The Anti-Targ

It's a natural, and good, thing that as women become more educated they tend to have fewer children, because they see themselves as more than just baby factories. However this by itself should not lead to a declining population, because alone it should drop birth rates down to a stable or slowly growing population. What sends it into decline are all the socio-economic negatives that are weighing people down. Shitty geopolitical conditions, environmental problems people thinking they shouldn't breed as part of their contribution to global warming mitigation and other environmental degradation and pollution issues, the expense, the perception of a greater level of stranger danger (even though the facts suggest it's actually friends and relatives who are a greater danger), the [false] rhetoric that the world is already overpopulated, and a few other things I'm probably forgetting. There's actually a lot govts can do to address these de-motivating factors. They can give a lot more direct financial support to families (if there is a concern about dropping birth rates direct financial support can help to address that concern), govts can take more meaningful and urgent action on environment, pollution and global warming, govts can make sure education all the way through high school and probably even undergraduate degrees are universally available, at low or no direct cost to families and of a uniformly high quality. Of course the cost of raising a child, even with current levels of govt spending, is a lot more expensive than importing a fully grown adult, with the necessary skills and qualification, and putting them straight to work, esp since those adults usually bring a bit of cash with them. So govts are motivated to try to address population decline with immigration because it requires the govt to do less.

The fact that left-leaning media has significantly less need to resort to lies and mis-representation of facts should be somewhat instructive to those of a more right-leaning persuasion. That perhaps objective truth is more often on the side of left/progressive perspectives and perhaps one might reconsider one's own leanings in light of the direction objective truth seems to point towards. An unwavering commitment to truth and the path it leads you down should eventually get everyone to more or less the same place. Search for truth without the least trace of love or hate in you heart, lest love incline you to error or hate blind you from the truth. Just don't seek truth from those who are already known to be deceitful.

I am a supporter of the pile on doctrine: anyone invades another country without a UN mandate, everyone else piles on to kick them back out. Whether that needs to be a military pile on or something less killy would depend on circumstance. In the Ukraine/Russia case Russia really had no support countries that would be willing to commit bodies to the fight. Ukraine should have had allies willing to commit bodies to the fight. But even without formally committing bodies a hardware blank cheque could have done the job.

The bias vs truth and integrity thing again. Every person intelligent enough and informed enough to have an opinion about something is biased. The question for media and journalistic integrity is if you support your bias with well contextualised facts, or if you mislead and lie to support your bias. I don't know if Ground News (for examples) does proper fact checking, but if they only put articles on a subject on a right/left bias spectrum they are not really addressing the fundamental problem in media which is honesty and integrity, y'know that quaint concept of journalistic ethics.

The various reflections on radicalism might suggest the J6 2021 prosecutions will have little or no deterrent effect at all, if the MAGAists are true believers in their cause. If you go to prison for what you believe to be a righteous act then you will see yourself as a political prisoner in a corrupt regime, not a criminal. And your comrades on the outside will believe the same and will be motivated by your sacrifice to carry on the good fight. Tyrants locking people up and executing them using the facade of kangaroo courts works for a time, but eventually the revolution comes. If that's how the MAGAist see J6, the prosecutions and the Biden regime we can expect more or worse in January 2025 if Biden wins, especially if it's once again narrowly and with sudden swings to Biden late in the reporting for a number of states. If you look at all the political rhetoric around J6 and the various convictions that followed, the conclusion I come to is that in MAGA circles the struggle continues with even greater determination. At least that's what is being projected to the world at large. Behind closed doors it might be different.

First I'm reading of a moratorium. Good to know lest I suffer the wrath of the gods.

Who doesn't have bias? It's not bias I care about, it's a commitment to honesty and having integrity that I care about. If I read a piece that's all "Israel must be allowed to do whatever it wants to defend itself" then it's easy to identify that as having a bias and I have my own bias and will read the piece with those things in mind. But what I want from biased and purportedly neutral news articles is clear identification of verifiable fact with appropriate context, unverified allegation and opinion. If anyone is putting forward opinion or allegation as fact then they have no place in journalism, irrespective of bias. And if they are not providing proper context to facts their journalistic skill and credibility is questionable.

