Suppose you go to your doctor, and he tells you you’re a week from an infarction that’s going to cause your heart to explode and kill you.  You do fine, with a bit of stress and tension.  Six months later he tells you you’re only three days away.  Then it’s two weeks. Then it’s nine days, then three days again, and eventually, it’s 60 years later, and he says you also have a serious liver issue and only four days to live.  And 13 years after that, 73 since he started pestering you, you’re STILL alive.

Hopefully long before then, you’d realize this “doctor” was completely full of shit and had no fucking clue what he was blathering about.
That’s the members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and their which they pompously and pretentiously adjusted forward and back every time they needed attention, claiming we were within (at most) 17 minutes from the end of civilization by nuclear war, and eventually adding climate change into the mix.

Now, they may be very good nuclear scientists. But that doesn’t mean they understand political science, strategic theory, or anything else. In fact, it’s blatantly obvious they don’t. As to their credentials regarding climate change, they may be very good nuclear scientists.

And yet, despite 73 years of wailing, and having to add in a second “threat to humanity,” and STILL nothing happening, they’re given attention and credibility.

They should, in fact, be treated the way every apocalyptic religion is—with mockery and derision.


I’m not exactly sure what “Blue steam” is.  But this is Paul Ehrlich and his 1970 “Population Bomb.”  The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

So, that didn’t happen.

He was predicting nuclear war over arable land by 2000.
So, that didn’t happen either.
Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area." He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. 

Wow. There’s no possible way THAT could be abused for political purposes.  Nor would impoverishing families AND driving up the cost of the goods they need to raise children have ANY POSSIBLE negative outcomes on society.

On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." "If I were a gambler," Professor Ehrlich concluded before boarding an airplane, " I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." When this scenario did not occur, he responded that "When you predict the future, you get things wrong. How wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else." Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb that, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."

Oops.  Oh, there’s another bunch of bootlickers who credit these statements

with fixing those problems.  Despite the fact that:

A: no one with a brain thought this retard was credible,

2) the timeframe involved wouldn’t allow for those problems to be prevented that quickly, and

C} there’s very little evidence that any action was taken, and certainly none of his fucktarded concepts.

And I DEFINITELY want to play Poker with this idiot.

But wait! There’s more!


As of 2010:  Retrospectively, Ehrlich believes that The Population Bomb was "way too optimistic".

This shithead was more than 100% inaccurate (because STILL none of that has happened, in almost double the timespan he gave), but believes he was “Too optimistic.”

 Nonetheless, Ehrlich continues to stand by his general thesis that the human population is too large, posing a direct threat to human survival and the environment of the planet. Indeed, he states that if he were to write the book today, “My language would be even more apocalyptic.”


This mental midget doesn’t know when to shut up. Of course, “liberal” shit for brainses who “follow the science” pay good money to prostrate themselves before his altar and beg absolution.
Also, human population is flattening out as technology and society improves, and will likely see some decline soon anyway.

He claims credit for that, due to the curve changing about the same time his book came out, because of course all those non-English speaking, subliterate, impoverished people in Africa, India and China took his lesson to heart. Or it could be, just maybe, correlation instead of causality, because birth control was becoming much more effective, and important technologies that made children less critical as draft animals were becoming widespread.  But what do I know? I didn’t predict the collapse of civilization by the year 2000.


This guy, however: Julian Simon, a cornucopian economist, argued that overpopulation is not a problem as such and that humanity will adapt to changing conditions. Simon argued that eventually human creativity will improve living standards, and that most resources were replaceable. Simon stated that over hundreds of years, the prices of virtually all commodities have decreased significantly and persistently.  Ehrlich termed Simon the proponent of a "space-age cargo cult" of economists convinced that human creativity and ingenuity would create substitutes for scarce resources and reasserted the idea that population growth was outstripping the earth's supplies of food, fresh water and minerals. This exchange resulted in the Simon–Ehrlich wager, a bet about the trend of prices for resources during a ten-year period that was made with Simon in 1980.  Ehrlich was allowed to choose ten commodities that he predicted would become scarce and thus increase in price. Ehrlich chose mostly metals, and lost the bet, as their average price decreased by about 30% in the next 10 years. Simon and Ehrlich could not agree about the terms of a second bet.

Yeah, I REALLY need to play Poker with this bloviating dork.  BTW, the “world is gonna die! And that new technology isn’t going to fix it!” goes back a long way.

One writer in the Times of London predicted; “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

And don’t go thinking that automobile has fixed the problem. That just delayed the inevitable.  The manure apocalypse is still coming! Mostly from the Ivy League in the form of predictions.


Let’s not forget:  Scientists who worked for the government all agreed that Kudzu would help halt the erosion, provide fodder for animals, and be ornamental. It was a miracle plant.


Climate change is a very real thing, and there’s a lot of human components, starting with pollution (air, water, ground, even orbital space). How much we don’t know, and in some cases may never know, since some of the data was retconned “for our own good” and to pretend alarmist BS never happened.

For example, some of us are old enough to remember that yes, “global cooling” really WAS a “serious” concern, to the point of think tanks, articles, and TV specials.

