Thursday • June 19 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XXV
Manchester, N.H.
The Climate Cult is more than willing to change whatever it must to keep its confidence scam alive. That’s what they mean when they say climate change. They don’t mean temperature; they mean the Climate data and the Climate narrative.
They’ll change anything but the solution and do whatever is required to keep the wealth redistribution/tyranny accelerator laundromat open.
When research peeks over the consensus wall to challenge approved dogma, the Pharisees are quick to discredit it—shills for oil, anti-science, climate deniers. Destroying careers is well within the realm of acceptable behavior as is blocking credential research or pressing experts to alter results. But what if the research comes from an official government agency?
If you control the agency, then its job has been to reinforce the confidence scam. They issue grants that produce the results needed and then base official policy on their rigged research. But not everyone appears to be in on the scam. Norway, not exactly a conservative bastion of political or cultural practice, uses the National Statistical Institute of Norway to generate official statistics. Things upon which the country relies to inform politicians and people. It published a paper titled “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”
I’m sure they went in thinking, well, we’ve got data and records, and everyone’s been on about CO2 and temperature change. Let’s crunch this stuff and then impress everyone with the evidence. The conclusion at which they arrived contradicts the Climate Cult’s approved narrative. Those temperature models used to justify CO2 reduction policy don’t actually justify it
In this paper we have reviewed data on climate and temperatures in the past and ascertained that there have been large (non-stationary) temperature fluctuations resulting from natural causes.
Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the [Global Climate Models] GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
…[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.
Remember, this is the government of Norway.
Norway just wrecked the consensus. It has warmed more without man, and while man contributes to CO2 in the atmosphere, “it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.” Your models are crap and so is your conclusion.
Are they taking this news seriously? Norway was already ramping up Oil and Gas production. I’d go with yes.
As for everyone else, they’ll ignore it, but this isn’t the only “paper” to reach the surface gasping for air, to challenge the approved orthodoxy. There is a sense of movement that could lift us out of the elite-imposed dark ages of climate science and propel us into a fossil-fueled renaissance.
That’s a stretch, but in any of the many fronts in the war against global Leftism, you have to get your optimism where you can.
Climate Discussion Nexus | Legal Insurrection
The post Norway: There’s No Conclusive Evidence that CO2 is Driving Temperature Change appeared first on Granite Grok.
Recent revelations at a premier lab-grown meat startup suggest techno-mystical visions of cheap, plentiful, vat-cultured meats are a fantastical pipe dream. Venture capitalists and a climate-anxious public have been lured into believing synthetic animal meat substitutes will solve environmental problems while liberating farm animals.
The chief hurdles for this nascent, aspirational industry are cost and scale: The alleged misrepresentations by billion-dollar Upside Foods in Emeryville, California, reflect an industry-wide cover-up of the impossibility of achieving cost savings, large-scale production or environmental utility with vat-flesh.
The Downside of UpsideUpside Foods has repeatedly touted its technology to “cultivate” flavorful, whole cuts of synthetic chicken in its laboratory. Employee whistleblowers claim the company misled the public to believe it had developed the capacity to efficiently produce chicken breasts in bioreactors, when in fact, the much-touted cutlets were laboriously manufactured by human hands tending hundreds of non-reusable plastic bottles coated in “porcine gelatin” and seeded with chicken cells in a “growth media” of “hormones, sugars, and other nutrients.” These were then hand-harvested using spatulas and manually layered or processed into pretend chicken fillets. The bioreactors installed to produce whole cuts of fake meat – and their attendant tubes, pipes, and electronic gadgetry – have stood idle (except for corporate promotion photo-ops).
Rampant Techno-Mystical Fraud?Several startup companies seek to stake ground in the world of synthetic steak. Climate alarmists who insist cow flatulence is the death knell for humanity, allied with animal “rights” groups who wish to extinguish livestock in the name of protecting them, envision a meatless utopia in which large-scale factories fabricate fake flesh.
Upside Foods has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in investment capital on promises of technologies it will likely never create. Wired published an ex-Upside employee’s rationalization of the deliberate misinformation:
“This isn’t about lying. This isn’t about trying to trick people,” says a former senior Upside employee who left in 2022. “It’s a very specific PR dance where we need people to continue to believe in this industry and its potential, and to do that we need to share some of these milestones.” The former employee adds that the drive by senior leadership to constantly be the first to win industry races might jeopardize Upside’s success in the long term. “The biggest fear was more that we are constantly building the airplane while we fly it,” they say. “That could work out well, but would it be more prudent for us to pause flying and just continue building it and make sure it works as intended?”
Building airplanes while they are being flown high above the ground is an Icarian moral hazard blithely embraced by far too many techno-mystical, profit-driven ventures. The prophets of climate doom are too often also corporate profiteers: EVs face monumental challenges, including lithium battery production shortfalls, externalized pollution costs in manufacturing, and insufficient grid power or charging stations to serve the public; solar panels involve the mining and burning of coal and other substantial pollution costs in production and disposal.
