Friday assorted links

1. “Examining explanations for the rise of in-and-outs [labor force participation], I find little evidence to suggest that changes in labor demand are responsible.”  Other interesting papers at the same link, such as: “Overall, our findings suggest that there is no simple causal relationship between economic conditions and the abuse of opioids.”  And opioids actually seem to boost labor force participation of women.

2. “…we find no evidence that mothers’ education reduces their support for FGC.”

3. “Contrary to other groups, internet searches and reported cases of arrest-related deaths have a strong negative well-being effect within the Black community that can explain up to half the Black-White [well-being] decline after 2013.

4. Profile of Elizabeth Anderson (New Yorker).

5. Arnold Kling annotates Cowen, Andreessen, and Horowitz.

6. What happened to 90s environmentalism?

7. Spiders can fly hundreds of miles using electricity.


#2 FGC? If language mattered, calling butchery of female genitalia "FGC" would be abhorrent. Let's agree that from now on, euphemistic language should be the new norm for anything which is controversial or unpleasant, and the more arcane the jargon, the better.
#3. internet searches and gossip surrounding arrest related deaths "explain" a (socio-) racial psychological difference? Not in my world. When did 'explain' become a synonym of 'correlate with'?

This practice is so disgusting it should require serious jail time. It should also be considered disgusting to even talk or write about in any manner that could be considered positive. Pass a law allowing any women/girl who is the victim of FGC to kill her attacker at any time and anywhere without being charged with a crime. In fact honor them publicly for doing it.

You're right: It should be called what it actually is: Circumcision.

3. It is interesting that, right before the paper on police killings, one sees a paper on terrorism that reaches many of the same conclusions (large psychic harms from the feeling that the community is under attack from the outside even though actual risk of death or material harm from terrorism is tiny).

Personally I think both threats are severely overhyped and overreacted to, but it is interesting that many people who discount the low material risk of terrorism by focusing on the psychic cost shift to focusing on the low material risk and discounting psychic cost when talking about police killings, and vice versa.

You can probably include concerns about "skyrocketing crime" along with concerns about terrorism and police killings.

You see the same pattern inconsistency. Most of the folk who argue for that there are overblown psychic costs from misapprehensions of crime increases are unwilling to look at ethnic minority police killings in the same basic statistical light.

No statistical evidence of police killings disproportionate to what would be expected from presence on crime scenes, and no statistical evidence of any disproportionate levels of police killing of unarmed men. The central plank of "Black Lives Matter" that Black Americans are disproportionately subject to police lethal violence is as false as misapprehensions of crime increases, but the response by VOX reading types to each is very different.

Yes- so should the headline be that BLM propaganda is responsible for the Black-White well-being gap?

6: Al Gore -- who narrowly missed becoming President in Feb 1999 by just seventeen votes -- became the Patron Saint of the environmental movement after he finally gave up on the White House. He did so by giving the Dems something they never dreamed possible: He popularized the idea that Republicans are to blame for the weather, and that ALL aspects of civilization had to be brought under State control to save the very Earth itself.

Dems went all-in on this. Funding for these new "enviro-concerns" skyrocketed. But 90s environmentalism was slaughtered and abandoned. Save the Whales? Are you kidding me? We have carbon taxes to sell people on, baby!!


No, wait, self-indicting. Feb 1999 was a nice touch.

Well, the best conservatives could manage as a counter attack is Al Gore et al were just trying to get rich.

Success is the best revenge. Trump has overseen the closing of coal power plants, mines, faster than under obama because the way to get rich is by manufacturing and selling solar, wind, and battery power, and high performance non-fossil fuel vehicles. And by using much less power to do more and live better.

Now the opponents have Trump arguing that cutting costs is anti-American when GM is firing workers and closing factories, but that when he cuts costs, which requires firing workers, thats great because fossil fuel companies firing workers is Trump creating jobs.

Which vehicle maker is building new factories and hiring more factory workers?

And if coal is wealth creating, why is Appalachia so poor with health in decline, welfare dependency increasing, more drug addiction from big pharma legal drug pushers favored by conservatives, at least in the 90s? Or job creating resulting in young people fleeing to find opportunity.

Why isnt Trump buying land that has been mined to create wealth given he likes land that is worth more and more? Why hasn't he built golf courses over looking and serving those who have created wealth mining coal? (Why won't he even sleep in the places he has the most support, but only wants to live among leftists who demand cleaner air, cleaner water, more nature, more "green"?)

