Media Disinformation on American and Canadian Insulin prices
Despite the notion that Canadian insulin is far cheaper than the U.S., with many left-wing sources such as Business Insider, Slate magazine, CNN, the Washington post, MSNBC, and others reporting that Canadian insulin is far cheaper than U.S. Insulin, this is simply not the case; just for comparison, there is 25 dollar insulin that is provided in the U.S. by Walmart, with no medicare or insurance needed, in comparison to 50 dollar insulin in Canada, and Medicare, Medicaid and Health insurance frequently helps to pay for this insulin (80% or more), making it even cheaper for the end consumer. American Insulin prices in these left-wing articles is often reported to be between 285-350 dollars per vial (285 dollars according to Business insider, 350 according to etc.), vs. only 50 dollars per vial in Canada, supposedly demonstrating how terrible the U.S. medical and drug system apparently is, as according to them insulin is over priced. This is clearly proof that the evil, greedy capitalists have over priced their insulin, and that we need to switch to a government-ran, socialist system which will keep prices low, clearly, never mind that ultra cheap capitalist insulin exists that is half the price of government provided Canadian insulin. No mention is made of course of the type of insulin, difference in quality or quality control, or how the insulin is made, only that they must be exactly the same (even though many different type of insulin related drugs exist, such as more expensive fast acting insulin used only for emergencies, slow acting insulin for daily use, insulin via injection or pills, medicine which boosts insulin production or replicates insulin vs. actual raw insulin, and so on), and that as no individual gets insulin from health insurance of medicare apparently, and they must pay for it out of pocket (almost no diabetic pays for it completely out of pocket, in real life), so, obviously, these costs must be extremely high.
The simple reality is, this is not true. The problem is in the promotion of half-truths; it is true that insulin can be upwards to 285-350 dollars per vial in the United States, but not every single form of insulin is 350 dollars per vial. In the same way a car can cost up to 100,000 dollars, but not all cars are this expensive, insulin can be 350 dollars per vial in the U.S., but averages around 90 dollars, with some forms of insulin as low as 25 dollars per vial, such as a form of Insulin provided by walmart, which is cheaper than the Canadian insulin cost at 50 dollars per vial. The quality obviously differs between variants, but nonetheless Insulin is not necessarily 350 dollars per vial, and neither is Asthma medication for example, which is another related drug price lie promoted by the same left-wing outlets (). For those of you interested in the raw data, you can merely look at a price listing of different forms of insulin on various websites, and come to the same conclusion yourself that it's not actually 285 dollars per vial for every single person. Insulin does not necessarily NEED to be 285-350 dollars per vile, and it is grotesque that the media flagrantly and blatantly lies about this. It is quite revolting, and disgusting, that the media continues to perpetuate such obvious lies, but even more dumbfounding is that so many people believe it. These arguments have been made by political candidates (such as Bernie Sanders or Justin Treduea), and there is such a widespread belief among the public that Insulin is cheaper in Canada, that people have been flocking to Canada in order to get it, instead of just, going to the local grocery store such as Walmart and picking the cheaper form of Insulin. The media disinformation is hurting people, and it is not just malicious for it's own sake, but willing to lead millions of people suffer who unfortunately believe these lies, to push a political objective. Lives depend upon us being correct, and misinformation puts those lives at risk needlessly. It not only is immoral to lie for it's own sake, but given the damage that it can cause; people are risking their lives to go to Canada and get insulin, when there is already cheap Insulin in the U.S.
More importantly than the actual price of Insulin, is how people pay for it; few people pay in the U.S. for the entire cost of insulin themselves, or buy insulin with money spent "out-of-pocket". Health insurance by law must be provided by your employer in the United States, and health insurance frequently covers insulin costs, generally 80% or more. For those without health insurance, or in addition to their existing health insurance, there is also Medicare and Medicaid, which can also pay up to 80% with Medicare D, or the full 100% depending on how life threatening the form of diabetes is. If one qualifies as having a disability according to Social Security via the social security Bluebook, they automatically qualify for Medicare D, and potentially A and B, which will assist in paying for insulin, or depending on the severity, completely pay for diabetic medication. By the end of the user's 20% co-payments, they spend as little as 20 dollars for each 100 dollars of insulin purchased, where as Canadians actually pay the full price without co payments, being forced to pay 50 dollars per insulin vial to their own government who is the only supplier in their single payer healthcare system, which is a higher cost for a lower quality version of insulin. Where as the U.S. government helps citizens pay for their insulin, the Canadian government does not, and so the price differences matter substantially; 250 dollar insulin in the U.S. only costs the consumer 50 dollars if they have health insurance or qualify for Medicare supplemental copay (of which virtually all diabetics do), meaning 250 dollar insulin in the U.S. only costs an individual diabetic person 50 dollars. For those with life threatening diabetes nearly 100% of the cost can be covered, thus leading to no payments at all. When a civilian does not need to pay for their own medicine, they tend to buy more expensive medication than they otherwise would be able to afford, and as the government assists in payment, 250 dollar insulin only costs the average American citizen 50 dollars, meaning with government copay or government mandated copay (such as via insurance), the price is actually the same price or lower than Canada. Health insurance is almost always provided to american citizens by their place of employment, and thus few people actually pay for their own health insurance costs. One, once again, wants insurance to be of a higher quality, when they do not pay for it themselves.
The price of health insurance is not a problem for the consumer, as it is not the consumer who pays for it, but rather the business that is required by law to give their workers expensive health insurance. Lowering the cost of health insurance may benefit large companies, but it would not necessarily be a benefit to most individuals, who do not need pay for health insurance themselves. Healthcare related issues have a has a tendency to expand in to multiple other issues, but the simple reality is, insulin is not only cheaper in the U.S., but often paid for by the U.S. government. A consumer does not worry as much about the price when they themselves don't pay for it, or when they only have to pay 20% of the cost, and thus Americans tend to buy more expensive insulin, as they can afford it. For those that can't, there is extremely cheap insulin available, as well as government welfare programs to help pay for it in it's entirety. This is on top of other benefits to the poor, which helps to provide them with housing (Section 9 government housing), food (SNAPS programs), and cellphone services, that lower taxes for those under the poverty line, and even programs that provide money directly (such as from social security), all of which help free up money to pay for other things, such as medication. As a result, if an individual for some reason did not qualify for medicare or medicaid benefits, or have health insurance, they likely qualify for other programs, which would assist them in paying for other costs in their daily lives, freeing up money to help pay for medication. While it is the law that any diabetic qualifies for at least some nonpayments to help pay for insulin medication, there are also other benefits to the poor, that can help them pay for a variety of things.
The Purpose of Disinformation
It has often been said that the purpose of disinformation is not necessarily to convince, but to confuse, to suppress the truth, and to make it impossible for the average person to regularly discern what the truth is without a tremendous amount of effort. Simply by over-saturating a topic with lies, and flooding it with misinformation, they can wash over the truth, making it difficult to discern reality, obfuscating what the truth is and thus effectively suppressing it, rather than completely changing people's minds. It is as important to make the truth difficult to find, as it is to actually change hearts and minds and win them over to their position. You can't win over everybody, but simply making it hard for people to see reality is far easier. With this added "tax" or difficulty in finding the truth, most people will not spend the time or effort to wade through all the muck, or succumb to their own biases in the process, leaving only a small percentage who know the whole story. The mere act of lying makes it difficult to tell what is true and what is fake, and requires extra effort to break down the lie and discern the truth; while telling a lie is easy, finding the truth can be exceedingly difficult. It has been said that a lie travels half way around the world before the truth has even gotten off the ground, and very few people will ever read the correction, assuming one is ever posted. The key purpose of disinformation is not just to persuade or convince, but to suppress the truth, to make the truth difficult or even impossible in some circumstances to discern. If one cannot convince the enemy, it is possible to simply mislead them. It is important to remember these lies are not stand-alone concepts, but are designed specifically to push for a very carefully laid out political objective. There is an overarching objective, and so the lies serve a specific political purpose other than sewing mere confusion for it's own sake; it is designed to help those in office gain power and push a particular policy agenda, which often is not to the benefit of the people.
It is frequent that we see story after story regurgitating the same set of lies, with the entire left-wing media in lock-step with each other, to push specific political agendas, chiefly healthcare reform via single payer healthcare. Be it about misleading asthma medication costs, American costs in general being higher, Americans getting less money from the government, or other obvious and easily disprovable lies, these lies weave a narrative of increasingly costly The U.S. government pays more for healthcare per citizen, has a higher survival rate than, and has an overall better healthcare system than most other first world countries, yet with left-wing inundation of misinformation, many believe this is not the case. Many arguments can be made about the effectiveness of each individual system if they decide to go through them carefully, but no-one can refute the simple raw data, that the U.S. has a substantially higher survival rate than most European countries, and a survival rate roughly on par with most Scandinavian countries in Europe. Taken from United Nation's healthcare data, an international source on the issue, we can find that
Despite this, many still believe the U.S. healthcare system is far worse, despite having lower costs, the government sharing a greater burden of these costs, a higher survival rate, and higher access to care than many comparable first world countries. The poor automatically qualify for medicare and medicaid, and all emergency healthcare is provided for free in the U.S.
Monday, May 4, 2020
Saturday, May 2, 2020
The connection between Drugs and violent crime
The connection between Drugs and violent crime
According to 1994 figures by the Department of Justice [1][2], approximately 2.7% of those who didn't regularly take drugs committed violent crimes, in comparison to 4.8% of those who drank alcohol regularly (1.8 times higher), 14.6% of those who took Cannabis only (5.4 times higher), and 26.1% of those who regularly took Cannabis, Alcohol, and Cocaine (9.6 times higher). In fact, 48% of all homicide and assault crimes were committed by a drug-dependent individuals, vs. just 9.4% of the population who were dependent on drugs, or a rate of 5 times higher than the general population. These figures remained roughly the same in another analysis in 2004. The trend shows that consistently, drug use is associated with higher rates of violent crime and behavior. While this is likely widely accepted that alcohol and cocaine are likely to lead to higher rates of violence (as well as other "hard" drugs such as meth, heroine, and barbiturates), marijuana remains more controversial, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the fact the mechanism in the brain is consistent with other drugs and situation which also tend to increase rates of violence (predominately through the increase of dopamine).
