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.

What Caused Damar Hamlin's Cardiac Arrest?

It has been less than two weeks since Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin suffered cardiac arrest right after he made a tackle in a Monday night football game versus the Cincinnati Bengals.

20 minutes of CPR and other emergency measures were administered on the field before Hamlin was put in an ambulance and transported to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.

From all reports, Hamlin has made a remarkable recovery considering what appeared to be dire prospects on the field when he heart was not beating.

Hamlin was recently released from the Buffalo hospital that he was transferred to after his initial treatment in Cincinnati and is now recovering and and undergoing rehab at his home.

It is fantastic news all around.

However, the question still remains as what caused Hamlin to suffer cardiac arrest?

In thousands of NFL games with millions of tackles in over 100 years of play and we have never seen anything like this. 

Is there something that can be learned from this to avoid a similar result in the future?

I was watching the game live and there is no doubt that Hamlin suffered a strong blow to his chest area.

Cincinnati Bengals receiver Tee Higgins lowered his shoulder as Hamlin came up to tackle him and you could see him clearly buckle up with force of the blow in real time. 

Here are a couple of images of the hit. Notice that the helmet, which would have magnified the force of the blow, is not hitting the chest area.

Credit: wfft.com

Credit: Getty Images via The Daily Mail

I have seen some people say it was an ordinary hit in the NFL. I didn't see it that way when I was watching the game. It was a very forceful blow by Higgins on Hamlin. I cringed when I saw it.

Seeing Hamlin get up and then collapse I immediately thought that the young athlete might have suffered what is called Commotio Cordis.

This is how WebMD describes the condition.

Commotio cordis is a medical condition that happens when your heart suddenly stops beating (known as cardiac arrest). It usually happens when there's a serious blow or injury to the chest that causes abnormal electrical activity in the heart.

The condition is rare. It's most commonly seen among athletes ages 8-18 who play contact sports like football or martial arts. It can also happen in sports that involve blunt objects like baseballs, hockey pucks, or lacrosse balls.

The most common cause is an impact to the left side of your chest during a sports activity. The impact gives a sudden jolt to the heart muscle. This can cause the heart to have a sudden, irregular, and fast pattern of heartbeats (ventricular fibrillation) and effectively stop beating.

Commotio cordis is an extremely dangerous condition and can lead to death. It's the second leading cause of sudden cardiac death among athletes. If it occurs, CPR and medical attention are needed right away to restore the heartbeat as soon as possible or the odds of survival are very low.

Boys are more likely than girls or adults to experience commotio cordis. In fact, over 9 out of 10 reported cases occur in boys.

Experts believe that a thinner chest wall among young children compared to adults increases the odds of commotio cordis.

I was familiar with Commotio Cordis as I had a son play both high school and college lacrosse and knew about the sad situations where lacrosse players had died after taking a fast traveling lacrosse ball to their chest causing cardiac arrest.

Two that I particularly remember were a University of Massachusetts lacrosse player in 1999 and an athlete from Cornell University who died in 2004 after taking a lacrosse ball to the chest.

The UMass player was Eric Sopracasa who was 21.

Source: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1999-05-07-9905070262-story.html

Eric Sopracasa, a junior midfielder at the University of Massachusetts, is one of only two lacrosse players known to have died after being struck in the chest with a ball, a leading cardiac researcher said.

Sopracasa, from Farmingville, N.Y., collapsed after being hit by a ball in practice Wednesday, said UMass officials. He was later pronounced dead at Cooley Dickinson Hospital. The cause of death is unknown, but the circumstances are similar to those of several young athletes who have died after being struck in the chest with a baseball or hockey puck.

 

The Cornell player was George Boiardi who was age 22.

George Boiardi, a Cornell University senior student, was struck in the chest with a lacrosse ball late in the fourth quarter of a game against Binghamton University last night (March 17) at Cornell's Schoellkopf Field. He collapsed, and medical personnel tried to revive him on the field. He was rushed to Cayuga Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 6:44 p.m.

Both of these deaths stood out to me because they came at a time that my son was playing lacrosse where the ball can be traveling at speeds of over 90 mph with college players.

It is a risk you don't disregard when you are a father.

Was Damar Hamlin a victim of Commotio Cordis?

That was my first reaction.

However, is that what really caused Damar Hamlin's cardiac arrest?

There has been nothing stated yet from the doctors who treated Hamlin.

Could Hamlin have had some type of undetected congenital heart defect that contributed to his cardiac arrest?

Some have questioned whether the Covid vaccine that all NFL players were pressured into taking might be responsible. It appears that last year Hamlin was fully vaccinated as were all Buffalo players save for two (reports are that Josh Allen and Cole Beasley refused the vaccine last year).  I have not seen any reports this year on booster uptake with NFL players although in December, 2021 it was league policy for all players, coaches and staffs to get a booster dose.

The CDC has stated that myocarditis or pericarditis is a potential side effect of the Covid shots especially with young men under age 40. Those between age 12 and 24 have the highest risk.

However, the CDC also states that cases of myocarditis or pericarditis caused by the vaccine are very rare and most resolve over time with no long term effects.

