California Seeks Socialism in One State

The California Senate recently voted to approve a bill creating a state-level system of single-payer healthcare. It’s doubtful that the bill will become law, because it is opposed by Governor Jerry Brown. But the various left-wing interest groups are nonetheless backing the effort with substantial political resources.

Strictly speaking, single-payer health insurance means that only the government–nobody else–pays for health care. That means no private insurance. So Canada, for example, has banned private insurance. People, however, often use the term single-payer loosely to refer only to a government-paid option–what Nancy Pelosi calls ‘the public option’–that operates alongside private health insurance, as in the U.K. I therefore expected that the California Senate must have voted for a public option, but was surprised to find that, no, they literally meant single-payer. The California Senate actually voted to outlaw private health insurance.

If I like my plan, can I keep it?
Not unless you go to the VA, the only non-Healthy California system that would remain in place. Private insurance would no longer exist. The roughly 50 percent of people who get insurance through their employers would switch over. Medicare, the federal program that provides insurance for the elderly, would cease to operate in the state. So would Medicaid, which insures low-income people. Companies would be banned from selling any form of supplemental insurance that covers the same things as the state’s program. It is single payer after all, with the singular entity being the California government.

Note the distinct rollback in the freedom and autonomy of the individual. If you like your plan, tough luck, you’re forced to enroll in the system whether you want to or not. Your employer might want to offer health coverage as a benefit, and you might be happy to accept it, but the state says no, you can’t do that. Or you might want to purchase private insurance on your own so you won’t have to rely on the state, and an insurance company would willingly sell you an acceptable plan. But the state says no, you can’t carry out that transaction. The citizen is transformed from a paying customer with some degree of autonomy into a supplicant of the state. If that’s freedom, then zoo animals must all be free–they don’t pay for their medical treatment either.

In any event, I still find it hard to imagine that California would ever operate a literal single-payer system, because it would mean that the privileged Hollywood and Silicon Valley elites would have to seek treatment out-of-state. No way would the elites submit to the waiting lists, restricted access, and deteriorating standards that will inevitably accompany a cash-strapped single-payer system. It’s one thing for the peons to go on waiting lists, but not Jimmy Kimmel’s son. So it will be interesting to see how the elites preserve their privileges.

But let’s get back to the actual bill on the table.

The legislation guarantees free government-run health care for California’s 39 million residents—no co-pays, deductibles or insurance premiums—as well as virtually unlimited benefits. Patients could see any specialist without a referral and receive any treatment that their provider says is medically appropriate.

Sure. Just write those provisions into the law and it will all come true. What could go wrong?

How will all this be paid for?

A University of Massachusetts Amherst study commissioned by the California Nurses Association—which favors government-run health care—claims that single-payer would reduce health-care spending by $37.5 billion a year. This miracle would be achieved largely by slashing administrative costs as well as provider and drug reimbursement rates.

So the California Nurses Association is pushing a plan that involves slashing payments to ‘providers.’ Last time I checked, those ‘providers’ also happen to be the employers that most nurses work for. Hard to see how dealing a huge financial blow to their employers will benefit nurses. If I were a nurse in California, I’d be concerned that the union leadership was selling me out. In most countries with single-payer healthcare, nurses get paid a lot less than they do in America. In France, for instance, nurses are paid less than half as much as in the U.S.

The study also asserts that California could reallocate $225 billion a year in Medicaid, Medicare and ObamaCare spending for single-payer assuming a federal waiver. Thus the legislature would only have to come up with $107 billion.

‘Only’ $107 billion. For perspective, California’s entire state budget right now is $124 billion, so even under the nurses’ rosy scenario, the burden of state government would nearly double.

The Power Line blog highlights the comments of Wall Street Journal reader Craig Harrison, a California resident.

Can the state really commandeer my federal Medicare benefits?

Good question.

When it takes 3-6 months to see a physician in California, can the state stop me from going to Nevada, Arizona or Oregon for care? Will they put me in jail if I do?

Assuming the state is not required to reimburse you for your out-of-state expenses, I assume they would welcome being relieved of the burden. They’re happy for you to pay your own way out-of-state while still paying taxes to support the California system you’re not using.

How many miles offshore need a hospital or clinic ship anchor to be outside of the reach of the state?

