Category: In the News

0 It’s Time to Go Nuclear

January 22, 2020
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Democrats have called climate change this generation’s WWII, indicating that in order to stop it, we need to mobilize as a global force. I think Democrats need to follow their metaphor to the natural conclusion: just as we ended WWII, we can end climate change. That’s right, drop the nukes!

I am, of course, talking about nuclear power. I recently made a tongue-in-cheek comment on the Twitter about nuclear being a better alternative to wind after CNN posted an article about a wind turbine collapsing in New York causing some minor property damage. I found it ironic that a wind turbine would collapse under the stress of 15-20 mph winds. You know, that thing it needs to function. My comment elicited some responses about nuclear I found quite alarmist. I am no expert on nuclear power, and like most people, I can name three nuclear disasters: Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima. I have listened to Mike Shellenberger, a nuclear and environmental activist who does a good job of explaining away some of the alarm, but beyond this I knew very little. So, I did some perusing and found the truth about nuclear.

Since 1957 there have been 78 deaths related to nuclear power plants. Nuclear power can be terrifying. The shadows left in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are testaments to this with an estimated death toll of up to 317,000. Nuclear power plants, however, are much less sinister when you look at the numbers. Especially when, of the 78 deaths, 62 are from Chernobyl in 1986, a crisis made worse due to its mishandling by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Most incidents have had zero fatalities and those that do are usually one to three.

It is difficult to account for all casualties related to nuclear disaster, however some have estimated the total number of casualties from Chernobyl would be in the millions when considering the longer term effects of extensive radiation. Epidemiological studies will need to be conducted to determine the complete scope. The Fukushima disaster also falls into the category of unknowns. For background, in 2011, the plant had three of its reactors working when an earthquake struck. The plant shut down its remaining reactors but when a tsunami hit, it overcame the seawalls and flooded the plant,shutting down the emergency generators and causing damage and necessitating the evacuation of the area. There were two fatalities from the flooded reactor, and one payout to an individual with cancer. Long-term effects are of course harder to prove, but an increased cancer rate in areas surrounding reactors would likely increase the overall number of fatalities.

Any nuclear accident is bad and to be avoided, but we can’t look at nuclear in a vacuum; how many people die in other fields of energy? Oil rigs accounted for 1189 deaths from 2003-2013 and coal around 20 per year since 2011. Hydroelectric is one of the least safe forms of energy due to catastrophic disasters caused by flooding – the Banqiao dam failure in China led to the deaths of 171,000 people. Forbes lays out the relative dangers in the “Deathprint for Energy,” where they use epidemiological studies to try to account for the long-term effects of problems with energy, in which nuclear power is still the safest.

The key difference between nuclear and the energy sources listed above is nuclear has zero carbon emissions. It is clean energy that does not rely on the presence of wind or sun. It is not to say that wind and solar cannot be adjuncts, but if they are not producing enough energy to sustain the community, you need to have an energy source to continue to generate power.

Because of the fears surrounding nuclear, it is not heavily used in any country with the exception of France. However, that has not stopped the technology from progressing. New fuels and reactors that decrease waste and increase safety are in the works. Reactors are getting smaller, meaning they can generate 1,000 MWe of power on less than one percent of the land area as wind and solar farms

As has been demonstrated, nuclear is the most productive, cleanest, and safest form of energy – Fukushima was 40 years old and it still took two natural disasters to knock it out! The disasters nuclear sees have so far paled in comparison to the worst hydroelectric disasters and, at a yearly rate, are nowhere close to oil and coal. If you are serious about reducing emissions or just want to see less pollution, go ahead and treat the climate like its WWII and nuke it into submission.

0 People who Disagree with your Solutions aren’t “Climate Deniers”

December 9, 2019
by Connie Morgan
· In the News

Climate Activists, at least the ones covered and propped up by the mainstream media use dishonest and quite frankly immoral tactics to get people to go along with whatever they say. In particular, the phrase “climate denier” comes to mind. It’s a term used to describe pretty much anyone who doesn’t immediately bite at the idea of a “Green New Deal.” As always with the left, two things can never be true at once. Many can’t seem to fathom the idea that someone could care about the environment, but also not want Al Gore or AOC in charge of fixing it. I happen to be one of the people that care deeply about the environment but am not even slightly interested in an Elizabeth Warren or really any politician’s environmental proposals. So no, I am not a climate denier, rather a government denier. In general I wish to deny the government all additional power grabs regardless of it being in the name of trees, animals or rising tides.

The tactics environmental activists use should cause immediate pause. “Climate Denier” is a riff on “Holocaust Denier.” Holocaust denier is a grave insult and if someone truly is a holocaust denier they should be avoided at all cost. There is undeniable evidence of the Holocaust. There are people still living who went through it (on both sides) and can give testimony. There are videos. There are pictures. There are countless first-hand books written about it. There are physical sites left over. All of these proofs can be cross referenced against each other. This is how one determines if something is true or false. The fact of the matter is this cannot be replicated in climate change science and even if it could there is still no equivalanecy between denying the murder of millions of Jews and denying that the tides are rising. The term climate denier belittles the seriousness of the Holocaust and is an insult to Jewish memory. But climate activists don’t care about respecting Jewish history – they want to make it extremely uncomfortable for anyone to even question their authority.