Of Cows and Synthetic Meat BioreactorsWhen critics point out the problems of lithium battery production for EVs or coal mining for solar, the techno-mystical response is, “We’re working on it.” As with completing planes prior to flying them, might it be prudent to retain cows until such time as this dubious lab-meat technology produces the promised bounty?
Consider the costs of Upside’s meat-gunk creations: hundreds of hours of labor to manufacture just a few portions of consumable food along with wasted factory space that has to be heated, cooled, electrified, and plumbed to house rows of stainless steel 500-liter “bioreactors” that cannot successfully create a single whole cut of chicken. The “roller bottles” used to create the meat for public show are made from single-use plastic, and so the company likely produces plastic waste much faster than it makes meat.
A cow on pasture bypasses bioreactors, heated labs with lab-coated techies in masks, roller bottles, and the mountains of plastic. Then there are all those otherwise content cows that won’t have to be slaughtered for nothing. Erasing good farming where animals are well cared for to fuel venture capital science fiction laboratories that pollute while pretending to save the world is much like flying a plane while the engine is unbolted to the fuselage and the propeller is six inches too short.
Cows produce manure that replaces synthetic fertilizers (made from methane), and seeds exponentially more methane sequestration by nourishing soils than bovines burp up or otherwise expel. Cows produce meat, milk, and leather by anaerobically digesting grass – nature’s solar panels powered renewably by photosynthesis – without coal or lithium, and without a costly, profit-driven, stainless steel anaerobic digester.
Synthetic Meats are DOAMan’s meager mimicry of God’s creation ever falls short. Echoing the Fall, humans idolize the things they make with their own hands (Isaiah 2:8) above the natural provision of the earth and ecosystem. The war on cows is not an effort to preserve the planet but to amplify growing food hegemony by chemical-pushing oligopolies. Those who claim they have created an economically viable and ecologically friendly synthetic meat product are squeezing phony baloney into (plastic) snake oil bottles.
Synthetic meats were marketed as profitable to investors, framed as cost-saving when soy and other plants were vat-cultivated into filet mignon – and the planet would be saved from agricultural pollution! It’s the ancient promise of lead-into-gold chicanery, and it won’t work: Soy and other plant matter must be harvested using fossil fuels and GMO technologies dependent on massive chemical applications.
Even if Upside Foods and other meat-dreamers could manufacture steaks and burgers better than God has done in cows, their factory technology would still require chemicals and fossil fuels that degrade the soil and water – in lieu of cows, which do the opposite. And if asked, wouldn’t cows on pasture prefer a contented life on the land over no life at all? The synthetic-sounding answer to these common-sense questions hangs ready on pursed technocratic lips: “We’re working on it.”
John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.
The post Synthetic Chicken Will Never Fly appeared first on Granite Grok.
It started to feel like the political class was going to do anything to drag this out until the spending resolution that cost McCarthy his gavel became a Republican problem. No Speaker. No control. Disorganized. Country in danger. Blah Blah Blah.
I could hear it in my head. See the headlines. Between the RINOs and their Progressive masters, they would take an otherwise meaningless transfer of authority – a new guy or gal to herd the cats – into a political win for the bad guys.
So yes, I’m surprised.
Mike Johnson got nominated yesterday and elevated today. They frikkin got it done.
HE WON! Congrats Speaker Mike Johnson!
Make no mistake, this is a *HUGE* victory
After Matt Gaetz ousted Kevin McCarthy, the DC Establishment fought back, but America 1st Patriots stood strong & won
For the 1st time in decades, We the People have a true voice in Congress pic.twitter.com/a5sqvd92s5
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) October 25, 2023
The next question? Will Johnson do his job and block Biden’s awful agenda? Force the US House to debate and vote on each of the (is it 12?) appropriations bills clean and individually, forcing Democrats to explain why they are holding up the budget instead of the other way around.
Will investigations mean something more than the appearance of interest absent action?
Time will tell, but at the moment, this feels like a huge win, especially given the direction things were headed.
BREAKING: Rep. Mike Johnson has received the GOP nomination for Speaker of the House. I had no idea who Mike Johnson was, so I looked him up and found this video. This is Mike Johnson. What are your thoughts? pic.twitter.com/XBuZoR5FDQ
— DEL (@delinthecity_) October 25, 2023
The post Breaking: Mike Johnson Elected Speaker of the US House appeared first on Granite Grok.
We expect the lights to come on when we flip a switch, unconcerned with how the electricity is produced or how it reaches our homes. We are aware of telephone poles, wires overhead, and transmission towers, solar panels, and windmills across the countryside. But as long as we pay our electric bills, we trust electric utilities to provide our power somehow.
Who produces the electricity we use? Where does it come from? How does it reach us when we flip that light switch? And is electricity as “green” as we are often told it is?
Residential and business electric customers across the country are served by three different types of energy providers: the traditional monopoly known as an investor-owned utility (IOU), the public power utility owned by a municipality, and the community choice aggregator (CCA). This last is a relatively new type of nonprofit purveyor allowed in nine states—Massachusetts, Ohio, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and New Hampshire—that have passed legislation allowing them.
These entities form what is collectively referred to as the grid, an interconnected network for delivering electricity from producers to consumers.
