SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Socrastotle (13446)
Journal of Socrastotle (13446)
This was inspired by this recent journal entry: "What Might Have Been - Climate Change Scientists". That journal entry is based on an article from the Guardian, linked below. To call their reporting factually challenged would be an understatement. Each of the bolded sections is a hyperlink to the respective source.
The Guardian: (this is not a paraphrasing and is a direct quote)
Back in 1980, there was a guy [M. Stanley Whittingham -Socra] working for Exxon and he was one of the inventors of the lithium battery, which electric cars now use. This guy won the Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on lithium batteries. Just imagine if Exxon management had taken our prediction seriously! They could have easily built huge factories to make lithium batteries to facilitate the transition to electric cars. Instead, they fired this guy. They shut down all their energy work. And they started funding climate deniers.
Whittingham is a key figure in the history of the development of lithium-ion batteries, discovering the concept of intercalation electrodes. Exxon manufactured Whittingham's lithium-ion battery in the 1970s... Exxon threw its resources behind the commercialization of a Li/LiClO4/ TiS2 battery. Safety concerns led Exxon to end the project. Whittingham and his team continued to publish their work in academic journals of electrochemistry and solid-state physics. He eventually left Exxon in 1984 and spent four years at Schlumberger as a Manager. In 1988, he accepted the position of Professor at the Chemistry Department, Binghamton University, U.S. to pursue his academic interests.
Lithium batteries were proposed by British chemist M. Stanley Whittingham, now at Binghamton University. Whittingham started on the research that led to his breakthrough at Stanford University. Early in the 1970s, he discovered how to store lithium ions within the layers of a disulfide material. After getting hired by Exxon, he improved on this innovation.[27] Whittingham used titanium(IV) sulfide and lithium metal as the electrodes. However, this rechargeable lithium battery could never be made practical. Titanium disulfide was a poor choice, since it has to be synthesized under completely sealed conditions, also being quite expensive (~$1,000 per kilogram for titanium disulfide raw material in 1970s). When exposed to air, titanium disulfide reacts to form hydrogen sulfide compounds, which have an unpleasant odour and are toxic to most animals. For this, and other reasons, Exxon discontinued development of Whittingham's lithium-titanium disulfide battery.[28] Batteries with metallic lithium electrodes presented safety issues, as lithium metal reacts with water, releasing flammable hydrogen gas.[29]
---
Exxon did try to commercialize the batteries and reached out to all major vehicle vendors. This led to a prototype hybrid vehicle (a Toyota Cressida) but that deal never ended up producing a market viable product, though the underlying technology would eventually become the Prius. The dismantling of the Exxon electrics is also an interesting story itself. In an effort to pursue commercialization (manufacturing in particular) of technologies developed during all of this, Exxon bought Reliance Electric. However, they were sued by the FTC who claimed that it would make the electric drive market anti-competitive, and worked to avoid the integration of the two companies.
Exxon would ultimately go on to sell Reliance Electric in 1986, with the original purchase being framed as a major misstep. And as a final note there, isn't it quite remarkable reading the old school New York Times? It fully answers the who, what, when, where, why, but actually sticks to the facts and doesn't read like an edgy blog post.
Glenn Greenwald is reporting on the final results of the investigation carried out by the office of the inspector general. From the report itself:
The evidence we reviewed
showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install antiscale fencing in
response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and
May 31. Moreover, the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those
decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a
potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day. As such, we determined that
the evidence did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that
then President Trump could enter the park.
I do not care so much about the partisan angle of this story so much as a much more relevant pattern repeated throughout history. This story, much like the "officer killed by fire extinguisher to the head" (officer Sicknick during the January 6th protests and riots died of a completely unrelated stroke long after the protests and riots were over), was repeated endlessly and loudly. And any arguments to the contrary, which in this case included the truth, were denounced as disinformation and partisan lies.
