Global Economic Inequality and Climate Policy

Sometime in the 1970s there began a growing movement for global economic redistribution. These discussions were primarily held in the fields of sociology and political science. Prior to the industrial revolution there was little national economic inequality which is to say that all countries were relatively poor. The industrial revolution changed this and shifted both national wealth and wealth within western and other industrial countries. After World War II, the United States became the manufacturer of the world and the wealth of the United States outstripped that of the rest of the world.

For a more in depth discussion of the issue, I recommend you read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Global Justice. This philosophy was closely tied to the belief that wealth should be more evenly shared across the world and this means having international laws and treaties that would promote the shifting of wealth from wealthy nations to poor nations. In many ways this theory led to the philosophical belief in the importance of "Globalism".

Consider which countries have benefited the most from globalism and when it began and accelerated. After the fall of the Soviet Union manufacturing was primarily shifted from the west to China and India. What do China and India have in common, they had the highest populations in the world. What they also had in common was high poverty. By sending manufacturing to these counties, we effectively were involved in global economic redistribution. This shift had an economic advantage for the wealthy within the west which was that they were able to reduce labor costs, reduce the cost of providing employees with benefits, avoiding environmental requirements, avoiding taxes and reducing the wealth and influence of the middle class in the west. The stated justification for outsourcing jobs overseas was that labor costs were cheaper and the other issues were not addressed. If our leaders said in public what they say in private, the middle class would not have accepted these changes.

As manufacturing was moved to China and India, people in the Midwest who lost their jobs began to get upset. They began fighting against outsourcing and a new explanation emerged for why people in the west had to lower their standard of living, global warming and the need for people in the west to "lower their carbon footprint". The culprit we were told was the burning of fossil fuels and the problem was claimed to be so bad that we needed international agreements to solve it. Agreements that are not voted on by the citizens of the countries that were making these wealth transfers.

The solution we are told is that all countries commit to the Paris Climate Accord. Under the accord nations set their own limits and they are not legally bound to meet retaining the right to change them. Under the agreement China will continue to expand it use of coal burning power plants until 2030, doubling the number of coal burning plants in the meantime. You might ask if CO2 is such a threat then why is China increasing it's coal burning? The answer is that China is seen as an emerging economic power and that they are entitled to "Catch up" economically. Global justice. China is currently the largest producer of CO2 in the world and is looking at doubling its emissions until 2030 while the west is expected to cut their emissions even further. What is the result, this policy basically forces the west to shift even more manufacturing to China, India and other "emerging economies".

By the way, the Nobel Prize for Economics was given to two men for tying climate change to economics. The same two are in favor of an international carbon tax, what a surprise. If you don't believe there is a connection between economic policy and climate policy, you are sadly misinformed.

If you watch the video above on Global Justice, you will discover that they see one option for global justice involves the movement of poor people into wealthy countries. Basically the unfettered migration into Europe and the fight for open borders in the United States is from globalists. 

EliteTrader - UN IPCC Official Admits "We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy."

The IPCC official is OTTMAR EDENHOFER, who was a lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. You can finds quotes from him at AZ Quotes. I will leave you with two of his quotes. "First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worlds resources will be negotiated."

Rising Sea Levels?

Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit which is equivalent to 0 degrees Celsius (centigrade). Antarctica contains 90% of the worlds ice. Now, most of the Antarctic ice is over land rather than water and is about a mile thick. Ice that is not above land is above the saltwater ocean and can therefore be effected by water temperature. 97% of the total ice in Antarctica is above land, not the sea. In order for the land ice to be melted the temperature on the land would have to be hotter than the freezing point which it doesn't get to and hasn't in around 15 million years.

Lets talk about the Arctic now. It is made up of frozen seawater, not fresh water and therefore takes a slightly lower temperature to freeze. The thickness of the ice is about 7 or 8 feet. Many times over the past millions of years the arctic has been basically ice free, it happens in cycles. The reality is that if all the arctic ice melted it would not raise sea levels to the numbers claimed by climate change models.

