The Media's Irony Impairment and the Trump Assassination Attempt

The left-leaning media in the Western world has long used Hitler as the model for a fascist dictator, however, in recent years we've seen Donald Trump repeatedly compared to Adolf Hitler as a means to drive voters away from Trump's agenda.  In this posting, we'll look at one example and how the owner of the media company that published the opinion piece is obviously irony impaired.

  

On December 20, 2023, this missive appeared in the Washington Post:

 

The author of the opinion piece is Mike Godwin, an American attorney and author and formulator of Godwin's law aka Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies which is expressed as follows:

 

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1." (i.e. a 100 percent certainty)."

  

Godwin's law implies that the level of discourse regarding a subject has devolved to the degree that further discussion is absolutely pointless with the person who mentions Hitler being the loser in any argument.

  

Despite his creation of Godwin's law, he makes the following remarks in his Washington Post opinion piece:

 

"But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy.

 

And that’s why Godwin’s Law isn’t violated — or confirmed — by the Biden reelection campaign’s criticism of Trump’s increasingly unsubtle messaging. We had the luxury of deriving humor from Hitler and Nazi comparisons when doing so was almost always hyperbole. It’s not a luxury we can afford anymore."

 

He also notes that not only is Trump's authoritarian bent an issue, so is his use of certain dog-whistle words like "vermin" which Trump has used to describe those who oppose him and that the current influx of undocumented immigrants which he claims are "poisoning the blood of our country" which Godwin claims parallels Hitler's rhetoric about the "untermenschen" which included Jews, gays and gypsies not to mention the Slavic people as a whole.

 

His opinion piece closes with this:

 

"Will Trump succeed in being crowned “dictator for a day”? I hope not. But I choose to take Trump’s increasingly heedless transgressiveness — and, yes, I really do think he knows what he’s doing — as a positive development in one sense: More and more of us can see in his cynical rhetoric precisely the kind of dictator he aims to be."

 

So basically, Mike Godwin has fallen into a trap of his own making, hoisting himself on his own petard.

 

Now, you may say that the Washington Post merely published Mr. Godwin's opinion piece in the interest of maintaining political balance and that the intent was not that the piece was to be a dog whistle for the left/Democrats.  I would suggest that you may want to rethink that idea this quote from this Washington Post article in 2013 which was published when Jeff Bezos took over the WaPo:

 

 

Given his leaning to the left of the political spectrum, I would propose that it is highly unlikely that the Washington Post would have published Mr. Godwin's opinion piece comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler if it did not pass Jeff Bezos' approval.

  

Now, let's close with this tweet that Jeff Bezos posted about "Hitler" after there was an attempt on Donald Trump's life on July 13, 2024:

 

So, apparently it's okay for the rulers to be thankful that "Hitler" is safe after his brush with death.

The irony impairment evident among some of the ruling class is, to put it mildly, stunning.  Apparently, running "assassination porn" against Donald Trump is okay until someone swallows the KoolAid and decides to take matters into their own hands, perhaps staining the political left and its pathological hatred of the "far right".

Big Tech, AI and the Global Electricity Conundrum

While the ruling technocracy loves to tout its record and promote the anti-greenhouse gas mantra when it comes to their own operations, a recent release from Google (the host company of this blog) shows us that the rubber does not always meet the road when it comes to environmental stewardship.

  

In its 2023 Environmental Report:

 

...Google's Chief Sustainability Officer Kate Brandt and Senior Vice President of Learning and Sustainability Benedict Gomes state the following in the introductory Executive Letter:

 

"Our annual Environmental Report offers a deep dive into our efforts to harness technology—particularly AI—to drive positive environmental change and operate our business sustainably. This year, we’re also offering a new experimental AI chatbot, powered by NotebookLM, to help summarize key findings, clarify complex topics, and explore the details about our environmental work."

 

In fact, one section in the report outlines Google's use of "AI for sustainability":

 

"We know that scaling AI and using it to accelerate climate action is just as crucial as addressing the environmental impact associated with it."

