The Natural Order Has Become Unordered

In my last blog post I wrote about the fact that almost 50% of the American adult population is now single.

This is undoubtedly the highest percentage in history.

37% of men and 31% of women have never been married. 

Single people are alone a lot more than couples.

Human beings were designed to be social.

Societies from the beginning of time have been built upon families, tribes, groups and human relationships.

For most of history these relationships were a critical element in survival. Those that did congregate and collaborate were at much greater risk.

Large families were a necessary component in all of this to provide for a division of labor so that the family unit could survive and prosper.

This folk art painting depicting a wheat harvest in the 1800's shows the close collaboration necessary to put food on the table in years past.

Credit: https://www.etsy.com/listing/263146467/folk-art-print-primitive-wheat-field

However, as economies and technology advanced, families and relationships have suffered.

Collaboration is still critical for survival. In fact, people in modern society are more dependent on it than ever. They are reliant on a vast infrastructure to provide for their daily needs--food, water, energy, clothing etc. However, it is provided, by and large, anonymously without requiring human interaction or relations to the end consumer.

You now put food on the kitchen table by picking what you want off the shelf in grocery stores selected among aisles and aisles of foodstuffs.

There is no need to even interact with a cashier when you checkout.

Credit: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2021/02/kroger-tests-all-self-checkout-store.html

Of course, we have now reached the point where you don't even have to enter the store. Fill out your grocery order online and an anonymous person selects your produce and someone else puts it into your car or delivers it to your door.

A lot of human interaction and relationships have been lost.

Why is this important?

Studies have shown that rates of anxiety and depression have increased by 70% over the last 25 years.

The rates have increased most among the young.

For example, this chart is from a study on how rates of anxiety by age groups changed between 2008 and 2018.

Rates of anxiety almost doubled in the 18-25 age group in the decade studied. Rates in the age 26-34 age cohort were up more than 50% while older age groups were relatively stable.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395620309250

Here is chart from another study that shows the prevalence of depression by age group cohort.

Our young are most particularly at risk in the impersonal world driven by technology. 

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Prevalence-of-Depression-by-Age-Cohort-and-Gender-At-Most-Recent-Survey_fig1_264623036

Notice as well that levels of depression are generally higher in younger females than any other age group.

What do you think the odds are that the significant decline in the number of close friends that people report having has been a major contributing factor in increased levels of anxiety and depression?

Source: https://twitter.com/ReubenR80027912/status/1597303723054665728

Of course, the negative trends on human relationships and socialization were exacerbated further during the pandemic due to the lockdowns, school closures and mandates.

Look at what happened to the hours of who Americans reported they spent time with between 2013 and 2021. 

Time alone was the big winner by far.

Credit: https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1597299988626780162/photo/1

Time spent with others plummets followed by a surge of anxiety and depression?

Do you think this is a coincidence?

In this blog over the last few year I have observed several times about the curious fact that there is such a heavy representation of young, single, college-educated white women in the Black Lives Matter, Antifa and other far left movements.

It defies logic.

How is defunding the police or emptying prisons going to make single women feel more secure?

How is allowing a biological male to use a women's restroom going to make her feel safer?

How does allowing biological males to compete with females in athletics advance the opportunities for women?

Is there any group today that feels more lonely, is more misunderstood and wants to belong than young, single, college-educated white women? 

Many have no man in their life. There are no children or likely prospects that marriage or children will occur soon due to the imbalance between male and female college graduates. They live in rental apartments in large cities leading hectic, anonymous lives with little sense of community and huge sums of student loan debt.

The picture below is one that I referenced in these pages in 2021 when I was discussing this issue.

How many young, white women do you see in this picture supporting BLM's calls to defund the police?

How many Blacks do you see in the picture?

How do you make sense of it?

You can't. It is not logical.

The best answer I have seen is from  relationship counselor Suzanne Venker that all of this can be traced to a need to belong in these young women.

These women have a void in their life and are looking to fill it with something that they believe has meaning even if it is antithetical to their own interests, security and future.

The need to belong is more important than facts or logic to these young women.

The need to belong is just that fierce and strong, particularly for vulnerable folks who feel lonely or misunderstood.

It's happening right now with the Black Lives Matter movement. It's not about the fact that black lives matter, with which no sane person would disagree. A simple search of their own website will tell you its goals: to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" and to "foster a queer‐affirming network."

But doing research or thinking critically about any idea or movement is threatening to what so many people want. These folks aren't interested in the truth. They don't want the facts. What they want is to belong.

Is it also a coincidence that so many young, white liberal females have been given a diagnosis by a healthcare provider that they have a mental condition?

56.3% of 18-29 white liberal females are in that category.

Source: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition

The single, young white females typically vote Democrat at least 2/3 of the time according to most exit polls.

Unmarried women of all ages and races voted 68%-31% for the Democrat in House races in 2022.

