Gas Tax By The Mile? NO THANKS!

Some States are proposing taxing motorists by the mile instead of by the gallon.

Gasoline tax revenues, which are supposed to pay for road maintenance, are in decline.  Electric cars make up almost 5% of the product mix and are steadily climbing.  As a result, some States are proposing or have implemented annual $400 registration fees for electric cars so that they pay their "fair share" of road taxes.

But cars and even trucks and SUVs are getting better and better gas mileage and as a result, using less gas and paying fewer dollars in gas taxes.  Some States have proposed - or are experimenting with or have implemented - the idea of charging motorists by the mile, instead of by the gallon.

This is a horrendous idea for several reasons.

First, the current system rewards people who use less gas.  The driver of the Prius pays less in fuel tax than the driver of the RAM pickup truck.  This adds an incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, which as we have seen, is not only better for the environment but a matter of national security.  When the price of gas skyrockets due to shortages, we all suffer - and the economy suffers.  Mileage taxes punish people with efficient cars and reward those with gas-guzzlers.

So you'd think this would be a popular idea with the MAGA set, right?  Think again.  You see, some States, such as Virginia, are experimenting with the idea of installing an electronic monitoring device in a motorist's car, to determine how far they are driving and then charging them by the mile.  In theory, this would not only keep track of taxes in one State but also track what other States you go to and then allow those States to charge you by the mile.  The government would now have real-time tracking of every motorist in the country.

Big Brother Much?  It is a fascist's dream.

Think about how this would work for a moment.  Suppose you are one of those "rugged individualists" and drive a 1990 Chevy Tahoe.  You eschew these tracking devices because, "Free-Dums!" and you drive anyway.  The Police would have to set up an electronic system to detect which cars are mileage-tax scofflaws and then pull them over, much as they can detect if you have a radar detector or not (illegal, coincidentally, in Virginia - Sic Semper Tyrannis!).

We already live in a surveillance world.  People are caught committing crimes these days, as they are tracked by "pings" from cell phone towers.  They are caught on security cameras.  Their purchase histories via credit or debt cards can be tracked.  It is a good thing criminals are caught and convicted, to be sure.

But what happens when the State decides that "criminal" is defined by speaking out against the State? This hasn't quite happened just yet, but if people like Trump or DeSantis get their way, it could be a real thing.  Book banning?  Check.  "Don't Say Gay?" Check.  Book burnings?  Check, Check, Check!  All this specious talk of "grooming" and "death penalty for groomers" pretty much maps out where they want to go with this, and it is scary.

Heinlein wrote about this in more than one of his books, such as Glory Road, which was an ode to libertarianism and "Sovereign Citizens."  In his books, he tells of a future where individual cars can be tracked and remotely disabled or remotely driven by fascist "proctors."  You try to escape and your own car drives you to the Police station.  Saves a lot of money on roadblocks!

Again, this all seems swell - catching criminals and whatnot. And who can say that mandatory breathalyzers in cars is a bad thing?  If it saves even one life.....  But hopefully the self-driving car will solve that problem - or will it?

The incredible complexity of these systems is also a concern.  Over the years, the American automobile has morphed from the primitive Model-T to an electronic marvel with airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, and a host of safety assists and electronic interfaces and communication systems.  Even our lowly hamster will dial 911 if it detects the airbags have deployed.

But of course, this means a modern mechanic needs to have a degree in computer science to succeed, and few have that level of talent.  When I took the Ford into have a new camera installed under warranty, they had to wait a week for "the guy" who knew how to program the computer system to recognize the camera, to rotate in from another dealer.  The guy.

The local KIA dealer isn't taking appointments until late August (two months from now!) as the dealership in Savannah lost their "guy" and all the customers from there are flooding our small town dealership.  The only thing you can get an appointment for is oil changes and tires.