For my sins I have the dubious pleasure of unavoidably having to work in the are of organics regulation. Fortunately only on the periphery. My take on it: what may have started out as a genuine desire to make food production more sustainable has turned into a complicated mess of rules many of which have little or no value in achieving sustainability and a corporate scheme to charge premium prices for a label most consumers don't understand. These days I actively avoid buying organic, except where an organic product happens to be my preferred product for reasons other than it's organicness. The only example that comes to mind right now is my preferred brand of coffee beans because they work best in my espresso machine, and dare I open another can of worms they are fair trade beans.

That's because pretty much no one in history "know they are wicked". People who acknowledge they are flawed and know they will make bad choices are not "wicked" if their motivation is to do good in the world. So the SC deciding to review the case indicates they think there is merit to Trump's argument, so it seems like while they might not give presidents blanket immunity for the rest of time they might provide some level of immunity beyond what perhaps is accepted right now, which may or may make some of the charges disappear.

That is such a lame and demonstrably illegitimate generalised statement. Consciously not voting is in itself a massive complaint that there is no one worth voting for and / or the system is so hopelessly broken and corrupt that even voting for someone that appears decent will be of minimal/negligible benefit to the issues you care about. I don't vote* anymore because no one is really dealing with the root causes of the big issues facing my country or the world, and in my view the current system actively prevents people from trying to deal with the root causes. But I assert the right to complain the hell out of those massive flaws and the things that are paralysing meaningful action, and no one is going to tell me my complaints aren't valid because I chose not to choose. People who don't vote because it's too much effort (even when it's very easy to vote like it is here), yes I do see more of an argument that they don't have much claim to be listened to when they complain. *I actually did vote last year but I scribbled all over my ballot basically invalidating it, but it went into the ballot box and thus it was a +1 to the number of people who voted. My vote is recorded in the official stats as an "informal vote". Last year 0.57% of voters cast informal votes. Essentially it's a vote of no confidence. But if you consciously choose not to vote from a no confidence perspective then it's the same as putting a spoiled ballot in the box. The next time I'm likely to vote with a non-spoiled ballot is the first time any candidate expressly adopts MMT as their economic framework. But even then the "decent people incapable of making meaningful change" aspect comes into play.

Just to be clear, when you say not all of us agree odes that mean some in the queer community think the Police are doing just fine in their relationships and protection of the queer community? I'm not sure I can agree with the notion that these murders aren't on the police. Any time a cop, on or off duty, murders a person because of who they are that is not just a single bad apple, that is the tip of a systemic iceberg. Are attitudes that can be a direct danger to members of the public being actively identified in members of the force, and dealt with?

It's the responsibility of the police to get on side with minority and vulnerable communities to meaningfully try to keep them safe, as far as it's possible to do so. It's not on those communities to invite the police in if they feel the police are not doing enough. Telling the cops they are not welcome at Mardi Gras is a clear message many in the queer community don't feel the police are doing what's required for this community. How the police respond to that message will give everyone insight into what the police culture really is. I hope the police say "we'll do better and earn back our invitation to participate in the next Mardi Gras."

Maybe. It somewhat depends on whether the day to day evidence points to the police actually being LGBTQ+ allies or if they are guilty of tokenism, like taking part in public events and not much else.

It's getting better of course but battery lifecycle is a factor in the use car market. An EV with a 300km range new that is sold today will have something less than a 300km range when it is put onto the used car market in 2030 no matter how well the owner looks after the car. A petrol/diesel powered car will have the same range as when it was new, so long as it is well maintained. However the price people will want to sell the used EV will be higher than the petrol/diesel car with pretty much the same features. I don't see many people paying a premium for EVs new or used because of their concern for the environment. Some will but not enough people to massively reduce emissions from private vehicles. Until new EVs are sold at middle income family petrol car prices and decent range used EVs are sold at low income family petrol car prices EVs will not become dominant in the market. In our case the cheapest new petrol car on the New Zealand market is about $20,000. The cheapest new pure EV on the New Zealand market is more than double the price at over $40,000. One good thing though is the cheapest new hybrid is only just over $20,000, so there is really no price barrier to getting into hybrids esp since the fuel savings available with hybrids will make up that small price difference in a reasonably short space of time. It doesn't help to completely eliminate private car tailpipe emissions, but it does help to reduce them. But we need, in NZ, a $20-25K new car with zero emissions before we can really start dreaming of a zero GHG emissions private transport fleet.

