the effort is wasted; the picked winners, the renewable technologies, remain stubbornly uneconomic, with the consequence that spontaneous, uncoerced and rapid adoption remains a dream.This is what policy failure looks like. At what point do those sincerely concerned to see prompt and sustainable emissions reductions begin to wonder whether the renewables industry is a liability and an obstacle to the aim of climate change mitigation?Instead of blaming lazy governments, or the irrational consumer, now rioting in the streets of Paris in protest at climate policy impositions on transport fuels, environmentalists and campaigning analysts might spend their time more fruitfully by reviewing the wisdom of the policies that they have pressed on decision-makers. In doing so they could reflect that climate change mitigation is in certain important respects no different from other insurance policies, and must therefore pass the same tests: Is the policy providing real cover and is the premium affordable and proportional to the risk?Since the rising trend in emissions leaves no doubt that the current policies have as yet provided no real insurance, discussion of affordability becomes in a sense academic, though we can note in passing that it is also true that the emissions abatement cost of renewables is so great that it exceeds even high end estimates of Social Cost of Carbon, meaning that the policies are more harmful than the climate change they set out to mitigate. – This is not only wasted effort, it is counterproductive to human welfare.It will take time for this evidence and reasoning to change minds. Many environmentalists have a sentimental attachment to renewable energy flows in spite of their evident thermodynamic inferiority as fuels. They see them as Goop energy, pure heavenly gifts, handed down, naturally, from a benevolent sun, as opposed to the dirty and artificial earthly products of the soil that are fossil fuels and nuclear. But such feelings must be set aside in the interest of practicality. Climate campaigners must now ask themselves which they prefer, renewables or the stable and long-term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for it is increasingly clear that they cannot have both. The renewables industry, the vested interests of Big Green, and the widely endorsed imperative for climate change mitigation cannot co-exist for much longer. One or the other, or perhaps both, has to give way.Renewables and Climate Policy Are On A Collision Course - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)HEAT POVERTY RESEARCH BLAMES UK SUBSIDIES FOR 50% INCREASE IN FUEL.Elaine Morrall died in a freezing home – the state is tossing away people’s livesFrances Ryan‘Elaine Morrall’s body was found at her home in Runcorn wrapped up in a coat and scarf.’ Photograph: FacebookWhen Elaine Morrall’s body was found at her home in Runcorn this month, she was wrapped up in a coat and scarf. That Elaine was only 38 and has left four children behind are heartbreaking details to a case that has rightly been shared widely on social media. But one aspect is particularly haunting: Elaine’s home was cold because, unable to pay the bills, she only turned the heating on when her children came home from school.

Thing?Try several things.The Electoral College is still brokenI’ll be clear: the College is the single most insane system that I’ve ever come across.And I’ve dealt with some pretty insane systems in my time.I cannot, I just cannot, believe that we were terrified of an outcome where the lead candidate was 3,000,000 votes ahead. Secretary Hillary Clinton should have won the 2016 election under ANY other system, having a full 2,868,686 votes to levy against Donald Trump (I don’t have to call him ‘President’ anymore, thank God!).This isn’t always going to happen.The College isn’t always going to respect democracy.I would be saying this if the results were flipped the other way, too. If Trump had won the election this time around, the College would still be broken as a system. And even though President-Elect Biden won, there’s still the possibility of a faithless elector; very little penalty awaits such a stain on democracy should they feel strongly enough to disregard the will of the people! Sure, there’s a penalty, but if you’re prepared to pay that, if you’re happy to part with your money and time, then the College will not try to stop you.The British system of First Past the Post isn’t perfect by a long stretch. It tends to favour the winning party exponentially more than the proportionate votes should have. Here’s an example of how the Scottish votes have gone:I’m no fan of the blue wedge (that’s our Conservatives, not quite as extreme as the Grand Old Party but pretty damn right-wing by European standards!), but I couldn’t look you in the eye and tell you that the representation that First Past the Post offers to them as opposed to the yellow (Scottish National Party) is fair.And yet, the Electoral College, with its seats and faithless electors, surpasses the stupidity of First Past the Post in every conceivable way.Albert Camus once said of the absurd man’s actions:All systems of morality are based on the idea that an action has consequences that legitimize or cancel it. A mind imbued with the absurd merely judges that those consequences must be considered calmly. It is ready to pay up.I consider myself an absurdist at the best of times, and I accept that the absurd man (or woman or non-binary!) would have to acknowledge that they are bound up in consequentialism. But I consider Camus to be naïve here; I think that morality is more than just consequence assessment. It can be based on personal belief as well, which is essential to deciding whether or not a set of consequences do legitimise or cancel. The consequences linked to an act of eating a baby (pain, shrieking, emotional distress for onlookers) doesn’t dictate the morality of the act; my morality comes from my belief that pain, shrieking, and emotional distress as consequences should be minimised in favour of other consequences that I believe to be more appropriate.In this sense, law is in part an amoral system of rules and regulation. Law does not believe; its writers believe, but it does not. One’s external morality can influence law’s creation and application in legislatures and courts, and moral criticisms can sway new law into existence. But as an inert, dormant, untriggered force, directed solely at hypothetical consequences, law is amoral.Along those lines, should an elector have both a belief in the value of breaking their democratic word and an acceptance of the consequences that will befall them should they break that trust, they can be absurd in the absurd system. The Electoral College, as part of law, is indifferent to the injustices it creates; it holds no beliefs! The College won’t suddenly come to life and bitch-slap faithless electors and those engaged in gerrymandering! Therefore, those who hold beliefs must rein in the College and faithless electors, who otherwise find a perfectly absurd home in one another.The College is pure political pantomime which