No one wants to work anymore?  No, no one has the skills necessary in our modern world.  We have coffee-shop baristas with philosophy degrees, but no one wants to be a plumber or HVAC tech (both of which pay far higher). Maybe the marketplace will straighten this out - but it takes several years to push new mechanics through the training pipeline.  Capitalism doesn't react in real-time.

I am not sure if these ideas will pan out - I suspect they will, over time.  Slowly, like a frog in a pot, we are getting used to more and more surveillance in our lives.  We were OK with red-light cameras (although the one in our local town seems to have disappeared) but not OK with speed cameras (the difference being what?).  Our friends in the UK have the latter - and a plethora of CCTV monitoring stations whose sole purpose is to thwart crime.  In America, most CCTV is privately owned, either by businesses or households.  We have yet to form a seamless net of surveillance.

Yet.

Virginia is pitching their system as a "money-saver" for motorists (citizens) who don't drive much and thus would pay less in annual highway user fees.  If so, what is the point of the program?  It would actually decrease revenue for the State.  I think the real answer is, this is the camel's nose in the tent,  Once they get people used to being tracked for mileage, they can then charge motorists by-the-mile, and the overall revenue (and cost to the motorist) will be more than before.  What's more, every car will now have a tracking device installed in it.  I  mean, what's not to like?

Less government, not more.  And no, we don't need tracking chips - in our cars or anywhere else for that matter!

The Problem With Fireworks

Fireworks are a lot of fun, provided you have a safe place to shoot them off.

Growing up in New York State, everything was heavily regulated, including fireworks.  The sort of fireworks stands you see in the South by the side of the road simply didn't exist in New York State.  Friends would go to the Indian reservation or down to Pennsylvania to buy fireworks, and the State Police would be standing by to nab you, once you crossed over the border.  It really was a Police State.

We managed to get M-80s, and "Pineapples" which were erroneously called a "quarter stick of dynamite."  They were waterproof, so you could toss them in the lake and watch a fountain of water erupt.  If there were fish around, well, those would float to the surface, too.  Of course, being kids, my friends did things like put them in mailboxes to watch the mailbox turn inside out.  Funny stuff when you are a kid, not so funny when you are an adult and just paid for yet another mailbox.

Of course, there were dangers.   You could blow your hand off with some of these more powerful fireworks or at least lose a finger with some of the smaller ones.  And since many people shot them off as part of drunken celebrations, the chances for personal injury were pretty great.

When we moved South, we were amazed at what you could buy at a stand by the side of the road.  You can buy actual mortars which are scaled-down (sometimes full-size) versions of what professional fireworks companies use in their displays.  The mortar is a cardboard tube, and the "shell" consists of a charge to launch a spherical charge into the air.  Once airborne, it explodes into a brilliant circle or sphere of colored light.  Of course, if you put the shell in the mortar upside-down, all hell could break loose.  Similarly, lighting the shell outside of the tube (as I have seen on many a YouTube video) could injure you or your friends or set your house on fire.

Having a safe place to launch fireworks is key.  When we had the lake house, it was easy to screwgun the mortars to an inclined board which I attached to the dock.  The fireworks launched over the lake and any embers fizzled out over the water.  Of course, it pays to know which way the wind is blowing.

We live in a State Park now, and you can't shoot off fireworks.  You could, but the odds of getting caught are pretty high, as we have our own State Police substation here.   But every year a few people try, and some even get away with it - as I did when younger, in a different State Park.

I was about 40, I guess, and attending the Virginia State Bar's annual meeting at Virginia Beach.  We took our RV to First Landing State Park and we had a bunch of mortars we had bought in Florida.  After a few beers, it seemed like a good idea to shoot them off.  We had done this the year before, down the beach in front of an unoccupied private residence.  This year, for whatever reason, I didn't walk down the beach far enough and was still on State Park land.