Supreme Court Rejects Port of Charleston Case in Labor Battle - WSJ A pro-labour decision (to not hear the case) out of SCOTUS. Semi-pro I guess.

If Trump wins and is very unpopular then there's basically no shot a Republican wins in 2028; but I guess having a snowball's chance in hell of winning doesn't stop people from deluding themselves that they will win. Haley's best path to 2028 victory is Biden winning, or Trump winning and being very popular and voters wanting more Republican rule; and she rehabilitates her credentials over the next 4 years as being someone who was always a Trump supporter and all her past statements were manipulated by the Democrat controlled media. Though the danger of Trump being very popular is him finding a way to end term limits and running a third time. "The country loves me, and they deserve more of me". He doesn't even have to end term limits, he just has to find enough people willing to re-interpret term limit to mean serving 2 consecutive terms. Haley is irrelevant in terms of the nomination (while Trump remains), but she's not irrelevant in terms of media presence and public profile. People are still talking about her, and as Oscar Wilde famously said (or Monty Python's version of Oscar Wilde famously said): There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about. If she drops out of the primary race people will stop talking about her.

It’s Been 30 Years Since Food Ate Up This Much of Your Income - WSJ https://nypost.com/2024/02/21/business/americans-spending-11-3-of-income-on-food-most-in-30-years/ I don't think either of these papers are particularly friendly towards Biden. But it appears the stats are accurate. The graph in the NYP article is interesting in that is shows that despite inflation at home grocery spending in 2022 is still a lot less as a % of income than it was in 1990 and is comparable to the last 10 years. The total food spend more tracks the eating out graph both both the total and eating out graphs showing a sharp drop during the height of the pandemic and then a sharp rise when people stopped worrying about the pandemic. Over the last 30 years there has been relative food price deflation / stability, though as with all things the absolute price of food always goes up over the long term. Contrary to popular opinion it's not the price of food going up that's the problem, it's that wages are not rising to keep food affordable. In an era of massive profits for some of the biggest employers wage stagnation is the thing people should be talking about, not price inflation. In the end paying a higher % of your wage packet in food than you did 8 years ago makes people feel bad, and this influences voting decisions.

You are assuming Trump loses this year and runs again in 2028? I don't think Haley is thinking about 2028, right now I think she's hoping Trump gets convicted of enough shit that there is no way he can stay on the ticket, and so long as she remains prominent as a public figure she's go the best chance of being the candidate. The minute she drops out of the primary she becomes irrelevant. 2028 is a year to target for Republican would-be presidents. AFAIK no Democrat has won the electoral college (they have won the popular vote, but that doesn't count for shit) after a Democratic president completed 2 full terms as POTUS ever since term limits became a thing. But that's something to think about after November not before. Hard to know what is the most probable thing if Trump wins this year and it's a competitive primary for both Democrats and Republicans in 2028. If Trump 2.0 is as bad as his opponents think it will be then the Democrat 2028 nominee is in a better position than any given Republican. So if I was a young enough Republican who is not in the MAGA cult and Trump wins in 2028 I would be thinking about 2032 or 36 as the year for my run at the White House.

Keen to get insights from locals on this. https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/mining/australia-on-the-brink-as-iron-ore-nickel-lithium-prices-collapse/news-story/85c15642b6e4a62e99df761c7dfa4964 Seems to me, that mining critical green technology minerals should be considered for partial nationalisation. Instead of the Aus govt taking mining royalties, the Aust govt should own the mines and the minerals and just, contract companies to do the mining, and contract traders to find the best price, including selling it for even cheaper to companies that want to do onshore refining and processing. And of course this model doesn't need to be limited to Australia. There's an interesting tension here. The world really wants to be able to make green technology cheaper, to increase the rate of adoption and to stimulate R&D to make even more efficient green tech. But mining companies want to get the highest possible price for critical minerals. The tension disappears if govts own the minerals and can continue trading regardless of price level. The only thing govts need to consider is job preservation at the mines, which is a pretty easy calculation: estimate the total tonnage of extractable resource in a mine divide by the number of years you want the mine to operate and that gives you the maximum rate of annual extraction. The other added benefit is remediation of the land, since the govt doesn't need to eat into profits to remediate mined land there is no reason not to do so.

