They have gone too far...

Socialism on a global scale is socialism on steroids

So… who pays for a magazine like Scientific American to write and print an article suggesting that people should forgo ice as a lifestyle choice? Did some editor or writer actually come up with the idea themselves? Or did they get paid by some billionaire’s NGO, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Furthermore, note the subtext lede. Forgoing ice for negronis, manhattans, and margaritas??!!?? Well, that will surely have a measurable impact on polar ice cap thawing and sea level rise. Polar Bears all over the northern regions are celebrating with high fives as you read this.

No doubt this will result in yet another form of viral virtue signaling.

“Approaching the bar, in her husky voice she said ‘make my manhattan room temp’, as she elegantly adjusted both her paper dust mask and slightly hitched up her skirt with carefully groomed nails before mounting the stool. All heads at the bar identifying as femme-attracted snapped towards her.”

Suffice to say, most definitely not while humming a country western song.

If you ever wanted an example to illustrate the difference between the sheltered urban bi-coastals and the rest of the USA, this would be a pretty good start. I can confidently assure you that you are not gunna hear that line in Madison, VA anytime soon. Manassas, DC, or NYC, yup- almost guaranteed.

How many people out there are going to read this Scientific American article and take it seriously? Will people stop making ice and turn off the ice machine in their refrigerator? <As I read it, it looks like the Babylon Bee could pick this up and reprint word for word, and no-one would blink an eye.>

Will ice vending machines become a thing of the past? Will the POTUS (through executive order, to save us from our wicked ways) demand that they be removed from hotels? Where does the idiocracy end? I can readily picture a PR campaign lead by a vapidly grinning Kamala D. Harris. For some reason the Sarah Palin line about lipstick and pigs suddenly comes to mind.

The gas stove debacle is another case in point. There are legitimate studies that show gas stoves can exacerbate/cause asthma in roughly 12% of children, and that cooking with gas stoves can produce benzene in household air. So, what is the solution to this? Seems to me like ventilation and proper usage of vented fans should minimize the issue significantly? But instead, the left wants to ban all gas stoves, and many states are doing just that. Despite the fact that natural gas and LP energy sources are two of the cheapest fuel sources in many parts of the USA. The USA is the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas, for heavens sake. So, the US government wants to ban cheap sources of cooking fuel and require everyone to buy new electric stoves. This will hurt homeowners, the working poor and the middle class the most. This issue has been polarized to such an extent that common sense cannot prevail. Instead of reaching for the obvious solution - that is, education about ventilation while cooking with gas stoves, the government calls for an outright ban!

This is a great example of an arbitrary and capricious federal government response which is completely devoid of common sense but guaranteed to generate profit for one business at the expense of another. Picking winners and losers.

So, a couple of limited studies and it is a done deal. Gas stoves are bad! Scientism rears it’s ugly head - again. No other data needed. The science is settled! And who funded these so-called studies “documenting” the harms?

The point of the above article being that this isn’t being spun as being about health, but rather about “climate change.” Reducing methane gas. Another climate activist’s wet dream to control the world. Yup. No ice in your manhattan, and no cooking with natural gas. Thats the ticket.

Speaking of moronic ideas, are any of you following the edicts regarding showers?

No matter where you live, shower heads must save water - because, self evidently, for those of us living in areas where water scarcity isn’t an issue, we must support those who live in water scarce areas. Fair is fair - it is all about equity, right? That is the socialists’ creed.

Because the EPA knows best and Biden (or whomever is driving that bus today) supports the deep state having power over every separately charted state in this union - no matter what the constitution says. Because the federal bureaucracy knows whats best for you. I thought we had settled with West Virginia vs EPA? But no, the EPA and Biden still think that they know better than state legislatures.

As Trump, during his presidency, had blocked the EPA ruling about universal water saving shower heads, this is yet another a F***you to Trump by Biden. Come 2024, we can only hope that this will be overturned. As the EPA regulations do not supersede states rights, this ban on normal shower heads should be overturned. The basic state’s right - that state law supersede’s governmental regulations unless Congress makes a Federal law, is an important element of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court makes this very clear in West Virginia versus the EPA.

On June 30, though, there was some good news on the agency overreach front. In West Virginia v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court pushed back against an Environmental Protection Agency power grab that went too far.

However, the fix is in with the legacy media (yet again).

The idea that we all must conserve water is laughable, as if water is a scarce resource everywhere in the world. Water covers 71 percent of Earth's surface, it isn’t “used up” - but rather the ecosystem, planet earth, recycles it continuously.

Yes, each state should work to protect its water resources, keep pollution out, etc. But our rights under state law must remain intact. If the Federal government does not respect state’s right to rule themselves, each state will become just another federalized entity and eventually will become unable to take responsibility for themselves even if the citizens demand such. Furthermore, the UN/WEF’s Agenda 2030 has no place in determining what should and shouldn’t be done at the state level OR the federal level.

For some regions, water conservation is an absolute necessity. But this is not universal. For those of us in the USA, this is a state’s rights issue - not a federal government issue, and certainly not a United Nations/WEF issue! And asserting that global water restrictions are the key to controlling “climate change” is absurd.

World Resources institute Data

The map above shows that the vast majority of the world has low water “stress”.

It is true that some nations and regions in the world have increasing populations and stressed water resources. However, this is not true for much of the world. Particularly in the wealthier nations. It is not the job of the USA to ensure that nations under economic stress have enough clean water. “True story”: nations have to take responsibility for themselves or they will never take responsibility, which will continue to foster dependency on nation-states with imperialistic tendencies. It is paternalistic to think otherwise. It is also meddling. Encouraging nations to not be self-reliant encourages other nations to believe that “hand outs” will solve their issues of overpopulation, poverty and lack of resources. Socialism on a global scale is still socialism. This simple fact is what is missing from the UN’s 2030 agenda.

Don’t get me wrong, Jill and I grew up on the central coast of California, and we have lived under the specter of water politics. There are absolutely places that have outgrown their sustainable water resources. That said, the region that we live in is not one of those. So we should take shorter showers because Southern and Central California have outgrown their available water supplies? How does that make any kind of sense at all?

To be blunt, command economies fail in part because of the tendency to impose global solutions which do not allow adaptation to local conditions. In addition, they also tend to grind human souls into the dirt, but that fact does not easily factor into utilitarian spreadsheets and machine learning algorithms. National centralized command economies have repeatedly been an abysmal failure. And so why should we believe that global command economies driven by naive visions of creating a socialist utilitarian utopia, managed by NGO, the UN, the WHO, the WEF, the Bank of International Settlements etc. are going to lead to anything other than massive globalized famine and human suffering?

It is time to take back our rights as citizens of OUR nation-state. And defend the moderate, dare I say “conservative”, approach to governing ourselves via the LIMITED federation of relatively autonomous regional “states” that was so clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Our system of a coalition of relatively decentralized states must not cede power to the federal government, particularly to the Leviathan administrative state. And the federal government cannot be allowed to cede power to the UN/WEF/WHO/WTO.

They have gone too far…

---