Community Choice AggregatorsCCAs are the newest type of electricity provider. They buy electricity from private generating firms, many of which are small start-ups, and deliver it to end users over wires owned by traditional IOUs. Thus, CCAs function as middlemen between energy suppliers and consumers. They also compete with investor-owned IOUs to sign up entire cities or counties.
Electricity can be generated by coal, natural gas, diesel, nuclear fission, biomass, hydropower, solar panels, and windmills. Of these, the last five may be considered renewable sources, but green energy purists view only solar and wind energy as renewable.
California contains over 11 percent of the American population, its energy markets are deregulated, and it hosts twenty-five CCAs, which serve fourteen million customers throughout the state in over two hundred municipalities with over eleven thousand clean energy power purchase agreements.
In addition to these twenty-five CCAs, California has three large IOUs: Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric. Together, they own a significant share of the state’s energy distribution infrastructure (poles and wires). California also has one large municipality-owned utility, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, as well as several smaller public utilities throughout the state.
In 2002, the state legislature passed a bill (Assembly Bill 117) admitting CCAs, which began forming shortly afterward. CCAs promise to provide “green” energy (i.e., generated by solar or wind) to reduce carbon emissions and counteract climate change.
When a CCA is established in their geographical area, California energy consumers, unless they opt out in advance, are transitioned by default from their traditional IOU utility to the CCA. Most California customers in areas where there is a CCA have not opted out, either because they were unaware of the transition process or because they proactively embraced renewable energy.
The IOU utilities still own the energy infrastructure that serves these areas and are entitled to a regulated rate of return on it. Customers, therefore, continue to receive their electricity bills from the IOUs, but these now show separate charges for energy consumption and use of the infrastructure. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates this rate of return as well as the energy rates. The IOUs collect the revenue and forward to the CCA the portion that pays for energy consumption.
California CCAs market different proportions of renewable energy: 100 percent (“green power”), 40 percent (“lean power”), and 50 percent (“clean power”). The customer rates per kilowatt-hour may be higher or lower than those charged by IOU utilities serving the same geographical areas. So far, CCAs have tended to match the rates charged by IOUs, but this practice may or may not continue.
How do CCAs guarantee that the electricity they deliver meets the promised proportions of renewable energy? In reality, it’s impossible to identify where electricity comes from once it’s been produced and released into the grid. CCAs typically buy some of the energy they deliver from “nongreen” sources like natural gas turbines and some from renewable generators.
Renewable Energy Certificates to the RescueIn addition to buying renewable energy from producers, CCAs can also supplement their supplies with renewable energy certificates (RECs) issued by private firms that generate solar or wind energy. An REC is a piece of paper representing one megawatt-hour of renewable power generated and delivered to the grid. The Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS) tracks renewable energy generation, creates the RECs, and oversees a marketplace for trading them.
The existence of RECs and the WREGIS marketplace allows CCAs to boast that they supply as much as 100 percent green energy. Under this paradigm, CCAs subsidize small, private firms that generate renewable solar and wind energy by buying their RECs, then count these toward their own supply so that they can report the promised percentages.
Even firms that don’t supply energy can use RECs to enhance their green bona fides. Some have pejoratively referred to this business practice as “greenwashing.” Microsoft, for example, has announced plans to reduce its carbon footprint by buying RECs from a start-up firm that has developed a method of taking CO2 from the air and storing it underground.
The owner of an REC can either hold or sell it, but it can only be sold once. When a CCA or firm purchases an REC, it is purchasing proof of having “used” that renewable energy, even if the actual energy went elsewhere on the grid.
If you think this all sounds like a contrivance to virtue signal environmental responsibility, you would be right. Whether electric utility customers are receiving renewable energy isn’t clear, but that’s what they signed up for (by default, in most cases). CCAs, in any case, can claim they provide their customers with the responsible kind of electrical energy and thereby help them save the planet.
Jane Johnson is a retired college economics instructor who currently teaches economics at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute in southern California. She is a graduate of Vassar College, and has graduate degrees from UC-Berkeley, and the University of Washington.
Jane L. Johnson | Mises Wire
Mises Wire We heartily encourage reprints and shares of Mises Wire articles. If you wish to reproduce an article in your blog, magazine, radio show, newspaper column, classroom material, textbook, discussion group, website, or any other venue, please do so. The original publication source must be included in an appropriate place.The post Can Electricity Providers Promise 100 Percent Green Energy? Probably Not. appeared first on Granite Grok.
As promised in Monday Memes, I have an overflow. My meme cup runneth over. And yes there will be a Friday edition too.
Let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:
*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***
And please do check out my last two Israel-related posts if this is a topic of interest:
Israel: Even More Memes, Links, and Commentary – Granite Grok
Israel: More Memes, Links, and Commentary – Granite Grok
>>>>>=====<<<<<
I remember a coworker in 2016 panicked about Trump. “He’ll start WWIII”! So, how’s that 2020 result working out for you?
I’m not familiar with UK television, but has a live “fact checking” ever occurred to any politician over there before?
In theory, I think the idea of a hybrid is a good idea.
This would be an excellent graph. On a time-chart, show the # pediatric vaccinations overlaid with the # of SIDS deaths.
