Tuesday, March 30, 2021
New Census Data Show Homeschooling Tripled During the Pandemic—And One Key Group is Driving the Surge | Kerry McDonald
New Census Data Show Homeschooling Tripled During the Pandemic—And One Key Group is Driving the Surge | Kerry McDonald: New Census data suggest a tripling of the homeschooling population from pre-pandemic levels. These new homeschoolers share the common goal of getting their children the best education possible—and their backgrounds don't match the critics' stereotypes.
Charts of the day, all viral edition by Mark J. Perry
March 30, 2021
In the last week or so I’ve had three charts that went “viral” on Twitter, here they are!
1. Chart of the Day I (above) shows the shares of births to unmarried women by race in 2019 based on recently released US birth data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
2. Chart of the Day II (above) shows the same data on the share of births to unwed mothers in Chart I for Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks above along with median household income for those groups in 2019. For the two variables in the chart above the correlation coefficient (a statistical measure of association between two variables that ranges from -1 (perfect negative correlation) to +1 (perfect positive correlation)) is -0.99, or almost perfect negative correlation between the shares of births to unwed mothers and median household income by race in 2019.
When I posted the first chart above on Twitter, I posed the following questions: Should we be concerned? Should these differences be discussed? When I posted the second chart above on Twitter, I asked “See any patterns?” There were a number of notable, high-profile responses to those questions:
From Glenn Loury: “Yes, be concerned. And. Yes, talk about this.”
From Prager University: “We’ve said it before and we will say it again: Black America has a culture crisis that can’t be fixed by government handouts or “social justice” movements. It starts at home.”
From Andrew Sullivan: “This is central to tackling racial inequality. Without moving these numbers, not much will ever change.”
From Jordan Peterson: “Given the well-documented and multiplicitous disadvantages faced by children who grow up in fatherless families the answer is incontrovertibly yes.”
Note: Tucker Carlson mentioned Jordan Peterson’s Quote Tweet of my chart last night on his “Tucker Carlson: Tonight” show!
From author Melissa Tate: “‘White Privilege’ debunked. This is culture privilege & family privilege. Asian culture emphasizes academic achievement/excellence & values marriage & family. The result is they out-earn all other races. Breakdown of family & marriage causes poverty.”
From Sharyl Attkisson: “Have kids when you can afford them and as a couple: Family is more likely to be prosperous. Out of wedlock and single: More likely to be poor. Of all they teach our kids in school, some basic economic fundamental facts about finances could help everyone more in the long run.”
From Ben Shapiro: “This chart is vital, and will be completely ignored.”
From Obianuju Ekeocha: “70% and 69% are very high. Surely this is the root of so many problems. It is not white supremacy to point this out and it is not racist to demand a change within our communities. IMHO.”
MP: The 70% share of black births to unwed mothers is a major issue that does deserve more attention in the national discussions on racial disparities, “Black Lives Matter,” allegations of white privilege and systemic racism, etc. As long as 70% of black children are born to unmarried mothers, the black-white disparities in income, wealth, homeownership, educational outcomes, school suspensions, crime rates, incarceration rates, etc. will all continue. And of course, the racial disparities between Asians and whites (for income, wealth, education, etc.) receive almost NO attention because it doesn’t fit the narratives of white privilege, black victimhood, systemic racism, etc. …..
3. Chart of the Day III (below) displays current Ohio State University staff members whose job titles include one or more of the words “diversity, inclusion, or equity,” along with their names and salaries (data here). The “diversicrat” count at OSU exceeds 150 staff members including positions at the top like the vice provost of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion James L. Moore III at an annual salary of almost $275,000 (plus benefits) to the lower-paid ranks of diversity workshop leaders and “academic encouragers.” There are 88 “diversicrats” employed by OSU in its Office and Diversity and Inclusion alone, 22 diversity staff in the Institutional Equity Office, eight diversity staff members in the College of Engineering Diversity and Outreach office, and two diversicrats in the Fisher College of Business, and another 30 diversity staff in other parts of the university. The total annual payroll cost for this small army of OSU diversicrats comes to almost $12 million (including benefits), which would pay the current in-state tuition of about $11,500 for more than 1,000 students at the main campus and almost 1,500 students at the regional campuses.