 

...and in these graphics:

 

Google boldly claims that AI has the:

 

"…potential to help mitigate 5–10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. "

 

Google also claims the following:

 

"We have a bold goal to reach net-zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030, supported by a goal to run on 24/7 CFE (carbon-free energy) on every grid where we operate. In addition, we’re working to advance water stewardship, build a circular economy, and restore and enhance nature and biodiversity. This year’s report shows how we continue to make progress across all of these areas:

1.) Ten of our grid regions 10 achieved at least 90% CFE, and even with our total electricity load increasing across our data centers, we maintained a global average of 64% CFE. We also celebrated a first-of-a-kind enhanced geothermal project now delivering CFE to the grid

 

2.) We signed contracts to purchase approximately 4 gigawatts of clean energy generation capacity 11 in locations such as Texas, Belgium, and Australia—more than in any prior year."

 

All of this sounds just magical, doesn't it.  Unfortunately, this is where reality doesn't meet expectations.  Google's target is to "reduce 50% of its combined Scope 1, 2 (market-based), and 3 absolute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030."  Unfortunately, that goal looks increasingly unlikely as shown on this graphic from the report:

 

Google's total GHG emissions in 2023 increased by 13 percent on a year-over-year basis and a 48 percent increase when compared to 2019.  The company's total emissions of 14,314,800 tonnes of CO2 equivalent consists of the following:

 

Notice the large Scope 2 emissions.  The main source of these emissions is purchases of electricity for the company's data centres and offices despite the fact that the company claims that its data centres are among the most efficient in the world.  The company will procure carbon-free energy to reduce its Scope 2 emissions with the goal of running on carbon-free energy 24 hours a day, seven days a week by 2030.  In 2023, the company's data centres and offices ran on carbon-free energy for 64 percent of its electricity use on an hourly basis, the same percentage as in 2022 ranging from 0 percent in Qatar and Saudi Arabia and 4 percent in Singapore to 100 percent in Canada (thanks to Hydro-Quebec) and 98 percent in Finland. 

 

While artificial intelligence is being touted as the panacea to the global climate crisis, as Google is finding out, such is not the case.  Here is a graphic from my favourite globalists at the World economic Forum have observed the conundrum between AI and energy usage as shown here:

 

 

Here's an example of the AI/global environment conundrum from Tom’s Hardware:

 

"Nvidia's H100 GPU is projected to consume approximately 3,740  kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually. Assuming that Nvidia sells 1.5 million H100 GPUs in 2023 and two million H100 GPUs in 2024 and that there is a 61 percent annual utilization, there will be 3.5 million such processors deployed by late 2024. In total, they will consume a whopping 13,091,820,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year, or 13,091.82 GWh."

This is roughly the annual power consumption of entire nations like Georgia, Guatemala and Lithuania and that the 3.76 million Nvidia GPU shipments could consume as much as 14.38 TWh, the same annual power needs as 1.3 million American households...for one model of a GPU.

 

The International Energy Agency projects that global electricity demand from AI, data centres and cryptocurrencies could reach more than 1000W TWh in 2026, a 217 percent increase from 2022, equivalent to the electricity consumption of Japan and you can assure yourself that much of this growth in demand will NOT be fulfilled with renewable sources.

 

With Big Tech and Google in particular spending untold hundreds of billions of dollars on accelerating AI development and increasing both the speed and power consumption of GPUs, it's increasingly looking like the move to AI is going to be the global energy/environment canary in the coal mine and most certainly not the solution to the problem (that they are creating). 

Electric Vehicles and Forever Chemicals - The Real Environmental Impact of the EV Movement

Governments and many individuals (EVangelists) promote the use of electric vehicles as the spotlessly clean solution to the global climate "crisis".  One would almost think that there is absolutely no negative environmental impact to the growing and government-mandated use of electric vehicles.  That said, recent research by Jennifer Guelfo et al in Nature Communications shows that there is a rarely reported environmental impact of lithium ion batteries that are used to energize the growing global fleet of electric vehicles.