Dr. Tony Fauci was quick to take to the airwaves and immediately state that it was clear that Hamlin had taken a severe blow to his chest area and it is known that this can cause a traumatic injury to the heart. He dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" any suggestion that Hamlin's cardiac arrest could be due to the mRNA vaccine.

I fully understand why the public health establishment and the NFL want the vaccine to be ruled out as a possible cause of Hamlin's injury.

It would not be very good PR for people like Fauci in the public health arena if Hamlin's injury was somehow found to be associated with the vaccine nor would it be good for the NFL who so zealously promoted the vaccines to its players.

I am not a doctor so I will wait for medical professionals who have treated Hamlin and run tests on him to see their conclusions.

However, since that first night when my initial conclusion was that it was due to Commotio Cordis, further research I have done has raised some doubts in my mind on what was the cause of Hamlin's heart issue.

First, cases of Commotio Cordis are most likely in those age 8-18. This is because they have thinner chest walls protecting the heart. Hamlin was 24. It is true that the two lacrosse cases I cited above were 21 and 22 but Hamlin was older still and being a professional football player likely had even more chest musculature than the college lacrosse players.

Second, almost all cases of Commotio Cordis involve a serious blow directly to the heart area in a compact, forceful way such as delivered by a baseball or lacrosse ball. The energy is concentrated in a small area and is not spread over the chest.

Hamlin took a shoulder to his chest. That would disperse the force across the chest much more than being hit by a ball. It is true that the shoulder pad of Higgins could have somehow magnified the blow and it might have made more contact directly with the heart area.

However, the other factor at play here is the force of the blow due to the speed of the object hitting the chest.

A baseball or lacrosse ball hitting an object at 90 mph delivers an enormous amount of concentrated force.

Tee Higgins is 6'4'' and 218 pounds. At the NFL Combine he ran a 4.59 40 yard dash. That translates to a speed of 17.8 mph.

Why is this relevant?

Energy created in a collision is generally a product of the square of the velocity of the impact.

The speed of a thrown ball is much greater than the speed of any human being.

These tweets by Dr. Venk Murthy who is a cardiologist and also holds a PhD in Biophysics from Johns Hopkins was thought provoking for me.

 

It is an additional perspective I was not aware of when I first considered that Commotio Cordis was the likely cause of Hamlin's collapse.

Third, I find it interesting that almost two weeks into this, no conclusions have been announced by the doctors treating Hamlin as to what caused Hamlin's cardiac arrest. 

In the environment we have been living in I would think there would be pressure to declare it was Commotio Cordis and bury any notion of vaccine involvement.

I hope that this is because they want to be exceedingly careful in any conclusions they render in this case. Is this is a sign where truth may once again be valued more than the narrative? I hope so.

My fear is we may never be given an answer.

Or it will not be the full truth.

However, it seems as if we are seeing an abnormal number of what appear to be healthy, young people suddenly developing heart or vascular related conditions.

Can anyone explain why this is happening?

Source: https://twitter.com/RealWayneRoot/status/1612313683178446848/photo/1

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-brown-dies-age-21-air-force-academy-football-player-medical-emergency/

All of these incidents have been reported in the last couple of months.

Are all of these just weird coincidences?

Is this just because we have an amplified news cycle powered by social media?

Or is there something more to all of this?

Let's hope we get answers we can rely on.

For Damar Hamlin...and everybody else.

Dramatically Disconnected

There is a huge difference in what the coastal elites believe people should be interested in and what they actually are interested in.

To hear the elites talk about it, you would think that everybody is tuning into CNN or MSNBC to get the news.

It would seem you have to be one of those in a "basket of deplorables", as Hillary Clinton described Trump voters in 2016, to be watching Fox News.

Of course, Trump won in 2016 and in 2022 it does not seem much has changed in the tv preferences of the American people.

I thought this factoid on cable viewership in 2022 to be quite interesting.

When it comes to cable tv viewing the odds were high that Americans were watching Fox News or ESPN more than anything else in the last year.

CNN could not not even beat out The Hallmark Channel in attracting a large audience.

Does this suggest that there is a significant disconnect between what the elites believe and reality?

Further proof of the disconnect between the coastal elites and mainstream America was the rant Joy Behar of "The View" went on last week where she blamed "heterosexual conservatives" for their support of football in the aftermath of the injury to Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin.

Source: https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2023/01/joy-behar-blames-heterosexual-conservatives-for-existence-of-football-in-damar-hamlin-related-rant/

All I can say that there must be a lot of heterosexual conservatives around when you consider the 100 most-watched tv broadcasts in 2022.

Credit: https://twitter.com/markjburns88/status/1611375359626469376

82 out of the top 100 were NFL football games.

5 were college football games.

NFL football games garnered 19 out of the first 20 spots.

The most watched World Cup soccer game ranked #38.

The Academy Awards was #77.

The highest ranking college basketball games was #67.

Of note, not one MLB, NBA or NHL game ranked in the top 100.

In the last two years combined, NFL football games captured 157 of the 200 most watched tv broadcasts. 