In my Tweet, I described this as “the metastasizing “Diversity, Inclusion & Equity” (DIE) bureaucracy at Ohio State.”
In response, my AEI colleague responded on Twitter:
Wonder why identity fanaticism is on the rise? It’s being promoted by an army of busybodies. Ohio State U alone employs 150+ identity “experts.” Think of all the nonsensical, faux research promoted at conferences & workshops they attend. This has been been going on for years.
Cold War Radio Vignettes ©: Now available for immediate download on Amazon ...
Cold War Radio Vignettes ©:
Now available for immediate download on Amazon ...: Now available for immediate download on Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites and the book copy can be ordered directly from the publishe...
Cold War Radio Vignettes ©: Carlos the Jackal and The Last Tango in Munich:The...
Cold War Radio Vignettes ©: Carlos the Jackal and The Last Tango in Munich:The...: From the mid-1970s to his overthrow and execution in December 1989, Romanian Dictator Nicolae Ceausescu waged a vengeful war against the Rom...
Sunday, March 28, 2021
BIG ST. JOE AVALANCHE CASE STUDY PART 2 from https://missoulaavalanche.org/
This is the second of three articles in the case study of an avalanche accident that happened on Big St. Joseph Peak on Sunday, January 3, 2021. The first article included an overview of the accident and examined human factors and how heuristic traps can influence our decision making. It can be read here.
I ended the last article talking about deductive competence, or the ability to draw the correct conclusion from the evidence. Heuristics can be overridden through analytic analysis, as long as there is this competence to recognize incongruencies between the two decision making processes, or the ability to recognize errors in the initial decision. Heuristics played into this incident but was not the only variable, observations and tests lead to an incorrect assessment of the hazard.
In this case, small misconceptions in the interpretation of observations influenced the decision to ski the line that slid. In order for observations to result in the right decision, the correct aspects need to be focused on, and the techniques need to fit the avalanche problem. This is where errors occurred. Some of these are subtle, and that is the challenge of them. They are the type of error that normally requires outside assistance to identify. The skiers thought they were doing everything correctly. There was nothing to indicate that errors were made prior to the avalanche. In a benign environment, we may make these mistakes many times and without much consequence until we identify the issue or someone else points it out to us. However, the avalanche environment is what is referred to as a “wicked” learning environment, where the first mistake may be a very consequential one. We may not have the luxury of learning from our mistakes because they could kill us. Luckily, this incident ended well.
Here is some of the information the skiers had heading into the day:
- The avalanche hazard on January 2nd was moderate and the forecast predicted increasing hazard with continued snow and wind, it had this to say about wind slab: “Moderate to strong winds and fresh snow are loading upper elevation slopes and creating wind slabs. Avoid wind loaded start zones greater than 35º”. The January 2nd forecast can be read here.
- The backcountry weather forecast from January 2nd read: “Widespread snow returns this evening lasting into Sunday with the heaviest intensities early Sunday (January 3rd) morning. The heaviest accumulations are expected across the northern Bitterroot mountains with a liquid content of 0.5 to 1.5 inches. Southwesterly ridgetop winds will exceed 55 mph tonight into Sunday as well.” It can be read here.
Here is the skier’s synopsis of their decision making process:
The two skiers assessed conditions on their ascent digging pits at 6600’ SE facing, which yielded no results. They also dug at 8800’ on a 32º slope and found 220cm (87”) of snow. The extended column test (ECT) yielded an ECTP 22, down 4” which they judged to have a sheer quality of Q2. Prompted by the Q2 rating, they performed a propagation saw test (PST). It scored as PSTend 80/100 and they judged the likelihood of propagation to be low.
Based on these results, with only 4″ of fresh snow at their pit, and a runout zone free of terrain traps such as rocks or cliffs, they decided to ski the slope one at a time.