should have been rendered obsolete by the Internet and cars and transport and phones, but it was retained all the same. It’s past time to uproot it and replace it with a real, functioning democracy.The system respected democracy this time.It might not do so next time.Joe Biden is far from perfectThe kid gloves can come off now that he’s President-Elect Biden.We needed to get away from the Trump administration. President-Elect Biden wasn’t anywhere near close to my first choice, but the Democratic Party isn’t exactly known for sharp lurches to the left. So I got behind him as the lesser of the two evils on offer, and supported his campaign to overthrow Darth Cheeto.Now that we have President-Elect Biden, we have to be critical of him.His legendary mess of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 1994 was one of Trump’s biggest guns with which to attack the new President-Elect, and it was one hell of a power move. The Act was dredged up as a point against his campaign, and the truth is that while the Act was part of a wider context of rising crime (not to mention the support from the black community to begin with, in that 58% of those polled supported the Act), it causes a great amount of upset in the current era.According to the website Vox:Biden reveled in the politics of the 1994 law, bragging after it passed that “the liberal wing of the Democratic Party” was now for “60 new death penalties,” “70 enhanced penalties,” “100,000 cops,” and “125,000 new state prison cells.”The law imposed tougher prison sentences at the federal level and encouraged states to do the same. It provided funds for states to build more prisons, aimed to fund 100,000 more cops, and backed grant programs that encouraged police officers to carry out more drug-related arrests — an escalation of the war on drugs.And Brookings:But one thing is clear: the 1994 bill interacted with—and reinforced—an existing and highly problematic piece of legislation: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created huge disparities in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. Under this bill, a person was sentenced to a five-year minimum sentence for five grams of crack cocaine, but it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the same sentence. Because crack is a cheaper alternative to powder cocaine, it is more prominent in low-income neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are more likely to be predominately Black and in urban areas that can be overpoliced more easily than suburban or rural areas. While the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, enacted under the Obama-Biden administration, reduced the crack/powder cocaine disparity from 100:1 to 18:1, the damage had been done, and its effects continue to this day.Truly, astonishingly bad optics, mate!He has since apologised for his role in this movement to be “tough on crime”, proposing new legislation to decriminalise marijuana for instance, but there’s not a lot of way back from that record. It is enough to cast serious doubt on his judgement from several communities, and a close eye should be kept on him. It was enough to be “Not Trump” on the ballot, but now that he’s in power, this attitude will haunt President-Elect Biden for a lot his time in the White House.He also has a slight tendency towards corporate favouritism, as noted by the Jacobin:The most well-known case is Biden’s relationship with MBNA, a major credit card company based in his home state that was his largest single donor between 1989 and 2000. By sheer coincidence, Biden voted against a measure requiring credit card companies to warn consumers of the consequences of making only minimum payments and voted four times for an industry-supported bankruptcy bill that made it harder for financially strained borrowers to get protection from creditors. Another coincidence: MBNA hired Biden’s son, Hunter, as a lobbyist straight out of law school, and later hired him as a consultant from 2001 to 2005 — the same years Biden was helping to pass the bill.The “Hunter’s laptop” bullshit was a Republican ploy to discredit President-Elect Biden which thankfully failed, but he’s got more than a little bit of dirt on him through this. In a connected matter, he has a spotty history with bankruptcy issues, as noted by GQ on the dirt surrounding him on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, an Act that he had been pushing to get through for years and which led him to clash with Senator Elizabeth Warren ever since:Biden was one of the bill's major Democratic champions, and he fought for its passage from his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He had pushed for two earlier bankruptcy reform bills in 2000 and 2001, both of which failed. But in 2005, BAPCPA made it through, successfully erecting all kinds of roadblocks for Americans struggling with debt, and doing so just before the financial crisis of 2008.[…]As political writer Alexander Cockburn once wrote, "The first duty of any senator from Delaware is to do the bidding of the banks and large corporations which use the tiny state as a drop box and legal sanctuary. Biden has never failed his masters in this primary task. Find any bill that sticks it to the ordinary folk on behalf of the Money Power and you’ll likely detect Biden’s hand at work."And from Prospect:[Biden] voted against three amendments to ease bankruptcy requirements for consumers whose financial troubles stem from medical expenses. He voted against an amendment that would have helped seniors keep their homes. He voted against exempting servicemembers and widows of servicemembers killed in action from the law’s eligibility restrictions. He voted against an amendment to exempt women whose financial troubles stemmed from deadbeat husbands’ failure to pay child support or alimony. And Biden even voted against an amendment that would have ensured that children of debtors could still be given birthday and Christmas presents. Biden also voted against allowing debtors to pay their union dues during bankruptcy, potentially imperiling their employment and ability to achieve financial rehabilitation.[…]It’s not as if Joe Biden was opposed to all amendments to the legislation. He voted to enshrine a “millionaire’s loophole” that allows wealthy, well-counseled debtors to shield their assets from creditors by placing them in asset-protection trusts. Nor did he act to cut off the loophole that shields assets placed by wealthy families in “dynasty trusts,” such as are offered by Delaware.Most recently, we have to reckon with President-Elect Biden’s… slips of the tongue. “You ain’t black” being the most famous, though by no means the only one. He’s got his heart in the right place when it comes to race and LGBT+ relations (these days), but his rhetoric is curiously tone-deaf, which is risky in a time like this wherein the Black Lives Matter is ramping up its campaign to expose America’s racist core.And then, we have Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris.A historic win for women!A historic win for black people!I mean this wholeheartedly, I am pleased for her. Her stances on Medicare and providing access to college education for students from poorer backgrounds is highly commendable, as is her desire to abolish the death penalty.Except, we do have to remember her record as a prosecutor, which left her wide open to the likes of former Presidential candidate Representative Tulsi Gabbard’s critiques, as documented from the Rolling Stone magazine:Gabbard particularly zeroed in on Harris’s record on drug-related offenses: “She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard said, referring to an interview Harris gave to The Breakfast Club in which she joked about smoking pot in college.