Maybe the Queen Mary, permanently anchored at Long Beach, can be converted into a hospital ship.

If California ever does install single-payer, they can expect to experience a very bad selection effect on net migration. The most productive citizens will seek to avoid the tax burden by fleeing the state, while poor and sick people flock to California to take advantage of the freebies.

It’s also worth noting that this is not the first attempt by a state to create something like single-payer. Not too many years ago, attempts in Tennessee and in Vermont had to be abandoned due to the very daunting practical difficulties. Despite these failures, California leftists somehow imagine that they can make it work. Cuz they’re special or something.

Maggot Cheese: Pass

Many of our readers know that here at Yet, Freedom! we are big fans of the Mediterranean environment, culture, and food. After all, as Samuel Johnson said, “The grand object of all travel is to see the shores of the Mediterranean.” But in the case of Sardinia’s maggot cheese, we’re taking a pass.

EU bureaucrats have banned sale of the cheese, although it is still being produced. The bureaucrats really should back off and leave people to their own traditions, even if disgusting.

Gordon Ramsey – Maggot Cheese

Healthcare: Right or Privilege?

The latest target of the online leftists’ ‘two-minutes hate’ was Miss USA, who committed heresy in response to the following question about healthcare.

Do you think affordable healthcare for all US citizens is a right or a privilege and why?

New Miss USA: Health Care is a Privilege

Leftists, of course, think the only acceptable answer is that healthcare is a right.

The correct answer to the question, however, is difficult to ascertain because of ambiguity associated with the term ‘affordable healthcare.’ If ‘affordable healthcare’ means that your healthcare is paid for mostly or entirely by others, then no, that is not a right. You have no right to other peoples’ money.

But if instead ‘affordable healthcare’ means that you have a right to purchase with your own money whatever healthcare you can afford, then yes, that is a right. You have a right to pay for your own healthcare; you have no right to force others to pay.

In the United States, however, citizens are not fully able to exercise the right to purchase healthcare because the FDA often prevents patients from accessing particular drugs or treatments that they want, even when their doctors approve. For instance, as we reported last year, parents of children afflicted with deadly Duchenne’s disease literally begged FDA panelists to let them take an experimental drug that might extend their lives. But the FDA panel voted no anyway.

That free-born citizens would have to literally beg for their lives in front of government functionaries is absolutely disgusting.

FDA delenda est.

Furthermore, asserting the phony right to healthcare paid for by others tends to undermine the real right to pay for your own healthcare. The high taxes needed to support the socialist healthcare system leaves people in many cases with not enough income after taxes to afford to purchase their own healthcare outside the system. In that sense, making healthcare more affordable can actually in some cases make healthcare less affordable.

In Canada, for example, the need to keep everybody and their money within the socialist system resulted in a legal ban on all private purchase of healthcare. Hence it is technically illegal in Canada to privately transact in healthcare or in health insurance. That’s right–Canadian law specifically abrogates the citizen’s right to use his own money to purchase healthcare. The phony right extinguishes the real right.

Of course, in practice, many private healthcare clinics do exist in Canada. But technically, these are illegal, and the authorities tolerate them by refusing to enforce the law. The authorities so far have not dared to shut down the private clinics, because they provide people with essential treatment not available from the socialist system. The existence of the illegal private clinics testifies to the unworkability of the socialist system.

But getting back to Miss USA, she eventually had to walk back her statement, which is a sad reminder of the stifling leftist constraints on our public discourse. We now have a situation in the world, as an online wag put it, where China is a ‘communist’ country governed by the principles of capitalism, and the US is a ‘capitalist’ country governed by the principles of communism.

So-Called Experts: Wrong on Salt Too

Almost three years ago, I questioned the declaration by FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg that Americans needed to eat less salt.

“The current level of [sodium] consumption is really higher than it should be,” said FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg. That’s why they’re preparing “voluntary guidelines” for the food industry encouraging them to stay below certain salt levels.

While the guidelines will initially be voluntary, health groups are lobbying for mandatory standards — lobbying that will only grow more intense if businesses refuse to comply once the standards are released. If businesses don’t go light on the salt “then FDA should start a process of mandatory limits,” said Center for Science in the Public Interest Executive Director Michael Jacobson.