Married women overall voted 56%-42% for Republicans.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house

One final factoid that gets us back to where we started.

Women who are married are much, much happier than women who are single.

Women who have had children are also happier than those who are childless. 

Source: https://ifstudies.org/blog/shrinking-american-motherhood-1-in-6-women-in-their-40s-have-never-given-birth-

Contrast the percentage of women who say they are "very happy" at all ages between those married with children and those unmarried and childless.

Why is it a problem that there are so many single people in the United States today?

Why is it a problem that the birth rates have been dropping for years?

These are both having the effect of further destabilizing our society by interfering with the necessary social and relationship infrastructure.

Human beings are social animals.

They need meaningful human connections and relationships in their lives to thrive.

In families, In friendships. In day to day life.

God established a natural order in his design for humans to live happy and fulfilled lives

Men and Women each bringing their unique gifts to society.

Marriage and commitment between men and women.

Children born of those unions.

Families supporting each other.

Supportive friends and communities built on a bedrock of values, beliefs and faith.

Do you want to know why everything seems off these days?

The natural order has become unordered.

Don't take my word for it.

What do the facts and data say about it?

Finding THE ONE

Almost 50% of the American adult population is single.

That is undoubtedly the highest percentage in history.

Over 37% of men have never been married. That number is only 31% for women.

On the other hand, women are over three times more likely to have been widowed.

Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/unmarried-single-americans-week.html

Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/unmarried-single-americans-week.html

Only 34% of Blacks are married.

61% of Asians, 46% of Hispanics and 53% of Whites are married.

It is probably not surprising that out of wedlock births generally track the marital status by race.

70% of African American babies are born to unmarried women. Less than 12% of Asian babies are.

 

The median age of first marriages has increased pretty dramatically since the 1950's and 1960's.

Source: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

Women married on average around age 20 in that era.

The median age for women marrying today is eight years later.  

For men, the median age for a first marriage is now over age 30.

I have a lot of friends with daughters in their 30's who are not yet married. These are for the most part attractive, college-educated women. They have good jobs and are interested in finding the right guy. The common complaint is there are not enough quality young men 

It is not an imaginary concern.

I have written before about the worrying imbalance between men and women who are college-educated.

Why is that a problem?

Women have historically tended to date and marry men of at least equal educational attainment. However, that is becoming an increasingly difficult goal today. Almost 60% of college graduates are now women. Only 40% are men. This is true for almost all college degree programs. Doctorate degrees are a little more balanced but women still earn more than half of those degrees.

This translates into the fact that many women below the age of 40 are earning more than their male counterparts because of the educational imbalance. 

You would think that it shouldn't matter but it seems that it is pretty important.

CNBC.com wrote about the problem in a story titled "Millennial women are 'worried', 'ashamed' of out-earning boyfriends and husbands" about five years ago.

There is also data that supports the fact that when the woman earns more than the man in the marriage, the odds of the marriage ending in divorce increases.

The problem is that even though the world has changed our basic biology and the way the male and female brains are wired has not changed with it. There are primal emotions deep within us that dictate a lot about what we are looking for in a mate.

Many marriage experts will tell you that the most important factor that a woman is looking for in a husband is security. Women want to feel secure that they will be protected and cared for. Men, on the other hand, are looking most for respect. They want to have the respect of their wife.

Do you see a potential problem when the wife is out-earning the husband in the house considering these underlying factors in marriage involving men and women? How does the wife feel secure? How does the husband feel respected?

Where does that leave a young woman in her 30's looking for a tall, dark, handsome and financially stable potential mate in the dating scene today?

I recently came across a website that calculates the odds that a woman can find the man of their dreams based on various parameters (age, race, height and income) in the U.S. Census Bureau data.

For example, let's take a 30's something young woman who is looking for an unmarried male (any race) between the ages of 30-45, at least 6 feet tall and making at least $80k.

The probability that a guy between the ages of 30-45 meets those standards is 1.3%.

Source: https://igotstandardsbro.com/

If you limit the search to just white men in that age range the probability drops to 1.0%.

If you are willing to accept someone making $40k the odds increase to 2.7%.

If you are willing to accept someone who is at least 5'7" tall and making $40k that is going to describe 10.3% of the men in that age range.

Saying that it is hard for a woman in her 30's to find the man of her dreams is not in her imagination.

There is also a calculator that men can use called the Male Reality Calculator.

A 40 year male is not immune from the laws of probability when it comes to finding a woman of his dreams if their standards are too high.

A 40-year old male who is looking for a single woman without children between the ages of 25-40, between 4' 11" and 5'8'', not overweight, and making at least $80k per year (so there is a chance they have been paying their student debt off) has worse odds than the 30's age woman.

.601%. That is well less than 1 in 100 odds.

Source: https://realitycalc.com/

To put those odds in perspective, compare that probability to a 65-year old widow who is looking for a 60-80 year old male that has income of at least $100,000.