This is the next cause for pause: with climate extremists, there’s no room for debate. Climate activists scream obscenities at rallies and anyone who critiques Greta Thunberg is threatened. If you’re proposing everyone stop eating beef, stop driving cars, and stop using plastic, we need to have a healthy debate first. Drastic lifestyle changes such as these will have drastic effects on society – many of them negative. I need to be certain impending doom is right around the corner before I vote to implement policies that lower the quality of my life and devastate the lives of people living in developing countries.

But history has shown us the climate is a very difficult thing to predict. Climate predictions have been wrong since long before I was born. Before you call me a climate denier let’s first take a look at some of today’s climate change claims and see how they compare to the past. Perhaps you’ll see why I don’t always take the scientists seriously.

Three Common Climate Claims

“We’re All Going To Starve”

1967 – LA Times, “Dire Famine Forecast by 1975”
2004 – The Guardian, “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us”
2014 – Inquisitr, “Global Warming Will Lead To Worldwide Famine By 2050, Study Claims.”

The 1967 forecast came courtesy of biologist Paul Ehrlich, the article stating, “It’s already too late for the world to avoid a long period of famine.” In 1969, Ehrlich told the New York Times, “Unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.” And in 1970, he claimed that within a decade, the oceans would be “dead” and Americans would be subject to food and water rationing. 1975 came and went, 1989 came and went and he couldn’t have been more wrong.

We are 15 years out from the Pentagon’s report, does it feel like we’re five years away from absolute climate catastrophe? Are we on the brink of famine and war due to food shortages? Not exactly.

The 1976 (and eventually 2004) prediction was followed by decades (or a decade) of increased economic prosperity and a decline of hunger and starvation around the world. Despite the overall population increasing by 2 billion from 1991 to 2016 the number of people around the world who were undernourished dropped from 1 billion to 821 million. To put it more plainly, the malnourished rate went from 19% of the world to 11%. None of this good news matters, the starvation predictions continue today, simply pushing back the timeline.

“Oceans will rise to the point of destroying towns, states and entire islands”

1989 – U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
1988 – “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.” – Climate Scientist Jim Hansen in response to the question of how New York would change in the next 20 years.
2019 – CBS News, “Rising sea levels on track to destroy the homes of 300 million people by 2050”

In 1989 the UN, as backed up by many a climate scientist believed entire nations would be wiped off the face of the earth by 2000 if the global warming trend was not reversed. Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program claimed governments had a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it went beyond human control.

Well, it’s been 30 years and the Maldives, one of the island countries predicted to disappear has seen its tourism economy grow tenfold since 1989 with 2019 being one of its best years. Not one major island has disappeared in the past three decades. There have been a handful of small islands that have disappeared due to changing sea levels but there have also been a handful of new small islands in development. Islands come and go and have since the beginning of time.

Perhaps one of the biggest giveaways climate change may not be as big of a threat, even to those who profess its dangers are the behaviors of these so called climate activists. If rising sea levels were that big of a concern you would expect leftists to be moving from California in droves, coastal real estate prices should be plummeting, of course that is not what’s happening. Barack and Michelle Obama recently purchased waterfront property. Barack Obama gave a speech at the UN Climate Change summit in 2017 stating “No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.” Pretty odd to buy a multi-million dollar home on the coast if you think there is such a near present threat. Leonardo Dicaprio owns six homes…pretty odd for someone who presumably wants everyone to lessen their carbon footprint. All of his properties are on the coast, one of which is a literal island Dicaprio is developing for eco-tourism. I wonder how he knows that island isn’t at risk of drowning under rising sea levels?

“We can predict the effects of human caused climate change.”

1971 – Washington Post, “In the next 50 years, the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees…If sustained…such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!” – Dr. S.I. Rasool of NASA
1978 – NY Times, “International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere”
2017 – Carbon Brief, “Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans”

Purely on common sense alone, this claim doesn’t seem like it can be true. We can’t even accurately predict weather a week out but somehow we know what climate change will look like in 30 years? The climate is changing, it always has and always will, no one is disagreeing with this point. The problem is that the natural climate changes throughout history don’t follow any sort of distinct pattern making it very difficult to discern what changes are natural versus man made.

In the past 2000 years there has been the roman warm period where temperatures are estimated to have been warmer than now. This was followed by a cool down during the dark ages with another uptick during the Medieval warm period when it was at least as warm as it is today. Perhaps one of the most famous climate phases of the past was “the little ice age.” This was the event that eventually lead to the vikings leaving Greenland. Currently we appear to be in a gradual warming period which started roughly 300 years ago. The earth is constantly ebbing and flowing between hotter and cooler periods and has since long before humans had the technology to affect the climate. There simply is no way to predict when this warming period will end and a cooling phase will begin, whether natural or not.

The second part of this claim is that not only do we know how the climate will change, we know what percent will be caused by humans. This is a very, very important statistic to understand if we are going to introduce truly life changing legislation in order to combat climate change. But there simply is no way to determine the human effect on climate change. While most scientists agree that humans affect climate change, no one can determine to what degree and/or if its reversible. Climate models have been universally wrong and cannot account for human innovation. Almost every prediction will say something along the lines of “if nothing changes…” Well that’s when you can throw out that prediction because of course things will change. New technology being the main.