And as soon as that short trend ended, well, DIAL UP THE GLOBAL WARMING PROPAGANDA!

Now, there’s a difference between science and propaganda.  I have a friend who works in the climate field, and as he describes it: “Take an 8000 mile ball of molten iron, rock, mud, and water. Spin it in front of a variable heat source and predict what happens next.” We still don’t even know what all the variables are. Making ACCURATE predictions beyond stellar devolution and some gross interpretations of tectonic patterns and rough ocean currents is going to be a long time coming.  Certainly in the meantime, we should minimize pollution and keep detailed, accurate, HONEST records. But when you make predictions from insufficient data: 

The good part: It didn’t happen. The better part:  I was right. The best part: They were wrong. Every. Fucking. Time.

I was called a “denier.”  Except, I was correct. I denied fallacy. None of those things have happened.  But I’m not “Following the science.”

Actually, I am.  I have a pretty good grounding in science. The difference is, mine’s not dependent upon my religion.


BTW, notice how that magic Year 2000 crops up in liberal Millennialist apocalyptic religion as often as it does in other religions?  Before that it was 1900.  It’s a cult. Instead of a cult of self-loathing about human grace and instincts, it’s a cult of flagellation and guilt over accomplishments. Of course, none of THEM want live in caves or huts. Last I checked, Al Gore was still flying around in a private fucking jet and owned a half dozen houses, several of which are RIGHT ABOUT SEA LEVEL. So he obviously doesn’t believe his own bullshit, at least as far as sea level rise.  If they were all in the Alps or Idaho, I might give him a smidgeon of respect as a credible charlatan.  Of course, he’s an Oscar-winning scientist.


In 2008 (I probably still have the email archived) an acquaintance of mine loudly assured me that “Peak Oil was 6 months ago.”  Twelve years later, I’m paying less for gas than I did then, in adjusted dollars. 

Pretty much since the beginning of the space program, it’s been liberals lamenting “All that money spent on a few Moon rocks while we have real problems here on Earth.”

In fact, the space program (any of the space programs) have cost very little to the taxpayers, and yielded huge benefits in weather forecasting for crops and survival of people during storms, land management, food development, that climate change they claim to worry about, and a hundred other things. The technology developed for those issues has spun off to the point where you couldn’t read this without it, couldn’t operate your vehicle or conduct business without it, and I can get music such as Senegalese soul, Mongolian metal, and Siberian techno for my listening pleasure.

Have you figured out the myth yet?  It’s the myth that “science has a liberal bias.”  Incorrect. Science does not HAVE a bias, or else it’s not science.

And, “liberals are inherently more sciency than conservatives.”

Horseshit.  Every day, liberals demonstrate that not only do they not grasp science, but they’re mentally incapable of doing so, even when it’s plonked down on the table in front of them. Present them with an easily demonstrable fact, and they’ll wail that they’re “Following the science!” that bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever.

Not all liberals. There are a handful who can accept facts that offend their worldview. Though there are also “liberal” “Scientists” who can manipulate a few figures within their specialty, but can do fuck-all outside it.

My 6 year old has a better grasp of science than your average “liberal.”


IT SHOULD BE NOTED:  Not all of these cites above were made by actual scientists. Some were made by politicians.  Some are misquoted. But to the Church of Apocalyptic Liberalism, they are all gospel.  And when nothing happens? Still gospel, and you’re still a denier. They even disown actual scientists who revise their estimates.



Which brings us once again to:

“If we just wear masks for 4-8 weeks, we can beat the Covids!”
So, we’re past 30 weeks and counting.

“You’re a science denier!”

Not at all.  I can show you 45 YEARS of studies that cloth masks don’t stop viruses, and explain that a 3 micron mesh CANNOT stop a 100 nanometer virion. There’s no magic spell that tells the fabric which way the virion is passing, and while droplets ARE a problem, they’re not the ONLY problem. And…

IT HASN’T FUCKING WORKED. (Well, according to liberals it hasn’t worked. According to people who can think, the Covids stopped being a relevant problem long before they started wearing face panties.)(And once again, check the package of your face panty for a NIOSH rating. It has none. It has ZERO rating to do anything. That’s science.)

When your prediction is complete bullshit, again and again and again, it means you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about, so shut your face and let the adults handle things.

You are a pathetic bunch of failures.

My comment as submitted. I think I see their "intent," and as usual, they have a ham-handed, complicated response:

docket number (ATF 2020R-10)

I do not own nor have any interest in arm braces myself.  I understand the published criteria and subjective nature of the difference between a brace that is functional and one that may be a workaround for an actual stock.

However, ATF should consider that constant flexible and re-interpreted definitions serve at one level to create contempt and distrust of the agency. One outcome of this could be greater deliberate disregard of the law and refusal to attempt to comply. Another significant risk, one that has been observed, is the inadvertent violation of an increasingly complicated set of criteria beyond the grasp of the casual, non-expert firearm user. In the former case, deliberate violations of fine points of law may lead to greater violations of the NFA and other firearm law. In the latter case, people with no criminal intent may be found guilty of serious federal crimes over purely administrative details.