Simple answer, the sea is not going to rise and wipe out the islands or coastal areas as we are being told. There have been rises in sea levels in the past; but, they occurred when we came out of ice ages and when the arctic and much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice; but, the last little ice age was (there is disagreement on exact dates) between 1600 and 1800 and happened before we began burning "fossil fuels" (I hate that term because oil does not come from extinct dinosaurs). The little ice age is generally agreed to have been a result of minimal solar spots and flaring for a 70 year period. I should point out that the minor rise in sea levels over since the mid 1800s is primarily due, not to ice melting; but, to the warming of the seas. Warm water takes up more space than cold water. The little ice age did not end because of the burning of fossil fuels, it ended BEFORE we began burning fossil fuels in any meaningful amount.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 and is part of the United Nations. It is built on the assumption of global warming and is a political body, not a scientific one. It has also proven to be frequently wrong in it's claims. This is the same group that is now claiming that we have to take drastic action starting in 2020 to avoid a catastrophe by 2030. Not surprisingly, this means by the next United States Presidential election.

Beyond all of the nonsense and lies come some real questions. Does human behavior have an effect on the environment? The answer is YES. Some of the effects are good and some are bad. One of the worst effects we have is releasing untreated contaminants into the earth and water. Does human behavior increase CO2 levels? The answer again is yes and increases in CO2 have led to increased greening of the earth. An increase in CO2 causes plants to grow more. At the same time, deforestation in the Amazon is decreasing how much CO2 adds to plant life and the creation of Oxygen. Animals take in oxygen and exhale CO2, plants convert CO2 into oxygen. Without CO2 you have no plants and without oxygen, you have no animals. Can we test the limits of these on life? Yes, we can determine that and have. We are nowhere close to those limits, not even remotely nor predictively.

I am very anti-pollution. I am also against nuclear power. I do not see any need for allowing India and China sell goods to the west if they will not enforce the same pollution laws as the west does. One quarter of the farmable land in China has been so severely polluted as to not be farmable. They are also the biggest producer of CO2 and under the Paris Climate Accord plan on doubling the number of coal fired energy plant by over 1,000. The United States is not approving any new coal fire plants and is decommissioning many. Burning coal releases different particulates (small pieces of stuff) some of these can increase acidity in the environment; but, many of the particulates can be captured and made neutral or buried without impacting the air. Think of you muffler or a cigarette filter. The point is that we can use technology to reduce the impact of burning stuff for energy by a lot; but, it costs. Europe and the United States have made those changes in technology, Asia has not and because of it will suffer, a lot. A simple solution, put a tariff on China that is equivalent to the cost of retrofitting and building power plants that use the latest technology to capture the particulates. What a concept. Second, refuse to allow goods to be sold in your country that are carried on ships that don't use the most modern and effective controls on the particulates they release. Remember 500 cargo ships create more pollution than all of the cars in the United States.

Will making the changes I am suggesting increase costs? YES. But, I can prove that it will reduce pollution and the destruction of the environment. I don't even need some bogus and rigged models to prove it, I can simply use science. The Pimpernel is a true environmentalist and has been since the 1960s. As this blog is anonymous I cannot discuss specifics without being identified. Suffice it to say that I spent 30 years working on environmental issues, primarily in the field of recycling as some of my readers know. I have advised more than one state on recycling. I have also written contract specifications that others have adopted to use recycled materials. Oddly enough, my greatest impact in the United States was probably on accounting, lol and I am not an accountant.

In science, you get what you pay for. If you are funded by a government that wants an answer, you can buy it. If you are funded by and industry that wants an answer, you can buy it. This is the reason why I have never monetized this site. You cannot buy me and everyone I worked with in business knows this.