One caution: Do not underestimate your enemy.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Pick of the Post:
A lot of really good ones, but this strikes a chord with me.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Palate cleansers:
I can relate to this one. Boy can I relate to it!
—
—
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Come back on Friday for more memes. Same meme time. Same meme channel.
The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.
Liberal states and cities with education monopolies have failed kids for decades, but more recently, the problem of illiteracy has gotten more attention than they’d like. Kids can’t read.
Their backward, overly religious ancestors were far more proficient without the benefit or burden of a public education system. A system that once focused first on literacy, numeracy, history, and argument or debate. Rob Roper just published a piece on some of the particulars of this systemic failure with a focus on Vermont, another Dem-run state in many facets of decline. It is a problem decades in the making, which our own Dr. Jody Underwood delved into, sharing a series of articles based on her research.
The Education Industrial Complex and its apologists took a shine to the notion that COVID remote learning was to blame for observable ignorance. Dr. Underwood undercut their presumption with data.
Oddly enough, had children been taught to read, the pandemic would likely have had less, if any, impact. A student who can read is capable of self-learning. It’s one of the few things upon which any education system needs to focus. A competent reader can teach themselves almost anything with some direction or encouragement from an adult who can answer questions or help them manage the proper order of study.
In many cases, it is for very little money or even for free online. It is not an insurmountable problem unless kids can’t read.
Homeschoolers and private or charter school kids tend to do a lot better on shoestring budgets with limited or no staff or teachers. Just an adult or a handful managing groups of kids across several residences in shared learning environments. This schooling ignores fads or trends or frivolous ideological nonsense and focuses on reading becasue it is the foundation of learning.
Vermont might be struggling, but Oregon, a place it likes to emulate, is in dire straights. Their education system is so bad they have to waive proficiency testing altogether to get kids to graduation.
Oregon’s high school students will not have to prove basic proficiency in reading, writing, or math to graduate until 2029, the state board of education decided Thursday.
The Oregon Board of Education’s unanimous decision extends the pandemic era pause on the graduation requirement, which was paused in 2021 through the end of the current school year by former Governor Kate Brown, a Democrat.
You would be correct to ask from what, precisely, have they graduated from or to? The educrats are pretending it is still something with value.
“We haven’t suspended any sort of assessments,” state board member Vicky López Sánchez, who is also a dean at Portland Community College, said Thursday. “The only thing we are suspending is the inappropriate use of how those assessments were being used. I think that really is in the best interest of Oregon students.”
So, you still have the assessments in a file cabinet somewhere; you’re just not going to use them. I get it. And why would you? “Advocates for pausing the graduation requirement previously argued that the test puts certain children, including minority and low-income children, at a disadvantage.”
So, are the minority students placed in your care for one purpose, incapable of the skills you are meant to teach, or did you fail or refuse to teach them because the only disadvantage I can see is their inability to escape the bloated, failing school system in which you’ve trapped them. A complex problem whose roots all lead back to Democrat policy.
Make all the excuses you want, but at the end of the day, two things are true. Minorities are more than capable of learning to read and thus learning anything else (and thriving), and the city public school system (in particular) has proven incapable or unwilling to let that happen.
Are you incompetent or evil?
A little of both?
HT | Daily Wire
The post Oregon Can’t Teach Kids to Read – Solution: Skip the Proficiency Requirement to Graduate appeared first on Granite Grok.
Conflicts within the Republican party with internal divisions and power struggles have hindered their ability to present a united front, weakening them when facing their Democrat counterparts. Thus, this source of distraction has rendered them less effective in providing a compelling alternative to Democrat policies and initiatives.
This discord has led to a misalignment of priorities, a lack of consensus on fundamental issues, and decreased public trust.
However, it is crucial to remember that these divisions are not insurmountable. The Republican party’s motto, “Go along to get along,” while historically influential, is no longer applicable in the current political climate. The party’s leaders and grassroots movements advocate for a more assertive and uncompromising stance on critical issues such as crimes, immigration, border security, economic policy, healthcare, and social issues.
The Republican Party has been traditionally blocked by the establishment components of the party, which has hindered its ability to present a unified front. This has resulted in a lack of coherent alternatives to the Democrat agenda, weakening their opposition.
However, the time for unity is now. The Republican Party must find a way to mend the fractures and present a united front to mount a more formidable challenge against their Democrat opponents. This unity will strengthen their ability to oppose Democrats effectively and also inspire confidence and harmony among their supporters. Progressives have taken America to the edge of a cliff, and it is time for adult Republicans to rise and stop America from fading away. The expectation is that these leaders will put forth reasoned and sustainable policy alternatives that address the nation’s challenges.
The idea is that as the political pendulum swings, there is a need for Republicans, often considered the party of fiscal conservatism and limited government, to step forward and provide an alternative vision that safeguards the nation’s future. Republican voters have shown increasing support for leaders who take a bold and unapologetic approach to policy, influencing the party’s direction.
Republican primary election day is fast approaching. Just to remind you, elections have consequences. The vote you cast will not simply replace one politician with another. At this point, every vote has significant existential implications. Whether we like it or not, we are indeed in a war of survival. Make sure you do the right thing and vote for the best candidate.