Texas saw energy jobs before Obama was elected grow in wind power, and in both wind and drill baby drill only after Obama global policy drove up oil prices to supposedly job killing high prices. Then, in 2014, the policies driving oil prices higher were reduced and wealth was destroyed and jobs killed do to low fossil fuel energy costs. But wind and solar jobs kept increasing.

Meanwhile, conservatives who want more nuclear power to create jobs, object to paying the high costs of nuclear power. Obama executed the pro-nuclear power agenda of conservatives which led to bankruptcy, high electric rates, Tea Party activism against nuclear power and in favor of solar and wind. While Trump and Perry tried to provide welfare to nuclear and coal by big government regulatory mandates, the GOP head of FERC, part of the deep state, blocked Trump and Perry.

"And if coal is wealth creating, why is Appalachia so poor ...?"

Um, because the closure of wealth-creating coal mines is increasing poverty. The resource curse. See the Johnny Cash song The L&N Don't Stop Here Anymore.

Almost everything you wrote is wrong.

Almost everything you wrote is right.

#2 Just like the similar link on foot-binding. Foot-binding and FGC are positional goods. Barbaric, but positional. So are tattoos. So are the lip-plates of the Lobi of Chad. The lengths people will go to project status....

#3 Probably because - once again - it shows just how much damage the black criminal underclass in this country does to the reputation of the vast majority of black Americans that are overall decent people. Every time a Trayvon Martin or a Michael Brown fuck up, and every time said fuck up is blown out of proportion by the people that have a racial or political axe to grind, that community suffers. It is a crutch for a wound that will not heal, because some people just won't let it. Picking at it is just too valuable, but being constantly reminded of it still hurts. I give you peoples' exhibit A for the strong negative well-being effect.

#4 Equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcomes. One more time. All together now. No one, no where, no how can guarantee equality of outcomes without doing tremendous damage. Why do these people keep trying to do this.

By citing Traybom Martin you undercut your own argument. The kid was doing nothing more illegal than walking down the sidewalk. Classifying him as a "underclass criminal" is a gross misstatement of facts

"The kid was doing nothing more illegal than walking down the sidewalk. Which he then promptly escalated to assault and battery of another person who also happened to be walking down the sidewalk.

Did you watch the same trial?

100% false, and I'm sure the guy whose nose he shattered would take issue with your lies as well.

EverExtruder, thank you for making a great point about the unfair damage to black communities by a relative few.... even when some of those few have been annointed to sainthood by the left. It bolsters your argument. Thank you for being one of the sane.

Nothing but beating a guy's head into the concrete, that is.


I mean IDK there's a non-shitty case being made -- and it's not really for equality of outcomes.

The idea is that democratic equality is essentially 'everyone having the very basic things they need to exist'. Or maybe, freedom from the most pressing constraints of life -- equally sufficient access to food for example.

The problem I see with it is that it's sort of unreasonable to declare someone is 'unfree' in society when they (for example) don't have minimal access to food or housing, because there's no guarantee that there exists sufficient quantities of food or housing. I guess the people who believe in this idea get around it with 'pragmatism', the idea that something doesn't need to be universally true so much as presently true. So saying that 'democratic equality' yields contradictions in a society of scarce food isn't (to them) an indictment of it's validity in a context where there is abundance.

This disagrees with my preexisting biases so I'm wrinkling my nose at it, but it's a bit wrong to read it as advocating purely or narrowly for equality of outcomes.

I didn't read the article but based on your summary, is the conclusion "Mission Accomplished" (big banner) for the U.S.?

"The idea is that democratic equality is essentially 'everyone having the very basic things they need to exist'. Or maybe, freedom from the most pressing constraints of life -- equally sufficient access to food for example."

There are two immediate problems with this.

First, as soon as you resolve one need, another pops up. Need food? That means you need a job--which means you need a car--which means you need gas. So obviously gas should be free. I'm not making that up; that was from an argument I had that lasted....well, longer than I should admit, to be honest. If everyone has sufficient food (with obesity being an epidemic we can safely say they do), other needs become "the most pressing constraints of life". Shelter, or transportation, or education. It's hard to come up with a ridiculous example of this, because the most ridiculous things you can think of have been advocated for by serious people.