I have not provided source documentation today. I want you to look these things up, I want you to inform yourself. There are videos I could have provided and links that would back up what I have said; but, I want you to do it. We are about to be asked to totally change life in the western world over CO2 emissions. You cannot be part of the discussion if you don't take the time to look it up for yourself. If only a few decide for us, democracy is a joke and so is freedom. Check out what I said and ask me questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability. If we are to give up our freedom to live in 250 square feet apartments and eat less meat and spend trillions to go to "sustainable energy", it deserves your investigation.

Just for fun let me add this in. Lifespans have averages and extremes. The oldest person ever that we can prove lived to be lived to 129 years. People have claimed over 130 but without any proof. The average age has fluctuated based on what is going on in the world (wars, famine, disease...); but, the limit has not changed. We are not now seeing people live to 150 or more, just not happening. The highest temperature recorded is 136 Fahrenheit though some sources say it was 134. I personally experienced 128 and it sucked. Both are based on thermometer readings over the last 120 years, not really the hottest ever because at earlier points in time the earth was burning much hotter. The heat range hasn't changed in all the time that we have used thermometer temps. We are not living longer, we just dying earlier. The average has changed, not the range, that is called variability. Never confuse the two. Averages change based on conditions and cycles, limits not so much.

Lets say that we wanted to control the temperature and lets say that we thought CO2 was a control, something we could effect to control the climate. Now lets say we knew the other variables that changed the climate. Okay, then we would want the ability to change the CO2 amount at will to keep a constant climate. We would not want CO2 emissions to just go down, we want to be able to adjust them to regulate the climate. Wouldn't we? I don't think we want another ice age, I think we would want the ability to avoid that. Up until the 1980s we feared another ice age, I remember and you can read articles about it by searching for it. Now we are told we shall enter a heat age. It is nonsense; but the bigger question is, what should the earths temperature be? Are we shooting for stasis or a range, if stasis then we must be able to adjust to get that temperature. What is the temp we are looking for and does it mean every part of the earth should be the same?

Climate "Science"?

There are 7 steps to the scientific method. You start with a question, for instance, why is the sky blue during the day. Step 2 is to investigate to do some background research. Step 3 is to construct a hypotheses. That can be any possible answer. Step 4 is Test with an experiment. Step 5 is analyzing the results of the experiment. Step 6 is making a conclusion and Step 7 is reporting your conclusion. Failure to follow that process results in junk science or more accurately, non-science and nonsense. This is also why to be considered valuable and to be peer reviewed others must be able to duplicate your test. Modeling is NOT science.

Now, the first closed system biosphere was made by the Soviet Union and I knew one of the scientists that worked on it. Biosphere 2 was done in America and was on a much larger scale. It can still be visited in Arizona. I knew someone who worked on it too but he was a builder, not a scientist. Why do I mention this? Well, the way that one would test the theory that CO2 causes climate change would be to build a biosphere and test that theory. In fact, you could test the theory using Biosphere 2. I can assure you 100% that every climate scientist is aware that they could test their theories in this manner and yet, they do not. I wonder why. If it is the greatest threat to all life on earth then one would think they would have conducted experiments that could be duplicated and tested; but, they don't. Why are we asked to believe in any "science" that doesn't follow the scientific method? I have written extensively here and on other sites about quantum physics. Why? Because I find it hilarious. I particularly enjoy the double slit experiment which proves that merely observing a thing changes how the thing acts. What I like even more is quantum entanglement. Both cannot be explained; but, both can be duplicated in the real world.

Now, as a rule when you do an experiment you need a baseline. What is the baseline for our climate? There is none, what there is, is a record of climate change and it swings. We have 800,000 years of data that we have collected from Antarctic ice core samples. The problem is, it is all from one place. We have hundreds of thousands of years of information regarding climate from tree cores from all over the earth. The problem is those only show how land temperature effected trees. Land temperature is effected by many things. In either case the data has some value. All the climate models ignore that data and rely on data collected from thermometers since around 1880. The earth is claimed to be around 7 billion years old (depends on who you ask). I should point out that the thermometers are not equally distributed around the earth. Some get their data from satellites that measure the climate in the air between the ground and up to 20,000 feet in the air.