This traditionally is thought to be a very tough spot for a woman to be in looking for a mate. There are many more women in this age demographic compared to men based on longevity tables.

However, the 65-year widow's probability to find the ideal man is over three times better than the 40-year guy above with the standards he has on his list.

Source: https://igotstandardsbro.com/

If the 40-year is willing to consider a female who is overweight (but not obese) and makes at least $60k per year he can increase his odds to those of the 65 year old widow above.

Source: https://realitycalc.com/

To those of you blessed to have your soul mate with you, give them an extra big hug today. 

You won a major life lottery.

For others, reality bites at times. The playing field is not level. It never was. It never will be.

However, the beauty of probabilities is that it only takes ONE to be the ONE.

Never lose hope.

At the same time, understand your reality and make decisions that are not based on delusions.

When thinking about reality it also makes sense for a lot more young people to be looking to be getting married in their 20's than in their 30's.

It has become popular for many to say they want to focus on their career or play the field before thinking about settling down.

However, the reality is that the person you marry, or who becomes the mother or father of your child, is the most important decision you will make in your life. It is more important than your career or any wild oats you sowed along the way.

The probabilities are much greater that you will find THE ONE the earlier you are open to the possibility. 

Make the numbers work in your favor.

A Random Walk Down Peachtree Street

Antifa is at it again.

Credit: Reuters via https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11662679/Chaos-Atlanta-Antifa-rioters-torch-cars-set-fireworks-outside-Police-Foundation-building.html

So is the mainstream media in downplaying the activities of these domestic terrorists.

Nothing says peaceful like a police car on fire, rocks thrown though windows and painted obscenities on buildings on Peachtree Street in Atlanta.

Of course, we have seen this before.

Remember the coverage in Kenosha, WI by CNN in 2020?

Fires raging all around in the "mostly peaceful protest" as reported by CNN.

Of course, who can forget the months of protests and violence in Portland in 2020 with calls to defund the police and remove all federal law enforcement from the city.

By now I would think that Antifa and "peaceful protest" would have to be considered mutually exclusive terms,

At the time we were told that Antifa was motivated to action because of the fascist and racist President of the United States at the time.

We were told that all would be fine if Donald Trump was just removed from office.

So much for that excuse.

You might also recall that FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before a House committee in 2020 that Antifa was simply an ideology, not an organization or group.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-james-comey-politics-bdd3b6078e9efadcfcd0be4b65f2362e

“It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.”

A bunch of people show up in Portland, Kenosha or Atlanta wearing all black, wielding weapons and carrying incendiary materials and they are just random ideologues out for an evening stroll?

This is the conclusion of our Federal Bureau of Investigation?

I am curious how is it that if Antifa is just an ideology why so many ideologues happen to show up randomly at appointed times and places if there is no group and no organization?

Let's take a look at the six people arrested in Atlanta Saturday night.

None of the six arrested were from Atlanta. Five were from out of state.

How did they decide to come to Atlanta? 

Where did they get the money to travel to Atlanta?

How are they supporting themselves?

Here are the six who were arrested in Atlanta on Saturday night.

  

Evatt is from Decatur, Georgia. The only one of those arrested from in-state.

Geier is from Nashville, TN.

Feola is from Spokane, WA.

Ferguson is from Nevada.

Murphy is from Grosse Ile, MI.

Carrol is from Kennebunkport, ME where his father is reportedly a prominent surgeon. When arrested on Saturday night Carrol was already out on bail for a previous arrest for domestic terrorism.

Yes, just a few random folks with shared ideologies out for a Saturday evening walk.

Another seven individuals (note they were all young, white (single?) females ) were arrested earlier in the week (when most that age are working for a living) after throwing rocks at police and possessing what appeared to be Molotov cocktails.

Several times in these pages (here, here and here) I have written about the curious fact that so many of those in the BLM, Antifa and other far left protests are young, white women.

Why?

Those young women who were arrested were from places like Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Tennessee.

What group?

What organization?

Nothing to see here.

Let me remind you that all of this stems from the plans of the Atlanta Police Department to simply build a police training center in suburban Cobb County. Both environmental extremists and Antifa have found it objectionable. Tensions escalated at the site when one of the protestors was killed by police after allegedly shooting a Georgia Highway Patrol officer. This led to the "peaceful protest" by random ideologues in downtown Atlanta on Saturday night. 

You may recall that Donald Trump was roundly criticized by the media and others when he referred to Antifa as domestic terrorists and that the organization should be labeled a domestic terrorist organization.

Source: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/06/02/designating-antifa-domestic-terrorist-organization-dangerous-threatens-civil-liberties

It was after these statements by Trump that FBI Director Wray pushed back and said there was no Antifa group or organization that could be called domestic terrorists.

Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/7342966/chris-wray-fbi-antifa/

However, Wray had no problem using the term "domestic terrorism" when it came to January 6th.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-fbi-chief-chris-wray-to-face-questions-about-extremism-capitol-riot

We also never heard the term "mostly peaceful" from the media on January 6th either.

There are a lot of problems in this country right now.

However, right at the top of the list are the double standards we see applied by the media in news coverage and in the administration of justice from the highest levels of our federal government.

Why is it also true that the truth is right in front of our eyes with so many things but there are so few willing to admit seeing it?

San Francisco Insanity

Every time I think I will not see something crazier come out of California I am proven wrong.

That goes double for when it comes to San Francisco. Insanity seems to rule there.

The latest example is a recommendation by a panel established by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors to pay $5 million in reparations to each of the city's Black residents "for the decades of harm they have experienced".

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-frans-reparations-committee-proposes-5-million-each-longtime-black-resident-total-debt-forgiveness

It does not seem to matter that California was admitted to the United States in 1850 with the express proviso that it be a "free state" and the California Constitution expressly prohibited slavery from the  beginning of existence as a state.

"...Neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever be tolerated in this State."

The panel on reparations is also proposing that all African Americans receive supplemental income to bring them up to the median income for the area (currently $97,000) for at least 250 years.

I am not sure where the 250 years comes from? That is longer than the United States has even been in existence.

Should you have a hard time in believing any of this, I have included a direct excerpt from the report. 

Source: https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/HRC%20Reparations%202022%20Report%20Final_0.pdf

The panel on reparations also proposed wiping out all debts associated with educational, personal, credit card and payday loans for African American households.

To be potentially eligible for the $5 million payment applicants must be at least 18 years of age and have identified as Black or African American in public documents for at least 10 years.

In addition, to receive the reparations the applicant must meet at least two out of eight other criteria.

These criteria include:

Being born in San Francisco between 1940 and 1996 and with proof of residency in San Francisco for at least 13 years,", being a descendant of someone enslaved before 1865 or "personally, or the direct descendant of someone, incarcerated by the failed War on Drugs."

Left unsaid in the panel's report is how much all of this will cost and how the city of San Francisco will pay for it.

I saw one report that indicated reparations would cost $50 billion. San Francisco's entire city budget for this year is about $14 billion.

However, money is quickly becoming a scarce commodity in San Francisco.

The Hoover Institution recently published a report on the financial challenges that San Francisco faces.

Since 2019, San Francisco lost 6.3% of its population. No major U.S. city has ever seen as large a population loss in such a short period of time.

The big problem is that those who are leaving San Francisco are the ones who have been paying the bills.

The city lost $7 billion of household income in two years even after taking account of those who moved into the city in that period.

The office vacancy rate is 27%. It was 4% in 2019. Empty office buildings could mean the loss of over $200 million in property taxes alone.

San Francisco has publicly stated that it is expecting a $728 million budget deficit over the next two fiscal years.

Source: https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/12/19/sf-faces-728m-budget-deficit-over-next-two-fiscal-years/

All of this is BEFORE any consideration of billions of dollars in reparations.

A rapidly declining tax base.

A proposal to spend billions of dollars on reparations.

What could go wrong?

Nancy Pelosi's daughter recently stated that her mother had summoned priests to her house to rid her San Francisco home of evil spirits in an an exorcism after a man allegedly attacked her husband there last year.

Has anyone considered the possibility that these priests might be needed for something a little larger in scope?

Why are people leaving San Francisco in droves?

Yes, the housing is expensive and taxes are high. However, that has been the case for a long time.

The Hoover report explains the deeper problems behind the exodus from the city.

Rampant drug use. Drug gangs. Homeless camps. Lawlessness. Calls to defund the police and abolish prisons. 

Detroit’s fall was primarily driven by the relocation of the US auto industry to southern, right-to-work states, where auto producers, including foreign firms who build autos here, have avoided the union conflict that was endemic in Detroit. San Francisco’s decline is driven by absurdly bad local economic policies. How bad? As some city blocks have been taken over by drug gangs selling fentanyl in open-air superstores (think of an opioid version of Costco, without the membership card), city supervisors have spent their time talking about defunding police, abolishing rent, abolishing prisons, and demanding that if Whole Foods is to be allowed to develop a grocery store in a vacant building in the city, it must include affordable housing.  

San Francisco's problem might not be due to evil spirts.

However, the policies that San Francisco have been pursuing, along with its talk of paying reparations, are not those that are consistent with a sane and stable society.

Still Waiting For The Predictions To Come True

Over the last decade we have heard several times that drought was becoming a permanent situation in California due to climate change.

For example, this is a headline from August, 2021.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-12/california-drought-a-dry-season-is-turning-into-drought-era?leadSource=uverify%20wall

 

What is California dealing with now?