We set off a few mortars and then someone said, "Cheese-it!  The cops are coming!"  And just then, a very overweight State Park Cop came lumbering down the boardwalk, huffing and puffing, the pressure-treated boards creaking underneath him.  "HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!" he shouted.  This gave me a heads up and I gathered the remaining fireworks and ran down the beach.   He fell far behind.

What was I doing?  Here I was, 40-something years old, a lawyer, and running from the Police.  I thought about what to do.  I had to ditch the fireworks, but I was worried some kid might find them.  So I waded out into the bay and soaked the few remaining shells in the salt water.  Then I waded back in and found a trash bin to dispose of the soggy mess.

I circled around and walked back to the camper.  It was warm out and as I approached the restroom, I could hear a Police radio squawking, "Yea, a middle-aged white guy in a Hawaiian shirt - be on the lookout!"   I quickly removed my shirt (I still have it, ironically) and wadded it up in my hat which I then carried next to me.  I walked right by the cop car.  "Evening, Officer!" I said cheerily as I walked by.

By the time I got back to the camper, Mark and our friends had already returned.  They thought for sure I was in jail or something.  Apparently Officer Tubby gave up the hot pursuit pretty quickly as he ran out of breath.  He came back and asked Mark and my friends if they knew who was shooting off the fireworks.  "No, we don't know who it was," they replied, "We just saw the fireworks going off and came down here for a better view.  We thought the park was putting them on!"

We all had a good laugh over it, even years later.  But it was a stupid thing to do, in retrospect.

Similarly, people do stupid things with fireworks, like setting them off in a dry field, which ends up causing a major fire.  Or they let spastic children light them off, and they end up injured.

But they are a lot of fun.  It is one of those "personal freedom" things, I guess. You could make the world a safer place by outlawing them, as in New York State  - and then only professional fireworks companies (which all have Italian names - but not Mob connected, right?) can set them off - for a hefty price.  Or, as in the South, you can let just any yahoo buy them, and the consequences are pretty predictable.  What is the price of freedom?

Of course, from our perspective, it is the "other guy" who is being unsafe or gets his hand blown off.  We're the safe ones, right? And we didn't have that much to drink, right?  At least that was the logic we used to use back in the day.

It was fun, but today I am content to just watch the display put on by the Authority and perhaps a few stray rockets launched by some island guests.  I see the flashy stores and roadside stands with all the colorful packages - they even have them at Sam's Club - but I am not so much interested in buying them anymore.  I suppose the idea of setting fire to a few hundred dollars is part of the problem.  Let the other guy spend the money and blow his hand off.  I am content to do that now.

And quite frankly, I'm done with running from the Police!

Grease, Oil, and Antifreeze

They change things and don't tell us about it until it is too late.

The 737 MAX crashed not because of an engineering flaw, but an information flaw.  They had "maxed" out the size of the plane (sorry, pun) and using its ancient architecture, wedged in the largest engines possible on its tiny landing gear.   To avoid FOD (Foreign Object and Debris) ingestion, they moved the engines forward and up on the wing.  The previous method of putting the characteristic "dent" in the inlet cowling was no longer sufficient.

Problem was, this created weird handing properties and the possibility of a pitch-up condition.  So they added an automatic system to pitch the nose down if this condition was detected.  Problem solved!  But suppose the safety system went haywire and pitched the nose down unnecessarily?  No problem, just turn the system off and land the plane.

And that would have worked if they told pilots about this design change and installed a warning system that would advise them of the problem.  To save money, they told the FAA that there were no significant design changes requiring retraining for pilots.  To save even more money, they offered the planes with the warning system as an option.  So when untrained pilots in third-world countries (whose airlines opted not to buy the safety system) got into this situation, they had no idea what to do - and everyone died as a result.

Companies do this - they change technology and hide the fact they changed it.  A few simple instructions and education would solve a lot of problems, but most companies have a paranoid fear of disclosing basic information about their products, either fearing "trade secrets" would be stolen, or that somehow the information would be used against them in a lawsuit or something.  Being tight-lipped is the norm for most companies, as a result.