Now we go to which data do you use in another manner. Do you generalize for the whole earth or compare by different regions? How does one select their data is the question. On any given day it will be the hottest day in the last 120 years and the coldest day in the last 120 years in some place because climate is not universal on this planet. This is one of the problems with modeling rather than testing, what data you select determines the outcome. Most people will never write a scientific paper, I have on more than one occasion. I wrote papers that were accepted by government entities and where the organizations I wrote them for received money. I am NOT a scientist, I worked with scientists and wrote the papers. I questioned the scientists and they reviewed my final reports. I have not been corrected by them; but, have only ever been given support with telling me that I have accurately explained what they have observed and tested. In one case I designed and created the computer model to determine the economic effects of the test results. Anyone who follows my blog knows that I regularly write about science AND include source documents. I am considered an expert in certain fields and have advised multiple governments including on how to scientifically test certain things. I have reviewed scientific reports and corrected the scientists in person and on occasion in public at hearings. You cannot evaluate or draw a valid opinion if you do not review the source information and the methodology.

Do human actions effect the climate? Of course they do, everything effects climate. Does CO2 effect the climate? Of course, everything does. This is why we created biospheres, to test the effect of different variables and determine the extent different things effect the environment. The question is how do different variables effect the outcome. What greenhouse gasses have increased and decreased over the last 120 years? Has methane decreased after we killed off the buffalo and other species? What variables have changed since man showed up, what variables have changed since we started burning oil? What is the baseline?

Here is what you can discover. The climate is not static and never has been. The climate is primarily impacted by distance from the sun, sunspots, planetary cooling (as the core of the planet cools since the big bang) and particulates in the air (volcanoes can change our temperature by blocking sun rays). We can model based on external effects easier than internal effects. When there are many active sunspots we can see the effect on not just earth but also on other planets temperatures.

The UN IPCC has just released a report saying that if we don't start cutting CO2 by 2020 we will all start dying after 2030. More garbage. Did you know that China plans on increasing the number of coal burning plants in their country by doubling it and they signed the Paris Climate Accord? If you believe that CO2 causes negative climate change why would you be okay with that? Why did the IPCC choose 2020? Hmm, oh yeah that is when Trump runs for his second term. Trump has been in office one year and is being blamed for global warming. Huh? Why did the Trans Pacific Partnership not include a requirement that China reduce CO2 emissions and instead prohibited other governments from restricting Chinese goods on environmental reasons? Economics drives politics and science. Wake up and do some research.

Why the rant? Frustration. I feel explaining things is sometimes pointless. Sometimes I feel as though there is too much garbage and assumptions that people accept as fact for me to get beyond without a decade of teaching. The bible says that our traditions make void the work of God. I think our programmed assumptions make void our ability to analyze reality, it is easier to believe the big lie. People want to feel comfortable with their beliefs and don't want to have to work too hard to arrive at them. People want to accept the common beliefs because it is easier. I start with the assumption that everyone is lying to me for advantage. That everyone seeks what is in their interest. My motto is generally, trust nobody and test everything. The more I am told to not question, the more I am convinced I am being lied to. In law school, we were taught that if someone says "clearly" or "obviously" we were probably being lied to.

Climate Change Source Document

There has been a lot of talk the last couple of days about a new United Nations report on "climate change". I had considered ripping the report to shreds page by page for my readers; but, don't see the point. It takes so long to get people to see just how much we are lied to and how perverted science has become by money. Whenever there is money on the table, you cannot trust anyone to do anything other than look out for their economic interests. The only way to be sure is to seek out source documents and verify claims using the scientific method and refusing to accept hearsay or second hand reports. I have consistently provided this blog wish links to source documents for that very reason.