Second, there's no way to ensure that everyone has the very basic things they need to exist. For starters, there's no way to ensure those things exist--we've come a long way, but agriculture is still risky. To ensure everyone has "the very basic things" you'd have to ensure there were people providing it--easy to do if you're talking farming or framing, but what about neurosurgeons? What about hearts for transplants? What about yew for medical research? People die every day because of a lack of those things; how are you going to ensure that they are available, in the quantities required, at the times required (hearts go bad FAST)? Secondly, this removes the aspect of personal choice from the equation. Sure, it's hard to go hungry because of a stupid choice, but it's easy to lose one's car (DUIs, reckless op, that sort of thing) or even one's business (bankruptcy).

Ultimately to enact this someone, somewhere has to choose what constitutes "the very basic things they need to exist" and whether folks are "free...from the most pressing constraints of life". That person would be a dictator. Maybe a benign one, for a while, but history demonstrates, quite violently, that we would rapidly see a brutal monster in that position. I mean, imagine if Trump or Sanders (depending on your political leaning) made these choices. Not ideal, to say the least.

#6 is good. An alternative hypothesis is that climate change just kinda sucked a lot of the oxygen out of these other environmental issues, although certainly many of these were indeed overblown at the time.

Or maybe, environmentalists are just focused on getting rich and creating jobs.

Trump is leading the charge to kill jobs and destroy wealth. And increase the area where he will flee asap after promising free lunches, going back to sleep among the leftists who have made things green, and very costly.

High density urban areas are good for the environment, as people who live in such locales have smaller carbon footprints and tend to consume fewer resources. As a New York real estate developer, Trump has done more for the environment than either of us could ever even aspire to.

But he is only interested in making costs much higher, never in cutting costs, except by hiring cheap workers who are overwhelmingly immigrant, and even illegal immigrants, or illegal workers.

The last thing Trump has thought of is cutting the prices he charges.

But as a president, he's undone that and more.

Probably true. I was just trolling.

Mulp == all TDS all the time.

Take a deep breath.

I can certainly vouch for that. Ask the average self-identifying environmentalist what the biggest issue with soil and groundwater is, and they look at you blankly and respond "But global warming!!" Partially it's because environmental cleanup has become routine, and therefore isn't edgy anymore. Once something becomes a viable commercial concern, the "environmentalists" move on to other things. Never mind the facts, or the dead bodies.....

I agree this seems logical, but if you read the post he addresses that- interest in climate change ALSO seems to have declined

I'm reminded of Tyler's query of last week: Of what value, evolutionarily, are neurotics?

And Luke 11:7 "I tell you, even though he will not get up to provide for him because of his friendship, yet because of the man’s persistence, he will get up and give him as much as he needs.…"

There were glasses too, one for me and you. And he said, "Hey there you are!"

5. Perfect! My personal view of Kling just rose a thousand percent. Not that my personal view is worth anything. Anyway, I appreciate Kling's effort in annotating the discussion and Cowen for sharing it.

Kling: "I think it is reasonable to believe that driverless cars and human-driven cars are not destined to share the roads. Just as cars and horses were not destined to share the roads. Once people see how a city can operate with only driverless vehicles, the human driver will find himself shunted off the main roads." Readers of comments at this blog know I believe it's preposterous that autonomous vehicles will share the road with non-autonomous vehicles. My prediction has always been a separate right of way for autonomous vehicles (Elon Musk's tunnels being one). Kling believes non-autonomous vehicles will be run off the road - figuratively. Will Americans (from soccer moms in their vans to wealthy bankers in their Maseratis) wedded to suburban living voluntarily give up their cars?

Roads for horses were never suitable for cars, and still aren't.

Cars used "better roads", paved roads for primarily bicyclists, but also favored by people on foot. People on foot and bicycles not only are still on the roads, but have the right of way, angering those in cars.

It was cars that built a completely new set of highways just for cars at extreme high tax and spend, or spend and toll, big government cost. These highways just for cars were redesigned to be costlier still to handle trucks. Its trucks forcing cars off the highways, causing US automakers to close auto factories.

Autonomous vehicles solve none on the real transportation costs. Trucks still obstruct travel on highways that exclude people on foot and bicycles, and the streets and roads are still filled with people on foot, bicycles, and delivery trucks with people unloading or loading the trucks, and school buses added to the roads to keep kids safe from drivers angry at the laws giving kids right of way when on foot.