I wrote before how ordinary technology such as lightbulbs, decking screws, and decking have changed, and unless you are a contractor (and even then...) you can literally make fatal mistakes by applying "old school" methods to modern technology.  Some new forms of pressure-treated lumber will literally eat right through galvanized fasteners - causing a deck to come apart.

It is like the switch to LED light bulbs - you had to re-educate yourself about something as simple as the old 100 Watt bulb.  Now we had to worry about "lumens" and "Kelvin" and like any learning curve, it is steep.  You come home with a 5000 Kelvin bulb and realize it makes your house look like the examining room at the veterinarian.  So back to the store you go - yet again!

With cars, the chances for foul-ups are even more common and costly.   No one told us they changed everything and if you apply "old school" repair techniques to new cars, you can literally seize the engine.

Take antifreeze, for example.  Seems like a simple thing, unchanged for decades.  But it changed. General Motors introduced "Dexcool" lifetime coolant.  Shade-tree mechanics thought they were doing a good thing by flushing their coolant but all they were doing was flushing money down the drain.  Worse yet, mixing good old Prestone with Dexcool could cause all sorts of weird problems.  And if you let the coolant level go low (as happened on a number of Chevy Blazers back in the 1990s) the air in the system would cause the Dexcool to turn into sand.  Betcha didn't see that coming!

As more and more cars went to aluminum engines - or worse yet, aluminum heads with cast-iron blocks (or vice versa) you had to worry about galvanic corrosion.  Special antifreeze and distilled water were required, otherwise you might blow the motor up.

It gets weirder.  Ford had an issue with 1990's "Powerstroke" diesels in their pickup trucks.  Seems that due to the vagaries of engine design, the coolant would cavitate when the number 7 cylinder fired.  Cavitation can eat right through metal, as any boater will tell you - it happens to boat propellers all the time.  Anyway, it would eventually eat through the cylinder wall and cause the engine to fail - that is, unless you added water wetter to the coolant.  It makes water wetter!  No, really, it reduces surface tension of the coolant and prevents cavitation.  It's spelled out in all capital letters in volume 4 of the F150 service manual (for 1995).  I know because I read it. Most people didn't - or even order the manuals.  So Dad flushes the radiator with Prestone and figures this is helping extend his engine life, when in fact, it is shortening it.

Today, most cars can go 100,000 miles on the original coolant, and quite frankly, I kind of gave up on frequent fluid changes as a result - you can cause more harm that good!

Even if you use the correct coolant (BMW Blue) with distilled water, you can still seize the engine.  On many cars, the cylinder head is higher than the radiator - particularly on inline-6 BMWs.  A small "bleed screw" is provided on the cylinder head, and after flushing the radiator, you have to open this up and let the air out of the coolant passages in the cylinder head.  If you don't, the head overheats and warps and you blow up the motor.  But a lot of people don't realize this (again, you have to read the manual, even for "simple" tasks) and sadness results.

Modern cars don't have "coolant overflow bottles" like we had in the 1970s,  Prior to that, most cars just dumped coolant on the ground.  Today, systems are sealed and an expansion tank handles the excess coolant when it expands.  It is all a sealed system, so no air gets in and thus no oxidation or rust.  Oddly enough, opening the cap to "check the level" isn't helping, it's hurting by letting more oxygen in.  Best to leave well enough alone.

Oil is another issue that they changed and didn't tell us about.  There are so many specialty oils and weights for engines, transmissions, and differentials - and the wrong oil can destroy an engine or transmission or make it hard to shift.  Even back in the day this was an issue.  I bought a used Fiat that would not stay in second gear.  The owner had drained the transmission and filled it with good old American 90-weight gear oil - the kind of oil you would use in a Muncie 4-speed.  It wadded up around the synchros and popped it right out of second.  Turns out, you had to use MT-5 fluid in that transmission, something I realized only after replacing the tranny.