Skier two triggered the avalanche, was knocked off their feet, but able to regain control and ski off the slide as it came to a halt. They escaped without injury.
The slide occurred in windslab. The starting zone was between 35-40 degrees, the crown was 300-400’ wide, ranging in depth from 4″-12″, and it slid for about 300′ from 9,000′-8,700’.
This is their analysis of the incident:
“In hindsight, we were following standard protocol but made a bold decision… I think we overlooked the ECTP 22 score because it was only 4″ down, and a PST of 80/100 assisted our decision to continue up. But Big Jo’s East Bowl is huge and with the wind blowing from everywhere with this storm, it is certain that more snow was deposited on other areas of the bowl. We also didn’t observe any cracking, collapsing, or naturals all day, which no doubt contributed to our thought process. Skier 2 had skied this same line on New Years Day which likely played into the heuristic trap we got ourselves into, but also helped us confirm the weak layer.”
I also spoke to the involved skier and clarified some other aspects of their observations used in this analysis.
Some of the factors that led to the incident were:
- Pit location
- The pit dug at 8800’ was on a similar aspect but was 200’ lower than the crown of the avalanche and away from the wind-loaded start zone. Wind slab can be isolated to specific locations, such as just below ridgeline as in this case. A test that is not precisely placed will not give accurate results for this problem. While propagation was found in this pit, the slab was thinner and likely less touchy than the slab that avalanched. In the photos below you can see that the pit is on a low-angle section of ridge subject to winds, while the steep start zone is below the cliffs that block wind and create a deposition zone.
- Tests and scoring
- The extended column test (ECT) propagated on the 22nd tap, which means that the structure exists for propagation to travel horizontally under the snow and delaminate the slab from the bed surface. This should be enough information to decide against skiing the slope. However, a quality score was applied to the ECT, rating it a Q2, because the block did not slide off the column. Q scores are not applied to ECT. They were removed from the scoring in 2016 because they introduce a redundant variable that can be misleading. Additionally, most blocks will not slide off on a 32º slope despite a Q1 shear quality. Please see this article for more information. The Q score incorrectly prompted a downgrading of the propagation in the ECT, prompting the PST.
- A propagation saw test (PST) was performed to double check the ECT score. The block propagated when the saw was 80% through the block which means there is a low likelihood of propagation. However, the PST has a high false stable percentage in shallow tests and soft snow, such as this one. The PST is more effective in testing definable weak layers such as surface hoar, buried deeper in the snowpack rather than a new snow/old snow interface as in this scenario. As a result, it falsely confirmed stability to the skiers.
- Absence of red flags
- The skiers did not notice any cracking, collapsing, or natural avalanches on their ascent. They noted that it was windy, but downgraded their concern due to the variable direction of gusts. Gusts can be misleading if not on ridge top. Terrain can induce changes of direction at lower elevations. Wind slab can be very specific in its location. Unless informal tests and observations are focused on specific spots, red flags may be missed for this problem type. They did not notice any cracking or collapsing because they were not on a wind-loaded pocket on the ascent.
- Appropriate observations for the avalanche problem
- Wind slab is a fairly predictable avalanche problem, but it can be very isolated. In this case, we can see how the slide was confined to the deposition zone below the cliff band. However, the pit was off to the side on the ridge, where there wasn’t deposition. Because wind slab is so predictable and isolated, stability tests are not necessarily the best way to check for stability. Observations need to be well focused. Weather history, such as that provided by the forecast, and representative test slopes are often better predictors.
These are all simple errors that anyone can make, and many do make, on a regular basis because they are not always recognized as errors. In this case, they stacked up just right to result in an avalanche incident.
The skiers, in this case, did nothing knowingly wrong. The errors they made were not apparent to them because they matched older methods and may have been what they were taught. The misapplication of a good rule, in this case applying Q scores to the ECT, falls under the category of rule-based error, which is hard to detect without outside intervention. This is one small aspect of their decision making process, but it was one of a series of small nudges that created the belief that the slope was stable. Misapplication of the PST, further confirmed the false stable rating, again an error they were unaware of.