On more than one occasion I have provided links to a document prepared in 1971 for President Nixon. The document was called "Population and the American Future". We warned that overpopulation was the real threat to our future, we were told that by the year 2000 overpopulation would be the death of us all, we were told that immigration and travel should be limited severely. In the end, they told us to expect less in the future. It was part of the great overpopulation scare of the 1970s/ The predictions proved false. Movies and media swamped us with these threats, remember "Soylent Green" or "Z.P.G." or all the other scary movies about what life would be like in 1999? They were all lies and have all been proven to be false. Oh, they dragged out the scientists and influence shapers, liars if you will. I remember.

I can sit here and point out the bullshit all day and you wont get it. Waking up from this dream takes time. I have talked for years about how self driving vehicles would be in our lifetime and have been laughed at. I have been told, "not in our lifetime" so many times. When I told mortgage brokers in 2005 that the marked would crash in in 2007, I was told I couldn't be right and I was. The world is manipulated by a small number of people for their advantage. It has always been that way. We have international monopolies, why wouldn't they try to protect their position?

I have attempted to show you what is going on and debunk the lies. I do not believe that is has been effective. Lets talk about what their proposed solutions are, the future they seek for us. Well, the owners want to have international law. They want to control us, for our benefit of course, on an international scale. They offer poor countries a better life and rich countries are scared of losing everything. Carrot and stick approach.

The TPP and the Paris Accord both attempted to overrule the Constitution. The Trans Pacific Partnership put courts of international law over the decisions of the United States. The Paris Accord did the same if ratified as a treaty. Trump refused to sign both. I do not know what Trump is but I know he has messed up the timeframe of a plan. His refusal to stand by NAFTA is negated by his acceptance of a new agreement, it is still the same three countries following the same rules. It is a new NAFTA; but, it is still NAFTA. I expect that Britain will join that trade agreement. It is possible that New Zealand and Australia will join the same agreement. Nothing I say is going to stop what is coming and I should have known that. My purpose has not been to stop what is coming, it is to get people to question what they do once it has come.

Here is the new bullshit. The United Nations has issued a new report (that disagrees with its previous reports) that claims that if we do not limit Carbon emissions by 2020, we will be forever headed down by 2030 and all will die by 2050. Laughing My Ass Off. We will go along, by 2020 or more likely 2021. Read these documents.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The love of my lifeand how we are lied to.

The picture above is of the love of my life.

Deal with it. Pimpernel is not heartless and lacking love, he is alone and misses his love. The woman in the picture above taught me that people matter and I should learn to love, I hope I did.

So, I met the woman in the picture is 6th grade. She was not allowed to date and had skipped a grade. She was half Mexican and half Irish. She became a model and actress, the picture should tell you that she also played the Cello. Stunningly beautiful, talented and brilliant. All the women I dated after divorce were the same. I have been very fortunate. What set this young woman apart was the depth of her softness, her love of others and her tenderness. I myself had little tenderness in my heart. This woman is the only person in the world who could look me in the eye and see my soul. It scared me and yet she never judged me. She told me once that she could never hate me and that was after I almost killed her best friend for threatening her (she explained he was just being a jerk and I didn't know they had slept in the same cradle). She made a better person, she led me on a journey that taught me mercy and forgiveness and empathy. Words were few; but, a look of disappointment from her crushed me. Her gentleness to me taught me a better way, it just took a bit. Because of her I became a pacifist decades later, that took a long time. LOL.

My dad taught people how to spot bogus bearer bonds. Long story. When I was 12 he taught me how to spot them. You don't teach people how to spot bogus bills, you teach them how the real deal is. You teach them how to spot the real thing and the bogus identifies itself. The lady in the picture is the real deal.