Despite the notion that American prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders, the overwhelming majority of prisoners were incarcerated due to violent crimes, or 53.8%, according to 2013 incarceration figures. [3] Only 16% were incarcerated due to drug-related crimes, and of that, only 3.7% were in prison for possession alone, with a smaller percentage being for marijuana. It has been estimated that approximately 20,000 to 40,000 prisoners, or roughly 1-2%, are in prison for marijuana related charges, and generally this involves trafficking, intoxicated driving, or other charges to be incarcerated for long periods of time. Drug users do fill the prison, but overwhelmingly due to them committing other crimes, such as violent crimes or property offenses (theft). These figures remained roughly consistent when compared back to 2009 [4]
Drug users were also significantly more likely to cause accidents that lead to death. Looking at car accidents, 43.6% of fatal car accidents involved a driver testing positive for drugs (compared to just 9.4% of the general population) [5], while marijuana was associated with at least a two fold risk increase for fatal car accidents. Marijuana related car accidents trippled from 1993 to 2015, largely after widespread decriminalization and legalization. [6][7][8] Other accidents are also likely to be higher, given that drugs have a tendency to impair reaction times, basic cognitive functions, and distract the driver, as well as induce temporary psychosis. Legal drugs such as opiods and alcohol, were also associated with higher accident rates, indicating similiar trends with similiar drugs.
When drugs were legalized in many states and countries, violent crimes rates increased. In Portugal for example, violent crime rates increased by 60%, falling only after 16 years to levels that still remain 10% higher than before the legalization [9], and have fallen less than many comparable countries (with the U.S. violent crime rate falling by nearly half, for example [10]). While associated with a reduced risk in spreading HIV, this coincides with the production of drugs which can stop the spread of HIV, and likely was not responsible for this fall. Violent crime rates as well increased in Amsterdam, by nearly triple, after legalization. [11] In California, Colorado, and Washington, after marijuana was legalized for recreational use (not medical use), violent crime rates and car accidents went up concurrently, particularly among those testing positive for marijuana or THC, while violent crime has generally fallen over the rest of the U.S.; crime rates staying the same in these areas would still indicate a problem with violent crime as a result. [12][13] In Colorado from 2014 to 2018 after the legalization of marijuana, the violent crime rate increased from 307.8 to 397.2 (an increase in 29%), while the murder rate went from 2.8 to 3.7 (32%), despite it falling across the rest of the country. While the potential reasons or speculations on this are numerous, it is generally accepted that this occurred. [14][15][16] Some, such as forbes, have speculated this is due to the presence of places that have not prohibited the drugs (yet for some reason in places which did prohibit the drugs, violent crime did not rise), and people from prohibited areas flocking to non-prohibited areas. However, this is not consistent with the fact that Mexico has decriminalized many drugs and cartel members regardless of this increased their activities in California (going from one legal area to another, not an illegal area to a legal one), and the fact that legalizing the drug was said to in theory reduce profits for the cartels and drive down their activities, which it did not. If legalizing drugs increases the prevalence of crime from drug dealers, then the theory of drug legalization being useful for this reason is defeated outright.
Further, we know about the effects drugs have on the brain, that thus demonstrably, causatively prove why the drugs would increase rates of violent crime. Studies on the brain indicate that Marijuana increases dopamine levels and that THC is a dopamine antagonist, thus replicating the increase in violence associated with high levels of dopamine caused by other means, such as by alternative drugs (for example, cocaine), schizophrenia, or even sporting events, and found a 7 fold increase after compensating for socioeconomic status and other factors. "38% of the participants did try cannabis at least once in their life. Most of them experimented with cannabis in their teens, but then stopped using it. However, 20% of the boys who started using pot by age 18 continued to use it through middle age (32-48 years). One fifth of those who were pot smokers (22%) reported violent behavior that began after beginning to use cannabis, whereas only 0.3% reported violence before using weed. Continued use of cannabis over the life-time of the study was the strongest predictor of violent convictions, even when the other factors that contribute to violent behavior were considered in the statistical analysis. In conclusion, the results show that continued cannabis use is associated with a 7-fold greater odds for subsequent commission of violent crimes." [17][18] Alcohol use, heavy episodic drinking, and marijuana use were all more prevalent among young adults raised in households with greater resources, negating the argument that higher rates of violence among marijuana users was due to poverty levels or previous criminal lifestyles. [19][20]
It is very likely that violence rates increasing after drug legalization is not a coincidence brought on by other factors, when it is well known it's impact on the brain is likely to impair reasoning and judgement skills, with impulsivity being a primary factor in the likelihood for individuals to commit violent crime. [21][22] With impaired reasoning and cognitive skills, decision making skills are impacted, especially when the risk-reward centers of the brain are over stimulated, such as with dopamine, and so individuals are more likely to engage in unpredictable or risky behavior, thus increasing their chance of committing a violent crime. The emotional state of the user is less important when analyzing violent crimes; the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed out of a desire to obtain money (such as through burglary or muggings), and not due to extreme anger. Thus even if the individual is less prone to anger while on the drug, this is unlikely to decrease the chance of a violent crime. Impulsivity is a key factor linked to crime, and a lack of self control is more likely to lead to violence than the emotional state of the user. Drugs have also been known to agitate the user and increase paranoia or anxiety, with fear, and not anger, being more heavily linked to violent crime and behavior in general.
Conclusions
It is my opinion that the emphasis of law enforcement with drug crimes should focus on Rehabilitation, instead of incarceration, which should only be used as a last resort. Drug addiction can be treated, and is more likely to be successful if the individual goes through rehabilitation than through the prison system. Mandatory rehabilitation is likely a more effective as well as compassionate method to deal with drug users. Drug rehabilitation tends to prevent recidivism 40-60% of the time, in comparison to 10-30% of the time for incarceration. [23][24] However, we should not be permissive, allowing reckless behavior. While drug use is often considered to be a victimless crime, like traffic violations, such as speeding or running stop signs, reckless behavior can endanger others, and lead to higher rates of accidents or violence. If certain behaviors and actions are more likely, but not always certain to injure others, there is still a prescient need for law enforcement to be involved to prevent these reckless acts. While likely not always intentional, drug use is associated with higher rates of violence and crime, and the mechanisms in the brain which decrease self-control and increases proclivities towards crime should not be ignored. While there is a need to balance freedom and security, in my opinion recklessness can be just as immoral and dangerous, producing just as many victims, thus not being justified as a "victimless crime". Homicides make up approximately 15,000 deaths a year, however accidents make up over 160,000, over 10 times higher. [25] Nonetheless, it is for the individual to decide what their opinion's on drug legalization and decriminalization are, but hopefully these figures and data will dispel some rumors and misconceptions on drugs and crime, particularly given that it is a heated political topic.
According to 1994 figures by the Department of Justice [1][2], approximately 2.7% of those who didn't regularly take drugs committed violent crimes, in comparison to 4.8% of those who drank alcohol regularly (1.8 times higher), 14.6% of those who took Cannabis only (5.4 times higher), and 26.1% of those who regularly took Cannabis, Alcohol, and Cocaine (9.6 times higher). In fact, 48% of all homicide and assault crimes were committed by a drug-dependent individuals, vs. just 9.4% of the population who were dependent on drugs, or a rate of 5 times higher than the general population. These figures remained roughly the same in another analysis in 2004. The trend shows that consistently, drug use is associated with higher rates of violent crime and behavior. While this is likely widely accepted that alcohol and cocaine are likely to lead to higher rates of violence (as well as other "hard" drugs such as meth, heroine, and barbiturates), marijuana remains more controversial, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the fact the mechanism in the brain is consistent with other drugs and situation which also tend to increase rates of violence (predominately through the increase of dopamine).
Despite the notion that American prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders, the overwhelming majority of prisoners were incarcerated due to violent crimes, or 53.8%, according to 2013 incarceration figures. [3] Only 16% were incarcerated due to drug-related crimes, and of that, only 3.7% were in prison for possession alone, with a smaller percentage being for marijuana. It has been estimated that approximately 20,000 to 40,000 prisoners, or roughly 1-2%, are in prison for marijuana related charges, and generally this involves trafficking, intoxicated driving, or other charges to be incarcerated for long periods of time. Drug users do fill the prison, but overwhelmingly due to them committing other crimes, such as violent crimes or property offenses (theft). These figures remained roughly consistent when compared back to 2009 [4]
Drug users were also significantly more likely to cause accidents that lead to death. Looking at car accidents, 43.6% of fatal car accidents involved a driver testing positive for drugs (compared to just 9.4% of the general population) [5], while marijuana was associated with at least a two fold risk increase for fatal car accidents. Marijuana related car accidents trippled from 1993 to 2015, largely after widespread decriminalization and legalization. [6][7][8] Other accidents are also likely to be higher, given that drugs have a tendency to impair reaction times, basic cognitive functions, and distract the driver, as well as induce temporary psychosis. Legal drugs such as opiods and alcohol, were also associated with higher accident rates, indicating similiar trends with similiar drugs.
When drugs were legalized in many states and countries, violent crimes rates increased. In Portugal for example, violent crime rates increased by 60%, falling only after 16 years to levels that still remain 10% higher than before the legalization [9], and have fallen less than many comparable countries (with the U.S. violent crime rate falling by nearly half, for example [10]). While associated with a reduced risk in spreading HIV, this coincides with the production of drugs which can stop the spread of HIV, and likely was not responsible for this fall. Violent crime rates as well increased in Amsterdam, by nearly triple, after legalization. [11] In California, Colorado, and Washington, after marijuana was legalized for recreational use (not medical use), violent crime rates and car accidents went up concurrently, particularly among those testing positive for marijuana or THC, while violent crime has generally fallen over the rest of the U.S.; crime rates staying the same in these areas would still indicate a problem with violent crime as a result. [12][13] In Colorado from 2014 to 2018 after the legalization of marijuana, the violent crime rate increased from 307.8 to 397.2 (an increase in 29%), while the murder rate went from 2.8 to 3.7 (32%), despite it falling across the rest of the country. While the potential reasons or speculations on this are numerous, it is generally accepted that this occurred. [14][15][16] Some, such as forbes, have speculated this is due to the presence of places that have not prohibited the drugs (yet for some reason in places which did prohibit the drugs, violent crime did not rise), and people from prohibited areas flocking to non-prohibited areas. However, this is not consistent with the fact that Mexico has decriminalized many drugs and cartel members regardless of this increased their activities in California (going from one legal area to another, not an illegal area to a legal one), and the fact that legalizing the drug was said to in theory reduce profits for the cartels and drive down their activities, which it did not. If legalizing drugs increases the prevalence of crime from drug dealers, then the theory of drug legalization being useful for this reason is defeated outright.