This points to the need for ongoing avalanche education. The caught skier had an AVY1 taken in 2010. Since then, many things have changed in the avy world and this may have contributed to errors made. Snow science is always evolving, and avalanche assessment is a complex subject. One 3 day course is rarely enough to cement all the knowledge or develop foolproof techniques.
In addition, personal techniques and methods may shift over time as we develop habits or we are not receiving feedback on potential errors. These may be reinforced as correct because every error we make does not result in an avalanche. The absence of avalanches may be taken as confirmation that we are doing things right. This is another aspect of the wicked learning environment.
Recertifying on a regular basis may be wise. There is not a standard for avy recertification, as there is in first aid but it is worth pursuing. Relearning from experts gives the opportunity for methods to be refreshed and updated and for potential errors to be identified in a safe environment. Some of this responsibility rests on recreationists to seek out courses. Some rests on the avalanche industry to provide refresher courses and resources.
At the very least, reviewing the techniques used in avalanche assessment yearly is good practice.
What can you do to mitigate the factors discussed in this article?
One is a slight change of perspective. When doing stability tests we should be looking for reasons not to ski a slope, exceptions to a stable snowpack, rather than reasons to ski a slope when instabilities are suspected or known.
Another is to use the simplest decision making tools available. If ALPTRUTh or red flags are suggesting not to ski the slope, extra tests are unnecessary and can complicate the process.
In a situation such as this, a simple decision making tool such as ALPTRUTh may have been all that was needed. Stability tests may have added unneeded complexity to the decision making process.
90% of avalanche accidents have three or more of these present. You can read more about ALPTHRUTh here.
In this case, there was loading from wind and an avalanche path. The start zone exceeded 45º in spots. The hazard rating was moderate the previous day but the avalanche forecast predicted rising hazard and specified avoiding wind-loaded terrain greater than 35º. This would check the rating box. They didn’t notice unstable snow, but if they had focused their observations on the wind slab they likely would have seen cracking. With three, and potentially four categories of ALPTRUTh checked, we have extra caution suggested which could have prevented this incident.
Even if stability tests and more complex observations are used in the decision making process, the addition of ALPTRUTh to the final assessment, along with FACETS, may help catch assessment errors or override heuristic traps.
The other piece we can add to manage hazard is a decision on the type of terrain we are going to ride before we even leave the house. By deciding on open and closed terrain before we enter it, we can mitigate hazards further. I’ll discuss this in depth in the next article.
Jeff Carty
BIG ST. JOE AVALANCHE CASE STUDY PART 1 from https://missoulaavalanche.org/
On January 3rd of 2021, two experienced skiers triggered an avalanche on the east face of St. Joseph Peak. One skier was caught and carried 300’. Luckily, he skied off the debris and was uninjured. Like all such incidents, there are valuable lessons to be learned through examination. Much can be traced back to the human factor, the process of gathering information, making decisions, and our motivations in avalanche terrain. I’ll examine these over the course of three articles that will be posted weekly.
The overview of the incident was largely taken from the report that the involved skier submitted to the public observations page. It can be viewed here.
Both skiers are experienced with many years of backcountry travel under their belts. The skier who was caught had taken a Recreational Avalanche Level 1 in 2010.
January 3rd started with light drizzle, shifting to wet and then dry snow as the two skiers climbed in elevation. As the day progressed, the weather cleared and the sun emerged. Winds were strong at upper elevations and gusting occasionally from all directions, settling down considerably after 1pm.
The avalanche forecast for January 2nd rated the hazard as moderate and identified wind slab and persistent weak layers as the avalanche problems. It gave the advice to avoid wind-loaded start zones greater than 35º. During the previous two days, the area had received around 5” of new snow. Westerly winds had been moderate and reached 55mph at ridge top.
