Just in time for the 4th of July and the big social media strike, Gab has released their browser, Dissenter, which is apparently a fork of Brave. I’ve not been able to do well with brave. Before one does this, one updates — and on this test machine, running Manjaro Linux (and Deepin) that can take a while. The instructions from the command line are fairly simple. So, installed from AUR, and it looks fairly good. I’m now using it on the site. It is somewhat crisper than Firefox (which has been my goto for a long time) and ad blocks automatically. You have to loosen your permissions on any mac to install this.
Which leads to a mini rant. I have a life: last night I was looking for props my beloved needs in her work. Today — nothing but ads for those props. (Scamming now involves email, phone calls and ads — only the later is legal). On the phone. Continually. No, my phone does not use Android, but a clone. But (since I live on Outlook mail at work) I’m stuck with systems that support outlook or can handle outlook webmail. And those phones allow ads. Popping up all over the place. In short, Dissenter seems a reasonable option for a browser, and is worth a look.
We, sadly, have Greens in power. They want 100% renewable energy because of #ClimateEmergency. Fortunately, we had engineers in previous generations who completely ignored the protestors trying to stop dams and built them anyway, so we have hydro. If it snows. In the South Island that works: in the North Island much less so. South Australia has gone foll moron on this and are trying to run a modern industrial state with wind and sun. This does not work.
Consider the implications of the wind drought for the week preceding last Wed 26!
WEDNESDAY 3. EVENING. At 6.20 Wind provided 1.3 of 28.8GW = 5%.
MORNING. The morning peak is usually lower than the evening peak and the sun is up. The AEMO site counts Water with the RE but I am leaving out water to focus on the sun and the wind. Wind and Sun at the 8.15 peak provided 2.8 of 28GW, that is 10%.
Tuesday 2. The wind trended down all day, getting under 14% at the evening peak to contribute less than 1Gw to the 29GW demand, that is about 3%.
Monday 1. Wind at 48%, much the same as the previous 24 hours, that is 3.2GW that represents 10% of the peak demand.
UPDATE SATURDAY 27. Wind running at 54% producing 3.6GW that represents 13% of demand.
UPDATE FRIDAY 28. At the peak wind was running at 45% producing 3GW that was 11% of demand.
UPDATE THURSDAY 27 At the evening peak Wind was running at 50% with 3.5GW to provide 12% of the load. At 9 it is up to 60% and delivering 4GW.
At dinnertime Wednesday 26 evening Wind recovered from 13% of its capacity in the late afternoon to approach 20% and deliver 1.3 of the 30 GW required to keep you warm and snug after work and cook your dinner. That is 4% of the total, twice the amount provided in the early evening on most days for the last week.
This will not stop our current muppet government.
The Regulatory Impact Statement accompanying the Bill explains that economic growth could slow by $5-12 billion per year over 2020 to 2050 – a loss of around $300 billion. Furthermore emissions-intensive sectors including farming “could see their output drop by 50 percent from current levels by 2050”.NZCPR
The Green Party co-leader and Minister for Climate Change James Shaw introduced the Bill into Parliament using his typical alarmist tone: “The world is on fire. The climate emergency that we are now facing will change the way we live, where we live, how we travel, how we work, and how we raise our children.” He warned of “more severe flooding, drought, coastal erosion, and storm surges than we have ever seen before”.
Those comments are contrary to the findings of a few brave scientists like US Climatologist Professor Joseph D’Aleo who documents rebuttals of climate alarmism, to show that present-day changes are completely within the bounds of normal climate variability.
That inconvenient truth is not stopping Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First from forcing onto New Zealanders the harshest of the Paris Climate Accord targets – not the more relaxed 2 degrees target that other countries working towards, but the more stringent 1.5 degrees target. As James Shaw explained in Parliament: “As far as we’re aware, we are the first country in the world to locate that commitment to hold global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees in primary legislation.”
In other words, he and Jacinda Ardern are putting their desire to be seen as global leaders in the fight against climate change ahead of the wellbeing of New Zealanders.
Repeat after me: the church is about the gospel, not political points. We are not here to change each nation, but preach to all nations. Some clerics forget this. Some clerics are useful idiots.