In 2017, the US’s carbon emissions were their lowest since 1992 despite more people, more vehicles on the road and overall increases in consumption generally. This is possible because human innovation has created better processes of production that reduce carbon emissions. This is a trend we can also expect to continue but is equally difficult to predict in magnitude.

We can’t ignore that there is motivation to falsely cry climate change. Before you make fun of skeptics who may be seen as conspiracy theorists, let’s think about what might motivate one to claim climate change is manmade. Global warming is big business. The 2019 federal funding bill included $776 million in bilateral allocations for environmental programs. And that’s just for one year. In 2013, the EU announced 20% of its budget from 2014-2020 would go to “climate issues.” Not only is there a lot of public funding for climate issues the “sustainable product” market could hit $150 billion by 2021 in the US alone. Grant seeking scientists, businesses and politicians are all motivated to propagate the idea of climate change because one way or another it means more money in their pocket.

Be careful with headlines such as “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans.” This may be true, but if you can’t tell me what percent of climate change is caused by humans then the conversation really can’t advance to solutions. The science isn’t clear on the who, what, and when in regards to climate change. The government is bad at pretty much everything. Everyone is motivated to make a buck off climate change. Forgive me if I am hesitant to give millions or billions of dollars to politicians and bureaucrats so they can save us from a problem no one knows how to solve. So no, I’m not a “climate denier,” I’m a climate abider. I treat Mother Earth as kind as I can, I have faith in human ingenuity and I think we can afford to wait until the science is sound before fundamentally changing the way humans around the world live and survive.

0 China is Bad

October 17, 2019
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

China is bad. There seems to be some confusion by both players and coaches after the NBA responded negatively to a statement supporting #FreeHongKong by Daryl Morey, the General Manager of the Houston Rockets. Morey immediately walked back his statement and issued an apology. Never apologize to dictators, support a free Hong Kong. Here’s why.

Hong Kong was returned to Chinese control from the British in 1997. In the agreement to return control, the Chinese agreed to a “one state, two system” model where Hong Kong would enjoy some of the freedoms they had under British rule – at least for the next 50 years. Because Hong Kong was under British control since 1842, it grew to know a freedom that the communist mainland did not. They are not interested in ceding this freedom to the growing security state ran by Beijing.

The riots in Hong Kong have been going on for over 19 weeks. They began over an extradition bill proposed by Hong Kong’s pro-communist regime. It may seem like the mainland should be able to extradite people from their own territory but the political divide between states is too broad. Hong Kong, for instance, can speak out against mainland policy. The mainland however, has censored anything that goes against the state. NBA preseason games are being cancelled over the comments of Morey. South Park was eliminated from all Chinese media for mocking China’s censorship. President and dictator Xi Jinping has banned Winnie the Pooh because people claimed the despot looked like the stuffed bear.

To put it simply, if Hong Kong allows an extraditions treaty, dissidents in Hong Kong will be extradited to the mainland for the prosecution of their speech.

This is abominable to anyone who believes in free speech, but it gets worse. If you speak out against the Chinese Communist Party, you will be jailed and run the risk of having your organs harvested. That’s right folks, one flippant comment about the Communist Party could leave you one kidney shorter.

Having your organs harvested because you speak out against the government is bad enough. But the Communist Party doesn’t stop there! They are placing Uighurs – an Islamic ethnic minority in China – and political prisoners in literal concentration camps, though they prefer the term “re-education” camp. Survivors of the camps have claimed they were forcibly sterilized.

Do the NBA and other corporations with financial investments in China have the right to force their employees into silence? Sure. But you as a consumer need to know what the protesters in Hong Kong are fighting for. They are fighting to keep their organs. They are fighting to stay out of concentration camps. They are fighting to stay free of the control of the dictatorial Winnie the Pooh look-alike, Xi Jinping.

0 Trade School > College

January 5, 2019
by Connie Morgan
· In the News · Thought Box

There’s a lie that’s being fed to every young person in America. It’s a lie that’s not good for the individual kid and it’s not good for society. The lie is that we all should go to college and get a degree. This is entirely false, not only should we not all go to college, but we should encourage trade school more than we encourage university. This coming from someone who went to college, had a blast, and doesn’t regret it.

I entered university without a set plan or major. I was open minded and figured I’d use the prerequisite classes to figure out what I should study. I enjoyed a lot of my classes but it was Econ 201 that changed my life. The very first day, Professor Hedrick asked the class what the biggest cost of going to college was. People shouted out, “Tuition!” “Groceries!” and “Girlfriends!” After chuckling, Professor Hedrick shook his head and said, “Those are all wrong answers, the greatest cost of going to college is the opportunity cost.” In other words, the most financially damaging part of college is the money one isn’t making while attending. I knew then that I wanted to learn more about economics, particularly opportunity costs. To this day, I make all major decisions by considering the opportunity cost first. Unfortunately, most people go their entire lives without understanding opportunity costs; certainly most 18-year-olds don’t.

We’re sold this idea in high school that you make more money when you go to college. We’re shown a chart (like the one to the right) illistrating what a high school grad vs college grad make over their life. Those charts aren’t wrong: a college grad will make more money than a high school grad. What those charts don’t show is net worth throughout your lifetime.