Back in the day, you had 10W-30 and that was it. Then 10W40, 5W-20, 5W-50 and so on and so forth.  And now we have synthetic, part-synthetic, and so on.  And since cars run cleaner, the idea of the 3,000-mile oil change itself is obsolete.  Some cars are reported to go as much as 20,000 miles between oil changes - with no adverse effects, long-term (not that I recommend it!).  Again, the wrong oil can destroy an engine, and I'm sure it has been done.

Even lowly grease can bring tears. I am repacking the wheel bearings on the camper - something that some (such as Dexter Axle) say should be done annually or every 12,000 miles.  Well, the camper is four years old and had 30,000 miles and I repacked only one bearing last year.  Trailer wheel bearings use a design that dates back decades.  If you had a '66 Chevy, you would be familiar with the tapered-roller bearing design.  Trailer manufacturers are starting to move to sealed hubs (much as many modern cars and trucks have). The bearing goes bad, you just replace the whole hub - it bolts on.  The bearings are sealed for life (the life of the bearing, not you) and no more greasy sticky mess in repacking the bearings every year!

We ran into a Lesbian couple in New Hampshire with a huge 5th wheel trailer.  It came with sealed bearings but the previous owner "didn't trust them" and removed them and replaced the hubs with old-fashioned tapered roller bearings.  Apparently he didn't install them correctly - he over-tightened the castle nut which should be hand tight on smaller axles or even backed off a quarter turn or so on larger axles.  The bearings failed and a wheel fell off and when I met these ladies, both axles had been removed and they were awaiting replacements.  Ouch!

But even if you don't tamper with perfection, you can still screw the pooch.  Turns out, there are multiple kinds of grease out there, the two primary kinds being Lithium-based and Molybdenum-based.  If you mix the two, they attack and destroy one another and the grease turns to runny liquid and your bearings fail.  Some fun!  Again, it pays to read the manual which isn't all that hard (they also have a 99-page manual, but that is over-the-top).

Sealed bearings for life?  I'm there!  Greasing wheel bearings is so yesteryear.  But that's what I have, so-be-it.  Another "change" to trailering is the use of disc brakes, which are a marked improvement over dusty old drums.  With boat trailers, though, you have to be aware that you can't back up unless the boat trailer is connected to the brake controller on the tow vehicle (with a reverse wire hot!) as the brakes will "lock".

Of course, for many folks all of this is a mystery and will remain so.  I see people by the side of the road with a flat tire, waiting for AAA to come change it. They have "roadside assistance" so why get your hands dirty changing a tire?  Just pay for the service!  Besides, they have no idea how to change a tire anyway.  Our vaunted rugged independence and self-reliance has gone by the wayside.

And perhaps this is because they keep changing the technology and not telling us about it!

Why USPS (and UPS and FedEx) Park in the Middle of the Road Now

You get what you wish for!

A neighbor had a problem with their driveway.  They hired a roofer to re-do the house and he drove into the driveway with a truck load of shingles (which are heavy) and it "punched through" the driveway, leaving a three-foot diameter hole.  Turns out, the culvert under the driveway had collapsed and all the sand supporting the concrete washed away.  It wasn't the roofer's fault,  but some folks would have sued anyway.

A similar thing happened to me.  We had two huge pine trees removed and they used a enormous crane to crane the trees over the house.  If we hadn't had them removed, our insurance would not have been renewed.  The crane guy said, "If I park this on your driveway, it will crack!"   I replied, "What's the alternative?" and he said, "not removing the tree."  So, crack away.  We needed a new driveway anyway.

But apparently quite a few delivery companies are getting sued over driveway issues.  You know the kind of people with asphalt driveways who get all weirded out about "strangers" turning around in their driveway.  In a way you can't blame them - they spent thousands having it paved, only to have someone dry-turn on the apron and twist two big divots in the asphalt.  So they put signs and cones and flags and even sawhorses in front of their driveway and scream at people who try to turn around. It is no way to live.