To undecided voters: Don’t be fooled by the accusations that the incurably sick Leftists at home and America’s ill-wishers abroad level at this country. America is not perfect. Yet, it is the best hope for humanity struggling to find its humanity. America is worth defending. Vote for the candidate who is not appeasing the Islamists or lobbyists for some extra votes. Vote for the candidate willing to fight for our values and not afraid to call a spade a spade.
Let us end the reign of the ossified old Republican establishment by supporting a new generation of principled conservatives. A conservative wave of Republicans determined to breathe new life into the party and champion the hopes and aspirations of all Americans.
The post Whether We Like It or Not, We Are Indeed in a War of Survival appeared first on Granite Grok.
I can almost see John Kerry, bent in half, whispering into Biden’s ear as he snoozes behind the Resolute Desk. There’s an ice cream stain on the Commander in Chief’s Lapel, he reeks of BenGay, and there’s a bottle of Geritol spilled across his blotter as if he’d tried to overdose.
“I should have been president, you doddering corrupt little muppet.”
John, “Hide your Yacht” Kerry had his shot at making the Ketchup lady the First Lady and blew it. Stolen election, they say, but that’s what Democrats say every time they try to steal one, and someone does a better job. He was also swift-boated, which hints at campaign deceit, something else they are better at than Republicans. The Steele Dossier comes to mind. It didn’t prevent a presidency, but it bogged one down. There are still Democrats who think it is true. They are idiots. Or are they?
These days, Democrats can steal elections in broad daylight on camera, and if you point, jaw agape, saying, “But look!” you are a threat to democracy.
And John Frikkin Kerry is still collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck. These days, he jet-sets to climate confabs and Klan Bakes in exotic locales to rub his blue-blood elbows with the global elite. Imparting wisdom as only he can, like how farming is threatening the planet. We need to feed people, but we need less farming.
I’m not confident the food giant that made the family of the woman John Kerry married rich will pave the path to making ketchup without farms, but it should. You, first, as they say. Put your emissions where your rhetoric is. But then, no. Kerry has made it clear that he must fly on private jets. How else can he save the rest of us from the sins of such privilege?
The same must be true for certain wealth accumulated thanks to condiments.
HT | RCSB
The post John Kerry on How Feeding People is Destroying the Planet appeared first on Granite Grok.
In an age where health and wellness are top priorities for many individuals, dietary supplements have gained immense popularity. Supplements are often seen as a way to fill nutritional gaps and support overall well-being. However, not all supplements are created equal, and it’s crucial to understand the significance of research when selecting the right supplements for your diet.
Ensuring Safety:One of the primary reasons for conducting research on dietary supplements is to ensure their safety. Not all supplements are risk-free; some may interact with medications or have adverse effects on some individuals. Thorough research can identify potential safety concerns, contraindications, and appropriate dosages.
Effectiveness and Efficacy:Research helps determine whether a supplement is effective for its intended purpose. Scientific studies and clinical trials give evidence of whether a supplement can deliver the claimed benefits. Without this research, consumers may invest in products that are ineffective or offer minimal benefits.
Identifying Quality Products:The supplement market is flooded with a vast array of products, and not all of them are of the same quality. Research can help identify reputable brands and high-quality products that meet specific standards for purity, potency, and manufacturing practices. Choosing well-researched products reduces the risk of purchasing subpar supplements.
Understanding the Right Dosage:The correct dosage of a supplement is critical for both safety and efficacy. Research provides insights into the optimal dosage levels for various supplements, helping consumers avoid overuse or underuse, which could be ineffective or potentially harmful.
Tailoring Supplements to Individual Needs:Not everyone requires the same supplements. Personal health needs and dietary deficiencies vary widely, and research can help individuals identify the supplements that best address their specific concerns and goals, such as SimplyThick mix in gel to help consume food. This personalization is vital for optimizing health and wellness.
Avoiding Misleading Claims:The dietary supplement market is rife with products making bold claims about health benefits. Research allows consumers to distinguish between supplements supported by scientific evidence and those that rely on marketing hype. Being discerning about these claims can save money and prevent disappointment.
Preventing Harmful Interactions:Some supplements can negatively interact with prescription medications or other supplements, potentially causing adverse effects. Research helps individuals identify potential interactions and consult with healthcare professionals to manage their supplement regimens safely.
Promoting Informed Decision-Making:Informed decision-making is at the core of responsible supplement use. Research equips individuals with the knowledge to make choices that support with their health goals and values rather than relying on hearsay or uninformed advice.
Avoiding Over-Supplementation:More is not always better when it comes to supplements. An excessive intake of certain vitamins and minerals can lead to adverse health effects. Research guides individuals in maintaining a balanced and safe approach to supplementation.
Supporting Long-Term Health:Research-backed supplement choices are more likely to contribute to long-term health benefits. The goal is to address immediate concerns and support their overall well-being and reduce the risk of chronic health issues in the future.