These same organizations which now regularly and aggressively seek to censor and deplatform others for "misinformation" are themselves now some of the most regular perpetrators of disinformation carried out on a massive, coordinated, and effective scale - spreading destructive, egregious, and overt disinformation from a platform of previously earned trust. Censorship is invariably motivated not by a fear of lies, but by a fear of the truth. Lies (which we must distinguish from simply different world-views or opinions) are easy to debunk, and make the speaker look a fool - and gradually destroy any trust they may have previously garnered - when exposed. It is for that very reason that the liar seeks to censor the world while those who hold the truth on their side seek to expose the world.
How many will now never learn the truth of this event? Because there's little doubt that the same outlets who spent months screaming this lie as loudly as they could will bury this truth as if it never happened, instead focusing more on the lies of today. And so their audience will remain permanently ignorant, for they've been convinced that they should avoid outside sources for they are full of nothing but disinformation and lies.
Link to last month's report.
---
We are now 1/12th of the way through what may be a brief window while the DNC has control of the house, senate, and presidency. It is easy to get lost in the day-to-day affairs so I'm writing these updates to provide a simple look at exactly what the DNC is doing for this period when they have the ability to enact any grand vision they could ever imagine. Wealth redistribution, global (if not single payer) healthcare, "tax the rich", green energy, and so on are all major parts of the DNC platform. What will ultimately end up being the difference between the platform and action?
---
This month we have three bills to look at:
S.579 : A short bill that removes the waiting time for benefits to those diagnosed with ALS. Great stuff.
H.R. 1276 : The Secretary of Veteran Affairs can provide vaccine doses for veterans and their spouses.
H.R. 1319 : The most recent $1.9 trillion stimulus.
---
The total allotment for the stimulus is $1.9 trillion. There are currently approximately 330,000,000 people residing in the US. This includes people who are non-citizens, those who are residing here illegally, and of course the millions who also earn more than $75,000 a year. Regardless, 330 million * 1,400 = 0.462 trillion, less than 25% of the stimulus' total expenditure. And far less than 25% once you account for the fact many people will not be receiving these checks.
That bill is a laundry list of just about every single interest in politics today. But to keep this short, I'm going to focus on just one thing that seems to be a recurring theme from the contemporary DNC. There are billions of dollars distributed to farmers for assistance, loans, and support under the stimulus. And I think just about everybody would agree this is a great idea. Except, it only applies to non-white farmers? See sections 1005 and others. The euphemism they use for non-white is "socially disadvantaged." It seems progress is increasingly being defined by efforts to regress society a hundred years and engage in the exact same absurd fashion, just swapping around the "colors."
Today is currently a somewhat unprecedented moment. Not only does the DNC currently control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, but they also have the means at their disposal to override the filibuster. But this is also an extremely time limited scenario. The next election will be on November 8th 2022, and the incumbent party almost invariably loses seats.
Right now literally any law, act, or bill the DNC wanted to pass - they could. So I think it is important to be especially critical of these coming months, because we are right now seeing exactly what the DNC "truly" believes in, now that there is no opponent to blame failure to act on. I will try to post one of these updates each month.
So far only one act has passed. H.R. 335 strips away a protection that was in place requiring the Sectary of Defense, when chosen from former military, to have been out of the military for at least 7 years to ensure a civilian:military separation in our government. The reason for this is that Biden wishes to appoint Army General Lloyd Austin as the Secretary of Defense. Lloyd Austin only retired from the military in 2016 after which he immediately joined the boards of multiple Fortune 500 megacorporations, including the arms producer Raytheon - receiving total compensation in the millions of dollars. He was also invited onto Pine Island Capital, alongside other Biden appointees, as a partner.
Beyond that, Biden passed an unprecedented number of executive orders which were primarily focused on race, identity politics, and other divisive topics. 1 month down, 23 to go. I look forward to seeing what the DNC truly stands for with no impediment whatsoever to them carrying out their grand vision for society.
The entire subtitle of the article is: "Critical thinking, as we’re taught to do it, isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation." Archived, because I yet still have enough faith in mankind to assume this article will receive the reception it deserves.
In short the article suggests:
1) Investigate people/sites, not facts.
2) Don't expose yourself to outside information because "you might be overloaded by information and overwhelmed."
3) If anybody says anything that's not supported by the consensus of the present, they must be "motivated by something other than science."