At the time, I replied as follows.

For FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg to say that salt consumption is “higher than it should be” implies that she knows how high salt consumption should be. But the fact is that science has not credibly established how much is the right amount of salt, or how much is too much.

In the three years since I wrote that, a number of studies have been published showing that a low-salt diet is actually worse for health than is a moderate or even high-salt diet. The latest evidence comes from the Framingham Offspring Study, an extension of the famous Framingham Heart Study, one of the most prestigious and well-funded long-running health studies. Notwithstanding the assertions of FDA commissioner Hamburg, the Framingham study “implies that most Americans are consuming a perfectly healthy amount of salt,” and more remarkably, that “lowering sodium intake doesn’t reduce blood pressure.”

Consuming fewer than 2,500 milligrams of sodium daily is actually associated with higher blood pressure…
The American Heart Association recommends consuming no more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium daily, equal to a teaspoon of ordinary iodized table salt.

High blood pressure is a known risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Hence, lowering salt intake is supposed to lower blood pressure and thus reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. But the study found that supposition to be unfounded.

Moreover, the lowest blood pressure was recorded by those who consumed 4,000 milligrams or more a day — amounts considered dangerously high by medical authorities such as the American Heart Association.

Let that sink in. The Framingham subjects who had salt intake levels that the American Heart Association considers “dangerously high” actually had the lowest blood pressure.

The lowest readings came from people who consumed an average of 3,717 milligrams of sodium and 3,211 milligrams of potassium a day.

The report directly contradicts advice from the American Heart Association, which recommends consuming less than 1,500 milligrams of sodium a day to reduce blood pressure and risk of heart disease.

The American Heart Association is a dubious organization that proffers a lot of bad advice and takes money from the soft drink industry.

And also the federal government, of course, is on the misguided anti-salt bandwagon.

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that sodium intake be lowered to 2,300 milligrams per day for the general population.  The report is a joint project of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and of Agriculture.

As for Margaret Hamburg, she stepped down as head of the FDA in 2015. Has she at any point apologized for attacking the dietary habits of Americans without knowing all the facts? Probably not, since I presume she is pretty busy defending herself from a federal racketeering lawsuit that was filed against her last year. The suit alleges that she engaged in a conspiracy to approve dangerous drugs in order to benefit her husband’s hedge fund.

I have no idea if the charges are true or not, but however it turns out, I retain little trust in the people who occupy positions of authority in America today, especially political appointees like Margaret Hamburg. Take what they say with about 57.36 grains of salt, or 3,717 milligrams. That should keep your blood pressure down.

Regulation Hurts the Little Guy

During Judge Gorsuch’s recent confirmation hearing, Democrat Senators expressed concern that Gorsuch did not display sufficient sympathy for ‘the little guy.’ If these Senators are really concerned about the little guy, however, why do they continue to support and expand the massive regulatory state that keeps the little guy down?

The fact is that regulation typically hurts the little guy. Regulation does this by raising the prices of goods and services. Sometimes regulation raises prices by stifling competition. Classic examples include telephone service and airlines prior to the 1980s. Regulation also raises prices by banning cheap versions of a good, often in the name of safety, leaving the consumer no choice other than a more expensive version.

This phenomenon was on vivid display when I visited Mexico a couple of years ago. In Mexico, the most common car on the road is the Nissan Tsuru, which is almost identical to the “B13” Nissan Sentra that was sold in the United States from 1991 through 1994. At first, I thought all those Sentras on the road were remarkably well-preserved specimens from over 20 years ago. But in fact, the B13 Sentra is still produced in Mexico to this day. Until 2011, it was the best-selling car in Mexico.

Nearly all Taxis in Cancun are Nissan Tsurus (B13 Sentras).

The appeal of the B13 Sentra is that it is pretty reliable, but most of all it is cheap. The car sells brand new for only about $7,000 or $8,000. Of course the car is very basic; you roll down the window yourself, and the car does not offer the most modern safety features such as side air bags or anti-lock brakes. Allegedly for safety reasons, the car cannot therefore legally be sold in the United States. A B13 Sentra purchased in Mexico also cannot legally be imported or registered in the United States.