I admire religious leaders who are willing to defy unjust laws. But I gotta ask:Rod Dreher
Are borders unjust?
Are laws forbidding foreigners to come into the United States the same thing, morally, as laws forbidding black people to eat at the same lunch counters as whites?
It seems clear that Bishop Seitz is saying yes to both questions, and not just saying it, but putting it into action by helping migrants break the law. I find this appalling, to be frank, because borders are just. These migrants do not have a moral right to cross over into the United States. That is not to say that they should not be allowed to cross, eventually; it is to say that they do not have a moral right to do so, as Bishop Seitz asserts, and that the higher good nullifies US law. I dispute that.
However, if you support what Bishop Seitz did, then explain why the laws establishing and defending borders are unjust. It is true that not all laws are morally just — but why is the law by which the people of the United States determine who can enter the country, and under what conditions, morally indefensible? Perhaps you agree that borders are just, but believe that in this particular crisis, they should be ignored for the greater good. Why? What is the limiting principle?
Thought experiment: if everyone in El Paso who is unhappy with where they live (because they are poor, because it is unsafe, etc.) showed up at the bishop’s residence with their bags, and moved in, why would that be wrong? If the bishop complained, and they told him that he was “not well,” why would they be wrong, according to the same logic that the bishop uses to justify opening the borders to migrants?
There’s no question that the bishop is operating in the spirit of Pope Francis, who earlier this year condemned “fear” of immigrants as “irrational”. In May, Francis said that people who oppose migration might be “racist.”
Matteo Salvini, Italy’s popular deputy prime minister, has openly clashed with the Pope over the pontiff’s open borders exhortations — and has won the support of many Italian Catholics. If the US Catholic bishops make an issue of personal lawbreaking to erase the border, Donald Trump would surely win the support of many American Catholics if he blasted the bishops, who don’t exactly have the full faith and confidence of their flocks these days.
One should ignore these virtue signallers: there is a social media strike on.
None of this is new, of course. Even in the 1930s, Orwell mocked “the foaming denouncers…and all that dreary tribe of ‘high-minded’ women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come nocking towards the smell of ‘progress’ like bluebottles to a dead cat”. All that’s changed is that, instead of just a trumpet to blow, they’ve suddenly been given an instant global platform – social media – with which to announce their self-proclaimed virtue to the world.Lushington Brady, Whaleoil.
And we have a nascent functioning traditionalist party. This is frightening the press and parliamentarians, who are used to have a complaisant managerial opposition who generally fix the mess the left makes whenever they in power, but do not change the policy.
Mr Moffett has already fallen foul of this politically corrupt apparatus, after coming to the their attention due to his prolific tweeting, with a series of comments that show he’s no lame limp compromiser like most NZ politicians who claim to oppose the left.True Blue NZ
Headlines have screeched- “Former New Zealand Rugby boss David Moffett calls Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern a ‘traitor’” and “Former NZ Rugby boss David Moffett now tackling populist politics”.
The latter the headline for a typical one sided evisceration by an extremist leftist who revels in the title “senior journalist”. An epithet that is frequently applied in the case of ageing childless females who have trapped themselves in a pitiable collapsing industry and who are even more embittered by the fact that they have never made any real money from it.
Mr Moffett is at the moment a bit like a boat adrift in a windy sea, and unsure of which wind to catch in his sails. Its great that he has joined the brave and talented people working to rejuvenate the Conservative Party (like Leighton Baker and Eliot Ikilei). However, the New Conservatives have a long hard road to hoe to restore the party and they will never receive a skerrick of help from the progressive status quo that is NZ’s present media/ political class.
This status quo have already started their campaign which is predictably focused on framing Mr Moffett as an eccentric and even crazy outlier with little chance of success in politics. Remember this is almost exactly how they framed Donald Trump, even right up to his success on election night.
Mr. Moffett needs to develop a counter image to that which the corrupt media will attempt to smear him with. His own acumen and obvious abilities will give him a head start in his mission but he needs to be wary of advice from the same old same old quarters, who don’t really understand that what he is selling is Conservatism, and Conservatism’s most important message is that it is the most effective force against tyranny, particularly socialist tyranny.
This is going to be interesting. Which, generally, is not a recipe for a peaceful and quiet existence.