Torrential flooding due to massive amounts of rain.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/01/14/california-flooding-atmospheric-river/

The Washington Post reports that forecasters didn't see it coming and say it has prompted questions about the accuracy of seasonal predictions.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/01/15/california-seasonal-forecasts-noaa-missed/

Indeed.

If there are questions about the accuracy of seasonal predictions have much faith should there be in forecasts of those who tell us the world is going to end in 10 years unless we stop using fossil fuels?

That is particularly true when these zealots would have us abandon plentiful, reliable and affordable sources of energy for alternatives that are uncertain, unreliable and expensive.

This is not to mention the risk that abandoning these proven energy sources places on our prosperity and standard of living.

It is utter insanity when you look at other predictions that have been made by climate alarmists in the past.

No one has made more dire predictions about the effects of carbon emissions on the climate than Al Gore.

In 2006 Gore made his catastrophic climate change warnings into a movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

In that film Gore predicted that we had but ten years to get things right on earth or face catastrophe. He stated that our weather would get increasingly warmer. That our climate would become more severe with more hurricanes and tornadoes. And that by the summer of 2015 the Arctic sea would be ice-free.

I debunked all of these predictions with the actual facts in my post "An Inconvenient Truth +10" on the tenth anniversary of the release of the film.

We are now 17 years beyond when he made those claims.

This is a graphic of Arctic sea extent from this past July---seven years after Gore said it would be ice free.

Source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2022/07/

There was actually more Arctic sea ice extent in the summer of 2022 than there was 15 years ago.

Al Gore is not alone.

Here in Great Thunberg in 2020 citing a study that says the Great Barrier Reef is threatened by climate change and has been halved in size over the last 25 years.

We then have this report two years later.

Source: https://reefbuilders.com/2022/08/06/great-barrier-reef-records-highest-hard-coral-cover-in-36-years/

Credit: https://twitter.com/tan123/status/1600467698890117120

That is a pretty big change in just two years.

What global climate initiative is responsible for that change?

I am not aware of any, are you?

In 1988 various climate change activists were predicting The Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean would be underwater within 30 years.

In September 1988, the Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported a “gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years,” based on predictions made by government officials.

Then-Environmental Affairs Director Hussein Shihab told AFP “an estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years could be ‘catastrophic’ for most of the islands, which were no more than a metre above sea level.”

It hasn't happened.

In fact, The Maldives are thriving.

It has opened five new airports in the past few years.

Massive amounts of investment has been made by a number of luxury resort operators.

Did they do this believing they would soon be underwater?

Source: https://www.dreamingofmaldives.com/maldives-blog/category/maldives-hotels-and-resorts/maldives-new-resorts/

We also have the climate scientist in the UK who predicted in 2000 that within a few short years children in that country would no longer know what snow is.

Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

What do we see happening in the UK recently?

 

Source: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/uk-weather-maps-show-exactly-28959813

I am willing to concede that it is possible that the earth has been warming over the last several decades.

However, the planet is known to have warmed and cooled over the years. Even if the data shows it is warming, how do we know it is caused by man when you look at past history? We know there was an ice age. We also know the ice melted. How did it ice up? How did the ice melt? What proof is there that this is man-made?

Even if man-made carbon emissions have had a marginal impact on the climate how do we know that we can really do anything about it?

This is particularly true for those in the Western world.

Since 2000, Europe and the United States have reduced carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tonnes annually.

At the same time, China and India have increased carbon emissions by 9.7 billion tonnes.

It seems that the Western economies have been playing a loser's game for over 20 years.

It is also not going to get any better looking at where China and India are headed not to mention Africa and Latin America.

Affordable, efficient energy drives economic development. 

Energy and the economy are inextricably linked.

Fossil fuels have brought more people out of poverty than anything else in the history of mankind.

This chart shows the share of various sources of energy consumption since 1860. I thought it was interesting that muscle power still represented one-third of energy consumption in the world as late as 1950.

If you doubt there is a relationship between affordable, available energy and economic growth consider this chart that compares world GDP growth with energy consumption growth. 

Could there be a better correlation?

This chart was produced by Climate Scientist Mike Haseler who writes a blog named the Scottish Sceptic. Haseler points out that this relationship exists because GDP is the sum total of what humans produce. 

When muscle power was the prime energy source in the world we could produce very little. Firewood and domesticated animals improved our ability to produce. However, the introduction of energy sources like coal, oil and gas allowed us to greatly leverage our productive capacity. Compare the dramatic increase in GDP beginning around 1950 with the great increase in fossil fuels beginning at the same time in the charts above.

Haseler believes that green economics schemes that are proposed to "save the planet" will inevitably destroy the economy in the process. The only way to avoid that result is if the cost of the new energy inputs are more affordable than fossil fuels.

I am all for developing newer and better sustainable sources of energy. Count me as someone who would love to see a perpetual motion machine to power everything man needs on the planet.

I have great confidence that given free market economies and human ingenuity we will find better sources of energy to power our lives. This has been proven time and time again over the course of human history.

