Why does the UK hate Christianity so much? Is it because snobby Brits (sore about losing their colony) identify America as a Christian empire? Remember the British Invasion band who said “we’re bigger than Jesus” and it only became a stink when Americans started burning Beatle records? And it hurt John so much and yet John moved out of England forever and lived in the U.S. and his only big hit post-Beatles was “Imagine no religion?” Is that it? Because if it is, the UK is committing suicide by viscerally hating Christianity, which far transcends British snobbery and John Lennon and people who live in the Southern U.S. You don’t have to be a fanatical Christian (I’m not) to see the social value and philosophical virtue of Christianity. UK, you’re mad because of this prejudice. Even John Lennon, were he alive, would see it. Though he did become a New Yorker, so who knows?
**
C02 is the gas of carbon footprint, greenhouse emissions, and global warming—there is no other. It is C02. But what is C02? No one talks about this. It is natural, necessary, trace (.04%), greening. Not one Climate protestor understands this issue. None who are in favor of the humanity-crushing Net Zero and are not totally evil could understand it. CO2 is naturally produced—and naturally leaves the atmosphere. There is no “balance” humans can possibly effect, since a very tiny percentage of CO2 is what humans add. To those who study it, CO2 is not bad. It is not a pollutant. The heft and bulk of trees literally comes from CO2. Without CO2, there is no plant life, no life on earth. CO2 is historically quite low in the atmosphere. There is no predetermined, ideal, temperature of the globe which is under threat by “warming” and CO2 contributes almost nothing to it, anyway. No cause, no effect. Industry producing a gas (CO2) which plants love is counter-intuitive—those who hate the oil companies can’t get their heads around this. Net Zero, meanwhile, allows the real bad guys to impose massive restrictions on human flourishing.
**
The Rolling Stones hated Brian because he was gifted and they weren’t. The Beatles recorded their first album in a day. A pop song can be written in 5 minutes, recorded to demo in 5 minutes, then pros record it in an afternoon. Rock stardom has tremendous amounts of downtime: on the plane, in the hotel, time between tours and gigs, time waiting for the inspiration for the next hit song. Fans who listen to records don’t understand this. During all this time, Brian LIVED. He was a celebrity and genuinely knew famous people. The rest of the Stones were insecure louts (Were they charming or funny in public interviews? No.) who worked hard, showed up to play, had playing talent, could keep a beat, sure, give them that. Mick was an excellent front man, but when I hear him talk, I don’t think he’s that intelligent. Where is the proof that he’s really intelligent? I’ve never seen it. Practical, shrewd, yes. Intelligent? No. The last 40 years the Stones have been together with Brian in the rear view window, gone forever, what great songs did the Stones produce? None. Nothing of interest whatsoever. The 60s Stones (and tracks in the 70s which were rehashed 60s ideas lying around from when Brian was a Stone) disappeared completely with Brian. Mick Jagger publicly said he had nothing to do with “Ruby Tuesday.” That song is credited to Jagger-Richards. Does anyone believe Keith Richards wrote “Ruby Tuesday?” No, he obviously didn’t. Listen to Paul McCartney’s solo work. That’s Beatles music. John’s solo work. That’s Beatles music. Where is ANYTHING the solo Stones did which sounds ANYTHING like the best of the 60s Stones? Who was the weird genius who made the Stones the great “anti-Beatles” who were as good as the Beatles (very often) who made the rest of the “super hard working” Stones incredibly insecure and jealous? Enough to push him out when getting rich on massive touring replaced songwriting as the ticket to success? Brian Jones.
**
Praising the Indiana Fever for playing on with grit and persistence despite all the losses mishaps, injuries this year is hollow rhetoric. “They could have given up…” we say. What do we mean by this? They did give up. They are a poor team. Badly coached, little chemistry or team play, bullied by refs and other players, going through the motions, frozen with fear. Yeah the healthy bodies kept playing, so what? We didn’t expect them to really quit, did we? “Character, hard work” is just talk and we know it. Looking back, the Fever 2025 team has been an absolute disaster. Staying healthy is part of any sport. Lots of injuries point to underlying issues: stress, poor regimen, poor training/health management, and then you ask: why stress? Didn’t feel safe, didn’t trust coaches and officials, were uneasy with league and team and how it was run, didn’t stay focused on the game and their health as professionals. Sure, I understand the need to put a positive spin on it, talk about “persistence,” but this is how talking heads on TV talk, the other element which is not trustworthy in the W, the fake broadcasters who don’t tell the truth about the violence and the bad refs and try to gloss it over. No thanks. The Fever may barely make the playoffs , but they are going down quickly. The refs hate the Fever. The weird little cult which is the WNBA hates Caitlin Clark.
***
Scarriet 