Their ski objective that day was the mellow SE ramp of Big Jo, which, when approached carefully, can be skied safely in heightened avalanche conditions. Skier 1 (who was most familiar with the area) had no intention of skiing the steeper slope that day. However, a combination of the snow analysis and confidence due to the like-minded camaraderie shared with their ski partner led to a dynamic decision at 9,400′ to ski the steeper slope below, instead of the safe ridge.
The two skiers assessed conditions on their ascent digging pits at 6600’ SE facing, which yielded no results. They also dug at 8800’ on a 32º slope and found 220cm (87”) of snow. This pit yielded an ECTP 22, down 4” which they judged to be Q2. Prompted by the Q2 rating, they performed a propagation saw test and it scored as PSTend 80/100, and judged the likelihood of propagation to be low.
Based on these results, only 4″ of fresh snow at their pit, and a runout zone free of terrain traps such as rocks or cliffs, they decided to ski the slope one at a time.
The run starts at 9,400’ near the top of Big Jo, skirting rocks down into a weakness that leads to a small gully. The gully then empties into the heart of the East Bowl, which averages 35-45 degrees in steepness. The upper bit and the gully were scoured free of new snow, but not the bowl. Skier 1 skied down the slope and stopped to the skier’s right side of the bowl bottom in a safe zone. Skier 2 was spooning Skier 1’s tracks when the slope failed. Skier 2 was mid-turn (facing straight downslope) when they got knocked on their bum and rode on the surface in that position, as the slide slowed down, and stopped. They were able to ski out and off the debris. Skier 1 was a couple of hundred feet skiers right of the terminus of the debris.
The slide occurred at 3:33 pm. The starting zone was between 35-40 degrees, the crown was 300-400’ wide, ranging in depth from 4″-12″, and it slid for about 300′ on the new snow interface of the 12/30-31 storm from about 9,000-8,700’. [SS-AS-R3-D2-S]
The Victim’s Analysis:
“In hindsight, we were following standard protocol but made a bold decision. Each skier was carrying all of the rescue gear, digging to analyze the snow when facing avalanche terrain, skiing one at a time, and communicating about route choice, snow condition, and safe zones. I think we overlooked the ECTP22 score because it was only 4″ down, and a PST of 80/100 assisted our decision to continue up. But Big Jo’s East Bowl is huge and with the wind blowing from everywhere with this storm, it is certain that more snow was deposited on other areas of the bowl. We also didn’t observe any cracking, collapsing, or naturals all day, which no doubt contributed to our thought process. Skier 2 had skied this same line on New Years Day (tracks visible in photo) which likely played into the heuristic trap we got ourselves into, but also helped us confirm the weak layer.”
Further analysis can offer more insight.
Human Factors
Ian McCammon studied avalanche accidents and identified common decision-making errors that people make when assessing hazards in avalanche terrain. He identified 6 heuristic traps that make up the acronym FACETS:
- Familiarity
- If we are familiar with something we feel safer. If it has worked in the past it reinforces our belief that it is safe.
- Acceptance
- The willingness to take more risks in a group setting, because of the desire to fit in.
- Commitment
- If we’ve invested time and effort to get to an objective it’s hard to back off and acknowledge hazards.
- Expert halo
- When we are with someone who has more expertise, or we perceive to have more expertise, we are more willing to follow their lead, and overlook hazards.
- Tracks or scarcity
- The perception that a resource is limited, in this case, powder, can cloud our judgment in the race for first tracks.
- Social proof
- The presence of others or tracks on a slope can lead us to a false sense of security.
You can read more about FACETS here.
Heuristics are mental shortcuts that we all use to make decisions efficiently, and they can be immensely helpful. If we needed to think through all the steps of all the decisions we make each day during routine tasks we would be entirely occupied with making decisions. Driving a car is a good example of how heuristics are used. When we are learning to drive it is an almost overwhelming task to take in and process all the information, but as we learn the skill we create mental shortcuts that facilitate driving efficiently. Similar heuristics are used throughout our daily lives and aid decisions in social as well as skill-based settings. A problem can be created when we apply those mental shortcuts, or employ social heuristics, to making decisions in high-risk situations. This is when they can become traps.