Conclusion:Dietary supplements can be valuable additions to a well-rounded approach to health and wellness, but their effectiveness and safety are contingent on thorough research and informed decision-making. Individuals seeking to enhance their health through supplementation should prioritize products that have undergone rigorous scientific scrutiny, are of high quality, and align with their unique health needs. With research as a guiding principle, individuals can maximize the benefits of dietary supplements while minimizing potential risks.
The post The Importance of Research When Choosing Supplements for Your Diet appeared first on Granite Grok.
When Hamas terrorists attacked and killed thousands of Jewish citizens, our current President Biden eventually did the right thing and supported Israel while condemning Hamas. That good thing isn’t lasting very long, though, as now he wants to send $2 billion of taxpayer relief money to Gaza.
As if Hamas would use the money to rebuild their hospitals and schools to make the lives of Gazza citizens better and safer.
Hamas would buy more guns, bullets, and bombs to kill more Jews. It’s what they do, it’s what they believe that their mission from Allah is. But Joe nor any of his “advisors” care about that. They only want to make Joe look good at the expense of more Jewish blood. Yea, it’s stupid.
Here is some more stupid. Dozens of Harvard University liberal groups wrote and signed letters blaming Israel for the war because the Jews are retaliating against the terrorists. Harvard is not the only University that teaches that. Meanwhile, it seems that Muslims are playing the Victim Game by copying the Left’s current Rules.
That said, there is now some pretty heavy pushback against the Universities. So much so that large numbers of the identified groups’ members, who joined of their own free will, are having buyer’s remorse. Yup, they didn’t know or were never told and are now trying to get out of the frying pans (very much like Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg).
That heat is most pronounced by about 30 US CEO’s urging Harvard to publish all the names behind those letters so their organizations will not hire them after they graduate. That would pretty much fry those smart, cool terrorist excusers’ bacon! If Harvard really wanted to “do the right thing” they would fire every person teaching and promoting this ante-Semitic crap as well.
So does anyone believe Harvard or any other University will look to actually do what’s right? Not on your life – what we may see is a CYA presentation via the media to pacify critics. Then, when the heat is off, it’ll be back to business as usual.
Bet you a coffee and donut.
The post Stupid Is as Stupid Does appeared first on Granite Grok.
He’s always a font of opinion and ideas, that one. I may not always agree but once again, he does bring up some that most of us would never have thought. That is pure Ian – always arriving at viewpoints that just come out of nowhere but still, after all these years, make my head hurt (this one, just a little).
Some emphasis by me.
If you want to dismantle the public school system, start with means testing. Make parents start paying their fair share of the cost, and watch what happens to spending — and to union contracts.
Instead of “taxes,” think “user fees.” But this brings up the whole argument of the Marxian “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” schtick. Which also means “no kids, no fees paid.” Balance that, however, with what I’ve said against the “but it’s a Public Good for all” argument with the example of my aunt in Mattapoisett, MA, where the school district said, “thank you for your years of financial service to the school; now that you are a Sr. Citizen, we will no longer charge your property taxes henceforward.
She and my uncle never had children.
After that, remove any mention of age from the statutes and rules governing school, and make all placements on the basis of tests for proficiency in literacy and numeracy. Watch what happens when half the students never get out of third grade, because they can no longer be promoted on the basis of age.
Here we go with the cries of “WHY are you stigmatizing the disabled?”, once again. However, as we have seen with my favorite whipping post, the Baltimore School District that spends oodles of money and hardly any students are proficient in ANY academics, stopping “social promotion” will cure a LOT of evils within the system (as no one is ever held accountable for their part in it.
But if you want to get rid of teachers’ unions, you have to cut to the root of the problem, which is giving unions in general any special treatment under the law. Indeed, they shouldn’t be mentioned in the law at all, any more than book clubs or bowling leagues.
And you can start this easily by making unions collect their own dues money “owed” to them by their members instead of the School District “removing it” from the process of deductions from someone’s paycheck.
People should be free to form unions — that’s just freedom of association. But employers should be free to ignore or even avoid them. That’s also freedom of association, and it’s freedom of contract, but it’s based on something more than that.
Article 83 of the state constitution says that people have the inherent and essential right to free and fair competition in the trades and industries; and that it is the state’s responsibility to protect that right from all monopolies and other conspiracies that tend to hinder or destroy it.
I’ll add that if unions should exist, be they in the private sector. In the public sector, when they strike, this is the Government striking against We The People. It is the Government telling us, even as most have good working conditions and pay which was the reason they came into being in the first place, but…
Sidenote: always check to see what the median income is in a District compared to what teachers are demanding.
…that they are better than the people “they serve.”
It’s left as an exercise to the reader to try come up with wording that would more clearly and unambiguously demand that the legislature eliminate special legal status for unions, along with mandatory occupational licensing, which is used by unions as a tool to curb competition.
And there’s the nub of the problem – what is the persuasion path to get to that endpoint?
And, as always, his other comment will provoke a bit as well.
The post Promoted From the Comments – Grokster Ian Has Thoughts on “Want School Systems That Work?” appeared first on Granite Grok.
Led by Republican lawmakers in Tennessee, a working group is weighing what it would cost for the state to sever the government purse strings that bind students to federal imperatives.