Many Americans might like to have the opportunity to buy a brand new car for less than $8,000. Those people would typically be of modest means. You know, the little guy. But the government says, no, the car is not sufficiently safe.

Of course, the B13 Sentra was safe enough in 1994, but the government has since moved the goal post. And some people in the U.S. today are still driving B13s from the 1990s that are grandfathered.

More to the point, shouldn’t a free-born citizen get to decide how much safety he or she wants to purchase? In other contexts, people are perfectly free, as they should be, to take risks. For instance, some people like to go snowmobiling. Others increase their risk by taking a job on an Alaskan crab boat. Still others take their lives in their hands by following the government’s dietary guidelines. What sense does it make that a free-born person can choose to climb Mount Everest, but cannot choose to drive a B13 Sentra?

And now government regulation has finally caught up with the B13 even in Mexico. Nissan will be forced to halt production in May.

[Y]ou will no longer be able to buy a 25-year-old Sentra brand new anymore. And it’s all because of the meddling government.

Mexico recently passed new safety regulations, and without airbags or anti-lock brakes, those requirements spell doom for the Nissan Tsuru.

So farewell, B13 Nissan Sentra. You had a good 25-year run, and we will always remember you fondly. When you get to where you’re going, say hello to the original Volkswagen Beetle for us!

The safety regulations don’t just violate principles of liberty, they hurt the poor economically by adding several thousand dollars to the price of a car. The case of the B13 Sentra is instructive because it reveals just how cheap cars might be if not for government regulation.

The phenomenon is a general one; regulation almost always has the effect of increasing prices not decreasing them. For instance, one of the main reasons why health insurance is so expensive is due to regulations that mandate what the insurance must cover. State-level regulations require health plans to cover things that people don’t want or don’t need, like psychiatric treatment or post-natal care. The government effectively bans people from purchasing a cheap bare-bones plan. Instead of letting citizens decide for themselves, the government forces people to buy more health insurance than they want.

Rich people can easily afford the higher prices imposed by regulations. But for the poor, the cumulative effect of higher prices significantly degrades their standard of living.

I once had the misfortune of having lunch with someone who was a big fan of regulation. She was telling me the whole time how great regulation is for ‘consumers.’ She voted for Ralph Nader. Oh, and not so incidentally, she was rich.

Reminder: Low Prices are Good

As if to prove that economic fallacies never die, the E-Commerce Times recently published a piece calling for higher prices for TVs. And not just TVs–airplanes and automobiles too.

Yeah, the reason why this idea “sounds anti-consumer” is because it is anti-consumer. Making goods more expensive is not economic progress–just the opposite. Henry Ford revolutionized the auto industry by making cars less expensive, not more. Before Ford, a car cost more than a house. After eight years, Ford had cut the price by half. He did that by increasing productivity.

Artificially protecting jobs in TV manufacturing would have the opposite effect–it would lower productivity. The repetitive job a Chinese TV worker does for $3 an hour is not very productive; nor is the task very appealing to an American worker.

In 45 years under communism in Poland, all industries and jobs were protected, and not one firm went out of business. But productivity stagnated, and by the end of those 45 years, ordinary people had trouble acquiring even basic necessities like soap.

The purpose of economic activity is consumption, not labor. If we reoriented our economy to the goal of raising prices to protect jobs, we would all end up a lot poorer.

Low prices for goods are a blessing, not a curse.

Obamacare: Finally, a Journalist Asks the Right Questions

At this point it is now seven years too late, but a journalist finally asked the right questions about Obamacare. That journalist was Tucker Carlson, and he asked the man who should know the answers as well as anybody–Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was the ‘architect’ of Obamacare.

Tucker Carlson Destroys Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber

Carlson specifically asked two good questions that go to the heart of what is objectionable about Obamacare. Here is one of them.

Why should I be forced to buy a plan that offers things that don’t pertain to me in any way?…They’re forcing people to buy things they don’t want and that don’t help them…things that do not apply and will never apply to me such as breastfeeding, prenatal care, substance abuse counseling…why should I have to buy those plans?

Indeed, one of the most objectionable, maybe the most objectionable, provision of Obamacare is that it empowers unelected federal bureaucrats to decide the terms of my health care plan–what it covers and what it does not cover. In a free society, the terms of my insurance policy should be determined through agreement between me and my insurance company. Gruber calls this a “small issue,” but it’s actually an outrageous encroachment on the freedom of the people.