Concrete driveways are no better - I noted before how on our island the sand washes away (not as dramatically as our neighbor) and the corners crack in neat triangles.  If you have a concrete driveway and you can see a gap under the edge, fill it with sand or dirt and pack it in.  The soil erodes around the edges of concrete driveways and then the concrete slab is basically a cantilever.  Even a small car will snap off the concrete.

So the UPS man backs his truck into your driveway to deliver a package and "snap!" the corner of a slab cracks.  It wasn't his fault - the driveway was poorly made, poorly maintained, or just plain old.  But the homeowner and his opportunistic attorney (are there any other kind?) sees a "deep pocket" and free new driveway and they sue - and often win.

Management at USPS, UPS, and FedEx then send a memo to their drivers - don't pull into someone's driveway.  Park in the road, block traffic, and put on your flashers.  Inconvenience everyone, because Joe Suemore wanted a free driveway.  We get what we wish for.

In a way, it is like the roofing crises in Florida, going on for almost a decade now, and Ron DeSantis apparently thinks banning drag shows will solve the problem. Just kidding - he's in the pocket of the litigation attorneys - how being a Republican has changed over time!  Time was, it was the Democrats who were patsies for the lawyers.  Now everyone is for sale.  DeSantis has a drive-through window in the Governor's Mansion.

Lawyers and crooked roofers in Florida formed an unholy alliance to scam insurance companies and homeowners.   The roofer offers a "free evaluation" of your roof and then claims there is all sorts of "hidden damage" from a Hurricane years past, and instead of just replacing three broken shingles, you need a whole roof - and the insurance company should pay.  So they sue the insurance company and the lawyer makes a ton of dough, and the roofer makes a ton of dough and maybe the homeowner gets a new roof - after living under a tarp for a couple of years and dozens of insurance companies stop writing homeowner's policies in the State of Florida.

You got what you wished for!

So now you are paying thousands of dollars for homeowners insurance policies (and you'll need three - flood, wind, and fire) sometimes into the five figures.  Throw in a five-figure property tax bill and who the hell can afford to live in Florida anymore?   But hey, at least there are no drag shows!  Glad DeSantis is on the job solving real problems and not just making up imaginary ones.

This is, apparently, what people want.  They want to externalize their problems onto others instead of solving them.  They think the "evil corporations" and the "big insurance companies" should pay for everything and somehow magically, they won't just pass this cost onto us.  "But the insurance companies make tons of profits!" they cry.  Maybe so, but they aren't running a charity and their profit margins aren't 50% or even close.  State Farm has a P/E ratio around 20, which means a 5% rate of return.  That quickly goes negative when everyone gets a free roof, or, as happened in Alabama, a judge decides that a fire policy magically covers wind.

You know what?  When I hear people whine about "the evil corporations, man!" or "those greedy insurance companies" I just want to punch them in the face.   Fortunately, society already does that for me, as such people end up bewildered by our financial system and are continually flummoxed by it. For example, they also hate "the big banks" because they got charged a bounce fee for overdrawing their account.  You see, it wasn't their fault, because their friend Sid was going to pay them back $20 he owed them, and if they had deposited it before Monday, well, they wouldn't be overdrawn, and blah, blah, blah.

Externalizing.  One never wins playing that game, and in fact, we all lose a little bit.  Whether it is Karen demanding to see the manager or people returning goods after using them.  It degrades all of us a little bit, as we pay for their shenanigans.  Worse yet, when people like that corrupt the system, it forces the rest of us to join in.    If you are a homeowner in Florida and don't get a free roof, not only do you have to pay for yours, you pay for your neighbor's as well!  You see how this works to drag us all down.

Free roofs - isn't that Socialism, Ron?

It's the same with this driveway deal.  I've seen videos of people whining because the FedEx truck is parked in the street.  They fail to realize that it is parked there, blocking traffic, because people like you and me had to ruin a good thing.