[…]Perhaps most damningly, in 2019 a Washington Free Beacon investigation found that between 2011 and 2016, while Harris was attorney general, at least 1,560 people were sent to California state prisons on marijuana-related offenses. Although the number of low-level marijuana offenders sent to state prison significantly declined after 2011, that was attributed to a state-wide initiative to curb state prison overcrowding and divert lower-level offenders to county jails.The claim is somewhat misleading given that Vice President-Elect Harris didn't prosecute all of those cases, and many factcheckers like APN note that Facebook memes added a racial element to the marijuana convictions that was never there initially. But it's a clear optics U-turn from prosecution to her current position on decriminalisation (another of her positions that I support).A lot of the criticisms of Vice President-Elect Harris leave out that she was not herself personally involved in a lot of the issues. She manned large offices with lawyers who made some of the gaffes that are now attributed to her, such as the 2014 incident when she was Attorney General wherein some of her lawyers argued that non-violent offenders should be forced to combat wildfires. It’s easy to conflate Vice-President Elect Harris’ actions with those of her underlings, but in this context she was not, so to speak, responsible for forcing offenders into forced labour in California.However, it’s harder to distance herself from her record on this next issue, in which 1,000 drug tests had to be dismissed under her tenure in the District Attorney’s office, as reported in the Sacramento Bee:The San Francisco drug lab was shut down after a lead technician, who testified on behalf of prosecutors on drug cases, was found to have systematically mishandled the drug samples seized from suspects, even consuming some herself.While the San Francisco Police Department was responsible for running the lab, not Harris’s district attorney office, a court ruled in 2010 that the district attorney’s office violated defendants’ constitutional rights by not disclosing what it knew about the tainted drug evidence.Vice-President Elect Harris also has a poor relationship with truancy laws. While she later expressed regret for the effects, the Lost Angeles Times details what happened:Harris took that advocacy statewide, sponsoring a 2010 law to make it a misdemeanor for parents whose young children miss more than 10% of school days a year without a valid excuse. Parents could be punished with a maximum $2,000 fine, up to a year in county jail or both. Violators of the law could defer judgment by participating in regular meetings with school officials and improving their children’s attendance.[…]Harris and her allies have said the law’s purpose was to prod school districts to provide resources to families of truant children, not to lock up parents. But the Huffington Post reported that several counties in California arrested, charged and sometimes jailed parents under the law backed by Harris.To some, she might appear to flip-flop on issues; it's not unusual for a Presidential candidate to do this, but it's ammunition against her for Trumpistas who are looking for anything they can find to catch her out. Her team’s denial of DNA testing for Kevin Cooper as Attorney General in 2004 is also a flip-flop strike against her; she now supports the testing, but is that too little, too late? There's yet more fuel for their hatred to be found, given that she's female and black. Vice President-Elect Harris is going to have a very interesting time between defending her record and fending off racism and sexism alike.Look, maybe the pair of them have grown naturally into their newfound positions. At least they’re better than Trump. But we cannot be blind to their records. They have to deliver the goods now, and the test of their commitment to the values they espoused on the political trail will be how they conduct themselves in office.And we should be honest with ourselves.Trumpistas like to paint them as radical liberals, but America as it stands has no left-wing party. It has left-wing politicians, such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but there’s no unified left wing. President-Elect Biden and Vice President-Elect Harris are about as centre as it gets for the American system, which translates as still pretty bloody right wing on the rest of the world stage.Democrats as a party only look like the left wing because of what they’re compared to in the Republican Party, which is the gold-standard for the Western far-right:Also bear in mind that the Democratic Party was shifting leftwards while the then-President Obama was conducting mass surveillance via the National Security Agency and playing with drones, as noted in the Guardian:Barack Obama has claimed that drone and other airstrikes, his favored tactics of war, have killed between 64 and 116 civilians during his administration, a tally which was criticized as undercounted even before Friday’s announcement.[…]Yet the count is also incomplete, leaving out the civilian toll from drone strikes in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. Nor did the administration go into detail about where the strikes occur, citing what an official told reporters on Friday were “diplomatic sensitivities”, even as it presented the assessment as a significant advance in transparency. The Guardian has filed a freedom of information act request for records relating to the civilian-death assessment in the US bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, where thus far the US military has concluded it has killed 36 civilians since summer 2015.The upper limit of the civilian death toll from drones stands at more than 800 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, during the time period Obama’s drones tally covered.Don’t be fooled by the Trumpistas.These are not the progressive heroes that people like myself would be hoping for. My standard of leftism as a Scot would terrify most Americans, but we can agree that there have been poor shows from across the board. The new President-Elect duo are not angels: hell, no politician is! President-Elect Biden is going to be remembered for a while as “The man who beat Trump”, but that reputation isn’t going to last forever. His and Vice President-Elect Harris’ records will be coming into more focus now that the Presidency is theirs (that is, if Trump loses the SCOTUS case that