The group will address “the regulations and requirements that come along with the federal funding, and if the state could step in and fill that funding gap itself …” Critics of the plan say this would undermine public schools and bolster charter and private ones, which have more independence in creating curricula.
Battles over policies and books that depict or promote same-sex and transgender lifestyles and severing parents from having a say in these important issues are roiling educational districts across the country. The result is a patchwork of differing approaches taken by local school systems. Federal laws increasingly favor liberal attitudes on presenting sexual topics in the classroom, so some states are considering cutting ties to federal education funding in order to maintain state autonomy. Is this the beginning of a reclamation of states’ rights?
Tennessee Leads the ChargeThe stated goal of Tennessee’s working group is to “provide a clearer picture of how much autonomy Tennessee truly has in educating [its students].” One Democrat in the group has announced that she will vote for continued federal funding regardless, citing the importance of such cashflows for special needs students, English-language training, and the poor. State Sen. Raumesh Akbari (D) said: “The harsh consequences of rejecting this $1.8 billion in funding cannot be overstated. Through this committee, I will advocate that Tennessee keep accepting these necessary funds.”
State Sen. John Lundberg (R), chair of the working group, said he urged participants to “[k]eep students in mind as they’re doing these deliberations and doing their fact-finding because that’s what at the end of the day is important.”
Subject to Federal RegulationsMore and more parents from across the political spectrum are asking understandable questions about the impacts of exposing young students to gender questioning and drag queens. They are concerned that core learning skills are suffering, being replaced by federally regulated race and gender subject matters that have little to do with reading, writing, and arithmetic.
As America is fractured by culture wars and aggressive progressive theories, a pullback from decades of growing federal domination may be in the works. For some states, no amount of federal dollars is worth denying parental rights.
Consider how this may impact other controversial situations. Will federal stipends for health insurance or services be refused by red states if abortion is mandated as a condition of receipt? What if grants for land-use projects are tied to rewilding or renewable-energy boondoggles? As federal control of local education tightens, expect other states to initiate similar efforts to seek a clearer picture of their own autonomy.
John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.
The post States Eye Rejecting Federal Education Money Because It Comes With Too Many Strings appeared first on Granite Grok.
So mortgage rates have hit EIGHT PERCENT … thanks in large part to the UniParty spending frenzy on endless-wars and COVID. And there is no end in sight because the UniParty intends to continue deficit spending … which means the budget deficit is effectively being paid for through inflation, i.e. by devaluing the dollar, a hidden, dishonest tax, which is what’s behind the higher interest rates.
And the UniParty is fine with that. They already have their homes and second homes and in some cases third, fourth and fifth homes. They believe in a permanent ruling elite, themselves, and a compliant ruled class, the rest of us. Ownership gives you greater autonomy from government, i.e. form the ruling class, than renting … which is why our UniParty rulers have no problem with denying future generations the dignity and security of home ownership. You will own nothing and be happy.
As mortgage rates hit 8% for the first time in 23 years, affordability continues to fall off a cliff.
The Housing Affordability Index just hit a fresh record low, at ~90.
This means that housing affordability is officially down 50% since 2021.
Since then peak in 2012, housing… pic.twitter.com/8LrplZtztq
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) October 23, 2023
The post You Will Own NOTHING … And Be Happy appeared first on Granite Grok.
Pennsylvania’s Peter Brothers Trucking delivers goods all across America. Owner Brian Wanner says Pennsylvania bureaucrats now are driving him out of his home state.
“We have no say,” complains Wanner in my new video. “We can’t do anything about it.”
“No say” because Pennsylvania’s new rules don’t come from Pennsylvania. They come from California.
“I don’t want to be anything like California!” complains Wanner.
Too bad for him and other Pennsylvania truck owners because Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Board decided their state will automatically copy California regulations.
California’s rules will raise the price of a new truck by about one-third. Trucks that once cost $190,000 will now cost about $260,000.
California regulators said this new air pollution regulation is needed because the trucks Wanner drives “contribute greatly to … serious health and welfare problems.” (RELATED: JOHN STOSSEL: If The Government Shut Down, Would You Even Notice?)
That’s ridiculous, says Wanner. “We have come so far in the last 40 years. In 1980, one truck produced as much (pollution) as 60 trucks today.”
“So to reduce pollution, we want people to buy new trucks,” I point out.
“But if you put these costs on us that we cannot afford, we’re going to just run the older trucks!” responds Wanner.
“The regulators don’t think about that?” I ask. “They do not!” Wanner replies. “They do not see the consequences of what they’re doing.”
Now, truckers like Wanner will just buy trucks in neighboring states.
“We can go to Ohio and get cheaper trucks,” he says.
So there won’t be any pollution reduction. The new rule will just hurt Pennsylvanians who sell trucks.
Who are these regulators? Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Air Board is mostly made up of people from unrelated departments, like the Fish and Boat Commission, the Game Commission, and the Historical & Museum Commission. I doubt that many know much about air pollution.
“The whole idea of having a regulatory board like this is, ‘Oh, these people are experts,’” says attorney Caleb Kruckenberg of the Pacific Legal Foundation, “‘They know what they’re talking about. They’re smarter than the lawmakers.’ But if you look at the board, that’s not true. These are just random bureaucrats who work in the government, and they say, ‘I don’t know. Let’s follow California.’”