There is a shortage of trade workers in America. “Blue Collar” jobs that pay well sit vacant while high school graduates rush to get an art degree. There are roughly 30 million jobs in the United States that pay $55,000 or more a year and don’t require a bachelor’s degree. These jobs include construction, plumbing, lineman, or my personal favorite, farriers (horse shoers) who make on average a whopping $92,000 a year. More than the average college graduate’s peak salary of $84,500. A $55,000 yearly salary may not seem much, but considering the avoidance of debt and money made during the average 5 years and 1 month it takes someone to earn a bachelor’s degree, it’s significant. *For examples in this blog average electrician will be used as comparison to the average college graduate because the average electrician salary is around $55,000.

For those who aren’t mathematically inclined let me put it this way; the average electrician has the opportunity to have about $30,000* in retirement in the same time the college grad has no money in retirement and will owe roughly $120,000* in total for their degree. Quite the difference. Because of the ever-increasing cost of college, it is estimated that students graduating in 2015 or later will have to push retirement back to 75. Not the case for the average electrician.

Given current average rates of return (6%) and average student loans, the most significant difference between a college grad and tradesman is not money made but rather money saved. An electrician and and college grad will net $1,000,000 in combined lifetime earnings and retirement savings at essentially the same time – 50* years old for the electrician, 49* for the average grad. Where this gets deceiving is that at that same age, (50) the average electrician will have roughly $375,0000* more in retirement savings than the average grad. The electrician has been saving for 32 years now, at a 15% recommended rate of savings they’d have almost $600,000* saved by age 50. By age 58* they’d have $1 million in retirement savings and $1.5 million by 64*.

The college grad starts saving later and is hindered by loans. On average, graduates with debt are putting 5% of their paycheck or less into retirement, nowhere near the 15% – 20% recommended. Because college students are now taking 20 years on average to payoff debt, recent graduates can expect to have the minimum $1 million for retirement at age 70*. Around age 76 is when $1.5 million in retirement would accrue.

According to data from Sallie Mae, 42% of student debt belongs to parents. For simplicity’s sake, calculations in this analysis were done with students assuming all debt responsibility. Ultimately, the total time spent and cost of interest on debt in this analysis is accurate, it’s just frequently split between parents and student instead of all on the student. More on parent college contributions later. For a full breakdown of how lifetime earnings and savings accrual were calculated click here.

In lifetime earnings, yes, a college graduates get bigger checks than the average electrician. That picture is the one painted in our mind. The first chart is all they show us, what they don’t show us is the good pay combined with retirement potential that a trade-skill can provide.

The data on college debt can be pretty confusing and misleading. Reports will tell you graduates average $30,100 in student loans. While this is a large increase from years past, it still doesn’t seem that bad, but I couldn’t figure out where they were getting this number. School is now costing on average $16,575.75 a year but is increasing at a rate of 2% per year. So the average five years and 1 month of schooling should cost around $120,000* after accounting for the average 28% covered by scholarships/grants according to Fannie Mae, $167,000* before scholarships/grants. An average of $30,100 in debt would mean 54% of college costs are being covered by something other than student loans and scholarships/grants, which didn’t seem right to me. Then I realized the flaw in the $30,100 figure. It does not account for debt held by parents or non-student loans. It also doesn’t account for cash paid from family or personal savings which, albeit isn’t debt, but certainly worth considering.

As I put the pieces together, it started to make sense. Out of the $167,000* it costs to get a degree, 28% is covered by scholarships/grants, 25% is covered by the student (most likely a combination of loans and a part-time job) and 47% is covered by parents (most likely a combination of loans and savings). Of course the $120,000* cost of school after scholarships/grants isn’t the actual cost, after interest the total amount paid in one way or another for a bachelor’s degree is closer to an optimistic estimate of $160,000*.

The cost to parents who want to help pay for school is not talked about enough. Even a parent who saves early often delay their retirement by ten years. The average student-debt (for their child) held by couples over 60 is $23,500. About 55% of parents have more than $40,000 in student debt and parents average $9,000 in cash out of their own savings to help pay for college. It is not uncommon for college-contributing parents to work into their 70s or retire with half of what their current lifestyle costs. Whether planned or not, parents’ contribution to their child’s education means sacrifice. Funny enough, although not conclusive, there is evidence that children whose parents foot the bill perform worse in school. Even if the debt or cost isn’t technically “yours,” passing that along to your parents isn’t something that most 18-year-olds consider or even grasp.

Speaking of what 18-year-olds can grasp… Why do we encourage young people to decide what they’re going to do for the rest of their life five years before their brains are done developing? A third of students change their major at least once in three years which explains why folks are taking over five years to earn a degree. Not only do many people go back to college to get second bachelor’s degree, but 8% of community college students have already earned a bachelor’s degree. Only 27% of college graduates work in their field of study. Perhaps “older and wiser” people pushing college onto high schoolers is one of the biggest scams known to man? High Schools push college because that is how their success is measured, colleges recruit even those likely to drop because one year of tuition is better than none, and universities push financial aid packages to students who don’t understand them. Universities are embroiled in financial aid scandal regularly. Students graduate college with confusing loans and usually without a job in their field BUT the high school tallied them as a win and the universities will get their money one way or another.

Why is college pushed on high schoolers? That’s what high school faculty know! All your teachers went to college; very few if any went to trade school. Those who haven’t gotten a college degree (teachers’ aides and such) often blame their lower income status on not going to college; very few will say “wish I went to lineman school.” Furthermore, the consensus seems to be that college prep is what high school teachers should focus on. High School teachers are rewarded for and chided for not prepping kids for college.