Further, we know about the effects drugs have on the brain, that thus demonstrably, causatively prove why the drugs would increase rates of violent crime. Studies on the brain indicate that Marijuana increases dopamine levels and that THC is a dopamine antagonist, thus replicating the increase in violence associated with high levels of dopamine caused by other means, such as by alternative drugs (for example, cocaine), schizophrenia, or even sporting events, and found a 7 fold increase after compensating for socioeconomic status and other factors. "38% of the participants did try cannabis at least once in their life. Most of them experimented with cannabis in their teens, but then stopped using it. However, 20% of the boys who started using pot by age 18 continued to use it through middle age (32-48 years). One fifth of those who were pot smokers (22%) reported violent behavior that began after beginning to use cannabis, whereas only 0.3% reported violence before using weed. Continued use of cannabis over the life-time of the study was the strongest predictor of violent convictions, even when the other factors that contribute to violent behavior were considered in the statistical analysis. In conclusion, the results show that continued cannabis use is associated with a 7-fold greater odds for subsequent commission of violent crimes." [17][18] Alcohol use, heavy episodic drinking, and marijuana use were all more prevalent among young adults raised in households with greater resources, negating the argument that higher rates of violence among marijuana users was due to poverty levels or previous criminal lifestyles. [19][20]
It is very likely that violence rates increasing after drug legalization is not a coincidence brought on by other factors, when it is well known it's impact on the brain is likely to impair reasoning and judgement skills, with impulsivity being a primary factor in the likelihood for individuals to commit violent crime. [21][22] With impaired reasoning and cognitive skills, decision making skills are impacted, especially when the risk-reward centers of the brain are over stimulated, such as with dopamine, and so individuals are more likely to engage in unpredictable or risky behavior, thus increasing their chance of committing a violent crime. The emotional state of the user is less important when analyzing violent crimes; the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed out of a desire to obtain money (such as through burglary or muggings), and not due to extreme anger. Thus even if the individual is less prone to anger while on the drug, this is unlikely to decrease the chance of a violent crime. Impulsivity is a key factor linked to crime, and a lack of self control is more likely to lead to violence than the emotional state of the user. Drugs have also been known to agitate the user and increase paranoia or anxiety, with fear, and not anger, being more heavily linked to violent crime and behavior in general.
Conclusions
It is my opinion that the emphasis of law enforcement with drug crimes should focus on Rehabilitation, instead of incarceration, which should only be used as a last resort. Drug addiction can be treated, and is more likely to be successful if the individual goes through rehabilitation than through the prison system. Mandatory rehabilitation is likely a more effective as well as compassionate method to deal with drug users. Drug rehabilitation tends to prevent recidivism 40-60% of the time, in comparison to 10-30% of the time for incarceration. [23][24] However, we should not be permissive, allowing reckless behavior. While drug use is often considered to be a victimless crime, like traffic violations, such as speeding or running stop signs, reckless behavior can endanger others, and lead to higher rates of accidents or violence. If certain behaviors and actions are more likely, but not always certain to injure others, there is still a prescient need for law enforcement to be involved to prevent these reckless acts. While likely not always intentional, drug use is associated with higher rates of violence and crime, and the mechanisms in the brain which decrease self-control and increases proclivities towards crime should not be ignored. While there is a need to balance freedom and security, in my opinion recklessness can be just as immoral and dangerous, producing just as many victims, thus not being justified as a "victimless crime". Homicides make up approximately 15,000 deaths a year, however accidents make up over 160,000, over 10 times higher. [25] Nonetheless, it is for the individual to decide what their opinion's on drug legalization and decriminalization are, but hopefully these figures and data will dispel some rumors and misconceptions on drugs and crime, particularly given that it is a heated political topic.
Friday, April 10, 2020
Government and Trump's response to the COVID-19 Crisis
Government and Trump's response to the COVID-19 Crisis
Enormous amounts of misinformation persist regarding COVID-19, which as a major pandemic is bound to lead to speculation and conspiracy theories, even by mainstream outlets. Many have tried to capitalize on the issue for political gain, and so rumors abound about supposed failures or dealings. While difficult to pin them all down due to the evolving situation, several rumors or misconceptions can be put to bed. It's important to remember that the response to COVID-19 does not rest on any individual or singular person, be it Donald Trump, Doctors, or other politicians, and instead our response is a combination of the aggregate of people working together. No singular person can take responsibility for all the good and bad events that have occurred, and china is ultimately responsible for the spread by lying to the world about the disease ahead of time, and it's affiliates. Baseless partisan speculation about the issue detracts from the overall crisis and can even spread panic which may make things worse, but there are things being done to help by members of government and the general public.
Trump, many Republicans and Democrats in congress implemented travel bans and restrictions before it was accepted by many in the media and many mainstream democrats, saving lives, in a situation where Democrats likely would have not, given they specifically were against it, before the March 11th pandemic declaration by the WHO, being ahead of the curve by over a month in February 2nd. Trump and various politicians restarted and refunded a program designed to produce ventilators in July of 2019, a full 9 months before the WHO declared the circumstances a pandemic. Trump touted and promoted a number of unproven treatment options for Corona virus, which now have been accepted by many governments, including Italy, South Korea and China, despite calls to punish him as a human rights violator incredulously enough in the hague. Despite all of this, and the media downplaying the crisis, calling Trump a Xenophobe and racist for shutting down travel and trying to help with the crisis, they have now switched tunes, claiming he did not act fast enough. Luckily it is possible to call them out on this merely by pointing out their own statements, but as it has been said many times before, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can even put on it's boots. Only time will tell how much this sticks in the minds of those who believed the hype, and fell for the mass hysteria.
Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Efficacy
(Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia)
Much speculation of Hydroxychloroquine persists regarding it's efficacy of treating COVD-19 from the novel Corona virus. Some have gone so far as to block it's use after Trump recommended it, such as Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, until reversing course four days later [1], and another political individual, Congresswoman Tavia Galonksi [2], suggested Trump should be tried in the hague for human rights violation merely for mentioning it, understandably an incredible and extreme accusation. "I can’t take it anymore. I’ve been to The Hague. I’m making a referral for crimes against humanity tomorrow. Today’s press conference was the last straw. I know the need for a prosecution referral when I see one." However, despite the hysteria and desire to score political points, several governments, including China, South Korea, and Italy [1][2][3] and the U.S. government's CDC and FDA have approved it's use and shown positive results from it, giving rise to the hope that, when combined with other drugs, it would serve as an effective treatment for COVID-19 symptoms. There is no vaccine or definite cure for COVID-19 as of April 10th, however there are treatment options available which help to keep people alive and allow them to breathe better, such as ventilators to increase breathing, drugs which help clear out mucous in the lungs such as Lasix, general anti-viral drugs commonly used to treat HIV such as Kaletra, and drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine. [4] As the drug is a respiratory disease that kills by flooding lungs with fluid, any effort to improve the patient's breathing dramatically increases their survivaiblity rate from the disease, and thus options that are not even pharmaceutical drug-related, such as ventilators, have shown success in improving survivability by increasing oxygen to the individual's lungs and body. Therefore, drugs do not need to cure COVID-19 specifically, but rather keep the host alive long enough for their own immune system to fight the virus or let the virus pass through the body on it's own natural course. This is similiar to cooling down the body when it has a fever, giving pain medication to deal with secondary pain issues resulting from a disease or surgery, or using ventilators after people suffer serious lung trauma by other means (such as gunshot wounds or car accidents). It is possible to treat the symptoms of a presently incurable disease, such as HIV, to improve survivability of the patient and prevent the spread of the disease to other people without necessarily curing it or fighting the disease directly, even without drugs.
Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine has proven benefits not only in treating COVID-19, but all viruses. As a general anti-viral drug, it weakens viruses by reducing PH levels in the cell, needed for viral cell replication, and increases zinc absorption by the individual cells, thus allowing the cell to fight off the virus. A simple quote from wikipedia: "Chloroquine has antiviral effects. It increases late endosomal and lysosomal pH, resulting in impaired release of the virus from the endosome or lysosome – release of the virus requires a low pH. The virus is therefore unable to release its genetic material into the cell and replicate. Chloroquine also seems to act as a zinc ionophore, that allows extracellular zinc to enter the cell and inhibit viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase." This general anti-viral capabilities applies to virtually all viruses, including COVID-19, and thus the general anti-viral capabilities are a benefit regardless of it's specific efficacy with COVID-19. Studies specific to COVID-19 are rare and usually involve small sample sizes, but when mixed with various drugs have shown promising results. [1][2][3] "In various studies, the drug has demonstrated antiviral activity, an ability to modify the activity of the immune system, and has an established safety profile at appropriate doses, leading to the hypothesis that it may also be useful in the treatment of COVID-19." For the antiviral treatment, the doctors recommended lopinavir 400mg/ritonavir 100mg (Kaletra two tablets, twice a day) or chloroquine 500mg orally per day. Despite a hyperbolic response from the media and politicians to criminalize or punish other politicians for promoting this drug, the drug has been proven to be effective in treating COVID-19 and viruses in general, lending to it's use in treating the virus.[4]
Numerous studies have confirmed General anti-viral abilities. ""Chloroquine exerts direct antiviral effects, inhibiting pH-dependent steps of the replication of several viruses including members of the flaviviruses, retroviruses, and coronaviruses. Its best-studied effects are those against HIV replication, which are being tested in clinical trials. Moreover, chloroquine has immunomodulatory effects, suppressing the production/release of tumour necrosis factor α and interleukin 6, which mediate the inflammatory complications of several viral diseases. We review the available information on the effects of chloroquine on viral infections, raising the question of whether this old drug may experience a revival in the clinical management of viral diseases such as AIDS and severe acute respiratory syndrome, which afflict mankind in the era of globalisation."