Acceptance, expert halo, social proof, consistency, and to some extent tracks or scarcity are all social or interpersonal heuristics and are mental shortcuts based on how we perceive others and how we would like to be perceived. We are highly social creatures, and as a result, interpersonal heuristics are very ingrained and influential. Research shows that people are much more willing to take risks when a camera is present or with the potential for Instagram-type fame or social standing. The problem is that these heuristics may default to social standing or relationships as a basis for decision shortcuts as opposed to the objective factors of terrain, snowpack, and weather.
Familiarity is the heuristic trap that Skier 2 identified as influencing this incident. McCammon says, “The familiarity heuristic relies on our past actions to guide our behavior in familiar settings. Rather than go through the trouble of figuring out what is appropriate every time, we simply behave as we have before in that setting”. Having skied the same line three days prior, without mishap, contributed to the decision to ski the line again. Furthermore, the two skiers were familiar with the line from numerous previous tours in the area.
Social proof may have also played a role in the decision to ski the line as Skier 2 reflected “…confidence due to the like-minded camaraderie shared with their ski partner led to a dynamic decision at 9,400′ to ski the steeper slope below, instead of the safe ridge”. The description for the social facilitation heuristic states “when a person or group is confident in their skills, they will tend to take more risks using those skills when other people are present than they would when others are absent”.
If heuristics can cause us to make unsafe decisions in avalanche terrain, how do we override them?
While heuristics are mental shortcuts to decision-making, analytical problem solving is the long route, logically thinking out and puzzling over the pieces of a problem. Research suggests that prompts for logical problem solving and consciously engaging in analytic analysis can override heuristics, and help us identify discrepancies between the two decision-making modes or errors in our initial judgment.
Interestingly, McCammon found that people with higher levels of avalanche training were more susceptible to the heuristic traps he identified. Perhaps, in part, because familiarity and comfort with the process results in less analytic analysis, allowing the heuristic process to be more in the forefront.
Adding the extra step of revisiting the decision-making process, including an analysis of human factors before committing to avalanche terrain is a good ritual. This may be the prompt that engages analysis and overrides heuristics. An examination of the social factors that may be affecting the decision to ski a line may also help identify incongruencies between initial decisions and conditions. In the case of this incident, an examination of human factors may have been preventative.
This will undoubtedly help catch some errors. However, an aspect that helps override heuristics is deductive competence. This is a person’s ability to draw the correct conclusions from the evidence. In avalanche terrain, this is directly tied to our competence with snowpack observations and assessment. If our competence with this process is lacking, or we are overloaded by the amount of information, our ability to override heuristics can be compromised.
Assessment of avalanche conditions is analytical problem solving that can take place at many levels of complexity, from simple rule-based decision-making models such as APLTRUTh or the Red Flags to complex observations such as stability tests and crystal identification. Any of these approaches are valid. Developing these competencies, as well as an awareness of FACETS, is essential for safe travel in avalanche terrain.
In the next article, I’ll examine how the observations made contributed to this incident and how those could be corrected.
Stay tuned next week…
Jeff Carty
How Not to Be Owned | Gary M. Galles
How Not to Be Owned | Gary M. Galles: How to own rather than be owned? The answer is simple.
Watch a Robot 3D Printing the Rocket for Relativity Space’s First Orbital Launch
Watch a Robot 3D Printing the Rocket for Relativity Space’s First Orbital Launch: In a new time-lapse video, the 3D printed second stage of a Relativity Space rocket materializes from a laser-tipped robotic arm melting metal dust.
Activation OE/NO-210 by OE3VBU
Well, where to start.
First of all - sorry chasers, there was no time for putting up a SW-station.
Some thoughts came to my mind at this borderline activation, some people will call it near-death experience (I do not want to exaggerate, everything fine for me, I was just completely exhausted, found myself in a suspicious avalanche region, equipment failed, I wanted to give up twice, but I was at a point of no return, and then daylight passed away… ).