he’s building).Learn this lesson; progressives have succeeded in getting rid of Trump. but they’ve appointed a neoliberal in his place. It’s better by far, and the Atlantic has some warm words for President-Elect Biden even against this backdrop:Biden didn’t extol neoliberalism in the language of a true believer and came to publicly regret his vote to ease banking rules. He wasn’t prone to abstractly celebrating the virtue of free markets. His analysis was always earthier, without hints of the technocratic tendency to trumpet the efficiency. He urged the party toward centrism, because it was the basis for electoral victory. “It’s where the American people are,” he told a journalist in 2001.Even so, there is plenty of reason to worry about the pair of them. Between the above and criticisms of President-Elect Biden’s odd history with interventionism—Overall, Biden’s reflexes are to provide little political assistance to countries in transition. That is a recipe for failed states, and failed states produce not only terrorists but also refugees, and they invite foreign intervention by neighboring states and aspiring hegemons.This half-in-half-out approach to military intervention also strips U.S. foreign policy of its moral element of making the world a better place. It is inadequate to the cause of advancing democracy and human rights.—wording courtesy of the Atlantic, there’s scope for this victory to go all wrong.If we haven’t learned this lesson already, we’ll learn it soon enough.Politics, for some, is a jokePoor, poor Kanye.The Presidency is to narcissists what a lamp is to a moth. They can’t resist the allure of power. And Kanye West, well-documented narcissist, flew into it.At a rally in July, he not only decried Harriet Tubman (an enslaved black woman who freed herself and other slaves and then became a suffrage activist), but broke down crying over abortion. I get it. I really do. The thought of abortion is a hard one for me to swallow, even as I accept that the woman’s decision is the final one. It’s not me who carries the kid, it’s not me who will have their life on the line upon complications. Hell, men couldn’t even suck it up and accept the negative side effects from male contraception, which we’ve been expecting women to endure through their pills for decades!I know why West is upset over abortion. Even as a liberal, I do understand it. I come from a religious background, so I have heard the anti-abortion arguments for long enough to hold sympathy without agreement. Indeed, I support limits on abortion based on time and science to determine foetal potential for pain and to curb any eugenics temptations. Ideally, I’d love to have a world wherein abortion was no longer necessary, in that we provide for people and give them the resources and health provisions to have a baby safely and carry it to term intact.But this isn’t a perfect world, and the act of carrying a baby and later birthing it is a supreme nine-month long labour for a woman. Many can’t even actually afford to look after the child, and the argument of “just give the kid to an orphanage” negates one simple fact: it fucking hurts to birth a kid. Comedian Carol Burnett once said that childbirth “is like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head”; if a God designed that system for the reproduction of life, just because Eve ate one piece of fruit, and pre-programmed us to be horny, then He’s a sadistic monster.If that level of pain, not to mention the nine months of actually carrying the child to term, is not a woman’s choice to undertake, freely and gladly consented to, then we’re kidding ourselves that women have any equality to men. We give corpses more bodily autonomy when it comes to harvesting their organs than we give to women when we deny them the chance to abort their pregnancies in a humane manner (balancing scientific knowledge of pain and nervous system growth with the needs of the woman). Our entire existence is built on the extraordinary pain of women; I would not blame a single one of them if they all collectively said “enough”.Understanding West is different from agreeing with his views.But in his narcissism, he ran for President with no workable plan for his chosen issues. He appeared before the crowd, and his solution to abortion was this doozy:The maximum increase would be everybody that has a baby gets a million dollars or something in that range… If you had opportunity to be given a million dollars, just for being pregnant, would you have considered it? And then everybody would start having children, the greatest gift of life.America has 166,700,000 women.Let’s be generous to West and assume that maybe 1/3 will fall pregnant at some stage in their lives. Likely more will deliberately fall pregnant with the financial incentive in place, but we’ll be generous so as to not break the bank. That’s about 55,566,667 women. And each gets $1,000,000 for every pregnancy.55,566,667 * $1,000,000.You get from that $5.5566667e+13.If you’re playing at home, that’s $55,566,667,000,000.For comparison, US expenditure on the military in 2019 was $718,690,000,000.And that’s not even accounting for women having more than one kid.The takeaway is clear: the government would be financially crippled in a week. The sperm banks would be raided by women who wanted babies (read: $1,000,000: poverty will make most anyone take a crazy bet to survive), and then what happens to the baby? Will it be loved and cared for, or will it be tossed into the American hyper-capitalistic society without so much as a care in the world?Some will luck out.Some won’t.And that, my friends, is why ‘pro-life’ is only ‘pro-birth’, with no thought to what happens before, during, or after. Surprise, surprise; the narcissist hadn’t thought anything of his abortion-curbing plan through.And yet, despite this unworkable lunacy, he got a few voters!WHAT THE HELL?!The Presidency attracted Donald Trump in his egomania, and he ran it like a business at the expense of the human lives he was supposed to govern.The Presidency attracted Kanye West in his egomania, and he wanted to implement insane policies that would destroy the bank in his self-assured zeal.To counter this unqualified egomania that’s seeping into the election discourse, with even Dwayne Johnson “entertain[ing] the thought” (even if he’s not serious), things have to change. Even the phenomenon of unqualified individuals jesting about their chances, when married to a system that would do nothing to stop them if they made an effort to run, is very worrying to say the absolute least.What have we learned?Some people run on a narcissistic high.Some people vote for them as a stupid joke.Others are so disillusioned by the non-options from the major parties that they side with these jokesters and clowns; the same attitude got us Trump.And politics is fractured as a result of this joking around.Now, the current limits on who can become President are the following:Be a natural-born citizen of the United StatesBe at least 35 years oldHave been a resident of the United States for 14 yearsThese need tightened, and quickly.Celebrities can