After first dodging the question and forcing Carlson to ask a second time, Gruber offered the following response.

The answer is that basically as a society we have to decide what is going to define fair insurance.

This is another way of saying that people–you and I–should not be free to decide, and so ‘society’ should decide for us. But it turns out that the group of people who decide is not ‘society’ but rather those aforementioned unelected federal bureaucrats. Gruber’s response provides no rational justification for the policy, just an assertion of his belief that people should not be free to decide for themselves. Every time choices and decisions get taken away from individuals and turned over to ‘society,’ it means that the people have less freedom.

Why should it be necessary for ‘society’ to define “fair insurance,” anymore than for ‘society’ to define a “fair golf course,” a “fair gym membership,” or “fair supermarket shopping”? These are all just contractual relationships voluntarily agreed upon by buyers and sellers. Would Gruber propose that federal bureaucrats insure “fair” grocery shopping by dictating to supermarkets which products they should and should not offer for sale?

Carlson’s second fundamental question (although it comes up first in the video) is this one.

Who are the victims? Who’s been hurt by Obamacare?

This is a crucial question, because the great con run by the political class is that they talk only about the benefits of their policies but not the costs. They don’t want to talk about all the people who will be hurt by the policy, because those people might then wake up and go into political opposition.

Gruber in reply identified only two categories of people hurt by Obamacare: “the wealthiest Americans…the top two percent,” and young, healthy people who, prior to Obamacare, benefited from “a discriminatory insurance market.”

What Gruber means by “a discriminatory insurance market” is actually just “an insurance market.” In a free and efficient insurance market, policy premiums are priced according to the risk of the individual. Healthy people with healthy habits therefore pay less than people with unhealthy habits. That’s how insurance is supposed to work–the market prices the risk. Gruber, however, believes that having an actual insurance market is unfair. When it comes right down to it, he is fundamentally opposed to the idea of health insurance. That’s why Obamacare is NOT health insurance, but an abolition of health insurance. Obamacare replaces the insurance market with an elaborate government scheme for rationing care and redistributing wealth.

I’ve always said that a one-line argument against big government is that it always ends up rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior. And that is precisely what Gruber advocates. He thinks smokers should be taxed to subsidize non-smokers, that those who eat healthy and exercise should be taxed to subsidize couch potatoes who overeat. As the saying goes, if you tax anything, you get less of it, and if you subsidize anything, you get more of it.

But in any event, Gruber’s list of Obamacare’s losers is far too narrow. In no particular order, the list needs to include all those young white women who go to tanning salons, because Obamacare put a 10% tax on indoor tanning. Other losers include millions of people who purchase insurance on the individual market but who are not eligible for Obamacare subsidies. Those people have seen their premiums soar. And speaking of those subsidies, they consist of tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money that are needed to (barely) keep Obamacare afloat. So really, the losers also include basically anybody who pays federal taxes. That’s a lot of losers.

Obamacare’s losers also encompass all those who cherish the Constitution and constitutional government. Because in order to save Obamacare, the Supreme Court had to re-write the Constitution by ruling that the government is free to regulate inactivity so long as the penalty is called a ‘tax.’

Gruber’s reaction to the point that Obamacare has created many losers was somewhat fatalistic.

As with any law, the law creates winners and losers.

Sure, but the idea of a free society is that political insiders–in this case, industry lobbyists and Congressional aides–shouldn’t be able to get together and decide to make me a loser.

Gruber is right that the law creates both losers and winners. But he neglected to mention one of the biggest winners from Obamacare: himself. The man has made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of Obamacare.

A Brief History of Government ‘Expertise’

The Huffington Post and its readers are in a tizzy over a poll showing that Trump voters do not trust government ‘experts.’


Americans, particularly those who voted for Donald Trump, are skeptical of civil service workers and the concept that expertise is an asset for government work, according to the results of a new HuffPost/YouGov survey.

While 43 percent say they have at least a fair amount of trust in civil service employees who run federal government departments and agencies, 45 percent say they trust those employees not very much or not at all. Only about a third of Trump voters report trusting the civil service, compared with 64 percent who do not.