Well, if there's one thing Christo-fascists respect more than god it's capitalism and money. SCOTUS won't make a decision that gets in the way of corporations making profits from making babies.

To be fair there will always need to be heavy regulation when it comes to pharmaceuticals. Because human and animal, and plant, life and welfare can be absolutely ruined by drugs that have severe side effects the process of releasing a drug for public use / prescription will always be a very long and rigorous process. If we collectively live a generally healthier life in terms of what we put in our bodies on a daily basis the environment we live in and our level of activity the viability of big pharma would significantly diminish. The aim of a health system should be to reduce reliance on drugs not to constantly increase demand and consumption, so pharmaceuticals in a well functioning society that guarantees the welfare of everyone should be a shrinking industry not a growing one. If there is one thing capitalism hates it's a shrinking industry. When that is happening but at the same time there will always be residual demand and scientific interest in finding better ways of doing what needs to be done, then even in a capitalist system the best solution is nationalisation of the industry, because govt does not need to make a profit from essential but low demand goods and services. I can even see an ongoing need for oil (probably not coal or gas) because there are a lot of very useful, products made by the petrochemical industry, but the level of demand for oil if all combustion / GHG releasing uses were eliminated would probably diminish to a few million barrels of global demand per year. And that is probably not a sustainable level of extraction for private, for profit business. So I predict oil will become nationalised eventually in order to keep supplying those sectors that use it for non GHG emitting purposes.

I think people tend to conflate capitalism with private ownership and markets. Markets and private ownership existed long before capitalism was conceived let alone became the dominant economic ideology. They can continue to exist and thrive under different paradigms. Perhaps it is something most people don't know. The USSR (and China) were never communist countries. They were / are ruled by the communist party but they never implemented communism. In the case of the USSR there's a bit of a clue in the name, but even USSR is mis-named because it was never (or at least not for very long) socialist either. The nutshell description of communism is stateless, classless and moneyless. But these things are all features of both China and USSR. Class doesn't exist in the way we viewed it historically (the nobility and commoners), but it's still there within the structures of those countries. Socialism's core is worker ownership of the means of production. Nationalising everything to be owned by the state is a perversion of that concept. And there is nothing in Socialism or communism that demands the veneration of the mother / fatherland to the point of deification, and that exists, arguably, under capitalism esp in the USA, singing the national anthem at almost every event and reciting the patriotic indoctrination verse in school on a regular (daily?) basis.

I think there are loads of people out there who know global warming is happening and that humans are behind it, but they don't necessarily trust everything the climate science community is saying about it. And there's the don't look up component. People don't want to believe it's as bad as it is, so they will try to dismiss more dire bits of scientific news. I can easily imagine this group of people being reluctant to believe the scientists talking about how bad it is, but holding fast to what is said by scientists who proclaim technology will deliver us the magical solution before anything gets really bad.

Only watched Ep 1 so far. I'm not sure GoT or HP are good examples of child actors doing good. When I watch HP1 now Radcliff and Emma Watson were really not good. Rupert Grint was all right. For GoT the adults did the heavy lifting while the children did what they needed to do until they got better with experience and growing up a bit. It's 1 billion times better than that Shyamalan turd, so it's getting a thumbs up from me. The one bending criticism I have is Aang basically being able to fly (or at least fall with style) without his glider thing in the opening scene, but then seeming to tubmle to his doom in the last scene desperately trying to catch his glider. They didn't need to have the opening scene play out that way and it would have made the final falling scene of ep 1 better. But a pretty minor point.

I call it 20 foiled assassination attempts. Good instincts doggo. If your dog doesn't like someone pay attention to the dog.