fundraise for political causes, but they cannot run for the Presidency without a minimum of experience in political office. At the very least, I’d be expecting to see a degree in a relevant field; this requirement can be interpreted widely, since anthropology is the study of humans one governs, history covers several areas of legal development through the ages, criminology and sociology would give incredible insights into the treatment of criminals and society. Experience and higher education can cancel one another out in some cases (say a candidate has thirty years of Senate experience but they didn’t go to university? Weigh it up on its merits!) but this current system of allowing simply anyone through the door needs to be reconsidered.And yes, I am biased in favour of the elite experts.Thank you, next.The age point needs to be looked at, too. All well and good to have a minimum at 35 years of age (I’d set it at 30 personally, but there you go), but what about the maximum? We had Trump and President-Elect Biden, 74 and 77 years of age respectively, in this election. Much was made over who would die first, who looked the most ill, who had what dementia or cognitive decline. As much as it saddens me to say this, such a policy would likely exclude 79-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders and 71-year-old Senator Warren, but we cannot have a repeat of this madness.Consistency is key here.This makes a problem for the re-election of older office-holders, but I don’t think this maximum should be breached. Say we set the limit at 70 years, and the minimum at 30? That gives a candidate forty years to get into the position of the President. That’s not overly restrictive in the slightest. To those crying that this is a burden on older people seeking the Presidency and is thus a restriction on freedom, I’m chill with that.Within forty years of four-year Presidencies, that’s (depending on the year you were born) ten opportunities to get into the hot seat.Ten opportunities.Most people don’t have the funds to get one opportunity.Besides, while there’s implicit bias against the less wealthy, there’s already explicitly worded discrimination against non-natural citizens. Gee, for the land of opportunity, it’s sure withholding the Presidency from a fairly sizeable chunk of the population, no? But this is a limitation that has been enshrined and accepted.A few more to strengthen the office wouldn’t hurt.We can disagree and be friends on some things, but not on everythingI’d like to tell you a story, if I may.I have this friend. We’ll call him Craig.Craig is gay. I am (at this stage in my life) an evangelical Christian (the kind who gives you Biblical literature as a Christmas present) and am in impressive denial over my bisexuality. We meet at university. We sit next to one another in the law lectures, and we get chatting. He’s quite awkward, but I like him a lot, and we get chatting.He and I go for coffees and hot chocolates. I don’t know that Craig is gay, and I don’t think to ask him anything about his sexuality. But we chat about gay issues sometimes, and a lot of my then-values come flooding out of my stupid horrible mouth.Craig doesn’t retaliate.He remains my friend throughout it.He doesn’t even tell me that he’s gay until later on in our friendship.But then I meet another friend. We’ll call her Jessie. She no longer speaks to me, so I can’t tell her how much of an impact she had on my life. We meet in my Spanish class. She’s a typical university SJW, the hipster-chic kind who’ll correct your speech if you don’t say “they” in just about every instance. Scotland has very few of those, thankfully. But I have to give it to her; she taught me a pretty important lesson.We get chatting about gay issues, and I do my best to flirt with the issue. “Oh, I don’t have the right to judge!”, I try, leaving out the part that I was on an anti-gay mailing list at the time from a ‘pro-marriage’ organisation. She presses and presses; she doesn’t give me an inch. I do the whole cool-as-a-cucumber approach, the suave Ben Shapiro rational veneer of oily semantics juggling, and she’s only getting angrier and angrier with me until I outright tell her that I don’t believe in gay marriage.She then takes her bag and her oversized glasses and leaves our table. I have the sheer, unmitigated cheek to tell her to have a nice life.That day, she is absent from Spanish class.She transferred classes to get away from me.I don’t blame her now, but I did back then. Touchy liberals, I think! I kept my cool, I didn’t storm off! I have won the argument, because I was civil and polite! I find Craig, not knowing that he was gay, and I COMPLAIN ABOUT HER TO HIM.Craig doesn’t retaliate.He remains my friend. God knows how.He helps me see what she was thinking and why.I don’t think that I would have broken out of my rut had it not been for Craig and Jessie. They were two of the best things to ever happen to me. Jessie helped me to see Craig’s perspective, and Craig allowed me to come to my senses in my own time by being there for me. In this, I even manage to come to terms with my bisexuality, and I realise that feeling this way about guys and girls is not an immoral thing. I owe them both a debt that I don’t think I can ever wholly repay.Craig was amazing about these issues when I talked to him, and when I began to lose my faith. Jessie doesn’t know that I made the change; she stayed away from me for as long as she was at university. I never saw her again. Again, who could blame her? I held values that ran contrary to her life! But here’s the thing; while Craig was the gentle, kind type who guided me away from hate, I first of all had to want to be guided. I only understood Craig’s perspective after Jessie had forcibly rejected my worldview and made me see how wrong it was to view some human beings as an underclass, no matter how nicely I smiled at them. For me to listen, I had to first see the harm that I was causing.Since then, I learned that another gay friend (his name for our purposes will be Stanley) had been afraid of coming out to me because he thought I would be homophobic. I can’t remember if I was still transitioning away from homophobia or if I was more or less totally accepting by that stage. Regardless of the stage I was at, though, Stanley was perhaps the tipping point in all of this. This was compounded with learning that another friend Morgan had gender dysphoria and was considering changing names to match their gender identity (“their” being used for anonymity).I had guidance from Craig, rage from Jessie, sadness from Stanley, and a realisation of just how many people were hiding from people like me from Morgan. Those four things brought me back from my hatred masked as kindness.Here’s the issue.Without those four together, I wouldn’t have changed.It’s beyond shameful, but that’s what it took.We have to be prepared to show all four. Like Jessie, we have to be prepared to fight tooth and nail for our rights, against the QAnons and the Confederates and the Neo-Nazis and the alt-right and UKIP and National Front and the Ku Klux Klan. Where one group isn’t