MLB, NBA and NHL had zero.

Do you see a disconnect?

Joy Behar and the coastal elites would seem to the last place to go if you are looking to take the pulse of the American people.

This and That-January 5, 2023 Edition

Stock and Bond Returns in 2022

Investors in the stock and bond markets in the United States just saw the worst year of performance since 1871.

Credit: https://twitter.com/austinbyersking/status/1608857155641442309

The S&P 500 was down 20% in 2022.

The NADAQ was even worse---down 34%.

The Dow looked good by comparison only giving up 9.4% for the year.

Rising interest rates decimated bond returns like nothing we have ever seen seen since the founding of the United States. Long bonds were down over 25%.

Credit:https://twitter.com/biancoresearch/status/1610404526678507521/photo/1

A balanced portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds lost about 17% for the year. (VBINX-Vanguard 60-40 Balanced).

On the other hand, if you had $100,000 invested in Vanguard's Federal Money Market Fund in January you were receiving about 85 cents per month in interest. In December, that same investment was producing $350 in interest income for the month.

Investors with cash sitting on the sidelines invested in short-term Treasury securities were the only big winners in 2022.

Over $40 trillion of wealth was eviscerated in global stock and bond values in 2022. That is twice the amount lost in 2008 in nominal dollars.

Credit: https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1608811525971509249/photo/1

Viva Las Vegas

Seeing investment returns in 2022 might make some decide that they might be better trying their hand at the gambling tables in Las Vegas.

If that is on your mind you might find the Gaming Revenue Report from the Nevada Gaming Commission to be interesting.

This is the summary report for November, 2022.

These numbers are in 000's.

The "Win Amount" is what the casino "won". The "Win Percent" is how much the house won as a percent of the total amounts wagered.

Source: https://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=19300

A few observations.

The gaming establishments won $1.2 billion in November. "The house always wins in the end."

Slots are the least profitable for the casinos. Their win percentage is only 7.5%. Interestingly, the penny slots are the worst play for those playing the slots. 

I found it also interesting that about 25% of the total winnings the casinos take in ($300 million) are from penny slots. Stakes are low but the casinos make it up in volume. Slots generally account for more than two-thirds of the win amounts for the casinos.

Twenty One and Baccarat provide the best odds for gambling at the table and card games.

Keno, Bingo and 3-Card Poker look to be worse than playing the stock market in 2022.

Notice that the Sports Book generally provides a lower win percent than most other betting.

You might also notice the massive negative (17.75%) win percent on Baseball in November.

I have to believe that this is due to the winning bet Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale had on the Houston Astros winning the World Series.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/07/mattress-macks-record-75-million-astros-payout-will-cost-caesars-penn-big-this-quarter.html

Here is a screen shot from a video showing Mattress Mack using a wheelbarrow to load part of his cash winnings on to a private jet in Las Vegas to fly home to Houston.

Source: https://www.kfyrtv.com/video/2022/11/14/mattress-mack-picks-up-millions-won-world-series-bets-las-vegas/

An Easy A

When I went to college students would sometimes try to balance out a tough course load with one elective class that had a reputation as an "Easy A". 

Those courses were few and far between. My fraternity usually kept a list of classes and professors that might provide a reprieve from grade pressure in order to put more time into Statistics, Microeconomics, Organic Chemistry or Physics.

That was over 50 years ago. A 3.0 GPA at that time put you comfortably in the top half of of the class.

That is not longer the case as this chart indicates.

The AVERAGE GPA at Harvard is now 3.8.

If the current trend continues everyone at Harvard will graduate in ten years with a perfect 4.0.

Meanwhile at New York City's elite New School students were recently demanding that they receive A's for all their fall courses in the wake of student protests at the elite college.

Source: https://www.thecollegefix.com/elite-private-college-students-demand-all-as-for-their-fall-classes/

Students at New York City’s elite New School are demanding that all students get A’s across the board for their fall classes …  because they’re miffed at the college’s leadership.

According to Human Events, the demands are part of a student “rebellion” in solidarity with faculty who recently held a strike for better pay and benefits.

“We demand that every student receives a final course grade of A as well as the removal of I/Z grades for the Fall 2022 semester,” the first demand reads. “Attendance shall have no bearing on course grade. Grading shall not be conducted by anyone other than the official course instructor or teaching assistant

The school, which costs around $44,000 per year to attend, includes a long list of famous alumni such as actor Jesse Eisenberg, playwright Tennessee Williams, and the economist Franklin D. Roosevelt III.

It seems this is the inevitable result when students are told that everyone has a right to the same outcome irrespective of talents, effort or work. 

A Lot Has Changed

As we embark on a new year it is always a good time to reflect on change.

There have been a lot of changes over the last 70 years.

A friend and BeeLine reader recently sent me a reminder of that in the form of some photos and  illustrations that drive the point home. (Hat tip to W.S.)

Those of us who are chronologically advantaged can probably better relate to many of these than others might..

However, there is something in here for everyone to appreciate on how our culture has changed over the years.

Good, bad or indifferent.

You can be the judge of that.