  

The article, entitled "Lithium-ion battery components are at the nexus of sustainable energy and environmental release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances" examines the use of these chemicals that are released during lithium-ion battery manufacturing, usage and disposal.  According to the article, lithium-ion technologies incorporate a class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) known as bis-perfluoroalkyl sulfonimides (bis-FASIs).  These compounds are also used in non-stick cookware coatings, windmill coatings, semiconductors and photovoltaic cells.  More to the point of this posting, ionic liquids, including the Li+ salt of bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (bis-FMeSI), are used as a primary or secondary lithium-ion battery (LiB) electrolyte. The Li salt of bis-FMeSI is also incorporated as an anti-static agent in polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) composites which are used in LiBs as electrode binders and as part of the separator between the cathode and anode.  Up to 96 percent of bis-FMeSI is recoverable which is wonderful, however, studies estimate that as little as 5% of LiBs are currently being recycled.  Between now and 2040, the growing use of lithium-ion batteries for transportation could result in an estimated 8 million tons of LiB waste by 2040 meaning that there is potential for the widespread environmental release of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances including bis-FMeSI during the lifecycle of lithium-ion batteries.

  

The authors of the study collected surface, tap and groundwater samples along with sediment and soil samples from 87 locations near Cottage Grove, Minnesota (MN), USA, Paducah and Louisville, Kentucky (KY), USA, Antwerp, Belgium, and Salindres, France between January and October of 2022.  These locations were chosen because of their proximity to manufacturing facilities (3M) that produce PFAS or are located in a downstream location.  It is important to note that PFAS are very mobile in aqueous environments and can move long distances from their source as was found in the samples taken for this study.  In fact, these chemicals have been found in the environment all around the world, including the Arctic.  Snow and soil samples used in this study exhibited significant concentrations of bis-FMeSI suggest that there is atmospheric deposition of bis-FMeSI.  The authors also found that there is a potential significant end-of-life issue with lithium-ion batteries with bis-FASIs detected in untreated landfill leachate.  While the source of the bis-FMeSI in the leachate cannot directly be confirmed, it is likely that increasing use and disposal of LiB technology will increase the concentration of bis-FMeSI over time.

 

Here is a quote from the discussion section of the paper with my bolds:

 

"This study demonstrates an international release of LiB-associated PFAS (bis-FASIs, particularly bis-FMeSI) to soil, sediment, and surface water and that concentrations of these compounds in the parts per billion are common, near manufacturing areas. When coupled with low-level detections in three Chinese seawater samples and characteristics consistent with vPvM classification, this suggests bis-FASI release is global. Furthermore, atmospheric emission of bis-FMeSI, as suggested by the MN data, may facilitate long-range transport of this subclass of PFAS. Toxicity data demonstrated that bis-FMeSI could change behavior and fundamental energy metabolic processes of aquatic organisms at low ng L−1 levels, suggesting that even relatively low-level concentrations will be of concern for aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. In addition, the use of bis-FMeSI and other PFAS in LiB-enabled consumer products will lead to environmental contamination at end-of-life disposal (i.e., municipal solid waste landfills)....

 

In general, the challenges associated with bis-FASI occurrence, mobility, ecotoxicity, and recalcitrance are similar to those that have been realized for other PFAS; however, the potential for ongoing and increasing release of bis-FASIs resulting from exponentially growing demand for LiBs is distinct." 

  

Let's close this rather technical posting with these thoughts.  Per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances or PFAS are a chemical family of over 10000 chemicals that do not appear in nature, they are persistent man-made (anthropogenic) chemicals which break down very, very slowly over time.  This has earned them the moniker "Forever Chemicals".  According to Chemtrust, the negative impact of these these chemicals can:

 

1.) Interfere with the reproductive system and the development of the foetus

2.) Impact the immune system and have been linked to reduced responses to vaccines in children

3.) Promote the development of certain cancers (e.g. kidney and testicular cancer)

4.) Interfere with the hormonal system (so they are called endocrine disruptors)

As noted in this posting, PFAS are found globally.  Here is a map showing contamination sites across Europe to give you a sense of the scale of the problem:

 

In conclusion, when you hear your local politician tout the greenness of electric vehicles, keep in mind that the batteries powering these vehicles contain "forever contaminants/forever chemicals" that will have a significant negative impact on life on Planet Earth and that the growing mandated use of EVs will only worsen the problem.  I would also recommend that you remember that the vast majority of politicians have absolutely no training in chemistry and the ultimate impact of their decisions on the global environment.