targeting us, like the Klan is more interested in harassing people of colour than gay people, their fight is still our fight. We fight on behalf of our shared humanity. Like Stanley, we have to be open about how their hatred makes us feel in our calmer moments; it might not sway them, but it might sway those on the fence. Like Craig, we have to be there for those who come back from that edge, back to kindness. And like Morgan, we have to realise just how the people we love are suffering.Being nice isn’t enough anymore.Being respectful isn’t enough.Not on their own.Bigots have been globally legitimised under Trump, and they aren’t going down easily. Not even with their orange führer taken out of the picture.So when a Republican or such tells you to be nice to them, that you should be kind to them in the wake of this election result, that you need to let them process their feelings, it’s up to you whether you want to use the Craig, Jessie, Stanley, or Morgan mask to deal with them and the wider mess that Trump has left in the West.If you cannot help them, after having given it your best effort, then there’s nothing left for you to do. Others can give it a shot, but know your limits, and know what you need for your own safety. Know when to be a Craig and when to be a Jessie; being a Jessie all the time will anger everyone around you, but being a Craig will lead to a much slower burn which we don’t have a lot of time for in the current climate. And yet, both are needed in the equation, as a balance.We cannot be friends with people who dispute our existence and rights, who refuse to change their small minds with all the evidence in the world put before them. People are capable of changing, but they have to be exposed to both kindness from those they’re hurting and their fury alike. We can chat as Craigs once the other side is listening about the best way to further our rights to the benefit of all (there’s a genuine worry about letting male sexual predators who fake trans identities into women’s prisons!), but if one side is demanding that our entire corpus of rights should be on the table, we have to be able to put on our Jessie masks and demand that we be acknowledged in the first place.If you think there’s hope, like Craig thought there was hope for me, talk.If you don’t, then your first priority is to your own safety.According to the current figures, 70,686,229 Americans decided at the very least that the danger to our corpus of rights was not a deal-breaker. Be it through oily Shapiro semantics twisting (“Oh, we don’t just oppose same-sex… stuff, the rules are the same for unmarried couples too!”) or pure outright hatred (“FUCKING FAGGOT [I’m bi] N*****S NEED TO GO DIE, HELL YEAH FILTH!”), the effects are the same.Seems like Jessie might need to stick around for a bit.No demographic is immune from bigotryYou know how we always hear that strong women will save us?Or the gays and trans people?Or the people of colour, like some rainbow of good?There’s some truth in that (indeed, many are praising former-Representative Stacey Abrams, a black woman, for mobilising support in Georgia to oust Trump through her Fair Fight campaign), but don’t be wholly taken in by the numbers.Inexplicably, 28% of LGBT+ people voted for Donald Trump this year, DOUBLING from the 2016 election. September exit polls indicated that 45% of queer men were lining up to give Trump their vote. This is in the face of the man who tried to reject transgender people from the US military to save on pointless expenses, whose administration halted visas for the same-sex partners of diplomats and UN ambassadors (limiting access on the basis of marriage alone), who rolled back trans healthcare provisions in the Department of Health and Social Services.A lot of Trump’s attacks were launched against our trans guys and gals and non-binary pals, but some members of the overall umbrella community did not have their backs. They cared more about their taxes, or their comfort, or their voting habits, or for their ability to “pass” as straight and cisgender to their own advantage.As for women, 55% of white women polled sided with Mr “Grab Them by the Pussy”. That’s an increase of 2% from 2016. This is a massive problem for modern day feminism, wherein people say the right things and then vote in an uber-misogynist who seeks to remove the right of all women to receive a safe abortion should they need it. But since some women will never need that abortion, there’s a divide between the haves and the have-nots. Once again, what we see is a failure of empathy.The Latino and Black vote for Trump also rose by a few percent. HOW?! This is the man who has such a clear history of racism, you’d be hard-pressed to find anything good that he’s done! Now, to give them their dues, perhaps they were put off of President-Elect Biden thanks to the above-mentioned issues, but it’s literally a choice between that and an orange wannabe fascist who unashamedly despises you!It comes down to the degree of harm being wrought, both past and present. We have one candidate who, in the past, did many racist things (such as the aforementioned policing law) but then served under Barack Obama (who again, remember, I do not care hugely for save for on balance with the alternatives running under the Libertarian and the Republican banners) and ran to dethrone a tyrant in the present. On the other side, we have a bastard who called peaceful black protestors “sons of bitches” in recent, living memory, who calls African nations “shitholes”, and who repeatedly evades questions on white supremacy so that he would not be in danger of losing the Confederacy vote from his supremacist buddies. This is, of course, on top of all of the racist comments and actions he has perpetrated in the past.Trump, asked if he has concerns that he's using the language of white supremacists and many view his tweets as racist, says: "It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me." pic.twitter.com/C0ranRv6vg— Manu Raju (@mkraju) July 15, 2019You don’t get into bed with Steve Bannon and avoid such supremacist claims.One candidate did racist things and took his time to grow up, but he did grow up.The other did not grow up.It’s the lesser of two evils (see my section where I evaluate the new President-Elect and Vice President-Elect), but President-Elect Biden is the less bitter pill by far.Polled white men were in the majority of Trump’s supporters, coming in at 58%. As if there was any doubt that that would be the case. This dipped from last time, but it’s over half. If this is representative of America as a whole, white men and women left to their own devices would have voted in Donald Trump. As a white man who is bisexual, I feel significantly let down by the social demographics I belong to. I’m especially disappointed with the LGBT+ community; we are fragmented and divided, and over a quarter of us voted for a bigot who would have ruined so many lives, who would leave millions to the mercy of COVID-19 while withholding financial and health provisions. They are the torch-bearers for Trumpism, even without Trump present in the White