Media reverses course on Corona virus, at first downplaying threat, then condemning others for supposedly doing the same thing
While many are prone to panic and hysteria during times of crisis understandably, many in the media have unfortunately lead to more panic given their incredibly hostile and politicized coverage of the crisis. Despite notions that Trump responded late to the Corona virus threat, he mentioned the threat as far back as 2019 in an Executive order trying to develop a vaccine for the disease as soon as it was announced to the world in September, and in the February 4th stated it in the State of the Union Address, and put travel restrictions on China on February 2nd, a move that was panned by numerous Democrat and media figures, referring to it as "Racist" and "Xenophobic". [1][2][3][4] Following this, over 45 countries also put travel restrictions on China, and various democrats, such as Joe Biden [1] (his primary political rival for president), and Nancy Pelosi, relented. The WHO, or world health organization, declared the global crisis a pandemic, on March 11th, 2020 (03/11/2020), long after action to produce ventilators, masks, and other medical equipment, and restricting travel to China (February 2nd) was implemented. [1][2]
Early before the Crisis in 2019, Trump and the Republican Administration had restarted a program to produce ventilators. After implementing the 2013 PAHPA reauthorization, Congress recognized certain federal programs, policies and procedures that needed improvement. The purpose of the 2019 PAHPAI bill was to implement these improvements, which included greater funding, specifically for the ventilator program. [1][2] In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the United States realized that the country was likely to have an epidemic of respiratory disease and would need more ventilators, so it awarded a $6 million contract to Newport Medical Instruments, a small company in California, to make 40,000 ventilators for under $3,000 apiece. In 2011, Newport sent three prototypes to the Centers for Disease Control. In 2012, Covidien, a $12 billion/year medical device manufacturer, which manufactured more expensive competing ventilators, bought Newport for $100 million. Covidien delayed and in 2014 cancelled the contract, citing budget restrictions to the program and low government support as part of their complaint. BARDA started over again with a new company, Philips, and in July 2019, the FDA approved the Philips ventilator, and the government ordered 10,000 ventilators for delivery in mid-2020. [2] As a result of Trump and Republicans renewed interest, as well as many house democrats, for the emergency program, thousands of lives have been saved. Ventilators have been in high demand to help treat corona virus, as the primary cause of death with the disease is a lack of respiration and restriction of breathing, with New York requesting nearly 30,000 respirators. As a result of this program, restarted by Trump and others a mere 6 months before the 2020 pandemic, we have been stocked with respirators, which has doubtless saved countless lives.
Medical supplies have also been sent to various states and countries. New York received 2,200 of the nearly 4,400 ventilators, a much needed respite from the disease. [1][2] Supplies were sent to Michigan despite the Governor's concern, leading to media and political retractions. [3] Trump did not tell states they were on their own, he merely told them to try and get it on their own, despite what the New York times and Daily beast out of context quote implied. "Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment—try getting it yourselves," Trump told the group of governors, according to the Times. "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Points of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself." The most expensive bill in history, the Corona Virus economic stimulus bill, worth nearly 2 trillion dollars of aid and giving every American at least 1,200 dollars, was blocked repeatedly by Nancy Pelosi and democrats, who in their words saw the relief package as a means to "restructure things to fit our vision", denying the aid Americans desperately needed in the favor of irrelevant concerns, such as climate change. [4]
Trump, many Republicans and Democrats in congress implemented travel bans and restrictions before it was accepted by many in the media and many mainstream democrats, saving lives, in a situation where Democrats likely would have not, given they specifically were against it, before the March 11th pandemic declaration by the WHO, being ahead of the curve by over a month in February 2nd. Trump and various politicians restarted and refunded a program designed to produce ventilators in July of 2019, a full 9 months before the WHO declared the circumstances a pandemic. Trump touted and promoted a number of unproven treatment options for Corona virus, which now have been accepted by many governments, including Italy, South Korea and China, despite calls to punish him as a human rights violator incredulously enough in the hague. Despite all of this, and the media downplaying the crisis, calling Trump a Xenophobe and racist for shutting down travel and trying to help with the crisis, they have now switched tunes, claiming he did not act fast enough. Luckily it is possible to call them out on this merely by pointing out their own statements, but as it has been said many times before, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can even put on it's boots. Only time will tell how much this sticks in the minds of those who believed the hype, and fell for the mass hysteria.
Enormous amounts of misinformation persist regarding COVID-19, which as a major pandemic is bound to lead to speculation and conspiracy theories, even by mainstream outlets. Many have tried to capitalize on the issue for political gain, and so rumors abound about supposed failures or dealings. While difficult to pin them all down due to the evolving situation, several rumors or misconceptions can be put to bed. It's important to remember that the response to COVID-19 does not rest on any individual or singular person, be it Donald Trump, Doctors, or other politicians, and instead our response is a combination of the aggregate of people working together. No singular person can take responsibility for all the good and bad events that have occurred, and china is ultimately responsible for the spread by lying to the world about the disease ahead of time, and it's affiliates. Baseless partisan speculation about the issue detracts from the overall crisis and can even spread panic which may make things worse, but there are things being done to help by members of government and the general public.
Trump, many Republicans and Democrats in congress implemented travel bans and restrictions before it was accepted by many in the media and many mainstream democrats, saving lives, in a situation where Democrats likely would have not, given they specifically were against it, before the March 11th pandemic declaration by the WHO, being ahead of the curve by over a month in February 2nd. Trump and various politicians restarted and refunded a program designed to produce ventilators in July of 2019, a full 9 months before the WHO declared the circumstances a pandemic. Trump touted and promoted a number of unproven treatment options for Corona virus, which now have been accepted by many governments, including Italy, South Korea and China, despite calls to punish him as a human rights violator incredulously enough in the hague. Despite all of this, and the media downplaying the crisis, calling Trump a Xenophobe and racist for shutting down travel and trying to help with the crisis, they have now switched tunes, claiming he did not act fast enough. Luckily it is possible to call them out on this merely by pointing out their own statements, but as it has been said many times before, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can even put on it's boots. Only time will tell how much this sticks in the minds of those who believed the hype, and fell for the mass hysteria.
Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Efficacy
(Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia)
Much speculation of Hydroxychloroquine persists regarding it's efficacy of treating COVD-19 from the novel Corona virus. Some have gone so far as to block it's use after Trump recommended it, such as Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, until reversing course four days later [1], and another political individual, Congresswoman Tavia Galonksi [2], suggested Trump should be tried in the hague for human rights violation merely for mentioning it, understandably an incredible and extreme accusation. "I can’t take it anymore. I’ve been to The Hague. I’m making a referral for crimes against humanity tomorrow. Today’s press conference was the last straw. I know the need for a prosecution referral when I see one." However, despite the hysteria and desire to score political points, several governments, including China, South Korea, and Italy [1][2][3] and the U.S. government's CDC and FDA have approved it's use and shown positive results from it, giving rise to the hope that, when combined with other drugs, it would serve as an effective treatment for COVID-19 symptoms. There is no vaccine or definite cure for COVID-19 as of April 10th, however there are treatment options available which help to keep people alive and allow them to breathe better, such as ventilators to increase breathing, drugs which help clear out mucous in the lungs such as Lasix, general anti-viral drugs commonly used to treat HIV such as Kaletra, and drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine. [4] As the drug is a respiratory disease that kills by flooding lungs with fluid, any effort to improve the patient's breathing dramatically increases their survivaiblity rate from the disease, and thus options that are not even pharmaceutical drug-related, such as ventilators, have shown success in improving survivability by increasing oxygen to the individual's lungs and body. Therefore, drugs do not need to cure COVID-19 specifically, but rather keep the host alive long enough for their own immune system to fight the virus or let the virus pass through the body on it's own natural course. This is similiar to cooling down the body when it has a fever, giving pain medication to deal with secondary pain issues resulting from a disease or surgery, or using ventilators after people suffer serious lung trauma by other means (such as gunshot wounds or car accidents). It is possible to treat the symptoms of a presently incurable disease, such as HIV, to improve survivability of the patient and prevent the spread of the disease to other people without necessarily curing it or fighting the disease directly, even without drugs.
Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine has proven benefits not only in treating COVID-19, but all viruses. As a general anti-viral drug, it weakens viruses by reducing PH levels in the cell, needed for viral cell replication, and increases zinc absorption by the individual cells, thus allowing the cell to fight off the virus. A simple quote from wikipedia: "Chloroquine has antiviral effects. It increases late endosomal and lysosomal pH, resulting in impaired release of the virus from the endosome or lysosome – release of the virus requires a low pH. The virus is therefore unable to release its genetic material into the cell and replicate. Chloroquine also seems to act as a zinc ionophore, that allows extracellular zinc to enter the cell and inhibit viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase." This general anti-viral capabilities applies to virtually all viruses, including COVID-19, and thus the general anti-viral capabilities are a benefit regardless of it's specific efficacy with COVID-19. Studies specific to COVID-19 are rare and usually involve small sample sizes, but when mixed with various drugs have shown promising results. [1][2][3] "In various studies, the drug has demonstrated antiviral activity, an ability to modify the activity of the immune system, and has an established safety profile at appropriate doses, leading to the hypothesis that it may also be useful in the treatment of COVID-19." For the antiviral treatment, the doctors recommended lopinavir 400mg/ritonavir 100mg (Kaletra two tablets, twice a day) or chloroquine 500mg orally per day. Despite a hyperbolic response from the media and politicians to criminalize or punish other politicians for promoting this drug, the drug has been proven to be effective in treating COVID-19 and viruses in general, lending to it's use in treating the virus.[4]
Numerous studies have confirmed General anti-viral abilities. ""Chloroquine exerts direct antiviral effects, inhibiting pH-dependent steps of the replication of several viruses including members of the flaviviruses, retroviruses, and coronaviruses. Its best-studied effects are those against HIV replication, which are being tested in clinical trials. Moreover, chloroquine has immunomodulatory effects, suppressing the production/release of tumour necrosis factor α and interleukin 6, which mediate the inflammatory complications of several viral diseases. We review the available information on the effects of chloroquine on viral infections, raising the question of whether this old drug may experience a revival in the clinical management of viral diseases such as AIDS and severe acute respiratory syndrome, which afflict mankind in the era of globalisation."
