He was not receiving civil disagreement as you would expect from the industry. Just because "riled" speech it legal does not imply it's good, especially in journalism. And threats can be just as chilling as the actual thing. I think that journalists and commentators should be able to have civil disagreements without receiving threats or emotionally heated debate.

And I'm only going on about journalists. There's plenty more in other industries, regular citizens and celebrities alike. Gina Carano can't say that Nazi behavior is bad without being fired, but Whoopi Goldberg can actually say that that Nazis weren't racist, and she's forgiven after two weeks. The double standard is insane.

He said he could no longer speak his mind without riling his colleagues. That's pretty damning for an industry that used to pride itself on free speech.

We also have Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, James Bennet... all gone from their publications shortly after publishing luke-warm commentary but offensive to Woke sensibilities.

Matthew Yglesias was literally ousted from his own publication (Vox) because he argued against defund the police.

"Accountability" implies a proportionate response. E.g. Me burning down your house because you looked at my wife funny is not proportionate, nor accountability.

Getting fired from your job because of because you argued against "Defund the Police" is not proportionate, nor accountability.

Well then these are the bad things to be regulated, not hydrocarbons as such. This law makes it implausible to produce hydrocarbon from reclaimed CO2 (e.g. imagine an organism that produces gasoline as a byproduct of photosynthesis---this is now dramatically more costly).

This law isn't really targeting NOx, either.

All energy has costs and benefits. Making solar panels and batteries is not an environmentally friendly walk in the park either. Wind turbines kill a lot of birds, and disproportionately endangered migratory birds. The planet does just fine with some amount of CO2, we can legitimately produce at least a little. The question is how much, or at what cost.

The closest thing we have to miracle energy is nuclear (fission), and environmentalists and the Left continue to conspicuously hate on it. This position is completely deranged.

I think this is a more rational & scientific way to look at it. I think conservatives could even get on board if it replaced other taxes. But now you have a geopolitical problem to deal with (developing countries antagonistic to the US---China and India---are not going to participate in taxes on cheap energy).

My point is if gas prices aren't enough to get customers to switch on their own, then they don't need to switch. If it costs $50k to increase the efficiency by one MPG, then obviously the increase isn't worth it. This law doesn't make such a distinction, it must be done at any cost.

Further, this law only applies to the US. The US does not have a hydrocarbon problem anywhere near the level of most European countries, or China, or India. It's written as if hydrocarbon is a bad thing unto itself and it's just not.

No. Nobody ever said this. Go take your straw-man somewhere else.

The law isn't "saving the planet" either. There is no scientific evidence for it. The scientific way to stop externalities is by internalizing them. A law setting a minimum efficiency is not a way to internalize a cost, it merely changes buying habits to use more costly forms of transportation, that often emit more greenhouse gases. If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emission, you have to put a pricetag on it so we can know when it's worth the cost and when it's not.

Of course it's not literally a tax you English major. It's a turn of phrase suggesting that it's effectively the same as one.

What is internalizing an externality, and how does that apply to fuel efficiency minimums?

I read: "I don't have a counter-argument so I'll just threaten sexual violence."

But I'll accept your point if you just agree that Democrats are the party of the rich elites, and opposed to the working class (for the sake of this argument: anyone who can't afford electric cars).

You can go to prison for violating these "regulations". They're a type of law. I get your point, but I wasn't wrong and it doesn't change my point.

This is debatable. The president can't delegate his veto power. The courts can't delegate their warrant power. Short of an amendment, no law can change this fact. The wording that gives Congress their lawmaking power is not different, so it's not clear that Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority either.

I'm sick of these headlines written as if we had this huge abundance of valuable material and resources and they just vanished into thin air one day. Nothing was "lost". Nothing was ruined.

If an oil pipeline ruptures and ruins a water supply, or if an earthquake demolishes a city, that's what I would call loss. That can actually cause a recession as people have to make do with fewer valuable resources than they had previously.

Here, the market cap (the price of the last trade, multiplied by the number of stocks) decreased, because people aren't willing to pay the same price for a stock as they were at the peak of the pandemic. That's it. That's the story.

If the industry said they could do it, then why would they need a law (since when does the president get to write laws)?

If the better gas milage really is more economical, then why would customers need a law (isn't Congress exclusively supposed to write the laws)?

Ah, there it is: It's actually a tax on poor people.

I seriously doubt that a word list could be copyrightable. Copyright law protects specific things like "Phonographic records" and "Works of literature" (which includes written instructions, which itself includes computer code). It shouldn't protect a list of words plucked out of a dictionary any more than it protects clothing designs (which it doesn't).

If the word list was generated by a computer program from an existing dictionary, it definitely would not be protected. (The output of computer programs is not copyrightable.)

Even if this were true, it doesn't make a difference to my point.

Senators are lawmakers, not leaders. Again, you're supporting my point: I'm not voting for them based on what they do off of the senate floor (or their offices).

What was he going to do if he was there, pass a law banning winter? No really, what was the alternative? If you're electing politicians based on where they vacation instead of the laws they pass, you've gone completely batshit insane. And guess what, the Senate was out of session. You can't articulate a reason this was bad, all you're interested in is grandstanding.

Stop saying "No evidence" when there has been evidence presented for it.

It would be incredibly surprising to me if, despite all the variation present across humanity, there was only one learning style. Obviously, there is variation in how well different people learn the same material.

What you mean to say is, we have not identified the mechanism that makes this so. "No evidence" is not a synonym for "unproven".