House.He is a spectre who will forever haunt democracy, and they bear him.We bear him.I’m not happy about that.Frankly, I’m utterly ashamed of us.Still, let’s celebrate while we can. We can start by thanking Stacey Abrams.The Supreme Court is a political institutionOne could have argued that the SCOTUS wasn’t a political institution, even after Bush v Gore. They applied the law to the case and did what they could. I hold that their decision in that case was held back by a lack of imagination; take the dissenting words of Justice Stevens, who said the following of the case:…nothing prevents the majority, even if it properly found an equal protection violation, from ordering relief appropriate to remedy that violation without depriving Florida voters of their right to have their votes counted. As the majority notes, “[a] desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.”In Justice Stevens’ view, the court had made a decision to find in Bush’s favour. One that was based on expediency, but a decision all the same.This encapsulates much of constitutional law, and a lot of administrative law too. How one interprets the highest laws of the land is a consciously-made choice, not merely a seeking of truth. In some cases, truth doesn’t exist before a judge makes their call on novel cases. What of gay marriage? SCOTUS had to decide that ‘dignity’ encompassed a person’s right to marry whoever they liked in terms of being equal! The Affordable Care Act? Justice Roberts had to decide to read the tax penalty as taxation to allow it to persist! Abortion had to be decided as a matter of privacy between doctor and patient, but on another day, the Justices could have easily overridden privacy by deciding that an unborn child constituted ‘life’ and that the SCOTUS (as part of the State) would be depriving ‘life’ against constitutional guarantees.That's the way the Polish Constitutional Court went with their analysis of the abortion debate, and even liberal bastion Justice Ginsburg was wary of the way Roe was decided (while still supporting a woman's right to abortion)!I fall on the side of protecting abortion rights and same-sex marriage. I’ve decided that that is how I’m going to read and interpret their relevant clauses. Others refuse, and decide to read it along their own biases and interpretations.You see how Supreme Courts work?They decide.They don’t just fact-find. They find facts, which lead to multiple possible (and legally plausible) outcomes and interpretations, and they apply the ones that they decide fit best. They hear out the counsel, and they deliberate on the strength of the arguments within the legal setting. The more novel the case, the more discretion is made open to the judges, the more politically contentious the topic (say, abortion when it was first brought to SCOTUS), the more a judgement becomes a decision-making exercise as opposed to fact-finding alone. This isn’t contract law, this isn’t private property: those fields are pretty fixed.But constitutional and administrative law?By virtue of being tied to politics and principles, they’re doomed to be in flux forever.And SCOTUS is, for all intents and purposes, a Constitutional Court.So let’s go back my opening line. One could argue that SCOTUS wasn’t a political institution, even after Bush v Gore, but it was a deciding institution. It decided on matters. Sometimes for good, and sometimes for ill. This whole nonsense that the SCOTUS doesn’t make law is absurd, no matter what an originalist would tell you; their members are brought in by the President’s nomination and their later confirmation, and a President is voted for by the people. They know that, should a chair vacate, it will then be filled by the President they have voted for.It’s political by default of its makeup.But after Bush, that political element was thrust into the limelight. No longer was it just deciding the law based on law that was already present. It was making political decisions. One could argue that even before then, Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka were politically-fuelled decisions based on concepts of the good which could be extrapolated from the legal language to suit the Justices’ needs. As the sides of the political aisle become more and more divided on human rights, such decisions become political statements. Even a person who declines to say anything on the case before them, who says that their hands are tied, has decided to say nothing: qui tacet consentire.Those who are silent are presumed to be in full agreement.That includes the originalist who says “I couldn’t possibly comment.”(For anyone who wants to review this topic in more detail, Philosophy Tube delivered an incredibly in-depth discussion on originalism and deciding vs fact-finding, which I include here for your convenience. Ignore the horse.)Enter Justice Amy Coney Barrett.Republican Party official Harmeet Dhillon had this to say on Fox:We're waiting for the United States Supreme Court - of which the President has nominated three justices - to step in and do something. And hopefully Amy Coney Barrett will come through and pick it up.If the SCOTUS wasn’t political before (and we’ve clearly established that it is a political institution anyway due to its very makeup), it sure as hell is now.I’m still hoping that Justice Barrett will have enough moral fibre to allow the people of America to have their say in the election. I think very little of her voting record and stances; I find her originalism blind and her reading of the law restrictive to the point of sheer malice. Her unwillingness to acknowledge climate change as a real and present danger when directly asked is particularly worrying. However, for all I know, she might be entirely innocent in any political discourse. Maybe Trump nominated her in the hopes that she would come through, without explicitly giving her orders.But the SCOTUS is currently Trump’s biggest weapon in his arse(nal). Justice Samuel Alito recently decided to enforce vote segregation orders by date in Pennsylvania. He went on a massive rant to the Federalist Society about gay rights and ‘political’ COVID-19 lockdowns. Whatever the outcome of the case that Trump’s lawyers bring, the Justices are getting ready to hear it out. They’re gearing up. And even if the case presented is a flimsy one, it’s gonna be a tempting option for six sitting arch-conservatives.SCOTUS is not neutral to law and Presidents.And it is very, very political.What comes next?You’ve been freed, do you know how hard it is to lead…?This is far from over.Trump is going to do all that he can to invalidate this result.His fanbase is already crying fraud.The courts are getting involved.America, you’re in for a rough few weeks, maybe even months. President-Elect Biden will come out of it hopefully unscathed, but to become complacent is to give ammo to the other side. Not that their heavily-armed goons need any more.And after that, President Biden takes power. He has to be held accountable. He no longer has the excuse of “I’m not Trump!”; he has to lead, and lead properly. That means policies, healthcare, bipartisan