Recruiters from universities visited my high school but I didn’t hear from a chef or plumber or elevator repairman. Country-wide, 66% of high schoolers immediately enroll in college upon graduation. This number differs wildly from community to community. In my podunk town well under a third of my class immediately went to university – yet high schools everywhere are increasingly tailoring their curriculums to be mini colleges. Furthermore, out of that 66% that do attend college nationwide, 60% of those will end up dropping out. Out of the 40% left, 27% will get a job in their field of study. In short, a measly 7% of high schoolers go to college right away, complete college and get jobs related to their major.

Instead of prepping the majority of students who won’t attend or finish college, High Schools largely focus on college prep. I suppose it’s assumed kids going into the trades will figure it out but the future college students need every resource available. If the focus on college prep over trade prep feels backwards, it’s because it is. You have two years to adjust to college before you pick a major, with countless resources on most university campuses. But we expect the 74%+ who don’t graduate college to immediately adjust to entering the workforce at 18 or 20? Most high schoolers don’t know how to balance a checkbook but damn it they know how to take a standardized test!

Trade school will run you about $35,000 with programs as affordable as $5,000. Additionally, with many trades, apprenticeship is an option eliminating the need for trade school at all. There are also scholarships for trades, shoutout Mike Rowe. When it comes to lifetime net, an electrician has the opportunity to make out significantly better than the average college graduate.

Another point worth making, the initial $50,000 salary right out of college is average. The $120,000* is the average cost of college. That peak salary of $84,500 is average. This means half of all college graduates – 950,000 people each year, make less than $50,000, spend more than $120,000 on college and peak at less than $84,500, maybe not in combination, but still. Are you willing to bet $120,000 that you’re above average?

In review, there are seven things they don’t tell you in high school about college:

The huge opportunity cost.
The difference between net and gross pay.
Which high-paying careers don’t require college.
What school will actually cost you – beyond the initial cost.
What your parents are sacrificing when they help you pay for college.
Dropout rates.
The reality behind all those averages.

*See spreadsheet here.

0 Can We Have a GoFundMe Government?

December 29, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Giving money to the government as it currently stands for an explicit purpose is foolhardy. I make this statement in reference to the GoFundMe started last week with the intention of funding a wall on the southern border. At the beginning of my writing, the GoFundMe had raised $13,694,969 from 224,433 people. The goal is $1 billion, nearly 18% of what the Trump administration requested for construction to avoid and now end the government shutdown.

The argument in favor of the government being funded by GoFundMe (or similar method) is sound. The people directly appropriate funds to agencies and projects allowing them to minimize waste. As they assign each dollar to every department, you can bet there would be a keen eye on both necessity and efficiency. The federal government would no longer be viewed as a source of unlimited cash but instead, funded directly by the people. Want a wall? Donate. Want to fund Planned Parenthood? Donate. No one is forced at gunpoint to participate in projects they don’t like. Such action would often take the government out of the equation entirely; they don’t have to fund Planned Parenthood when private citizens are doing it themselves. Government is necessarily involved when building a border wall. Herein lies the problem with our current setup.

Anyone can donate to the government. What they cannot do is decide what that money is used for excepting debt payment. This is because the government appropriates the money as it sees fit. What will happen when a GoFundMe account donates to the general fund with a note saying, “build that wall”? Likely nothing or, at least, not what the participants intended.

The argument for a GoFundMe now is that it is a demonstration. As the number of people donating to the cause increase we will put the legislative branch on notice we want their campaign promises kept. The problem is the wall was the near entirety of Trump’s 2016 campaign. Trump, the head of the Republican Party which held both houses of congress still did not get funding for the wall. And yet, they are still running a $830 billion deficit which indicates it’s not an issue of funding but politics. Trump won 63 million votes, significantly more than the current motley 224,982. If the electorate’s support of Trump’s border wall platform bore no fruit, why give money to the party who has already shown its inability to fulfill its promises? Not to mention the fact the Republican House was flipped in 2018.

Is a GoFundMe government bad? Not at all. Is it worth anyone’s time or money now? No. Even assuming they raise their goal and send it to the government all they will achieve is reducing the deficit or allowing the government to allocate funds somewhere else. If you are in favor of reduced government, this is not to your interest. If you believe it to be a demonstration people will voluntarily give money to those projects they want, I respect your intentions; I just don’t believe it will lead to any meaningful change. At least not until we have politicians who are brave enough to push for change.

0 There is Still Good News

December 24, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Humanity has been one constant struggle. From inception through the middle of the 20th century, our forebears have fought, often literally, for the ideals and freedoms they knew to be God-given. In the 20th century alone, there were two world wars, the Civil Rights movement, multiple political assassinations, the Red Scare, and the Spanish Flu just to mention a few nation and world-changing events. Even going to work was an everyday battle; as recently as 1980 work-related fatalities were 5.11 per 100,000.

After millennia of struggle, here is the good news. At the end of 2017 Child poverty hit an all-time low of 12.7%. The violent crime rate has steadily declined since 1990. Diseases that were once death sentences such as Tuberculosis and HIV are now reduced and the number of people receiving treatment is increasing. There is a vaccine for cholera and eradication of leprosy is targeted in 2020. Cancer deaths are down 25% since 1991 as cancer treatments become more advanced. Prostheses are getting closer to what we only imagined in science fiction. Workplace injuries have been trending down for the last forty years. The world is becoming a better and safer place to live as harmful external forces are decreased or eradicated.