I thought about getting mail from the MT some day: "Don’t make documentation of your activities, or even better: don’t do these kind of activities ". I’m ok with what I’m doing, but I don’t want to be a role-model. If someone tries to do the same thing the next day and she/he dies, I will feel a bit guilty, I guess. If you’re getting in trouble up there - no helicopter, because of missing daylight, fog, snowfall, heavy winds. Even if you can submit your exact location, it will take HOURS till someone starts seeking your body. Am I getting too old for this kind of fun?
Why did I start that late today? Lockdown-rules. If you want to exit (not to enter!) the district where the summit was located, you have to bring a test result not older than 48 h, They messed up my mail address, so I didn’t get the result until 10 AM.
Everything peaceful an calm at the summit, like perfect Christmas, no wind, some snowflakes, but nobody should be there at this very moment.
skiing boot failed after 31(!) years of service - rather sorry. repair? (hi).
Was it worth the winter extra points? For me and if you’re interested to experience your final limits, or intending self-annihilation - yes, If you don’t want to die today - no.
hpe cu sn 73 Martin
Biden Administration Argues for Warrantless Home Entry and Gun Seizures Before the Supreme Court a Year After Breonna Taylor’s Death | Hannah Cox
Biden Administration Argues for Warrantless Home Entry and Gun Seizures Before the Supreme Court a Year After Breonna Taylor’s Death | Hannah Cox: In a case argued before the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, the Biden Administration, along with attorneys general from nine states, submitted arguments asking the justices to uphold warrantless home entry and gun confiscation by police.
Vacuum tubes on the summit by OK2BWB
est for use on SOTA activation:
Just did a first test hike with Hejkalset in my old comfortable metal frame backpack with a large load capacity (since a vacuum in electron tubes weighs almost nothing). I spent two hours on the trails with no real difficulties and ended up with four nice casual QSO’s.
Finally, I spent more than three beautiful hours on a trip that was supposed to take a few tens of minutes.
From the Notebook: Enter the Putinator by Tom Luongo
When Biden called Russian President a soulless “killer” on ABC News, Putin responded with the most deft bit of diplomacy I’ve seen in quite a while, openly challenging Fungal Joe to a publicly broadcast debate of substantive issues, which Biden, of course, declined.
For those that don’t remember the context, here’s the article from Zerohedge on the subject.
There can be no question now that all the disparate interests within The Davos Crowd are aligned at this point (see this month’s Newsletter for more discussion on this). All guns point at Russia.
Putin tried to defuse the situation with an offer that was at once an epic troll of Biden, who is clearly no match for his Russian counterpart cognitively, and a warning to Americans that this situation has gotten far more dangerous than they are being told.
And sometimes you win simply by taking the high road. Make no mistake the fact that Putin went here this early in Biden’s presidency is a bad sign. It tells us things are horrific between the world’s most prominent nuclear powers and that there’s been zero diplomatic effort put forth by the Biden administration since the election.
The problem is rapidly becoming that indiscriminate use of all weapons all the time — diplomatic, economic, military, propaganda — creates a kind of dopamine addiction. In order to keep the public interest in the threat they have to keep raising the stakes and the rhetoric to eventually absurd levels.
As I like to say all the time, it’s the first rule of screenwriting : Be forever raising the stakes lest the audience gets bored.
But there comes a point where people begin to realize that they are being asked to back a war where the existential threat to the elite’s power is transferred onto them. Remember folks, government’s fight and spend billions propagandizing you into believing their wars are for your own good.
It’s rarely the case, if ever. More often than not the war being ginned up in the media and by government officials is one that either feathers their own nest directly, supports the goals of other powerful folks indirectly, or covers up past corruption.