A 53 percent majority of the public, including 71 percent of Trump voters, agree that “Everyday Americans understand what the government should do better than the so-called ‘experts.’

Leftists think the article shows that people are stupid for not deferring to the so-called experts. The article’s comment threat is full of the usual leftist snark and sarcasm.

John Sawyer
Owner at CJS Macintosh Repair
That’s right! I want the best goddamn burger-flipper on the planet to repair my Porsche! See, I believe in experts! But the last expert mechanic I had work on my car, he was all snooty and everything! I’ll never make that mistake again!

Yeah, well, burger flipping and Porsche repair are services that are usually competently executed because they are provided by the market. The market, unlike government, only provides services that people actually want.

Government is nearly the opposite; instead of giving people what they want, modern government is mostly about stopping people from doing what they want. And that’s the problem. Nobody is qualified to decide for you or me how we should live. The so-called experts can never know more than you do about how you should live. The difference between the government expert and the auto mechanic is that one does only what I pay him to do, the other is paid to tell me what to do. Big difference.

And so the crux of the problem is that the government’s so-called experts are deciding things they shouldn’t even be involved in. People who have never so much as run a hot dog stand are telling business owners how to run their businesses; they’re telling banks how to lend. The government ‘experts’ are deciding how much water your toilet and shower and dishwasher are allowed to use; they’re even deciding how much health insurance you have to buy.

They shouldn’t be doing any of these things. And that is why they fail.

This idea that we can solve all our problems if only we can get enough expertise in government dates back over 100 years, to the Progressive Era. The record since then, however, is one of unremitting government failure. Let’s just quickly review the history of massive fails by government ‘experts.’ A complete history would fill volumes, but here are just a few notes off the top of my head.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created the Fed for the express purpose of protecting the banking system from the effects of bank panics. Instead of doing its job, the Fed in 1930-33 allowed three huge panics to devastate the banking system. Some 9,000 banks, half of the total, collapsed. As a result, what might have been an ordinary recession lasting one or two years was turned into the decade-long Great Depression.

Since the Fed failed to stop bank panics, the experts had to turn to a different solution: deposit insurance. That did solve the problem of bank panics, but at the cost of removing market discipline. The unintended consequences of deposit insurance helped to bring about the Savings and Loan Debacle of the 1980s, which wiped out the government’s insurance fund for thrifts, the FSLIC. The resulting taxpayer bailout cost about $250 billion in today’s dollars.

The Fed was also instrumental in inflating a financial and real estate bubble that lead to the Great Recession of 2008-09. In fact, one can argue that the Fed bears primary responsibility for all four of the most severe economic contractions of the last 90 years: 1930-33, 1937-38, 1981-82, and 2008-09.

During that real estate bubble, government experts encouraged lenders to give out sub-prime mortgages like Halloween candy. Government experts said it was perfectly fine for Fannie Mae to be capitalized at only two percent, because mortgages are such safe assets.

To stop people from drinking during Prohibition, government experts decided to add poison to industrial alcohols. As many as ten thousand Americans were poisoned to death.

Experts at the Food and Drug Administration have created a “Valley of Death” process in which it takes 12 years and 1.2 billion dollars to get a new drug approved. Over the decades, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans have died while waiting for treatments delayed by FDA ‘experts.’

The Department of Agriculture, the Surgeon General, and other government experts told us for decades to avoid saturated fats, and instead to consume grain-based carbohydrates. Goodness knows how many lives were lost because of that misguided dietary advice.

Right now, government experts are busy trying to regulate plant food (carbon dioxide) as a pollutant. They’re trying to regulate electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product, even though e-cigs contain absolutely no tobacco.

It’s the Holiday Season, and American troops will soon be celebrating Christmas in Afghanistan–for the sixteenth time.

Can’t imagine how Trump voters lost their faith in government experts. Silly rubes.


The Trouble with Propaganda…

…is that it doesn’t work if the public has access to alternative voices that can contradict the lies. That’s why totalitarian states always have to couple propaganda with ruthless censorship.