Media reverses course on Corona virus, at first downplaying threat, then condemning others for supposedly doing the same thing
While many are prone to panic and hysteria during times of crisis understandably, many in the media have unfortunately lead to more panic given their incredibly hostile and politicized coverage of the crisis. Despite notions that Trump responded late to the Corona virus threat, he mentioned the threat as far back as 2019 in an Executive order trying to develop a vaccine for the disease as soon as it was announced to the world in September, and in the February 4th stated it in the State of the Union Address, and put travel restrictions on China on February 2nd, a move that was panned by numerous Democrat and media figures, referring to it as "Racist" and "Xenophobic". [1][2][3][4] Following this, over 45 countries also put travel restrictions on China, and various democrats, such as Joe Biden [1] (his primary political rival for president), and Nancy Pelosi, relented. The WHO, or world health organization, declared the global crisis a pandemic, on March 11th, 2020 (03/11/2020), long after action to produce ventilators, masks, and other medical equipment, and restricting travel to China (February 2nd) was implemented. [1][2]
Early before the Crisis in 2019, Trump and the Republican Administration had restarted a program to produce ventilators. After implementing the 2013 PAHPA reauthorization, Congress recognized certain federal programs, policies and procedures that needed improvement. The purpose of the 2019 PAHPAI bill was to implement these improvements, which included greater funding, specifically for the ventilator program. [1][2] In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the United States realized that the country was likely to have an epidemic of respiratory disease and would need more ventilators, so it awarded a $6 million contract to Newport Medical Instruments, a small company in California, to make 40,000 ventilators for under $3,000 apiece. In 2011, Newport sent three prototypes to the Centers for Disease Control. In 2012, Covidien, a $12 billion/year medical device manufacturer, which manufactured more expensive competing ventilators, bought Newport for $100 million. Covidien delayed and in 2014 cancelled the contract, citing budget restrictions to the program and low government support as part of their complaint. BARDA started over again with a new company, Philips, and in July 2019, the FDA approved the Philips ventilator, and the government ordered 10,000 ventilators for delivery in mid-2020. [2] As a result of Trump and Republicans renewed interest, as well as many house democrats, for the emergency program, thousands of lives have been saved. Ventilators have been in high demand to help treat corona virus, as the primary cause of death with the disease is a lack of respiration and restriction of breathing, with New York requesting nearly 30,000 respirators. As a result of this program, restarted by Trump and others a mere 6 months before the 2020 pandemic, we have been stocked with respirators, which has doubtless saved countless lives.
Medical supplies have also been sent to various states and countries. New York received 2,200 of the nearly 4,400 ventilators, a much needed respite from the disease. [1][2] Supplies were sent to Michigan despite the Governor's concern, leading to media and political retractions. [3] Trump did not tell states they were on their own, he merely told them to try and get it on their own, despite what the New York times and Daily beast out of context quote implied. "Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment—try getting it yourselves," Trump told the group of governors, according to the Times. "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Points of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself." The most expensive bill in history, the Corona Virus economic stimulus bill, worth nearly 2 trillion dollars of aid and giving every American at least 1,200 dollars, was blocked repeatedly by Nancy Pelosi and democrats, who in their words saw the relief package as a means to "restructure things to fit our vision", denying the aid Americans desperately needed in the favor of irrelevant concerns, such as climate change. [4]
Trump, many Republicans and Democrats in congress implemented travel bans and restrictions before it was accepted by many in the media and many mainstream democrats, saving lives, in a situation where Democrats likely would have not, given they specifically were against it, before the March 11th pandemic declaration by the WHO, being ahead of the curve by over a month in February 2nd. Trump and various politicians restarted and refunded a program designed to produce ventilators in July of 2019, a full 9 months before the WHO declared the circumstances a pandemic. Trump touted and promoted a number of unproven treatment options for Corona virus, which now have been accepted by many governments, including Italy, South Korea and China, despite calls to punish him as a human rights violator incredulously enough in the hague. Despite all of this, and the media downplaying the crisis, calling Trump a Xenophobe and racist for shutting down travel and trying to help with the crisis, they have now switched tunes, claiming he did not act fast enough. Luckily it is possible to call them out on this merely by pointing out their own statements, but as it has been said many times before, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can even put on it's boots. Only time will tell how much this sticks in the minds of those who believed the hype, and fell for the mass hysteria.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Mueller did not say that Trump was immune from prosecution just by being president, he said the opposite
Mueller did not say that Trump was immune from prosecution just by being president, he said the opposite, in fact, it says he explicitly was not found to have committed any crimes at all
Link to the Mueller Report, Quotes:
Page 220: "Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers." [...]""Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."
Page 2: "We applied the term coordination that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."
Page 220: "Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in Obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Page 9: "Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."
Page 180: "The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section' 371's offense clause. The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371's defraud clause. "
Page 183: "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated with the Trump Campaign acted as an agent of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA, or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the government of Russia, or any official thereof. "
Page 185: "The Office considered whether to charge Trump campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV. A.5, supra. The office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof issues on intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficult of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction."
Page 9: "Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen leaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project."
Page 33-35: "The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump campaign. First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump campaign promoted- typically by linking, retweeting, or similiar methods of reposting- pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States." [...] "The investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals."
Page 69: "Cohen was the only Trump Organization representative to negotiate directly with I.C. Expert or it's agents "
Page 70, proof trump declined to work with the Russian government: "In a second email to Cohen sent the same day, Rtskhiladze provided a translation of the letter, which described the Trump Moscow project as a "symbol of stronger economic, business, and cultural relationships between New York and Moscow and therefore the United States and the Russian Federation. On september 27, 2015, Rtskhiladze sent another email to Cohen, proposing that the Trump organization partner on the Trump Moscow project with "Global development group LLC", which he described as being controlled by Michail Posikhin, a Russian architect, and Simon Nizharadze. Cohen told the Office that he ultimately declined the proposal and instead continued to work with I.C. Expert, the company represented by Felix Sater."
Page 101: "The Mueller report firmly establishes there was no connection between Trump and the Russian government. There are claims made that many of the individuals within the campaign had connections to Russia, but that none were criminal in nature, at all, and not just related to a single specific crime."
Cohen was specifically charged with crimes with lying about the supposed "Moscow Tower" meeting on multiple occasions. Finally, the mueller report does state that the president can be charged with a crime, but says they failed to find enough evidence to do so. It's not that complicated, it's actually pretty cut and dry.
Issues with Mueller Report
The support was not just for Trump, Page 31-32: "For example, the IRA targeted the family of [Redacted], and an umber of black social justice activists while posing as a grassroots group called "Black Matters US".
While it is clear that the Mueller report did not establish ANY criminal connection to the and did not say the president was immune from prosecution so this is why they didn't prosecute, there are things in the Mueller report that seem false or intentionally misleading. The most obvious is the report of Michael Flynn who supposedly lied to the FBI, a charge which has thus far been dropped by the DOJ after it was discovered FBI agents intended to catch him int a perjury trap to get him fired, and make and off-the-books deal for him to confess to a crime he didn't commit in order to save his son from prosecution. This is evidence that was revealed after the Mueller report, and thus was probably believed to be true by Mueller and the authors of the report at the time, despite later proven to be false.
Another similar charge is that the Russian disinformation was clearly designed to help trump and hurt Hillary. However, after the facebook advertisements were revealed to the public, many were shown to be explicitly anti-Trump, including holding rallies to protest Trump, supporting Black-lives-matter, an explicitly Anti-Trump organization, and supporting Hillary by suggesting she would be pro-muslim. As these advertisements were declassified, Of these nearly 4000 emails and advertisements, roughly 100 dealt with either candidate, and they were both positive AND critical of both candidates, far from the argument that the Russians supported Trump over Hillary. In fact, it shows the Russians were most likely just trying to sew chaos. It's clear that only a heavily biased interpretation of this evidence would reveal the group, was was "one-step removed" from the Russian government and not even the Russian government, was deliberately pro-Trump.
Link to the Mueller Report, Quotes:
Page 220: "Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers." [...]""Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."
Page 2: "We applied the term coordination that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."
Page 220: "Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in Obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Page 9: "Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."
Page 180: "The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section' 371's offense clause. The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371's defraud clause. "
Page 183: "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated with the Trump Campaign acted as an agent of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA, or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the government of Russia, or any official thereof. "
Page 185: "The Office considered whether to charge Trump campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV. A.5, supra. The office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof issues on intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficult of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction."
Page 9: "Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen leaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project."
Page 33-35: "The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump campaign. First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump campaign promoted- typically by linking, retweeting, or similiar methods of reposting- pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States." [...] "The investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals."
Page 69: "Cohen was the only Trump Organization representative to negotiate directly with I.C. Expert or it's agents "
Page 70, proof trump declined to work with the Russian government: "In a second email to Cohen sent the same day, Rtskhiladze provided a translation of the letter, which described the Trump Moscow project as a "symbol of stronger economic, business, and cultural relationships between New York and Moscow and therefore the United States and the Russian Federation. On september 27, 2015, Rtskhiladze sent another email to Cohen, proposing that the Trump organization partner on the Trump Moscow project with "Global development group LLC", which he described as being controlled by Michail Posikhin, a Russian architect, and Simon Nizharadze. Cohen told the Office that he ultimately declined the proposal and instead continued to work with I.C. Expert, the company represented by Felix Sater."
