RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-plans-biggest-federal-tax-hike-1993-fund-infrastructure-climate-initiatives

Households across the US rejoiced over the weekend as they received their first stimulus checks. And as BofA’s team of analysts parses exactly how millions of Americans will spend this money (will they buy washing machines and toasters? Or dump it into crypto/GME?), Bloomberg is out with a chilling report alerting Americans to the inevitable reality that President Biden is about to switch gears from spending to fundraising.

Of course, we use that term loosely: Despite the fact that Biden just shelled out another $1.85 trillion to finance a third round of stimulus checks (not to mention hundreds of billions in handouts to states and municipalities), his administration isn’t raising money to pay for that. Instead, they’re looking to finance a Democratic “New New Deal”.

Breaking with his former boss, Barack Obama (who signed legislation to make most of the Bush-era tax cuts permanent), Biden is embarking on what could be the biggest federal tax hike since 1993 (remember ‘no new taxes’?) to finance an infrastructure plan, Biden’s climate-change initiatives, health care and economic inequality.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/03/16/will-lefts-violent-tendencies-lead-to-u-s-breakup-or-dictatorship/

he Democratic Party’s far-left wing — or is that redundant? — has pursued a relentless gaslighting campaign against conservatives. It goes like this: Pay no attention to the Democrat fringe’s insane violence of the last year, members of the conservative right are the real troglodytes, prone to extreme political savagery. The Big Media, ambling in their own leftist zombie trance, repeat the mantra over and over. Only problem: It’s utterly false

It should be no surprise that it’s actually the left that has violent proclivities. And now, new data clearly back up what we’ve known instinctively.

The numbers come from the 2020 poll of election opinions by the highly respected and widely cited American National Elections Studies (ANES), a joint effort of Stanford University and the University of Michigan. It’s funded by the National Science Foundation, and while it formally began in 1977, its roots and data go all the way back to the 1940s.

So, yeah, “science.”

We found the chart below in a tweet by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, the renowned Canadian psychologist who has been vilified by the left for not blindly supporting its cultural insanity. The numbers are both enlightening and frightening at the same time.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/14/woke-science-has-no-place-in-government-policymaking/

“Science, at its core, is a social phenomenon.” This observation, from Alondra Nelson, the newly appointed deputy director of President Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), certainly qualifies for a prominent place in the Pantheon of Inane Statements. The core of science, in fact, is the scientific method—posing and testing hypotheses; carefully gathering, examining, and generating experimental evidence; and finally, synthesizing all the available information into logical conclusions. 

Dr. Nelson’s assertion is inauspicious, but perhaps we should not be too surprised by a “squishy” statement from someone whose undergraduate degree was in sociology, while her doctorate is in “American Studies.” What, we wonder, qualifies her to be deputy director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy? And how does it comport with President Biden’s commitment to always rely on “science and truth.” We suspect it is an example of how lip service to science has invaded the domain of real science. 

“Hard” sciences are a framework for understanding physical, chemical, subatomic, biological, and other natural or even man-made phenomena. The disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, and especially mathematics, have nothing to do with society as such, because the phenomena they characterize exist independently of humans. Mathematics is typically the language of this framework, whether it is arcane calculus, probability theory, combinatorics, topology, or some other branch well understood by only a very select group. 

The presence of uncertainty or unresolved questions in the hard sciences does not make them soft or diminish their rigor. In fact, scientific findings incorporate statistical uncertainty, but without ascribing motives or a social context. 

As an example of the evolution of science, Newton’s laws of physics were once believed to be immutable. Centuries later, Einstein hypothesized mathematical principles that questioned the validity of certain of Newton’s laws in extreme conditions—seminal speculations that were unusual and daring but amenable to the process of hypothesis and experimentation. In fact, subsequent experiments—the essence of science—have validated most of Einstein’s theories. In other situations, the process is reversed: an experiment produces new or unexpected results, spawning theories to explain them, which then require further testing to validate or disprove them. This is how science works.