However, we have never voluntarily abandoned something that is accessible and affordable for something that is speculative and expensive.

Those in China, India, Africa and Central America understand that.

They are not going to abandon or ignore energy solutions that work and condemn their citizens to a life of poverty because someone in London, Oslo or Washington, D.C. is worried about carbon emissions and climate change.

If you have not seen this video of Konstantin Kisin addressing the Oxford Commons earlier this month I highly recommend it,

(Click here is the video below does not play in your browser) 7 minutes

Kisin does an excellent job of putting the focus where it needs to be on the subject of climate change.

If you believe that climate change is being caused by man the only answer is for man to develop more abundant, cleaner and cheaper sources of energy through technology and science. Nothing will be accomplished by attempting to lower our standard of living, prosperity or the opportunities of others to climb out of poverty. 

If we want to improve our situation it is going to require we work, build and create our future. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. That is a prediction I am confident will be proven true.

It is a point I have made more than once in these pages over the years.

In the meantime, I will keep looking for at least one prediction of the climate doomsayers to come true.

Biden 2.0 vs. Trump 2.0?

An interesting question as we embark on the year 2023 and interest begins to build for the 2024 Presidential election is whether we will see Biden 2.0 vs. Trump 2.0?

Credit: James Devaney/GC Images | Alex Wong/Getty Images via Fox News

I don't like making political predictions because it is too easy to be wrong. I prefer analysis based on data.

However, if I were to place odds on Biden 2.0 vs. Trump 2.0 right now, I would suggest there is only a 1% chance that both Biden and Trump will be the candidates on the final ballot in 2024.

In fact, I believe there is less than a 50% chance that even one of them will be on the ballot in November, 2024 as I forecast the next Presidential race at the present time.

There are too many cautionary signs out there for both Trump and Biden right now.

How do I come to those conclusions?

Let's consider Trump first.

I wrote a blog post 18 months ago that detailed how I thought things would play out for Trump looking to 2024. See "Trump 2024?".

If you read what I wrote in July, 2021 I think you will find that most things have played out pretty closely to how I saw things would unfold.

In that blog post I cited three factors that would enhance Trump's prospects for 2024 and three that would diminish his prospects. Of the three that would help Trump, two have not gone his way. 

I stated that he needed to unearth some definitive proof that there was foul play in the 2020 election. That has not happened to the degree necessary for the average voter to accept. As a result, Trump looks more like a whiner than a winner. Look no further than Stacey Abrams to see how that plays with voters.

I also stated that Trump needed to have his endorsed candidates win their races in 2022. Most did but losses of his candidates in high profile swing states Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia damaged the Trump brand.

The only thing that Trump has going for him is if there is a further deterioration in the state of the country over the next year or so. Trump has a proven record of performance over four years and most people did pretty well during that time. That is a real advantage in times of trouble.

This is what I wrote in that regard in my previous blog post.

Trump has many critics but hard times have a way of focusing people on what is most important. Trump's personality is the most cited reason why many did not like him. When people are in trouble they are less concerned with personality and more concerned about performance. A deteriorating situation in the country will make Trump a lot more attractive to more people than you can imagine. 

The three factors that I cited as working against Trump in 2024 all still apply.  

That is not good news for Trump when you weigh the pros and cons that I outlined 18 months ago.

Here are the three factors that I wrote about previously that would work against Trump as a candidate looking to 2024. All three are sill in play.

This is what I wrote in July, 2021.

What are three things that could derail any ambitions Trump may have for 2024?

1. There is a natural human trait to prefer potential over achievement. I wrote about this in 2014.

Why does an untested high school pitcher command a bigger signing bonus from a major league baseball team than a proven major league pitcher with six years of experience as a starter?

Why does a fledgling tech company IPO result in a market cap far in excess of a steady and profitable company that has a 10 year record of success in the marketplace?

Why does the up and coming young MBA a few years out of school get the promotion over the steady, seasoned and loyal 10 year manager?

Why do NFL fans of mediocre teams always clamor for the 2nd string quarterback?

Why did an untested Barack Obama beat two candidates (Hillary Clinton and John McCain) who were both more accomplished and experienced than he was?

You can read my previous blog post for the explanation of the Stanford academic that has studied this human trait in detail.

In the political realm I think it relates to the fact that prior achievement has boundaries. Potential is boundless, especially on the upside. Hope really does spring eternal.

People know all the warts and weaknesses of the politicians they are familiar with. Almost everyone also believes that they know Trump well. Therefore, it is easy to project optimism on DeSantis, Haley, Noem or someone else and decide they are going to be a much better candidate than Trump. They are perfect in the eyes of many voters right now.  Let's get Trump's policies with a better personality and all will be well. 

This will be an effect Trump will have to overcome because the new face is always going to be more interesting and enticing than someone that you know better.