Every day we are treated to lies. We attempt to find ways to identify lies, we should instead seek ways to identify the truth. People telling the truth do not play on your emotions. People telling the truth do not fear monger, they explain. People that have true love in their hearts ask you to have the same, they don't ask you to seek revenge or pain on others. That is what this young lady taught me. She is dead by the way, she died a couple of years ago from a progressive disease. 

The thing really pissing me off about Kavanaugh

My sexual history is so pathetic to most people and perfect for me. I have been with one woman in my life and that was my wife. She cheated on me and left me for another man; but, I don't take that as permission to sleep with every women I met. I had women offer me sex many times. I did not take them up on uncommitted relationships. Not a judgement on others, my choice. The love of my life I waited years to go out with, she was a year younger and not allowed to date till she was 16, that meant 12th grade. I knew her since elementary school. I waited. In the end, she turned 16 and asked me out. Our first date ended with me telling her I was moving 3,000 miles away in two days. Not fun. I have never been inappropriate with any woman and none will claim I have been. This blog is 10 years old and I have frequently said I have never had a bad date. I am offended by the media narrative that all men are rapists. It disgusts me to the core. How dare anyone say all men are capable of rape. The love of my life knew better, she knew that I would protect her from men who might act poorly.

The love of my live was named Julia. She died a couple of years ago. I had been married and had not seen her for many years. We were each others first dates and we had waited 6 years to go on our first date because she was not allowed to date sooner. That is not quite true, she was 17 when we first dated. I didn't know when she was allowed to date because I did not know her birthday. I have never stalked a women or waited for them to be 18. Every man is not a rapist, everyman  is not a piece of garbage, every man in s not a sexual predator and it really pisses me off when they say we all are. My mom would not agree, my sister would not agree, my ex mother in law would not agree, my ex wife would not agree and my daughters would not agree. No woman that ever knew me would say I ever sexually acted inappropriately to them.

Julia let everybody know that I would hurt them if they were inappropriate to her. One person was foolish enough to threaten her, I got a bat to discuss the matter with them. Julia made it clear that she did not wish me to address the fellow, she let me know he was joking and young and stupid. Most men seek to protect women, to impress them with our stability and self control.

When Julia stopped me from beating the boy who had threatened her, I told her a story, a true story as far as I know. My grandmothers second husband beat her. His brothers did not like it, they believed men should protect women. A bunch of ginnie wops (Italians), second generation Sicily. They really hurt their brother for hurting my grandmother, they told him that men in their family do not abuse women and that if he ever beat my grandmother again they would kill him and bury him. They showed they cared about morality more than nationality or blood. They showed that they were real men and protected women. Why must I be told all men are sexual abusers? Do you honestly believe that all gay men are secretly rapists? They would have to be if all men are rapists, wouldn't they?

I am offended by being told that being a white man means I am a racist and a rapist. The women that know me would be offended by it. Should I think every woman is an adulterer because my wife was? Should others assume all men are rapists because they have been raped

When I was 16 a women who was also 16 placed herself on my lap during a show I was managing, she rubbed back nd forth until I had an orgasm. She went into the diplomatic corp. She was incredibly conservative and I am a socialist. Should I have reported her to be the first woman to cause me to orgasm while we were minors? Did you ever play doctor when you were a child? When was the first time you saw a nude boy or girl? I don't believe kids should be having sex, I do think they should learn about it, it is natural. We seem to be seeking a place where men cannot express their sexual desires. Should I not be able to tell a woman I find her attractive? Is it sexist for men to find women attractive?

Brett Kavanaugh's Hearing

I am utterly disgusted by the way that the media and Democrats have treated the Kavanaugh hearings. I take allegations of criminal activity very seriously and always believe in innocent until proven guilty. While I almost never write about crime, I have written about the murder of a Pastor. As a consequence, over the years I have received comments which accused people with no evidence regarding the crime. I have refused to publish them. While it might be okay to speculate in private, such accusations made in public are defamation unless they are proven.