The problem of autonomous vehicles is not only human-driven vehicles, but other unpredictable things in the environment (pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, deer, blowing trash -- and also fog, rain, snow & ice). Separate autonomous vehicle right-of-way would need to be walled off from all these things. Musk's tunnels would serve, but not much short of that.

I was going to make a similar comment. For me it was less than +1,000% and I did have minor disagreements with some of his points but Kling made many good points.

Including the limitations of self-driving vehicles that I've also been harping on.

#6 - They're just now finding this out? I've been writing about it since January 2012. Edward Abbey was the last environmentalist.

Environmentalism is antithetical to globalism. The Left chose globalism and tiptoed away from actual environmental stewardship in favor of incorporeal "climate change." The NY Times actually shut down its environmental desk in January 2013.

Globalism is advancing environmentalism faster than regulation. Those opposed to environmentalism are also opposed to capitalism which requires tax and spend. Trump imagines god created the railroads so the US can ship coal to Africa. But god did not create the railroads required by coal, but big government tax and spend did.

Rent seeker, free lunch Trump promises the benefits of post civil war GOP progress without the costs to make coal great again. Tanstaafl.

Capitalist China, getting rich selling green economy goods is building railroads to move people and deliver the green goods China's capitalists manufacture.

Its ironic Trump is pushing nuclear, but wants it free, but has blocked Bill Gates and friends from developing new nuclear power technology because only capitalist China is willing to pay the thosands of workers required.

You're a great argument against marijuana legalization.

The environmental desk was shut down about three years after it was created. What exactly do you think that proves?

That news about the environment is not a priority for the NY Times or its readers.

On that Blockchain article, I tried out Augur last summer, and got scammed fair and square. No more trust left in me. Beyond the fact Augur is dead anyway (no liquidity on any question whatsoever), if you want to create a question then you have to buy their shitcoin to post as bail. If your question expires and you want your bailed REP back, they want you to post even more REP on that, within 3 days. Now it is easy to buy REP, but very hard to sell the excess REP you have. I managed to sell somehow, but there was very little information anywhere on which reputable exchange would accept REP (not many, and they all want to verify your identity by taking a pic of you with the passport). So I had no REP when it was time to report on my question, and got annoyed that I had to buy REP first, again, where nowhere in the white paper it says you need to double down on your bail. I then got annoyed the second time when I couldn't report on my questions within the three day window even after buying REP, because the transaction to sell ETH and buy REP took over a day to go through even over the reputable Needless to say, my bail was quickly claimed by somebody else.

Lotta respect for you saying you "got scammed fair and square."

#2 We need to stop thinking of education as a panacea for all sorts of abhorrent, deeply held cultural beliefs. Mohamed Atta was pretty damn smart, if you recall. Education does not move people into a Western frame of mind; there are plenty of self-consistent non-Western worldviews a sharp intellect can choose to champion.

That said, in this particular study, I wonder how the authors define "education". The cultural context of the education might matter as much as the fact the women were educated.

Even in our enlightened nation much of "education" is really indoctrination. So, yes.

How about a Conversation with Kling? I'm sure it would be enjoyable and enlightening (even if it's the conversation you want to have, instead of the one we want you to have) 🙂

No. 4: “I was in tears,” Anderson said. “I’m, like, ‘Art school? You’re an anarchist, and ninety-nine per cent of people there go into commercial art. Really?’”

Ah, the subtext is revealed. And it's the same old story: daughter of the puritan-inspired New England clerisy finds private enterprise crass and yucky, something to be practiced by grubby hicks and bimbo airheads, the sorts who used to tease her at school. Her precious, social norm-challenging offspring mustn't be encouraged to stoop to such humiliation as helping people with a service they want in exchange for money. How vulgar! What an affront to the deity of equality!

Raises the question of just what career paths are appropriate and available to today's up-and-coming youmg anarchist-to-watch

6. Humans are adaptable. And that's not necessarily a good thing. What may seem upon first experience intolerable, eventually becomes commonplace. I grew up in the South before air conditioning. Can you imagine. Well, that's what we knew. But I have adapted: my air conditioner runs at least seven months of the year. Carbon emissions be damned. Fires, floods, hurricanes, one might get the impression that the apocalypse is imminent. Or a time to adapt to fires, floods, and hurricanes. I haven't noticed any slowing of the great migration to the coasts. My low country community is about to have a public forum to consider global warming and rising seas so local experts can share their views. I'm confident that the local experts will confirm that temperatures and seas have always risen and fallen. But we will always have science. Not really: roughly half of Republicans don't believe in evolution, and almost 40% of adults in America believe in creationism. Good God! Let's hope so.