Page 101: "The Mueller report firmly establishes there was no connection between Trump and the Russian government. There are claims made that many of the individuals within the campaign had connections to Russia, but that none were criminal in nature, at all, and not just related to a single specific crime."
Cohen was specifically charged with crimes with lying about the supposed "Moscow Tower" meeting on multiple occasions. Finally, the mueller report does state that the president can be charged with a crime, but says they failed to find enough evidence to do so. It's not that complicated, it's actually pretty cut and dry.
Issues with Mueller Report
The support was not just for Trump, Page 31-32: "For example, the IRA targeted the family of [Redacted], and an umber of black social justice activists while posing as a grassroots group called "Black Matters US".
While it is clear that the Mueller report did not establish ANY criminal connection to the and did not say the president was immune from prosecution so this is why they didn't prosecute, there are things in the Mueller report that seem false or intentionally misleading. The most obvious is the report of Michael Flynn who supposedly lied to the FBI, a charge which has thus far been dropped by the DOJ after it was discovered FBI agents intended to catch him int a perjury trap to get him fired, and make and off-the-books deal for him to confess to a crime he didn't commit in order to save his son from prosecution. This is evidence that was revealed after the Mueller report, and thus was probably believed to be true by Mueller and the authors of the report at the time, despite later proven to be false.
Another similar charge is that the Russian disinformation was clearly designed to help trump and hurt Hillary. However, after the facebook advertisements were revealed to the public, many were shown to be explicitly anti-Trump, including holding rallies to protest Trump, supporting Black-lives-matter, an explicitly Anti-Trump organization, and supporting Hillary by suggesting she would be pro-muslim. As these advertisements were declassified, Of these nearly 4000 emails and advertisements, roughly 100 dealt with either candidate, and they were both positive AND critical of both candidates, far from the argument that the Russians supported Trump over Hillary. In fact, it shows the Russians were most likely just trying to sew chaos. It's clear that only a heavily biased interpretation of this evidence would reveal the group, was was "one-step removed" from the Russian government and not even the Russian government, was deliberately pro-Trump.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Debunking Various Myths about the Middle east wars (condensed)
1. WMD's Were Found in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Nonetheless, in response to a question from committee member Curt Weldon, Col. Chui agreed that the munitions met the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention and yes, sir, they do constitute weapons of mass destruction."" [1][2][3]
2. The oil is going to France and China, and american oil companies would have lost money if foreign competition was opened up, this is a basic law of supply and demand, to not want more competition. So not only did the U.S. not do this, but it wouldn't make logical sense. [1][2][3]
3. Iraq was not horribly destabilized by the U.S. intervention, and the war itself was not started by the U.S.
4. The U.S. did not kill hundreds of thousands of people, Saddam did.
5. Iraq's weapons predominately came from the soviet union. With the ak-47 being the most prolific gun in the world, next to other soviet or soviet-replica weapons such as the PKM, RPG-7, T-72 tank and so on, it should be rather obvious that the U.S. did not arm them or most entities. The cartels, terrorists and most dictatorships all use the Ak-47, with over 100 million in the world.
6. Iraq was Socialist, known as Ba'thist socialist, or literally "Arab National Socialist", or Arab Nazi. Created with the assistance of the Nazi's in the 1940's, the concept of pure Aryan, Persian descedence is still common in the middle east, including Syria and Libya, as is hating the jews.
7. Invasion caused ISIS to form
8. Perhaps the most hilarious argument is the idea that the war somehow was bad for the economy. Despite war historically almost always being good for the economy, and liberals making the dual argument that the war was for money and to make money, they also claim it was simultaneously good at making money but bad for the economy. While one could come up with no less than 1000 forms of mental gymnastics to try and prove this point, the objective reality is that it is false. Two factors must be weighed, initially, the cost of the conflict, and secondly the
9. Despite the notion that drones killed thousands of civilians, their design from the beginning was actually to reduce civilian casualties. Using the smallest plane with the smallest missile that removed as much human error as possible, via an unpiloted aircraft, the Drones have thus far had a civilian death rate of approximately 1% or less, with around 17 civilians killed out of 2000 strikes. While all civilian deaths are bad, it's better to reduce civilian casualties in any conflict, thus making such an endeavor useful. The media's incredibly misleading argument, such as Salon, the Guardian and others who claim 38 high-value targets being killed means the remaining 98% were civilians, is patently absurd, as these represent figures that were merely known about beforehand. By the very argument of these sources, the argument is that the 98% figure "must be" all civilians, despite them simply being those who were not terrorist leaders, merely terrorist subordinates. This disgusting and flagrantly misleading lie has lead many to want to discontinue the drone program, despite objectively saving civilian lives and being less deadly than other alternatives, such as using 3000 pound cruise missiles over 30 pound gryphon missiles which only kill a few people at a time.
10. Most of the world's dictatorships in the last 100 years were socialist or communist, be them the Nazis who were national socialist, the Communists and so on. Of these, the majority were assisted by the communists, usually in their direct creation, although, the Nazis and Italian fascists formed on their own, despite being allies and starting WWII in 1939 via the invasion of Poland. The U.S.S.R. stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the original party of the Bolsheviks, who would later take over Russia and form the Soviet union, were the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). The communists view themselves as a form of socialism, and believe that true Communism is essentially the spread of global socialism, and thus support socialist movements, as communism is a form of socialism, and view communism as the end state of socialism, eventually leading to global socialism, as compared to national socialism, such as with the Nazis or Italian Fascists. Most of the middle eastern dictatorships, be it Syria, Iraq, Libyia, Iran or others were formed with the direct assistance from Moscow, and the same can be said of most South American dictatorships, be it Venezuela, Argentina and so on. Be it their ideology, weapons, equipment, or primary source of funding, these overwhelmingly were not created by the U.S. Contrary to the idea most of the world's problem stems from the U.S. attempts to stop the communists, the simple reality is it of course, was the communists spreading socialist viewpoints over the world that lead to the rish of these dictatorships. While some will argue about the true nature of them being "socialist" or not, a seemingly always evolving, amorphous concept, the simple fact of the matter is it was promoted by the side of self proclaimed socialists, and they at least shared the same names and resources. It's difficult then to suggest the U.S. created all the problems by the very enemies we have fought for decades. The U.S. fought the rise of communism in Vietnam, in Cuba, in Iran, and so on, as well as socialism in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. The central argument that is the basis of the entire anti-war sentiment largely comes from the largely incorrect notion that the U.S. somehow created all of these evil entities, instead of the Soviet Union, who supplied them directly with weapons and funding.
2. The oil is going to France and China, and american oil companies would have lost money if foreign competition was opened up, this is a basic law of supply and demand, to not want more competition. So not only did the U.S. not do this, but it wouldn't make logical sense. [1][2][3]
3. Iraq was not horribly destabilized by the U.S. intervention, and the war itself was not started by the U.S.
4. The U.S. did not kill hundreds of thousands of people, Saddam did.
5. Iraq's weapons predominately came from the soviet union. With the ak-47 being the most prolific gun in the world, next to other soviet or soviet-replica weapons such as the PKM, RPG-7, T-72 tank and so on, it should be rather obvious that the U.S. did not arm them or most entities. The cartels, terrorists and most dictatorships all use the Ak-47, with over 100 million in the world.
6. Iraq was Socialist, known as Ba'thist socialist, or literally "Arab National Socialist", or Arab Nazi. Created with the assistance of the Nazi's in the 1940's, the concept of pure Aryan, Persian descedence is still common in the middle east, including Syria and Libya, as is hating the jews.
7. Invasion caused ISIS to form
8. Perhaps the most hilarious argument is the idea that the war somehow was bad for the economy. Despite war historically almost always being good for the economy, and liberals making the dual argument that the war was for money and to make money, they also claim it was simultaneously good at making money but bad for the economy. While one could come up with no less than 1000 forms of mental gymnastics to try and prove this point, the objective reality is that it is false. Two factors must be weighed, initially, the cost of the conflict, and secondly the
9. Despite the notion that drones killed thousands of civilians, their design from the beginning was actually to reduce civilian casualties. Using the smallest plane with the smallest missile that removed as much human error as possible, via an unpiloted aircraft, the Drones have thus far had a civilian death rate of approximately 1% or less, with around 17 civilians killed out of 2000 strikes. While all civilian deaths are bad, it's better to reduce civilian casualties in any conflict, thus making such an endeavor useful. The media's incredibly misleading argument, such as Salon, the Guardian and others who claim 38 high-value targets being killed means the remaining 98% were civilians, is patently absurd, as these represent figures that were merely known about beforehand. By the very argument of these sources, the argument is that the 98% figure "must be" all civilians, despite them simply being those who were not terrorist leaders, merely terrorist subordinates. This disgusting and flagrantly misleading lie has lead many to want to discontinue the drone program, despite objectively saving civilian lives and being less deadly than other alternatives, such as using 3000 pound cruise missiles over 30 pound gryphon missiles which only kill a few people at a time.
10. Most of the world's dictatorships in the last 100 years were socialist or communist, be them the Nazis who were national socialist, the Communists and so on. Of these, the majority were assisted by the communists, usually in their direct creation, although, the Nazis and Italian fascists formed on their own, despite being allies and starting WWII in 1939 via the invasion of Poland. The U.S.S.R. stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the original party of the Bolsheviks, who would later take over Russia and form the Soviet union, were the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). The communists view themselves as a form of socialism, and believe that true Communism is essentially the spread of global socialism, and thus support socialist movements, as communism is a form of socialism, and view communism as the end state of socialism, eventually leading to global socialism, as compared to national socialism, such as with the Nazis or Italian Fascists. Most of the middle eastern dictatorships, be it Syria, Iraq, Libyia, Iran or others were formed with the direct assistance from Moscow, and the same can be said of most South American dictatorships, be it Venezuela, Argentina and so on. Be it their ideology, weapons, equipment, or primary source of funding, these overwhelmingly were not created by the U.S. Contrary to the idea most of the world's problem stems from the U.S. attempts to stop the communists, the simple reality is it of course, was the communists spreading socialist viewpoints over the world that lead to the rish of these dictatorships. While some will argue about the true nature of them being "socialist" or not, a seemingly always evolving, amorphous concept, the simple fact of the matter is it was promoted by the side of self proclaimed socialists, and they at least shared the same names and resources. It's difficult then to suggest the U.S. created all the problems by the very enemies we have fought for decades. The U.S. fought the rise of communism in Vietnam, in Cuba, in Iran, and so on, as well as socialism in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. The central argument that is the basis of the entire anti-war sentiment largely comes from the largely incorrect notion that the U.S. somehow created all of these evil entities, instead of the Soviet Union, who supplied them directly with weapons and funding.