2. Allegations of wrongdoing by Trump that go beyond what is perceived as more than a witch hunt. Democrats have long claimed that Trump is a crook or has been involved in nefarious activities. However, we have heard this for five years and they have not been able to turn up anything on the man. The latest charges involving his company and its CFO by New York state looks to be politically motivated. If there was wrongdoing with the Trump organization's taxes why was this not found by the IRS? Why is a Manhattan Democrat District Attorney involved? Trump has also been out of the active management of the business for over five years. Why now? Perhaps there is something there but it looks like a political hit job to me right now.

There is little question that the Democrats are going to turn over every rock and throw everything they can at Trump and his family the next few years  They clearly live in fear of the man. They may get something that sticks and get people to believe that it is more than political retribution. If they do, Trump will not be viable in 2024 as his political brand will be permanently damaged. Once you lose trust you don't get it back.

3. Trump's endorsements and efforts at promoting candidates in 2022 falls flat and/or the GOP generally has disappointing results in the mid-term elections.

This might apply even if the GOP gain seats in the mid-terms but the results do not meet the expectations sets before the election.

Any mid-term setback will likely create a narrative that the losses were due to Trump's influence on the party and a change of direction is necessary for 2024.

I have no idea how this will play out. 

We are still 2.5 years from the first 2024 primaries and a lot can happen in two years. In fact, at times a few months can be an eternity in politics.

I still have no idea how it will play out over the next 18 months but Trump has taken some hits. Right now the trend is not Trump's friend. The odds do not favor him if you consider my analysis.

However, I have learned to never underestimate Donald Trump. 

Trump is indefatigable. In fact, I wrote a blog post in 2019 titled "The Indefatigable Donald Trump" in which I wrote this.

Say what you want about Donald Trump but the thing that sets him apart is that he is not afraid to take action. He is not afraid to face criticism. He is unrelenting. He persistently works to achieve his objectives. There is no quit in him.

There has been no politician like him in my lifetime. Perhaps that is because he did not spend a lifetime as a politician. Perhaps that is because he doesn't really need the job. Perhaps that is because he is an arrogant egomaniac. I don't know why he does what he does.

What I do know it that he is indefatigable. He relentlessly pushes his agenda forward. That, more than anything, defines who he is and why he should never be underestimated. That is also why the Democrats and liberal media despise and fear him so much.

Let's turn to the prospects for Biden 2.0

The biggest advantage Biden has is that he is the incumbent and has all the power and financial resources that come with that. You must be very brave (or very foolish) to challenge a sitting President of your party for the nomination. It has been said that if you want to take out the king, you better not miss. Such is the advantage that Biden holds right now.

However, I see three major factors that could prevent Biden from being on the ticket.

1. Biden's mental or physical health could deteriorate further. Biden is 80 years old. He would be 82 if he is sworn in for another term. He would be 86 if he served the full term. To put that in context, Ronald Reagan left office when he was 77. No one before ever held the office at that age. 

Biden was older when he took office than Reagan was that when he left office. All of this suggests that Biden's age and/or health could easily prevent him from running again. He may not decide that on his own. Combined with a worsening economic situation in the country Democrats may conclude they cannot risk their 2024 election prospects with Biden at the head of the ticket.

2. If inflation persists and/or the economy goes into recession it will be bad news for Biden. The same is true if there are major problems in the foreign policy area (Russian defeats Ukraine, China invades Taiwan, Iran attacks Israel). All of these would signal that the United States has lost significant standing on the world stage under Biden.

Big problems call out for strong leadership. Voters get nervous when their economic or personal security is at risk. In times like these the people want strong, vigorous and clear minded leadership. This does not describe Joe Biden in any shape, manner or form. Troubled times will be trouble for Biden. It is hard to believe that we will not see some serious challenges over the next year or so. This is a significant risk for Biden and the Democrats. 

I was of the belief that a strong showing by the GOP in the midterms would have meant that there would have been an increasing number of Democrats asking for Biden to step aside in 2024. The midterms gave Biden a reprieve. Can he be so lucky over the next two years? The odds say no.

3. Biden's biggest problem over the next two years is that he is going to have the cloud of investigations hanging over his head. House Republicans are going to dig deeply into Hunter Biden's business affairs and Biden's connection to anything that Hunter was doing. The focus will be on possible influence peddling with Ukraine, China and other countries.

Add to this the Special Counsel investigation that was announced last week to look into the question of how classified documents ended up in a think tank office that Biden used as well as documents found in his garage at his home in Delaware.

What is most interesting about this revelation is how this all came about? Why is this coming to light now? This is particularly true after Biden, his Justice Department and the FBI made such a big deal about the same issue with Trump. There is something strange about all of this. You have to figure that Hunter's issues plays into this somehow.