Bolsonaro has been bought by red China:

#7...Fascinating. It also made me realize I need to read up on spiders, as I know very little about them.

Yeah, there've been other articles about ballooning spiders the past month or two, but the ones I read didn't mention how the spiders use electricity. This is mind-blowing.

I'd put it up there with other scientific discoveries in recent years that made me say wow: Lightning creates antimatter. Rats can laugh. And ivory-billed woodpeckers may not be extinct after all (but now I'm beginning to think they actually are).

I read #6. As someone in the environmental industry, it's amusing. The reason you no longer hear about these issues in pop culture is that environmentalists won. It's become the norm. In the 1990s they were trying to convince people that these issues were important; now everyone's convinced (enough to spend billions cleaning up environmental issues, investing in green energy, planting trees, and the like), so they don't need to be.

That said, within the environmental industry every one of the topics brought up in that article is a major discussion point. Rainforests have their advocates. The ESA is a constant topic of discussion (my experience is that it encourages a "shoot, shovel, and shut up" mentality; others think that even discussing other options is treason [not joking here, the term was used]). Acid rain gets less discussion, because it's less of an issue--until you talk about coral reefs, at which point you may as well make a pot of coffee, because you're not going anywhere for a while. The difference is, we're a bunch of experts who have long experience talking about these issues.

This is the way intellectual division of labor works. The rest of the population handed off this responsibility to those who were willing to take it on, and now it's our job to deal with it. This isn't any different from the fact that many people hire electricians or contractors, rather than doing their own home repairs.


Environmentalism is used frequently for the marketing of cars, food or clothing. It's getting closer to consumer electronics. Can you watch TV or read paper without seeing this?

What you said sounds very plausible, although not that different from what Scott Alexander is saying, although your point about the distinction between conversations within pop culture and conversations among professionals is an important one.

At the beginning of his essay I didn't know where he was going and didn't much like it but having read the whole thing I thought it was pretty good.

However this sentence of his is bizarre: "Recycling remained inefficient and of dubious benefit, and never really caught on."

I can believe the first 2/3 of that sentence, but I don't know what he's
saying with that last phrase. Never caught on? What are those blue containers that I see beside the trash containers?

A few months ago China announced it would stop accepting plastic recyclables from the US, because Americans were contaminating the recycling bins with too many objects made of the wrong type of plastic.

This has forced Portland, OR at least (I don't know about other US cities) to alter its trash procedures because it's lost that outflow pipeline for plastic recyclables. Lacking an alternative with enough capacity, Portland has had to put its recyclable plastic into landfills for the time being.

And Portlanders have been subjected to multiple public service re-education campaigns to remind them what sorts of materials are recyclable and which ones aren't, and stop mixing them up.

So we had an international set-up with I presume tons of recyclables being shipped across the Pacific, and with the loss of that causing substantial disruption in an American city, and residents having to make changes in their daily behavior.

That tells me that recycling is well-entrenched into the fabric and daily life of that city. I'd say that it "caught on" with a vengeance.

It might still be inefficient and non-beneficial, but his claim that it never caught on does not match reality. At least in the west coast cities where I've lived the past few decades.

If by 'caught on' you mean shown up on someone's radar and gotten a (any) response, your anecdote demonstrates it's caught on.

If by 'caught on' is meant effectively implemented, your anecdote demonstrates it has NOT caught on.

Boring facts: 36% of aluminum consumed in the US comes from recycling

This pc may not be higher because the US manufactures a lot products for the world, i.e. cars and airplanes parts.

Thanks, I had belatedly remembered aluminum, glass, and steel, important materials where significant recycling has been happening for decades.

I liked Scott Alexander's essay, but I don't see how he thinks recycling didn't happen/isn't happening. And with what seem by all appearances to be efficiency and economic benefits, contrary to his claim.

#4 - "Defenders of this state of affairs often counter that people negotiate their salaries and can always leave. Anderson notes that low-level workers can rarely wrangle raises, and that real-world constraints eliminate exit power. (Workers are sometimes bound by non-compete agreements, and usually cannot get unemployment insurance if they quit.)"