While I was still working, on more than one occasion I had people try and circulate false accusations against me. I have been accused of taking bribes, of having an assistant as my gay lover, of hating Asian women (that one really made me laugh) and whatever else you can think of. These false accusations never effected my career because even my enemies laughed at them. While some believed my approach to business could resemble blunt force trauma at times, I was never accused of being a liar. I have never been accused of sexual harassment and never dated or approached any woman I worked with in a sexual manner. One does not defecate where one eats is my belief. My personal life is equally restrained. In fact, I have turned down many advances over the years from many stunning and intelligent women. When one young lady tried to see if I would sleep with her on our third date, my grown children and the men they were with laughed at her (not to her face) in private.

In regards to Mr. Kavanaugh he has been accused of what? The woman says she feared he would rape her, she has never claimed that he did rape or. She said she feared he would kill her, yet, she claims no injury. The media and too many Democrats have characterized him as a rapist, which, is not even what she has claimed, nor, has anyone else. I read that we are not supposed to question women who accuse people of sexual harassment; but, that is nonsense. I have ran Personnel divisions. I even began my last career in Personnel and have investigated such charges and know for a fact that women will lie about such things. Most women will not; but, to say none will is dishonest. Most women that I have known have been confronted with unwanted sexual advances at some point in time. It is a sad truth. Yet, to claim that all men are rapists or sexual abusers is bigotry and false. It is the worst type of fear mongering. Men in prison don't even tolerate rapists. All men have mothers and most men would never force themselves on a woman.

If the woman had filed a police report, I might be willing to consider her accusation; but, she did not. She also has not said she told her family or friends at the time. I have mentioned that I was molested once when I was about 8 by a stranger. I didn't talk about it for over 30 years. I understand that it can be difficult to discuss and that shame can keep one from wanting to discuss such things. We cannot say for certain what happened to the lady who has accused Mr. Kavanaugh; but, we can say that nobody she claims was there has backed up her story, not even her friend. The reality is that there is no evidence that could be found, not then and certainly not now. The women asked for the information to be kept quiet and that was not done. Instead, the information was leaked from Senator Feinstein's office after the hearings had been concluded. That is shameful and shows a complete lack of respect for the woman's accusation.

Both Kavanaugh and his accuser grew up in private schools and country clubs. It is a different life than most can even comprehend. It is a small social circle where they all know each other or someone who knows them. To be removed from that social circle is to be ostracized from your whole society. I am glad that more women feel free to say they were harassed. It was James Bond (Roger Moore) coming out and writing about how he had been molested as a child that caused me to write about having molested myself. When I started dating after my divorce I felt a need to tell the women I dated that my ex had given me herpes. It was people I met in an online group that helped give me the courage to do so. Sexual things are private by nature.

One of the things that stuck out for me was while being questioned, Ms. Ford was asked if she had spoken to anyone (other than lawyers) about what happened after she had mailed her letter telling Feinstein her accusations while visiting her parents. She stated she had definitely not told her parents. As far as we know, she never told her parents in 36 years what happened, not even after sending the letter. Assuming that what she said was true then it would mean that she did not mean for the information to be released publicly; however, if she went to visit her parents to tell them she had sent such a letter than that would make her a liar. We shall assume she is telling the truth and I guarantee that reporters will be looking to question her parents.

I have watched her testimony and she appears truthful. I do not find her to be full of guile. In fact, I find her to be a rather insecure and emotionally weak person. That is not meant as an attack. We are all different and face different challenges in our lives. I do not think she ever intended to be in the public eye until after it was leaked. I also watched much of Kavanaugh's testimony and he also seemed truthful. Could he have been drunk at a teenage summer party and have tried to grope her? It is possible. Is there sufficient proof? No, there is no proof other than the word of people there. If she had reported him to the police at the time, would they have arrested Kavanaugh? I very much doubt it. I have never known anyone who was arrested for trying to make out at a party.