In fact, Hunter Biden claimed in a 2018 background screening request that his current residence was Joe Biden's home in Delaware in which some of the classified documents were found. Even stranger, Hunter stated on the document that he was the owner of the property. At the same time, he states he is paying $49,400 in rent per month for his current residence. 

Something does not add up somewhere.

Bear in mind that Joe Biden once said his son Hunter was the smartest man he knows.

Source: https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/1613576887728496640

I have seen some suggest that it looks like someone on the Democrat side may be working to undermine Biden for 2024. Another suggestion is that Biden may be trying to get ahead of other revelations and wants to appear transparent and doesn't want to compound the issue with charges of a coverup. 

The other thing we have learned about Special Counsel investigations is that they are rarely limited in scope. They tend to expand and get into other issues. I have already seen some suggest that the Special Counsel should also be looking at Biden's relationship with China. 

They could start by following the money trail from China to Biden though the University of Pennsylvania. The New York Post reports that various Chinese interests donated millions of dollars to the University of Pennsylvania shortly after it established the Penn Biden Center think tank.

 

Source: https://nypost.com/2023/01/11/penn-biden-center-is-dark-money-nightmare-patronage-mill/

 

The University of Pennsylvania received more than $30 million from Chinese donors shortly after the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, which functioned as an office for Joe Biden before he was elected president...according to public records.

“The Penn Biden Center is a dark-money, revolving-door nightmare where foreign competitors like China donated millions of dollars to the university so that they could have access to future high-ranking officials,” said Tom Anderson, director of the Government Integrity Project at the Virginia-based National Legal and Policy Center.

The University of Pennsylvania raked in a total of $54.6 million from 2014 through June 2019 in donations from China, including $23.1 million in anonymous gifts starting in 2016, according to public records.

Most of the anonymous donations came after the university officially announced in February 2017 that it would create the academic center named for Biden, whose term as vice president under Barack Obama had just ended. In addition to leading the think tank, Biden was named a professor at the school.

The Ivy League institution received $15.8 million in anonymous Chinese gifts in 2017 and one $14.5 million donation in May 2018, three months after the center opened, records show.

I wrote a blog post three years ago about "Professor Biden"  and his tax return filings He was paid around $400,000 per year in 2017 and 2018 by Penn (which is two-and-a-half times the average Penn professor) even though he never taught one class.

My guess is that if anyone ever truly starts investigating the money trail from foreign governments to Hunter Biden to Joe it is not going to be a pretty sight.

The only question is whether anyone will really INVESTIGATE Biden?

When you consider that the FBI has been in possession of Hunter's laptop for over three years and no one ever did anything to Hillary Clinton when she broke every rule in the book for classified documents, and the extent that she used influence peddling to fund the Clinton Foundation, you understand there is a double standard in operation for Democrats when it comes to the FBI and Justice Department.

If we see a legitimate investigation proceeding, you have to know that the Democrat establishment has decided that it is time for Joe to go.

Biden only gained the Democrat nomination in 2020 because the Democrat establishment became nervous that Bernie Sanders might win. As a result, they put all of their money and power behind Joe. He was deemed to be the best choice to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination compared to the other choices that included Kamala, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bloomberg.

Of course, the Republican establishment also abhors Trump. They did in 2016 as well but they underestimated him and Trump won against a large field. 

A large field in 2024 will also be to Trump's advantage as he will probably have a large core of committed voters even if they are not a majority. This is all you need to win in a crowded primary field.

If the Republican establishment wants to stop Trump in 2024 they will need to coalesce around a single challenger much like Democrats did in 2020 with Biden.

Ron DeSantis looks to be the choice right now although DeSantis has still not signaled whether he is running.

Consider the money the DeSantis political PAC raised in 2022 and where it came from compared to Trump's donors. This is a headline from a Bloomberg article in August, 2022.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-22/desantis-taps-donors-griffin-tudor-jones-in-142-million-haul?leadSource=uverify%20wall

A substantial amount of this money remains after DeSantis easily won reelection in November.

What does a politician do when they have that much money in the bank and momentum on their side?

They don't usually sit on the sidelines.

Getting the nomination in 2024 looks like it will be much harder for Trump than it was in 2016. His prospects when he started that quest was still considered a very long shot.

If you take everything I have laid out above I think you can see why I give almost no chance that both Biden and Trump will be on the ballot in 2024.

Perhaps one of the two will gain the nomination for their party but I still give that no better than 50/50 odds.

Of course, making Presidential predictions almost two years out have proven to be a fool's errand more than once.

Two years out did anyone believe that a peanut farmer from Georgia would be on the ballot in 1976 let alone become President?

We have also seen several establishment favorites at this time barely capture a handful on delegates (John Connally, Jeb Bush come to mind) when primary voting started.

No one needs to be reminded of what Barack Obama and Donald Trump did.

Biden 2.0 vs. Trump 2.0?  

I am betting no.

We are in for a entertaining year or so ahead to find out if I am right...or wrong.