Bogus assertion - lower level jobs are by their very nature more plentiful, easier to exit, easier to obtain, and easier to surpass in pay, which is partly why there is far more worker turnover at these levels. People use them as stepping stones in their careers as they progress in their career. Worker exit is far more challenging at the middle and upper levels, where one's available options become more limited unless one is willing to take a pay cut and workers start hitting their skill level ceilings (the adage of getting promoted to one's level of incompetence). At the end of the day, people have far more options with work than they care to admit - it may take moving to a different location or making other sacrifices or trade offs - but facing those tradeoffs and prioritizing certain things over others whether in ones life or career, is a feature of having greater levels of freedom, not less.

I suppose it depends on the field. In the environmental/geology/engineering fields, switching companies is a descent way to move up the ladder. It's routine for folks to get a promotion as part of their hiring when they switch companies.

Part of the issue is that the higher up the food chain you get, the more of a reputation you have. This can work to your advantage, or against it, depending on your reputation. You've got more history, more experience, presumably more allies and enemies than some new-hired grunt.

6. Turns out if you are an autistic right-wing author linking mainly to right-wing think tanks and blogs, you can easily conclude than environmentalism is phony made-up problems.

Are you talking about Scott? He's a center-left author who concludes that environmentalism is mostly not about phony made-up problems. Beyond your ad hominem, anything you actually disagree with?

I watched the Fed Panel Today at the AEA and was impressed with the seriousness and quality of the discussion. FED Chairman Powell admitted he's made mistakes, which was gratifying to hear. But what can possibly explain people who've made a habit of being wrong on economics, to the extent that right and wrong are meaningful in economics, over the last decade , constantly being appointed to positions of power, other than the people appointing them have a different agenda than getting things right? Irwin Corey made more sense playing a professor than these serial mistaken views lot do explaining their mistakes away. I need to remind myself that poodles aren't hired to be right.

WRT 90s environmentalism: I love it when Peak Oil people conclude that they really were right when you go by their misunderstanding of the economic and technological drivers of resource production! Hilarious.

6. To answer SSC's question, misdirection and sleight of hand. Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Eric M. Conway.

This topic is a stretch. Scott is a bit out of his league. What is deemed solved or alarmist lacks credibility, better sources would help. I also see a viewpoint bias, environmentalism in woke San Francisco versus the rest of the country. PM2.5, coal ash, NO2, CO2, NPK, PFOA, flame retardants, Hg, Se, Pb, Cr6 and other trace metals. The solved for the first point alone is a sophomoric conclusion unless you are grading on the Pinker curve. No offense intended. I like SSC and read regularly but this post is vaguely informed.

7. Ed Yong is a jewel.

Environmentalism has declined as WASP values do. [See Dave Foreman (yes, you've tut-tutted me before that he's become an "alt-right" nativist, so you can skip it) on how the environmental movement was once English majors - Ed Abbey fits that profile - and became lawyers at some point. Amateurs, though my experience is biologists and geologists (see Wallace Pratt) and range scientists and so on make keen environmentalists.] Anyway, you need nature lovers with money (this is distinct from outdoor-recreation lovers, although they furnish a weak substitute*).

For years, people came to my husband wanting to figure out how to preserve their land, absolutely gratis. Often they wanted to "give" the old homeplace to "somebody" to become a park or nature preserve. Much as he respected their instinct to conserve, he not infrequently had to explain that there was not really a conservation goal associated with their pasture or pine plantation, where they had enjoyed nature-watching for so many years. Over time, that has changed. Most people he works with are interested, first, in the financial incentives (tax advantage, mitigation bank, municipal and county bonds for open space) - for some, the conservation aspect is a bonus. They are glad to keep their view, sure.

File this, as usual, under "You can't have everything."

*Duck hunters are an obvious exception, having been a major wetland and coastal conservation force - for instance, the men in my family can name the ducks and geese and doves and quails but really know no other birds, except for the whooping crane, and they definitely don't know who Ed Abbey is.

Be interested inf anyome can really figure out what Elizabeth Anderson is up to: Huge unioninzation, wealth tax, what? The more I read of her the more slippery she is.

What happened to 90's Environmentalism? It made its money and moved on to the next scam.

Comments for this post are closed