I was talking to a neighbor this morning and they mentioned that the delivery vehicles are making ruts in his lawn after a big rain.  Of course, the ten feet of lawn out by the road is part of the "right of way" and technically they can park there.  In fact, you really have no rights to that property, but if you fail to mow it, they will fine you.  Heads you lose, tails they win.

I explained to him the driveway thing.  Not even a year ago, the delivery services would pull into the driveway apron and get off the road - but not on the lawn - to deliver packages or the mail.  Today, either they park in the middle of the road, or pull onto the lawn, leaving ruts.  You can complain all you want to, but this is the end result of people acting shitty and trying to get free driveways.

If your driveway cracks after a delivery van parks on it, your driveway sucks.  It should be able to support the weight of a UPS truck loaded with packages - otherwise it ain't a driveway.   And quite frankly, when you put in a driveway, you are kind of inviting people to use it, particularly when you've ordered something online.  But some folks feel otherwise - even screaming at delivery people for walking up their sidewalk to deliver a package!  Delivery drivers, of course, truck no shit from people like that, and back to the hub the package goes.

Again, a few stupid people ruining it for the rest of us.

Why You Can't Debate Belief

Debating a conspiracy theorist is like trying to debate a religious person.  Don't bother.

The Kennedy-Nixon debates started off a whole trend in American politics - probably a bad one.  Sure, Lincoln debated Douglas, and by all accounts, lost.  Nixon won to people who listened on the radio, lost to people who saw him break a sweat and sit awkwardly on television (back then, television was not yet a universal thing, and I suspect most radio listeners were in rural areas, which also drove the difference in perception).

It is sad, but true, that the "winner" in a debate these days is the one who gets in the most "zingers" and sound-bites.  Entertainers do well at this.  Reagan is known best for "there you go again" and "I paid for this microphone!"  I am willing to bet you can't remember the context in which these were said - what was actually being debated.  I know I can't.

A reader writes taking issue with my previous posting where I characterized Joe Rogan listeners as teenage and 20-something incels. "I used to listen to Joe Rogan!" he says. But he grew out of it. Younger people are taken in by flashy "arguments" and "owning the libs" and nonsense like that.  They believe the person who got in the most zingers "won" the debate and actual policy issues are irrelevant.  So what if the "winner" cuts taxes for his wealthy friends and cuts health care for you?  I mean, he "won" the debate fair-and-square, right?

Right?

Debating an anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, holocaust denier, UFO believer, conspiracy theorist, gold-bug, or crypto-bro is pointless.  Why? You are arguing facts, they are arguing beliefs. And belief, by its very nature, cannot be argued.  It would be like trying to argue religion with a religious person - utterly pointless and you will never convince them of anything.

No matter what you say, they retreat to "Well, the {Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc.} says......"  And then ends the debate in their mind.  If you try to say these are mere books written by mortal humans with an agenda, they will shut you down.  "No, no, the Bible was written by God!" they say. They themselves never read it.

In the case of the Qu'ran they will not debate you, but stone you to death. Why is this?  (And historically, this has been true at one time or another, in every religion, from Judaism to Christianity to Scientology - heretics are not treated well!).  Religious types know that their beliefs will not stand up to scrutiny with facts.  So they just make challenging beliefs to be an off-limits topic, punishable in many cases with death - often excruciating death.  You don't want the rest of the "faithful" to get ideas!

These various conspiracy theories are like religion - they ARE religion, as Qanonsense has shown.  So it isn't a matter of "debating skills" (which Bob-Bob Kennedy doesn't have) but trying to argue against belief with facts.  And facts always lose.  Because those who are believers just make up their own facts - the "alternative facts" for example, of the Trump administration.  You can't "debate" Trump (mostly because he refuses to do so) as he lives in a parallel universe of truthiness, where up is down and right is left and everything is a "witch-hunt" against him.  He talks in nothing but sound-bites and zingers.