This election year, Democrats got their usual billion dollars worth of in-kind contribution from the legacy media, but it wasn’t quite enough to drag their candidate’s felonious and diseased carcass across the finish line. As a result, they are now trying to restore the effectiveness of their propaganda machine by silencing alternative voices. And so, leftoids are organizing a boycott of Breitbart media. Unfortunately, they seem to be having some success as they got Allstate and Kellogg to pull advertising.


Some are also claiming that Apple pulled the Breitbart app from its app store, although I have not been able to confirm that.

It certainly says a lot about leftists that they would rather shut down the debate than try to win it. Their actions do reflect fragility and lack of confidence in their arguments. If they thought their arguments could win the day, they wouldn’t be nearly so keen to suppress speech.

Look, I am not the type of person who seeks to politicize every aspect of life. I work with, and do business with, people who don’t share my political views. But the theory of games teaches us that tit-for-tat is generally an effective strategy. If the left wants to play the boycott game, then GAME ON. There are a couple of Kellogg products that I’ve been purchasing on a fairly regular basis for years. But no more. I don’t currently have Allstate insurance, and I’ll be sure to keep it that way.

Gotta laugh when campus pinks try to argue that corporate America is conservative. That’s a good one.

No Need to Worry about ‘Peak Oil’

‘Peak Oil’ is the theory that, as oil becomes more scarce, at some point in time production of oil will start to fall, and decline forevermore. The originator of the theory, M. King Hubbert, predicted in 1956 that U.S. production would decline after 1970, and world production after 2000.

In 1978, an environmental group spent a lot of money to place a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal claiming that within 9 years, that is, by 1987, the world would completely run out of oil.

Nearly 30 years later, U.S. and world production have risen dramatically, and proven reserves are at all-time highs. Planet Earth apparently contains massive amounts of oil, and nobody really knows how much. Just this week, news broke of the discovery of the largest oil field in U.S. history.

Federal surveyors announced that the Wolfcamp shale in the Midland Basin portion of Texas’ Permian Basin now holds the record for most oil, natural gas, and gas liquid deposits that are “undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.”

The USGS notes that within its survey spanning from north of Lubbock to remote regions southwest of San Angelo, an estimated and previously unaccounted for 20 billion barrels of crude oil; 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids are able to be extracted by means typically involving slant drilling and hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking”…

A government spokesperson underscored the historic nature of the finding in a release.

“The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” said Walter Guidroz, for the USGS Energy Resources Program. “Changes in technology and industry practices can have significant effects on what resources are technically recoverable, and that’s why we continue to perform resource assessments throughout the United States and the world.”

“It’s no surprise that Texas has massive oil fields, but these new findings from USGS are jaw-dropping. Fracking and horizontal drilling have turned the United States into a global energy superpower, and the untapped potential in the Wolfcamp means we won’t be surrendering that status any time soon,” group spokesman Steve Everly said. “For the few remaining advocates of ‘Peak Oil,’ this certainly isn’t their lucky day.”

At current prices, the new oil discovery is worth approximately $900 billion.

And yet, despite massive and growing world reserves, many people still argue that we need to impose austerity upon ourselves in order to ‘save oil for future generations.’ Check out the following hilariously bad advice.

One needs to take all the steps in order to lessen the impact of oil prices. Use oil only during major necessity. The citizen and the government must also be actively involved in these efforts. Try to use oil effectively without wasting the same. Some very small ways to save oil is to use bicycles instead of motor cars for short distances to save oil. Not only does it save oil, but it also helps to reduce the pollution in the atmosphere and maintains the ecological balance. People from the same organization can opt for the choice of car-pooling. Only use your vehicles at times of need and try and prefer using buses or for that matter, trains to reach your destination.

To save oil, one must have an idea about the traffic rules and act wisely when driving. It is better to switch off an engine when caught in the traffic signals. The modern inventions in technology have made people turn towards solar vehicles that use the sun as major source, and it is one of the best processes to avoid excess usage of oil. To save natural resources, some vehicles use bio-gas and battery. Try to use products that have high composition of ethanol to serve the vehicles for longer duration. [Emphasis added.]

Switch off your engine while stopped in traffic! Good lord.

When will Peak Oil finally arrive? Two hundred years from now? The idea that we need to worry about using oil is like the Vikings 1,000 years ago worrying that if they used too much wood, future generations would not have enough wood.