Let us consider this. Should people have to pay for mistakes made as a minor for the rest of their life? I would say no. States are currently considering letting ex-felons vote and I think they should let them vote. Though I think you will find most ex felons are conservative in politics or just don't care. There was a time in high school when there was a group of boys who went around pinching women's butts, I did not participate in it and neither did my friends. If someone had pinched my high school sweetheart in the butt, I probably would have beat them. The one time someone threatened her, I got a baseball bat and went to track them down, she stopped me and told me it was not to be taken seriously and that she and him were like brother and sister.

So what are we left with? Uncertainty is what I have. At worst Kavanaugh as a drunk teenager tried to grope a girl at a small party. We have had many Presidents and Congressmen who were adulterers. Congressmen Barney Frank hired a male prostitute who ended up running a call service out of Frank's house. Uncertainty is why we have courts.

With all this uncertainty and plenty of reason to believe Democrats are pushing for an FBI investigation, I think they should be given one, as long as it is agreed that the vote will be taken prior to the midterms. If they commit to not using the delays to effect the elections, I would suggest an investigation can be done with and October 15th deadline. The Democrats will not agree to that. They claim the FBI investigate, investigate what? A federal crime has not been alleged. Even rape is not a federal crime. Assume that Justice Ginsberg killed someone, it would have to be proven for her to be removed. If rape can be proven, Kavanaugh could be removed. The average person knows this is all just political theater and politicking. Our politicians believe we are all too dumb to see it and that would have been true in the past; but, even the average guy knows we are being lied to about everything by the media and our elected officials.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I am a socialist. I do not see the theoretical left and right, I see the rich and the poor. I have never hidden that on this blog and nothing has changed. The Democratic party is hemorrhaging money and support. They Democrats are no longer supporting the working man, they are supporting high tech billionaires and social extremists. If they cannot show that they can get a majority in congress, they lose money and influence to be peddled. The Clintons turned the Democratic party into a business venture rather a party of beliefs. Their goal is to win elections, not change policies.

While Democrats argued to delay the vote on letting the full senate act on this appointment, the lost. The full senate can require an investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh. They can authorize them to investigate for a decade; but, we will not be able to have a full court. Death by eternal investigation. Nothing in the Constitution requires the FBI to do background checks on Supreme Court nominees. This is all a game. This is not about whether or not a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed a young lady when he was a minor. The FBI cannot charge Kavanaugh with sexual harassment or battery, they have no such authority. The senate is not a court and cannot convict for such actions. Kavanaugh has not and will not be convicted of a crime. This is a media circus. This is politics exposed. This makes me sick.

UPDATE:

This one really upset me. I wrote the above and went to bed. After waking I saw all the updates in the news. I am truly disgusted. Ms. Ford is clearly emotionally fragile and should not have been used as a tool by politicians. It really pisses me off that she said her lawyers had not made it clear that she could have been interviewed in private. It had been suggested that Feinstein's office had released the letter, I do not believe that to be true and the Republican senators don't believe it to be true. If her attorneys released it without her approval it is criminal and they should be disbarred. I was in the game a long time and there are moral limits. This poor woman is a non-combatant. We used to joke that I was the bogyman for the good guys. Bogymen do not go after the weakest or they have no integrity and honor. Beating up on children or the infirm is not honorable. It is punching down in the sickest and most vile way. It is not a crime to be weak or sensitive and it is the job of bogymen to protect the weak. I think that Booker and Harris are vile and despicable. Politics is war and I understand that better than anyone; but, there are rules. I have been stabbed in the back more times than I can count; but, I knew the job and to tell the truth, I loved the thrill of risking everything. I was part of the game, not an observer and I was paid well. I would never have put this women in open hearings, she is not a player and the penalty is too great. We should note and I want to be clear, this woman was not subpoenaed by the Republican controlled senate, she was given an opportunity to explain herself, not compelled to come forth except by the media and her lawyers.