There are also those willing to "debate" in bad faith.  (Trump tried to do this, but failed - which is why he prefers a venue with no opposition, either on-stage or in the audience). These are the folks who use misdirection and straw-man arguments, who use whataboutism and gish-gallop to distract and disseminate.

I have a "friend" who does this.  He will always start arguments with lines like, "Well, you're a Democrat, you must think it is OK for transgender drag queens to groom children!" (Straw man argument).  You try to point out that drag queens and transgender people are two different things, and neither are "grooming" children anymore than anyone else.  It would be like saying "all priests are pedophiles."  But before you can even say that, he's on to, "whatabout transgender restrooms? whatabout trans people in sports?" (whataboutism and gish-gallop).  He has thrown out a number of issues here in rapid-fire, ascribed opinions to you that you don't hold, and has tried to get you to defend ideas you don't want to defend.

I am as mystified by the "drag queen story hour" as the next person, and I am not sure "gender identity" treatments or surgery for children under age 18 is a swell idea.  In fact, it is a bad idea.  But that isn't the real issue.  The real issue is spreading hate and fear based on these beliefs. And every day, there is some anecdotal evidence to support such beliefs, such as a State legislator who is "trans" who had child porn on their phone.  There you go again.  See?  They're all mentally ill and they're all groomers.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it eventually leads to violence and in fact, already has.  Women are being dragged from restrooms because they have short hair.  Lesbians are being beaten up for using the "correct" restroom (again, because they don't look feminine).  All these beliefs end up being an excuse for violence.

And by the way, before you say, "Well, whatabout..." I should note that many "trans activists" are using belief in place of facts as well - arguing that "gender dysphoria" should be treated in children lest they kill themselves, and thus it is "life-saving" surgery.   As I noted in my previous posting, what "modern medicine" believes today is often viewed with horror only a decade later.  And this rush to treat children with puberty-delaying drugs and hormones doesn't seem to have much of a track record.  Medicine and science should not be a bandwagon.  And real medicine and real science rarely is.

Quite frankly, I am beginning to wonder whether some of these more extreme beliefs in the transgender crowd are being fanned by outside forces.  It helps the Republican Party to paint the Democrats as out-of-touch wacky liberals who want to change your child's sex.   It certainly didn't help matters any when Biden invited a "trans" person to the White House and they promptly exposed themselves.  Quite frankly, a lot of these efforts to be inclusive go overboard and backfire.  Pride jerseys for hockey players?  I didn't ask for that.  I just want to be left alone - is that too much to ask?  Apparently so.

But getting back to topic, this arguing of belief is nothing new, and like with religion, it is a technique used by people who have nothing really to say.  It is a technique historically used by fascists of all stripes, be they Nazis or Communists - the bottom line being they are just people interested in accumulating power and nothing else and they will do anything to gain power.

As Jean-Paul Sartre famously put it:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

The believers simply discard facts.  And you can't "argue" with someone like that.

That's why no one with a brain would ever go on the Joe Rogan show. It is a set-up!  Sadly, this means that the kind of people who listen to podcasts like that - or to Fox News, or OneAmerica or Inforwars, only hear what they want to hear - their beliefs.  People don't like to have their beliefs challenged, so they tune to channels that mirror their beliefs.  The lack of any other view is, in their minds, validation their beliefs are correct.

The only upside to all of this is those who rely on belief are usually short-lived.  In the past, they were recruited as cannon-fodder (indeed, even today, in Russia) by the people who rely on facts.  Today, they are willing to literally take their beliefs in horse medicine or anti-vaxxing to their graves.  The only downside to this scheme is that they live long enough to reproduce.

So yet another generation is raised on belief, and the process repeats itself.  Belief is evil, and if you want to get ahead in this world, you should profess to have beliefs (lest you be accused of heresy), but in your own mind, rely on facts.

And don't bother debating belief - there is no profit in it for you.