Kruckenberg is suing Pennsylvania on behalf of truckers like Wanner, arguing that what Pennsylvania does violates the Constitution.
“Nobody in Pennsylvania has ever voted for the standards that now control Pennsylvania.”
I push back. “So what? California seems to have a lot of money. I could see a state saying, ‘Yeah, let their regulators figure out how we reduce pollution, and we’ll save money doing what they do.’”
“If people want something,” Kruckenberg replies, “their legislature is supposed to pass it.”
California’s rules will soon get still more expensive because Gov. Gavin Newsom has decreed that soon, all new vehicles must be electric.
“But electricity comes from fossil fuels!” Kruckenberg points out. In Pennsylvania, some comes from coal, and most comes from natural gas.
So to power all-electric trucks, Pennsylvania will burn more fossil fuels.
Still another problem: electric trucks are heavier.
“That’s harder on the roads,” says Wanner. Also, “electric trucks have a very low mileage radius, so you can’t work all day. It’s nothing that you can take across the United States.”
Pennsylvania’s regulators don’t seem to care. They just want to do what California does.
“Why would we allow our state to give away their lawmaking procedures to California?” asks Wanner. “That’s not the American way. If we want to follow California, we can move there! I don’t want to be anything like California.”
John Stossel | Daily Caller News Service
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.The post Leave It To The ‘Experts’ To Follow California Off A Cliff appeared first on Granite Grok.
Everyone was excited when the liberty movement got everyone on the stick in favor of law enforcement wearing body cameras. Finally, some accountability, transparency, pick the word you like best. But not so fast. There are some serious things attached.
Police wear body cameras, but no one, including private citizens, can share them.
XII. Except as authorized in this section, no person, including without limitation officers and their supervisors, shall edit, alter, erase, delete, duplicate, copy, subject to automated analysis or analytics of any kind, including but not limited to facial recognition technology, share, display, or otherwise distribute in any manner any BWC recordings or portions thereof. This paragraph shall not apply to the sharing of a still image captured by the BWC to help identify individuals or vehicles suspected of being involved in a crime.
Marc Machon, whom many of our readers know about – they send me clips from time to time was the source of this discovery.
Marc Manchon [is] a man who runs a YouTube channel called Press NH Now doing first amendment auditing. What did Manchon do that the Hillsboro police need protection from? He released their Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage on his YouTube channel.
There are more details here, and it’s not pretty for the local PD whose on-camera antics – recorded on the police body-worn-camera (BWC) – cannot legally be shared with the general public. Machon can ask for and receive them, but becasue of how the law is written, that is where the transparency ends. A problem only the NH Legislature can fix.
Hopefully the legislature will update this terrible statute to protect the people from criminal charges for sharing BWC videos and make BWC videos even more transparent and accessible without requiring criminal charges to get the videos in discovery, as right now the statute claims the videos are “for law enforcement purposes only” in part XIII.
There’s not much point to body cameras if sharing what they tell us is limited to LEOs who may not have the best record on disciplining officers or putting citizens’ rights ahead of department PR.
And I get that it was written to prevent abuse of the records. The state defines handling and use limitations with an eye toward protecting the liberty and privacy of individuals (as if I know). Still, you ought to – at the very least – be able to share body camera footage of your encounter if you so choose.
And then put body cameras on public educators and staff, please.
The post Free Keene: Did you Know That It is Illegal in NH to … appeared first on Granite Grok.
Reading the obituaries in the New Hampshire Union Leader I learned that two trans-identified 14-year-old girls died by suicide in New Hampshire almost exactly six months apart. This is tragic and shocking but not completely unexpected because of the awful toll that social and medical transition takes on gender-confused kids.
On the Reddit detrans subreddit you can read post after post by young people reporting how their mental health seriously deteriorated after they transitioned and how it only started recovering after detransitioning.
The stress of transitioning is high because they have to work so hard to pretend they are something they are not. They are constantly on alert for being found out for being the sex they were born as. On top of that, when they start medical transition with puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, those medications wreak havoc with their minds and their bodies.
There are also the constant threats that kids will commit suicide if they aren’t affirmed in their gender identity. Affirmation requires that everyone uses the correct pronouns every time, and no one ever pushes back on these kids’ delusional beliefs. It is completely unrealistic and seriously damaging to their mental health.
Related: Experts: Child Transing Doesn’t Reduce Suicide
This is all on top of the mental health problems that these kids are already dealing with. The gender cult targets kids who have serious mental health issues such as autism, ADHD, and PTSD. Those issues are ignored in favor of transitioning so they don’t get the mental health care they need. It’s a recipe for a mental health disaster.
Thankfully, there is a new book, “Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist’s Guide Out of the Madness” by Miriam Grossman, MD, that goes into detail about what is going so terribly wrong for these kids and what parents can do to best help them. Everyone involved in caring for these kids, medical professionals, teachers, friends, and family members, should read it and do better for these kids.
The post The Gender Cult Drives New Hampshire Kids to Despair appeared first on Granite Grok.