The brewing conflict in Ukraine is all of these and more. The project to add Ukraine to NATO and the EU is a long-held dream of neocons like Victoria Nuland and neoliberals like Biden. It’s an important cog in the World Economic Forum’s desire to expand the EU to both encircle Russia thereby disrupting any dreams of Eurasian integration which could form a bulwark against their brave new world.
What’s got Biden’s Depends in a bunch is that he’s neck-deep in the corruption in Ukraine. In Obama’s own words, Ukraine is Joe’s project. And Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky is not fully subsumed into the morass of Biden’s (and the rest of the usual suspects’) problems.
Putin’s deft and cordial handling of Biden’s indiscriminate use of language was masterful here. Biden’s initial remarks are, at best, him trying to hold onto the Amy Poehler demographic (see reruns of Parks and Recreation for her slavish obsession with him as Vice-President) as a vibrant, macho man, while he implements every bad idea that that same demographic rejected from all the other Democrats during primary season.
But we can all see he’s nothing of the sort. He’s a barely coherent, rapidly fading bully with no discernible achievements in life other than being available to be a placeholder for someone else’s plans.
So, it was never a question as to whether Biden would ever talk to Putin under those conditions. They can’t even get him to talk with reporters for real, having to green screen him into backgrounds to make it look like he’s out in the world, doing stuff.
And don’t get me started on that embarrassment of a press conference held the other day. Running for re-election in 2024? This guy’s not going to be alive in 2024. Then again, since he didn’t run in 2020, what does it actually matter?
Elections are just Hollywood productions anymore anyway.
Biden’s counter is to now invite Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping the big Climate Summit in late April where the WEF controls the agenda and Biden’s anti-diplomatic corps led by the completely over-matched Secretary of State Antony Blinken can further embarrass the U.S. on the world stage.
Since both Putin and Xi told the WEF to go scratch on both Climate Change, Agenda 2030 and, most notably from Putin, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, I don’t see how this summit ends any better than virtual Davos did earlier this year.
In fact, with Biden’s approach to both China and Russia so far, this summit is shaping up to be a colossal waste of time while also threatening everyone the world over with what they can expect policy-wise from the West until someone finally puts these insane people out of our misery.
With each day that passes the U.K., for example, under tyrant Boris Johnson sinks further into a complete totalitarian nightmare (see here, here, here, and here… from the last 24 hours) thanks to COVID-19, while ramping up the anti-Russian rhetoric to eleven.
But, back to Ukraine, because it’s tied directly to all this climate change nonsense. Putin understands as well that Biden will allow every escalation in Ukraine because he’s shackled by it and they need to complete the job started with the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovich in 2014.
That means we’ll see something far worse than Victoria Nuland’s latest Cookie Campaign for freedom. We’re going to see a war for the Donbass soon, likely right after Orthodox Easter and the end of the snow melt.
Putin tried to go directly to the people to end this destructive spiral to the bottom, because he knows where this ends.
It will be a confrontation that one side will have to commit to completely or allow it’s bluff to be called. The game Biden’s handlers have played to this point has been a massive escalation of rhetoric while continually moving real pieces into position for a real conflict. I just don’t see cooler heads prevailing here because there is no upside for the U.S., the EU and the WEF if China and Russia stand their ground and Biden et.al. back down.
Russia has to be destroyed or subjugated if the Great Reset is to happen and Europe is to remain a relevant global player. That means control of the Black Sea, which means taking back Crimea. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently reiterated publicly that Russia has had zero diplomatic contact with the European Union since the 2014 vote by Crimea to rejoin Russia.
Diplomacy is nearly over between the major powers. Biden’s simple refusal to talk to Putin publicly is a major event.
In the end everything we’ve lived through since COVID-19 began boils down to the need to destroy the global economy built on oil and coal, otherwise all major energy production stays under Eurasian control as it strengthens not Atlanticist as it peaks in global power and their grand dreams wither.
Time is getting short for this to happen. Public opposition to this program is rising. It happens now or not at all.
If there is a war in the Donbass this spring it won’t be a happy ending which extends U.S. primacy into the future but the moment when we realized its acceleration into irrelevancy.