Friday, May 24, 2019
The insane amount of debt Europe is in
The insane amount of debt Europe is in
Luxembourg has nearly 7 million dollars in debt per citizen, which is 6300% of their GDP. The Netherlands has 265,000 dollars in debt per person, at around 522% of their GDP. The UK has 127,000 dollars in debt per person, which is 313% of their GDP. Greece is 240%, Belgium 265%, Switzerland 269%, France 213%, Finland 196%, and so on and so forth. The U.S., which by comparison is in the most debt it's even been in which has been considered a significant problem, has 115% of their GDP in debt per citizen, or around 60,000 per person. This is the amount of external debt owed to other countries and entities outside the country, and Public debt similarly is very high in these countries as well. In these EU country's, in seems many are in extraordinary amounts of debt, so much so they can never pay it off. Iceland recently had it's debt forgiven, but it was 11 times it's GDP, and many of these countries never seem to have recovered. This amount of debt is owed to various banks around the world, and as it's in the trillions of dollars, unlike the country of iceland which has 1/1000th the population of the U.S., the debt can't be forgiven without crashing the world market. So eventually, things will get so bad the debt is going to be forced to be repaid, or they will stop loaning to these countries all together, and hyper inflation is effectively inevitable, just like with the germans after WWI.
Not surprisingly a lot of these countries have a high standard of living, but this can't last forever; eventually, someone will expect the debt to be repaid, or hyper inflation will set in, and the economy of these countries will collapse. Whether you like the banks or not, the economy is dependent on them, and thus if they collapse, so does the whole economy so goes people's entire life savings. Europe has been stretched for over a decade now, and only seems to have recovered from the last financial collapse by getting in to insane amounts of debt. If they can't pay it back or it's forgiven, massive economic problems will set in, and Europe will quickly destabilize as the bubble pops. And what then?
I personally believe Europe is headed towards a major financial collapse, which they will blame on a lot of things, but in reality it's just overextending themselves and getting themselves in to insane amounts of debt. I don't think this is sustainable, and even if the economy doesn't collapse and even if hyper inflation doesn't set in, their standard of living will drop when they can't borrow endless amounts of money. Eventually banks will realize that helping the ultra rich get more rich isn't a good idea and will start giving money to countries like in Africa, or those that really need it, and Europe's way of life will be doomed. And what then? I don't see this being talked about by anyone ,but I predict Europe is destined to collapse in the next several years, probably less than a decade. And before someone tries to say there is a difference between public and private debt or you can be in large amounts of debt and pay it off with a growing economy, I know all that. This is external debt specifically, which means what they owe to other entities and not just themselves. This is untenable though, as they either borrow from other programs and eventually watch all their social programs collapse, and thus their standard of living, or their economy will continue to sink and it will be a moot point. For example the average GDP of most European countries has gone down in the last 10 years quite considerably. While the U.S. and UK used to have the same GDP per capita, in 10 years the UK has gone from 50,000 to about 40,000, and the U.S. from 50,000 to 60,000, giving us 50% more money than the UK. Norway has dropped from about 100,000 per citizen to 75,000 per citizen. In comparison to the dollar, the Euro has dropped in value by roughly 40%, which is quite a bit of inflation to have. Countries like Spain, Italy and France have seen a drop in GDP, while the U.S. and various other countries are improving. Except for a slight boost in the last 2 years, the economy of Europe seems to be falling, all the while they are racking up debt they can't possibly pay back, worth several times their entire economies. Something is about to give, and it likely is not going to be pretty for Europe.
Friday, May 17, 2019
The four key problems with solar panels
The four key problems with solar panels
There are four key problems with solar panels, the first being efficiency, the second being labor requirements, the third being price, and the fourth being the variability of the weather. The most obviously problematic of them all, which all sides seem to agree on, is the massive labor requirements. Solar panels require approximately 79 times the labor as coal to function correctly; as solar panels currently only produce 1.32% of our nation's power as of 2016 [2], but utilize 374,000 workers [3], in comparison to fossil fuels like coal and gas at 62% of our electricity and 1.1 million workers, and nuclear power which produces approximately 20% of our power and 120,000 workers. To replace coal, nuclear power and all other forms of electricity you'd need 75 times the amount of solar power generation, and accordingly 374,000 x 75 times the workers, or 28 million people. This would require approximately 10% of our population to work on solar power generation, which is an impossibly high amount of salary costs and labor input to functionally work for our society, and that's before getting in to trying to replace gasoline and other sources of power like natural gas for heating or cooking that is also present, that could easily double this requirement. As electricity only makes up approximately one third of energy consumption, when other forms of energy are considered (gasoline for cars, natural gas for heating etc.), it could possibly take up to 30% of our country becoming solar panel workers to completely replace all energy production with solar panels. It's just not practical to expect people to abandon their jobs and learn how to become a solar worker in these volumes, or pay for it, let alone for something with so little real world benefit, being more expensive and polluting as much.
Fundamentally beyond this, is energy efficiency, as the problem with solar panels being posited as "clean" energy is they're not particularly efficient or clean. Solar panels obviously do not come from thin air, and it's not just a matter of money or cost to create them. It takes an enormous amount of electricity produce solar panels, requiring the electrocution of sand at the right stages in order to turn it in to glass, with the same high energy requirements for producing their batteries. The solar panel industry consumes large amounts of electricity in the aggregate for solar panels to be created, and industry as a whole barely produces more electricity than it creates. Only recently has the industry surpassed the bench mark of producing more energy than it consumes, as of 2014, and this is largely due to superior placement of solar panels (in sunnier areas), and the use of more expensive materials. Regardless, this means that, if we were for instance to burn all the world's coal to create solar panels, we might get slightly more energy out after 30 years than we put in to it, or 10-20% more energy, which wouldn't be enough to justify the cost, labor requirements, weather variability and other problems. If we used nuclear power or another clean source of energy to create solar panels, we would be better off using this clean source of power to power society than dramatically increase the price and labor for a less efficient weather dependent system. This efficiency is set to improve in the future, largely due to better placement of solar panels (I.E. placing them in sunny areas), but nonetheless as a whole it still barely produces more than it consumes. We would first need a source of clean, abundant energy to reliably make solar panels, such as uranium in CANDU reactors, which if we had that, our problems would already be over. The added expense and difficulty of creating solar panels to gain slight bit of extra power during the summer likely is not worth it. Solar panels at their current levels of efficiency also cannot create more of themselves, or are not self-sufficient, as they'd have to produce twice as much as they consumed to be able to do that, that is to have enough power both to run society and make more solar panels, and even at this level it would not compensate for problems like very little sunlight during the winter and lots of sunlight during the summer.
Solar panels also have extreme weather variability issues, such as failing to work when there is little sunlight, like during major storms or other dark periods. When it rains or is foggy for long periods of time, or if there is hail or strong winds which might damage solar panels, solar panels cannot work. Snow, rain, hail, and other such things can disrupt the use of solar panels, as can simple things like winter. During the winter, sunlight is limited, and so the use of solar panels is more limited and ultimately less effective. A solar panel with a high solar efficiency, sufficient to power society at an "average daily solar output rate" on paper, is not enough in reality, as during the winter there would be less sunlight than the "daily average", and thus there is an intrinsic need for more solar panels. So, for a society to be able to use solar panels, they would need to reach a certain minimum to compensate for the winter and other dark periods. During the winter, you might need 2-3 times as many solar panels as you'd need during normal times, and thus would necessitate over twice as many solar panels than one would ordinarily need during an "average" day. As there is no consistent daily solar output, we would need to produce more solar panels than are needed on the "average day", meaning that even if we got to the perfect level of efficiency we needed based on average solar daily levels, we'd actually need more than twice as many solar panels to compensate during the winter. An example of such a problem is in Germany, who when attempting to power an entire city and large volumes of their country with solar panels, found they produced far too little power in the winter, but produced far more than they needed in the summer. [4][5][6] This german city found it almost impossible to power their city on pure solar panels, and found massive power surpluses during the summer and shortages during the winter; even if we wanted to build enough for winter, the amount of solar panels needed would be 3 times or more than what is normally necessary, so solar panels at best can augment existing power systems and not be a total replacement for them.
Batteries, which are needed for solar panels and, also electric cars, largely have their costs come from the price of electricity, so with higher electricity costs comes more expensive electric cars. But solar panels are not cheap regardless. They tend to be far more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear power, although the price varies given location (places with more sunlight generate more solar power), subsidies, if power storage is present (such as batteries), and the type of solar power generation process. Solar panel prices vary considerably, and information about the real price of solar panels is often diluted because of this; for example, roof installation solar panels cost approximately 253 dollars per mw/h, while the cheapest variant of solar panels cost 49.5 per mw/h, and coal can cost 101.5 dollars per megawatt hour. However, solar panels are often subsidized and are only useful if storage mechanisms are present, therefore being responsible for the low cost of a very specific and particular form of solar power. Cheap solar panels are not protected against hail or other weather problems, and often are not efficient enough to produce more energy than they consume. Even if the cheapest form of solar power is chosen, it still invariably will likely prove to be problematic in some other way. Government subsidies *might* make it cheap enough for your average citizen to uses, but this cost is still paid by society, making the benefit essentially irrelevant, and only conceals the problem. For technology industries that consume high levels of electricity and who's prices are based on electricity prices, such as carbon fiber plants or computer manufacturers, solar would unnecessarily hemorrhage their profits and cause costs to sky rocket for these products. Government subsidies for coal or uranium might pay for relatively small start up costs, but do not pay for their entire operation, where as solar subsidies tend to pay for virtually the entire cost of solar power. Even so it's still proven to be fairly expensive, and this does not solve the problem to society itself; we still end up paying for higher electricity even if it's through a tax increase. Trading paying a company 4000 a year to trading the government 4000 a year does not change the costs requirements. Furthermore, it would be insufficient for large businesses who rely on electricity and consume the majority of our electricity, and bare in mind this massive increase in cost comes with massive labor requirements, variability in bad weather, and an only slightly mild increase in total energy output. In the end, solar panels are not a replacement for a decent clean, cheap energy source, like uranium or thorium. Comparatively, uranium could be as much as 6-8 times cheaper than coal, which would mean a technological revolution in this country allowing us to produce cheap technological goods and probably outsell china, making it the ideal choice.