agreements, international affairs. He has to deal with a Britain whose Boris was gearing up to trade with a Trump administration, a Russia whose Putin was getting more and more testy with Trump, a China whose Xi Trump has tried to rattle and blatantly failed, a North Korea whose Kim was barely being held in check.Americans can’t even decide on the distinctions between capitalism and socialism without launching at one another’s throats these days.You’re without Trump.Awesome.Wow!Do you have a clue what happens now?How is the new administration going to handle domestic affairs? The Black Lives Matter movement, incensed by Trump and his tear gas, will be watching President-Elect Biden with steely eyes. The LGBT+ community have been living in great concern under Trump, so he will need to restore their faith in government. Women need assurances that their bodies are their own, and not merely incubation chambers for sperm and eggs. A deadly virus is still ripping through the States; stimulus packages are essential.This is one of the most politically fraught times of our lives. At a time when allies are a must, most of the world looks to the US with great suspicion. On the global stage, there’s no way to move forward without help and support from other countries.Phase One has to be settling the country at home and saving lives.Phase Two has to be the renewal of international affairs.Phase Three is maintaining that peace, if it’s even possible to achieve now.But it’s fine for me to just say all of this; President-Elect Biden actually has to do it.Let’s see how he does.But just remember one last thing: President-Elect Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris might not have won without Dr Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party splitting the vote from disaffected Republicans.I got very angry during the more tense moments in the Georgia counting, during which Dr Jorgensen was holding the ~1% that President-Elect Biden needed to overtake Trump. I made an illogical post on Facebook lamenting this. I complained that she was stealing Biden’s votes, why couldn’t the Libertarians have thrown support his way, it’s their fault that Biden’s not the clear and decisive winner yet! It was a fairly childish move, but I was panicking, and logic wasn’t really my strong suit at the time. Like a good little nerd, writing things down helps me to keep calm when I’m stressed.Plus, I wanted to believe the best in our Libertarian friends, that they might have been tempted to vote for Biden too, that they had a shred of decency!However, a dear friend of mine provided me with solid evidence from Libertarian online hideouts (not that he is one, of course!) that the American Libertarians were furious with their own and Dr Jorgensen for splitting the votes away from Trump. In their eyes, Dr Jorgensen and her supporters were actually the reason that Biden could keep his lead, because those Republican Never-Trumpers actually had somewhere to go that allowed them to avoid their skewed perceptions of socialism and communism without throwing their support behind Trump himself. A worthless protest vote, in other words.Apparently 4chan had a meltdown over this?Here’s a selection of some of their spicy memes:Evidence must always take precedence over sentiments and optimism.And so, I had to concede the point to my friend.That opens up one more problem, though.Had it not been for that Libertarian split, Trump just might have won.I'm fairly certain that she had Biden-leaners along with her. Dr Jorgensen's open border policy, her rejection of Trump’s famous wall, and her vocal support for Black Lives Matter would have turned many Trumpistas away from her. But plenty of her other policies, such as free market healthcare, slashed taxes, and a strong advocacy for the Second Amendment, skewed to the right’s terror of socialised anything, welcoming in disaffected Republicans who didn’t like Trump but would have held their noses to vote for him had there been no third party alternative open to them.Without that ~1% buffer, Trump would have had a much better shot in a lot more of the swing states. Those where the vote ended up as 49.x% : 49.y%. Yes, many people wanted Trump to lose the election, well over half of the country wanted him out!But without Dr Jorgensen splitting the vote from both sides and taking 1,735,372 votes for herself, Trump would have had a much clearer path to winning the likes of Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. There was less than 1% of the in the balance in all four of those states, and she held it each time. We’ll never know for sure, but had enough of those votes gone to Trump, those four states alone would have afforded Trump an additional 57 electoral votes; that would have set Trump from the 214 he currently holds up to 271, with North Carolina (15) and Alaska (3) giving him another 18 votes once their voting is finished (which are looking ruby-red right now).Each of those states voted for Trump in 2016.And while Arizona may be exacting vengeance on Trump over his treatment of their beloved Senator John McCain, that's a loss that could have easily been softened through a coalition between those other historically red states.Many people argue against the idea that Dr Jorgensen lost Trump the election. They say that no Libertarian owes their vote to anyone. This is true, but there’s a simple empirical test; simply take away Dr Jorgensen from the equation, and then see what happened to the scores. Would more voters have abstained from voting? Would they have swallowed their pride and voted for President-Elect Biden?Or maybe enough nutters would have gone for Trump.Had every hard-right Libertarian voter followed their twisted internal logic and tactically voted for Trump over Dr Jorgensen (a candidate I respected while disagreeing with her on matters to do with civilian arms, taxation, and her excessive deference to free market economics), Trump would have walked away with 289 electoral votes.This is before we account for the fact that, had the Democrats chosen anyone other than boring old neoliberal President-Elect Biden as their Presidential candidate, had they gone with real progressives such as Senators Sanders and Warren, they would have lost the election in a landslide, even when opposing Donald J. Trump.Just food for thought.Maybe enough of her voters would have shuffled off to President-Elect Biden. Much of her platform would have been appealing to them; hell, if she’d loosened up on my aforementioned issues with her stances, I would have been sorely tempted if I were an American! But in a world of identity politics, with Republicans running wild in their hatred for any form of social provision, the Libertarian ballot might have called out to those who wanted a break from Trump while still harbouring traditional GOP support in their core.For all of the work done against him, faced with all of the tragic deaths from COVID-19 and beautiful voter re-enfranchisement from Fair Fight movements, Trump might have lost the 2020 election on a Libertarian miscalculation alone.That's a really sobering prospect.