ATF notes that some firearms with braces are long and heavy enough to not function well with a brace. However, such weapons are also difficult to conceal and therefore the risk of deliberate violation of the INTENT of the law regarding SBR/SBS is very low.  Such crimes, if they occur, are usually part of another violation and can be punished as such. 

ATF's criteria seem to favor shorter weapons with smaller cartridges, that ironically function better in a concealed role. However, with a brace mounted, these become less concealable, and this supports the intent of the NFA proscription.

I would urge that any brace be considered to be exactly that--a brace.

A shorter brace on larger firearms does not function well as a stock due to eye-relief and recoil. While there would be an administrative violation in such case, the practical ability to commit a crime of violence isn't great.

A shorter brace on a bona fide pistol makes shouldering cramped and ineffective, and hinders concealability.

ATF should therefore research if a maximum possible length of pull of say, 10-12", serves the practical purpose of supporting a small weapon for one-handed firing, while limiting the ability to convert a firearm into a de-facto short carbine or shotgun.



DOCTOR: The bad news is your grandfather has COVID.  The good news is with current treatment, his odds of surviving are 99%. He’s a fit 83, and might have another 3-4 years.


FAMILY: Those are good odds. Thank you.


STATE GOVERNMENT: We can actually improve those odds with some help.


FAMILY: Okay, go on.


STATE:  This woman is hard of hearing. We’re all going to cover our faces and she won’t be able to read lips.


FAMILY:  That’s inconvenient, sounds even problematic.


STATE:  These two people are asthmatics.  We’re going to cover their faces up and restrict their breathing several hours a day. It won’t be quite as bad as COPD.


FAMILY:  What?  But that’s going to cause health problems for them.  That’s not really a fair trade.


STATE:  This woman was raped as a child with a cloth over her face. We’re going to wrap her face up. This will terrify her into PTSD, but, it will reduce her exhalations. Also, seeing our faces wrapped up will trigger her, too.  But it’s for the greater good.


FAMILY:  Are you fucking kidding me? That’s monstrous.


STATE:  These children will also have their faces wrapped up. They’ll have trouble learning how facial expressions work and how to interact with people, during a critical developmental stage.  But it may reduce the viral spread.


FAMILY: Jesus. They’re children.


STATE:  We’re also going to shut this business down and bankrupt an entire family. It will mean people can’t gather in groups as easily, though.


FAMILY:  Why? What kind of improvement are we talking about here?


STATE:  We can possibly make a 2% improvement over the 99%, so 99.02% survival.


FAMILY:  That’s so tiny, though.  Does it really matter?


DOCTOR:  It might save his life.


FAMILY:  I guess we can try it, if they all consent.


GOVERNOR:  Why would we ask their permission?


INFORMED FAMILY:  Holy fuck, you’re a complete sicko! Forget it. We don't want to do that. 



Moral grandparent: I’ll take my chances. Please do what’s right for the kids.


The asthmatics, rape survivor, hearing impaired, and small kids is _MY_ family.  The businesses are hundreds of thousands of family incomes (not “profits” in the corporate sense.  And even those employ people who are now laid off).

When you wail about being “mask shamed,”

When you ableist condescend that, “There’s no one who can’t wear a mask, it’s just a scrap of cloth,”

When you call the rape survivor “princess” and “snowflake” and say, “We’re going to need to see some documentation” and “maybe you should wear some kind of badge so we know this is real,”

When you jerk off that a business that feeds a family (or a lot of families) is putting “profit over people,”

You are a piece of shit.

Thanks for wearing a fashionable face panty, though. It makes you easy to identify.


Me: Why are you still wearing a panty on your face?

Branch Covidian: Because of the Covids!

Me: There’s 45 years of professional studies in literally every Western nation that cloth and paper masks can’t stop viral transmission.

Branch Covidian: But we have new science!

Me: You have a couple of meta studies that didn’t account for demographics, movement patterns, or environment, that at their most tortured showed a 1.9% reduction in transmission, well within normal modeling error.

Branch Covidian: Science says masks work! We need to wear them for 4-8 weeks!

Me: You said that 26 weeks ago, and now you say it’s worse than ever. Obviously, by your standards, that didn’t work.

Branch Covidian: Not everyone wore them! Deniers!

Me: US compliance is over 80%, on par with most of Europe, the exceptions largely explained by medical exemptions. And either way, you claim it didn’t work. Which is odd, because the death rate was back to normal before you started all that.

Branch Covidian: But case count is higher!

Me: No, test count is higher, but you’re using PCR tests far beyond their 30 cycle standard.

Branch Covidian: It’s so pervasive you have to dig deep to catch it!

Me: So at 35 cycles, you’re testing 100 thousand times over the normal sensitivity. At 37 cycles, 10 million times, at 40 cycles, 10 billion times, and at 45 cycles, you’re dialing the sensitivity up 1,000,000,000,000,000 times beyond what is considered standard. Approximately, but still.  Doesn’t that seem a little excessive? It’s literally homeopathic medicine.

Branch Covidian: I follow the science!

Me: Yeah, I’m just going to get on with life.  There are far bigger issues for me to worry about.

Covidian: Wow! Are you a paranoid conspiracy nut! Don’t get too close to me!