Most Nuclear costs come from interest paid to banks on loans (70%) and insurance costs, two costs which can be easily eliminated through low interest loans and government provisions for any damage potentially caused by nuclear power. Rather than paying insurance companies enormous amounts of money on the potential of a total nuclear melt down, an event that has never occurred within the U.S., one could simply in the rare event shift the burden on to the government, and have the government provide low or no-interest loans for the start up cost, also ignoring the potential risk associated with nuclear. While the chance of a nuclear melt down is already low with American plants, with no serious melt down in U.S. history (with a few partial melt downs), and a melt down not leading to an explosion like in Chernobyl which was a steam explosion and not a nuclear bomb going off, CANDU reactors are incapable of having a melt down, and the coolant system itself would automatically shut down the chance of a nuclear reaction. Using .7% to 1.2% U235 uranium, the low volume of U-235 uraniumn makes a melt down impossible, as it's close to what is found in nature (which obviously isn't exploding at this moment). CANDU reactors are already 60% of the price of ordinary uranium reactors, so it is possible for the price to drop further. Other than the extremely low carbon emissions, it is also has the potential to be much cheaper and would be necessarily to make solar panels in any case. In short, there are better, more effective power sources available, and solar panels have proven to be hideously inefficient.
There are four key problems with solar panels, the first being efficiency, the second being labor requirements, the third being price, and the fourth being the variability of the weather. The most obviously problematic of them all, which all sides seem to agree on, is the massive labor requirements. Solar panels require approximately 79 times the labor as coal to function correctly; as solar panels currently only produce 1.32% of our nation's power as of 2016 [2], but utilize 374,000 workers [3], in comparison to fossil fuels like coal and gas at 62% of our electricity and 1.1 million workers, and nuclear power which produces approximately 20% of our power and 120,000 workers. To replace coal, nuclear power and all other forms of electricity you'd need 75 times the amount of solar power generation, and accordingly 374,000 x 75 times the workers, or 28 million people. This would require approximately 10% of our population to work on solar power generation, which is an impossibly high amount of salary costs and labor input to functionally work for our society, and that's before getting in to trying to replace gasoline and other sources of power like natural gas for heating or cooking that is also present, that could easily double this requirement. As electricity only makes up approximately one third of energy consumption, when other forms of energy are considered (gasoline for cars, natural gas for heating etc.), it could possibly take up to 30% of our country becoming solar panel workers to completely replace all energy production with solar panels. It's just not practical to expect people to abandon their jobs and learn how to become a solar worker in these volumes, or pay for it, let alone for something with so little real world benefit, being more expensive and polluting as much.
Fundamentally beyond this, is energy efficiency, as the problem with solar panels being posited as "clean" energy is they're not particularly efficient or clean. Solar panels obviously do not come from thin air, and it's not just a matter of money or cost to create them. It takes an enormous amount of electricity produce solar panels, requiring the electrocution of sand at the right stages in order to turn it in to glass, with the same high energy requirements for producing their batteries. The solar panel industry consumes large amounts of electricity in the aggregate for solar panels to be created, and industry as a whole barely produces more electricity than it creates. Only recently has the industry surpassed the bench mark of producing more energy than it consumes, as of 2014, and this is largely due to superior placement of solar panels (in sunnier areas), and the use of more expensive materials. Regardless, this means that, if we were for instance to burn all the world's coal to create solar panels, we might get slightly more energy out after 30 years than we put in to it, or 10-20% more energy, which wouldn't be enough to justify the cost, labor requirements, weather variability and other problems. If we used nuclear power or another clean source of energy to create solar panels, we would be better off using this clean source of power to power society than dramatically increase the price and labor for a less efficient weather dependent system. This efficiency is set to improve in the future, largely due to better placement of solar panels (I.E. placing them in sunny areas), but nonetheless as a whole it still barely produces more than it consumes. We would first need a source of clean, abundant energy to reliably make solar panels, such as uranium in CANDU reactors, which if we had that, our problems would already be over. The added expense and difficulty of creating solar panels to gain slight bit of extra power during the summer likely is not worth it. Solar panels at their current levels of efficiency also cannot create more of themselves, or are not self-sufficient, as they'd have to produce twice as much as they consumed to be able to do that, that is to have enough power both to run society and make more solar panels, and even at this level it would not compensate for problems like very little sunlight during the winter and lots of sunlight during the summer.
Solar panels also have extreme weather variability issues, such as failing to work when there is little sunlight, like during major storms or other dark periods. When it rains or is foggy for long periods of time, or if there is hail or strong winds which might damage solar panels, solar panels cannot work. Snow, rain, hail, and other such things can disrupt the use of solar panels, as can simple things like winter. During the winter, sunlight is limited, and so the use of solar panels is more limited and ultimately less effective. A solar panel with a high solar efficiency, sufficient to power society at an "average daily solar output rate" on paper, is not enough in reality, as during the winter there would be less sunlight than the "daily average", and thus there is an intrinsic need for more solar panels. So, for a society to be able to use solar panels, they would need to reach a certain minimum to compensate for the winter and other dark periods. During the winter, you might need 2-3 times as many solar panels as you'd need during normal times, and thus would necessitate over twice as many solar panels than one would ordinarily need during an "average" day. As there is no consistent daily solar output, we would need to produce more solar panels than are needed on the "average day", meaning that even if we got to the perfect level of efficiency we needed based on average solar daily levels, we'd actually need more than twice as many solar panels to compensate during the winter. An example of such a problem is in Germany, who when attempting to power an entire city and large volumes of their country with solar panels, found they produced far too little power in the winter, but produced far more than they needed in the summer. [4][5][6] This german city found it almost impossible to power their city on pure solar panels, and found massive power surpluses during the summer and shortages during the winter; even if we wanted to build enough for winter, the amount of solar panels needed would be 3 times or more than what is normally necessary, so solar panels at best can augment existing power systems and not be a total replacement for them.
Batteries, which are needed for solar panels and, also electric cars, largely have their costs come from the price of electricity, so with higher electricity costs comes more expensive electric cars. But solar panels are not cheap regardless. They tend to be far more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear power, although the price varies given location (places with more sunlight generate more solar power), subsidies, if power storage is present (such as batteries), and the type of solar power generation process. Solar panel prices vary considerably, and information about the real price of solar panels is often diluted because of this; for example, roof installation solar panels cost approximately 253 dollars per mw/h, while the cheapest variant of solar panels cost 49.5 per mw/h, and coal can cost 101.5 dollars per megawatt hour. However, solar panels are often subsidized and are only useful if storage mechanisms are present, therefore being responsible for the low cost of a very specific and particular form of solar power. Cheap solar panels are not protected against hail or other weather problems, and often are not efficient enough to produce more energy than they consume. Even if the cheapest form of solar power is chosen, it still invariably will likely prove to be problematic in some other way. Government subsidies *might* make it cheap enough for your average citizen to uses, but this cost is still paid by society, making the benefit essentially irrelevant, and only conceals the problem. For technology industries that consume high levels of electricity and who's prices are based on electricity prices, such as carbon fiber plants or computer manufacturers, solar would unnecessarily hemorrhage their profits and cause costs to sky rocket for these products. Government subsidies for coal or uranium might pay for relatively small start up costs, but do not pay for their entire operation, where as solar subsidies tend to pay for virtually the entire cost of solar power. Even so it's still proven to be fairly expensive, and this does not solve the problem to society itself; we still end up paying for higher electricity even if it's through a tax increase. Trading paying a company 4000 a year to trading the government 4000 a year does not change the costs requirements. Furthermore, it would be insufficient for large businesses who rely on electricity and consume the majority of our electricity, and bare in mind this massive increase in cost comes with massive labor requirements, variability in bad weather, and an only slightly mild increase in total energy output. In the end, solar panels are not a replacement for a decent clean, cheap energy source, like uranium or thorium. Comparatively, uranium could be as much as 6-8 times cheaper than coal, which would mean a technological revolution in this country allowing us to produce cheap technological goods and probably outsell china, making it the ideal choice.
Most Nuclear costs come from interest paid to banks on loans (70%) and insurance costs, two costs which can be easily eliminated through low interest loans and government provisions for any damage potentially caused by nuclear power. Rather than paying insurance companies enormous amounts of money on the potential of a total nuclear melt down, an event that has never occurred within the U.S., one could simply in the rare event shift the burden on to the government, and have the government provide low or no-interest loans for the start up cost, also ignoring the potential risk associated with nuclear. While the chance of a nuclear melt down is already low with American plants, with no serious melt down in U.S. history (with a few partial melt downs), and a melt down not leading to an explosion like in Chernobyl which was a steam explosion and not a nuclear bomb going off, CANDU reactors are incapable of having a melt down, and the coolant system itself would automatically shut down the chance of a nuclear reaction. Using .7% to 1.2% U235 uranium, the low volume of U-235 uraniumn makes a melt down impossible, as it's close to what is found in nature (which obviously isn't exploding at this moment). CANDU reactors are already 60% of the price of ordinary uranium reactors, so it is possible for the price to drop further. Other than the extremely low carbon emissions, it is also has the potential to be much cheaper and would be necessarily to make solar panels in any case. In short, there are better, more effective power sources available, and solar panels have proven to be hideously inefficient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)