Setting aside issues of life and death, everyday life has become simpler. In 1903 the first cross-country “road trip” was completed from San Francisco, California to Burlington, Vermont in 63 days 12 hours. Today the same road trip would take a mere 45 hours. Smart phones have provided us all the knowledge in the world at our fingertips. Energy may soon be cleanly and efficiently extracted from ocean waves. Self-driving cars and artificial intelligence are on the horizon. Humanity is accelerating towards a world that could never be dreamed of 100 years ago.

There are a lot of frightening stories in the news every day but remember, it is news because it is an outlier. But just as bad news is noticed because it is an outlier, good news goes unmentioned because it is expected. So, no matter what comes up on the TV screen, remember to take a look out of your own window and recognize the progress we have made and know that more is on the way.

0 Crybaby Conservatives

November 23, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· In the News

When it comes to overreacting, the left wins. I just wrote a piece about ridiculous claims of racism but other examples of unnecessary outrage include shutting down highways when a democratic election doesn’t turn out as desired or clutching their pearls because someone says boobs in a news segment. I thought of Democrats as the whiney party that gets hysterical for no reason but recently I have been rethinking this. Conservatives have done a lot of freaking out lately causing many an eye-roll from me.

First there was Conservatives getting mad that Robert “Beto” O’Rourke goes by Beto (frequently dropping the O’Rourke) despite not having any latino heritage, seemingly in order to relate more to the latino voter. Do I think going by Beto is a political move? Yes. Do I think conservatives are hypocrites for getting upset? Yes, considering his opponent is Rafael “Ted” Cruz who just might go by Ted to appear more “American.” Are they both kind of silly for not going by their given names? Yes. Is either really a big deal? No.

Then there was Hillary’s “offensive” joke about black people. In an interview where the interviewer confused Eric Holder with Cory Booker, Hillary corrected her and then said “all blacks look alike,” in what was very clearly a joke. It wasn’t even her joke. It’s a joke that’s been said many times and to be honest, still makes me laugh every time. Instead of interpreting as a refreshingly human moment for HIllary, the right suddenly seemed to be pro-PC culture. This joke wasn’t even rated PG-13, it’s been said, it was off the cuff, it wasn’t a big deal. The right side of the aisle looks hypocritical when it gets upset about such things.

Shortly after the 2018 election Nancy Pelosi made a gaffe when she said “Let’s hear it for preexisting medical conditions!” She obviously meant to say protecting or covering preexisting conditions when you listen to the statement in context. But of course, folks on the right acted like this was the mistake of the year.

But of course we can’t forget the Jim Acosta incident. Acosta refused to sit down and pass along the microphone after Trump told him his turn was over. A White House aide who happened to be female then came to grab the microphone and Acosta still didn’t give up the mic, lightly brushing her arm as he pulled away from her. I heard right wing commentators call this “man handling” and other terms putting this incident wildly out of context. Acosta was wrong but not because of the way he interacted with the aide, but because of the way he always grandstands at press conferences. The right made a grave mistake in making the incident about his interaction with the aide instead of focusing on how he regularly breaks protocol at these conferences. You ask your question, the president answers, then you sit down and pass the mic. The right looked ridiculous in it’s attempt to malign Acosta as some sort of abuser, missing an opportunity to set the standard for future conferences.

Lately the right has seemed more sensitive than usual. The left lost in 2016 because of their embrace of PC culture. The right seems to be falling into the trap of hysteria for clicks. Let’s call balls and strikes as we see them instead of treating any small blunder like armageddon. Something can be stupid but not offensive, unfunny but not wrong, a mistake but not a sign of doltishness. Conservatives look like hypocrites when they cry over spilled milk.

8 Is it a Question of Life?

November 21, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

The latest craze by leftist protesters is wearing costumes based on Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale. The fear women’s rights would be stripped from them as Atwood depicted culminated with the nomination and confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. Even before the allegations of gang rape emerged, progressive protesters were fearful he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision which stated there was a right to abortion in the Constitution.

The debate on the topic of abortion is likely the most contentious in the nation today. The problem with the vehement attacks of pro-abortion groups is they ignore even the possibility they might understand the arguments and beliefs of the pro-life crowd; regardless of whether they might be swayed by them. Therefore, it is incumbent upon pro-lifers to be able to gently and succinctly make their points whenever they engage with someone who is willing to listen.

The logic of life in the womb:

If we are to logically assess life in the womb then we must first determine what life is. Dictionary.com defines life as: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Does a fetus meets these criteria? A fetus is not inorganic, is currently and will continue to grow if allowed, will likely be able to reproduce, function, and change until its death. A fetus is then necessarily life.

I would then posit that life necessarily begins at conception. To argue otherwise is like saying your day doesn’t begin until your first cup of coffee; you simply mean you weren’t ready or prepared for the day until your coffee, not that the day hadn’t already begun.

