Former President of the United States Barack Obama recently offered the following comments concerning Republican candidates for the presidency.

• “And so if a Republican, who may even be sincere in saying, ‘I want us all to live together,’ doesn’t have a plan for how do we address crippling generational poverty that is a consequence of hundreds of years of racism in this society, and we need to do something about that. If that candidate is not willing to acknowledge that, again and again, we’ve seen discrimination in everything from … getting a job to buying a house to how the criminal justice system operates.”

• “If somebody’s not proposing, both acknowledging and proposing, elements that say, ‘No, we can’t just ignore all that and pretend as if everything’s equal and fair. We actually have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.’ If they’re not doing that, then I think people are rightly skeptical.”

Mr. Obama will never know when things are “equal and fair” so long a people (of any skin color) claim things are not “equal and fair.” How are “equal and fair” proven to the satisfaction of those who insist they are victims?

Laws have been in place since the early 1960’s for every individual to demand civil rights in the courts. If you complain that people should not have to go to court to prove they were treated unfairly, then your rhetoric, Mr. Obama, only serves to maintain victim status in the minds of the aggrieved. Government and laws cannot coerce conscience.

At this point and forward, the answer to your concerns lies only in the hearts and minds of each individual. Like Senator Tim Scott, each individual has a responsibility to face down discrimination, rise above their circumstances and, most importantly, seize the opportunity to do so in our free society.

Resolution of your concerns, Mr. Obama, lies not in the victim hood you promote, but in honesty, hard work, and a refusal to accept defeat. Tim Scott represents what is achievable for anyone willing to go down the positive path. You, to the disappointment of many, missed the opportunity to be that example.

The contemporary cultural and political holy trinity is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. What is this anyway? Here is what our government thinks these terms mean. Click here to learn what Merriam-Webster says these terms mean; diversity, equity, inclusion. Compare and contrast (you talented student of English composition).

Diversity: Observing people in our personal relationships and more generally in gatherings leads all rational people to conclude that we are each not the same as any another. That is, human diversity is a reality, not the basis for a cultural or political commandment to which we must submit. Yet, the new religion coerces representation in every organization of a range of favored classes defined by the high priests of the religion (see “Underserved Communities“). Leaders of organizations (whether for-profit, non-profit, or governmental) have a duty to employ the most competent people they can attract to fulfill their organization’s mission. Compromising this duty to fulfill someone else’s notion of “diversity” is counter productive to realizing the social benefits of the organization.

Equity: Yes, we should be fair and impartial in judging others and in making decisions that affect others. However, those preaching DEI “equity” are not trying to be fair and impartial. They are using “equity” as a rationale to take stuff from other people who have more stuff. Their intent is not “equity,” it is theft. Equal opportunity is a moral imperative. Equal outcome requires theft.

Inclusion: Yes, employers should recognize, appreciate, and use the talents and skills of employees of all backgrounds. But the high priests use “inclusion” to again coerce employment of their favored classes over all others at the expense of competence.

The DEI poster child is White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. She is female, has black skin, and is lesbian. None of those attributes relate to her competence or the value she brings to her organization. Is she competent?

So, what is DEI? It is a cultural and political trope that devalues individual effort and competence to gain power over others. This interpretation is confirmed by practitioners of the DEI religion labeling those questioning DEI as haters, racists, and bigots.

DEI is counterproductive to a more tolerant and fair society because it is founded in division and resentment. It’s bible consists of strained rationalizations based on victim-hood.

We need to replace DEI with a cultural and political obsession to recognize and promote individual effort and tangible achievement.

What do these services have in common?

• Facebook
• Instagram
• Twitter
• SnapChat
• ChatGPT, Bard, and other artificial intelligence services
• Metaverse
• TikTok
• News outlets of all types.

They are each designed to attract and channel eyeballs in support of advertising and propaganda. They attract and channel eyeballs by appealing to sensationalism and by reinforcing biases. They ban participants and subjects their managements’ don’t approve of. They enable user and publisher information silos that keep alternative content hidden.

Given millions of users stuck in silos across all these and similar services, our communities become polarized into dogmatic tribes without tolerance for debate or mutual respect.

We have allowed technology to enable phony world. You escape phony world by debating with people eyeball to eyeball and by researching the reality of issues using multiple sources. Form your views based on information, not the opinions of others. Think for yourself.

Democratic Party leadership and activists believe they are in righteous pursuit of a brave new world of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” These are nonsense words having goals that can’t be measured, intangible policy implications, and no explainable moral foundation.

Reality is that these people seek centralized control over us, an old construct that includes such historical examples as feudalism, fascism, socialism, and communism. Democratic Party goals are in direct conflict with the goals of individual freedom and responsibility that underpin the United States Constitution, our founding principals.

The Democratic Party seeks to replace Federalism with national control.

• They demand national control of elections.
• They demand national control of education.
• They demand national control of media.
• They demand national control of work.
• They demand national control of energy.
• They demand national control of health care.
• They demand packing the US Supreme Court to allow for laws that impose national control.

We already know from history that this will end badly if they get their way. These are not American Democrats. They are the same old power mongers our Constitution was designed to constrain.

Until the current Democratic Party leadership is replaced by those respecting our Constitution and understanding its proven value in creating a just and prosperous society, vote Republican to assure the moral foundations of America remain intact.

Before you draw conclusions about my mental fitness to question electric vehicle orthodoxy, please understand that I own a battery electric vehicle (BEV) and find it superior personal transportation technology. Saving the earth? Not so much.

There are many studies claiming BEV carbon emissions superiority to internal combustion engine (ICE) automobiles. There are also many studies making it clear the jury will be in session for many years before we have a definitive answer. At best, life cycle emissions comparing BEV’s with ICE automobiles is currently a wash, more BEV emissions up front versus more ICE emissions over time. Also, claims of efficiently recycling BEV batteries at scale to reduce life cycle emissions are unproven.

A recent study from Volvo needs to be seriously considered. Volvo concludes that carbon emissions from mining and processing materials in their BEV XC 40 are 70% greater than those from the comparable ICE XC40 model. They project cumulative BEV emissions begin to be lower than those from the comparable ICE model after 146,000 km (90,000 miles) based on electricity charging the BEV coming from the current global mix of power plant energy sources. That’s about 10 years of driving. The study makes no assumptions about emissions related to end of life recycling for either vehicle.

Volvo projects BEV versus ICE emissions break even at 84,000 km (52,000 miles) based on their measure of the power plant energy mix of the 28 European Union countries; again, without knowledge of comparable recycling emissions and costs. A bit better, but still a highly uncertain projection.

This Volvo study by a very interested and experienced participant in the automobile business makes clear that governments are chasing a marginal and uncertain (if not phantom) benefit in subsidizing and promoting BEVs. This compares to known and real CO2 emission benefits from nuclear and solar power.

BEVs are the wrong initial focus for government subsidies if the goal is to materially impact carbon emissions with any certainty. Emphasis on lowering power grid carbon emissions will provide the foundation upon which BEVs may make both environmental and economic sense in the long run. If they really want tangible results, governments need to stop subsidizing BEVs and spend those dollars on a major program to put nuclear back into the power generation mix while also promoting utility scale solar fields.