The legality of life in the womb:

The legal question of whether a fetus constitutes life is answered in part by the treatment of the crime of killing a pregnant woman, which constitutes a double-homicide. Homicide meaning unlawful killing; kill meaning cause death; death meaning the end of life. Therefore, for a double-homicide to occur two lives must be ended. This begs the question why is it that when the fetus is deliberately killed by a physician, no charge of homicide will necessarily be brought? Have we given women the power to situationally determine what life is and, if so, at what point does a mother’s ability to make this determination end?

The Roe v. Wade decision also makes a claim about life in the womb. Justice Blackmun in the opinion of the court stated: With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. At the time of the decision, viability was 24-28 weeks. Now, however, according to the decision’s own logic the State’s interest can now be as early as 21 weeks. While this aspect of the decision refutes pro-abortion activist blind support of it, it is also a reflection of how poor the decision actually was.

In the 45 years since the Roe decision, there has been a 16% reduction in time until viability. It is not inconceivable that over the next 50 years we see viability move into the first trimester – a collision of Roe v. Wade into itself predicted by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. Justice O’Connor further stated: Without the necessary expertise or ability, courts must then pretend to act as science review boards and examine those legislative judgments. While her contention is apt, one must further contend that science should not determine morality in the first place. Was a 20-week old fetus less valuable 40 years ago than it is today?

What can we do with life in the womb:

The debate between those for and against abortion is not a debate over what life is, but rather what we can do with it. Hardcore abortion advocates ignore the question of life and instead argue it remains the mother’s choice until the baby is free of her womb. If we admit a fetus is life, then we must allot it the same protections as any other human life. It cannot, for example, be owned by another being.

Some argue that, as the fetus is inside her, it is a woman’s property and therefore she gets to decide what is done to it. So let me ask, if you found a baby in your house could you kill it? Even if someone were to break into your house and leave a baby behind could you kill it? Of course not.

A more common argument is the parasite argument. An abortion advocate may say that because a fetus cannot survive on its own outside the womb and depends on the body of the mother to nourish it, it drains the mother of nutrients and can therefore be treated as a parasite and excised at will. This is a question of human dependency. Yes a fetus is dependent upon the mother until viability, but does 5 months of dependency merit the death penalty?

The question of what we can do with life in the womb is no different than what we can do with life outside. Even the generally accepted exemption, “the life of the mother” is no exception to the rule. If something were to do significant physical harm to someone, you would be within your rights to stop them. Any other justification for abortion is wholly inadequate and doesn’t distinguish between life in and outside the womb.

Common claims such as “it’s just a clump of cells”, while accurate, prove nothing. All life is necessarily a cell – a clump of cells being particularly complex. The argument it is not life if it can’t survive on its own implies someone on life support could be killed without consequence. The most troubling defense of abortion comes from Justice Blackmun’s opinion in the Roe v. Wade decision where he stated:

Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

If mental and physical duress give a mother legal power over life and death, why then is there a distinction between life inside and outside the womb? Following this logic, if your three-year-old was too much of a burden you would be within your Constitutionally guaranteed rights to kill him or her. To someone who is pro-life there is no distinction as both lives are sacred. To someone who is pro-abortion the distinction is simply locational.

I have yet to hear a pro-abortion argument that satisfactorily addresses and counters these pro-life arguments and the fact of the matter is there simply isn’t one. We either view life as sacred or something we can determine based on what is convenient for ourselves.

0 The Left Who Cried Wolf

November 9, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· In the News

Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? Boy tells the town a wolf is coming, everybody freaks, turns out it was a prank. Boy tells the town a wolf is coming, nobody listens to him, this time he wasn’t lying and the wolf eats all the sheep because no one reacted? This is what the left does when it comes to “crying racism.”
Pumpkins are not racist, neither is math, yet you’ll find papers, articles, and/or blogs declaring both to be racist. Those are the more outlandish examples of crying racism but I’ll go as far to say, test scores aren’t racist, voter registration laws aren’t racist, and neither is touching a black woman’s hair – rude and annoying, yes, but not racist. There is racism in America and there are race-based issues we need to address. Either the left is vastly mistaken, or they’re right and racism really isn’t a big deal since everyone is racist yet things are going pretty well in America. The left makes it difficult for us to address race issues when they actively promote the idea that everything and everyone is racist. Immediately upon certain darlings of the left losing in the recent midterm election, racism was being shouted amongst those on the political left. Even I have become less and less sensitive to racist cries over the years due to the number of outlandish claims made by the left. When I hear someone else’s claims of racism I find myself extra skeptical because I read about race claims weekly that turn out to be nothing. Think I’m being too harsh? Let me share some fun examples.
Celebrate Halloween with a pumpkin this year? Well then I guess you are an insensitive prick! According to two researchers, pumpkins are symbolic of whiteness. If a company uses pumpkins in its marketing come Fall, you might as well take that as a wink and a nod at the rich racist whites. Us blacks inherently know stuff marketed with pumpkins aren’t for the coloreds.
…class, gender, place, and especially race are employed in popular media and marketing of food and flavor; it suggests complicated interplay among food, leisure, labor, nostalgia, and race. Pumpkins in popular culture also reveal contemporary racial and class coding of rural versus urban places.
If you like to frequent the farmers’ market, you are cultivating racism, my friend. This, according to an article published in The Washington Times. Confused? So was I given that I love farmers’ markets because I get joy out of supporting local vendors, especially minorities, who farm in ethical ways. According to professors at San Diego State University, I am just part of the issue of gentrification and normalizing “white consumption habits.” Damn it! My love of fresh corn is me succumbing to white norms! Fresh, chemical-free food is a white people thing – everyone knows this. According to the left, white people can’t enjoy what white people like even if it doesn’t hurt or affect minorities in any way because they’re white and therefore inherently racist.
Another example is hiking. The Sierra Club published an article on “The Unbearable Whiteness of Hiking and How to Solve It.” As far as I know, there aren’t any national parks banning non-whites from hiking, REI doesn’t sell exclusively to whites, and the North Face doesn’t post “whites only” signs on their front doors. Perhaps cultural differences have lead to an eagerness of white people to be in the outdoors? Linking a lack of outdoor recreation to the obesity rates amongst black Americans may be valid, but there is nothing preventing blacks from going outside and recreating. Blaming the group that does recreate is not helpful in solving this problem, but sure, let’s blame those damn whites and their love of exercise.
I take punctuality seriously, but to expect others to do the same would be culturally insensitive of me according to Clemson University. This is where the argument that “all cultures are equal” completely falls apart. If your culture celebrates lateness, not only does your culture get that wrong, it doesn’t matter. Employers are allowed to set the standard and when you agree to be their employee, you agree to adhere to those standards even if they conflict with your culture. See, that’s the beautiful thing about a free market labor system: you don’t have to trade your work for a wage if you don’t agree with the parameters set for said work.
To list a few more examples, you can find papers/articles/studies on how veganism is too white, cosplay (not blackface) is racist, loving your country is only for white people, Dungeons and Dragons perpetuates white male privilege, facial hair is problematic, and, my personal favorite, math is racist. I kid you not, a professor from the University of Illinois explained that because so many mathematicians are white, math itself belongs to whiteness.
…curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans.
I don’t think I need to explain why outrage over math theories named after the men who developed them is insane.
These are just a few examples a Google search spit out. The left has become so crazy-actually I’ll say lazy in their attempt to malign those at the bottom of the intersectional hierarchy that 1) they are less trustworthy as a whole and 2) they make it harder to fight actual racism. So many of the supposed race issues aren’t related to race so much as cultural differences amongst groups that self-segregate. White people gravitating towards an activity isn’t problematic, but placing blame to avoid responsibility for your group’s lack of interest in said activity is.

0 A Word on Warren

October 16, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

My background is like that which Elizabeth Warren claims. The Democratic senator from Massachusetts stated in an interview her parents were forced to elope because her father’s family was unhappy with the prospect of him marrying a girl who was part Cherokee and Delaware. While my parents did not have to elope, there was concern about the prospect of my mom marrying a Black man. Don’t worry, everything’s good now. On this level I can relate to Warren except for one little fact: Warren is neither minority group which she purported herself to be: Cherokee or Delaware.

I have the advantage on Warren in being able to see the color of my dad’s skin and concluding he is, in fact, of African descent. Warren did not have this luxury, so she assumed because her family had high cheekbones she must be Native American. This is stereotypical to the point of being racist, but in a world where identity politics is king, one must grasp at the crown any way you can.

Warren’s claims to Native heritage would not be an issue if she had not used it to gain minority status and possibly advance her career or, at best, set herself apart. If this is the case, I can relate to the Senator’s efforts. When I was applying to undergrad I was Black. Despite my mixed racial background, I presented myself as darkness in the flesh. I did this of course knowing it would give me an edge over any White competitors and I was not wrong. Upon acceptance to the University of Washington I received a generous scholarship based on my race alone. Without application I was immediately given access to the university’s tutoring center which got me through all my introductory science courses. In short, it was awesome.

Something didn’t sit right with me though. It is one thing to promote cultural diversity at the school, it is another to give certain demographics resources not afforded to others based solely on their race. I was ruminating about these ideas around the time Elizabeth Warren entered the national scene in 2012. I remember thinking how terrible it was for someone to use race to promote themselves and realized I had done exactly that. I consoled myself by saying at least I was provably half-Black, but it is still much the same. If you cannot stand on your own abilities and credentials, then you have no business in whatever area you are trying to attain enrollment or advancement. Your race or ethnicity is not a credential. You earn credentials, you don’t work to be Black, White, or Native.

I have always poked fun at Elizabeth Warren’s stereotypical logic of her heritage – by the same token a person who speaks with their hands is Italian and someone who likes watermelon is Black. With the news coming out today, however that, after a DNA test, Warren is anywhere from 1/64 to 1/1024 Native American it is even more hilarious. Especially since the ostensibly Native American DNA was Mexican, Peruvian, or Colombian. If Warren is Native at all, she is 6 to 10 generations removed. Furthermore, as the Cherokee Nation said in a statement: a DNA test is not enough to claim you belong to the Cherokee or any, tribe. It’s hardly enough to claim you are Native American at all!

I would like to offer a word of sympathy for Warren. If she was raised believing these stories, and they may be true, she had no reason to assume she was doing anything wrong just as there was nothing wrong with me putting Black as the sole race in my applications as my dad often reminds me. However, the ethical implications of using race to get ahead should force someone to reconsider such an approach. Regardless, when faced with the fact you have negligible if any Native DNA, to apologize and desist would be the best approach. Unfortunately, as there is a leftist taboo against being White, Warren has and will likely continue to cling on to this minority status even if it is only 0.098%.

Page 1 of 9