"A guy looked at my airplane the other day and said I wonder how many people I could have fed for the price of that airplane...
I replied I am not sure, it fed a lot of families at the Dassault factory where it was built. I’m sure it fed a bunch of families that rolled the aluminum at the Alcoa factory. It surely fed a lot of people at the Honeywell factory where the experts built the turbines. It fed a whole company for a few weeks when I had them build me a new interior. It feeds the families of the linemen that fuel it.
That’s the difference between capitalism and a welfare mentality. When you buy something, you put money in people's pockets, and give them dignity for their skills.
When you give someone something for nothing, you rob them of their dignity and self worth.
Capitalism is freely giving your money in exchange for something of value.
Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for."
It tracks that the group of people who thought they should be treated as VIPs (and use Uber to feel like they have a chauffeur, TaskRabbit and GrubHub and Instacart to feel like they have an assistant), don’t want to come into the office, demand compensation from perceived slights at work, want to work from home, want to work less than five days a week, want everyone to walk on eggshells around them because of all their “invisible disabilities,” have their parents subsidize their life, etc, would want socialism. The final step in their line of shrugging off responsibility.
I have yet to see someone who has worked hard for a living, regardless of income, advocating for socialism.
Think about this for a moment.
The U.S. Navy has operated nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines for over 60 years.
There are 11 big deck nuclear-powered carriers and 71 submarines currently in service that, mind you, are largely operated by 18–30-year-old men.
Yet, for some reason, the vast majority of “green” energy pundits I encounter online think nuclear fission is too dangerous to power society.
My theory is that this is because nuclear guarantees an economically prosperous future. Most climate activists, who are on the left, want economic activities to cease to “save the planet” (or in reality, redistribute wealthy. They know deep down that modern industrial economies like the U.S. and China cannot run on solar and wind power alone. That’s why China isn’t decommissioning coal despite massive solar additions in recent years.
Government-mandated solar and wind guarantees that the left achieve the economic policies they want. If they make it difficult for industries to thrive, they drive them out of business.
In the driest desert on earth sits a mountain of discarded clothes so vast you can pick it out from space. Most of it is the synthetic fabric sold as fashion's future.
Here is where your wardrobe goes to not die.
- Tens of thousands of tonnes are dumped in Chile's Atacama every year, shipped in from Europe and North America, much of it never worn, tags still on
- A great deal is polyester and acrylic, plastic made from petroleum, the very fibres marketed as the conscious choice
- The rich world sends it here precisely to keep the mess off its own soil. The donated and the unsold alike end up in the sand
- In the bone-dry air it cannot rot, so it is torched instead, the toxic smoke of burning polyester drifting into the poor towns nearby
- Buried or burned, it bleeds microplastics, dye and petrochemicals into the ground and air for two centuries.
Plastic clothing was sold as the planet-friendly option and became a mountain in a desert, glowing on satellite photos and smoking over people's homes. Wool would have gone quietly back into the soil. This just sits there, refusing to leave.
I'm fascinated by the pettiness that is the @Big12Conference . When I was living in my home state of Michigan developing my love of college sports as part of my school newspaper staff my knowledge of Tx Tech didn't extend much past Michael Crabtree's catch and their quirky coach.
But since moving to Texas I've learned a lot more. I've enjoyed following and, yes, defending them from all the virtue-signaling hypocrites who have attacked them over pulling an SEC and getting an injunction to sidetrack NCAA ineligibility. I'll go to my grave believing that if Sorsby had chosen LSU over TT we'd have heard a lot less about it and Sorsby would be suiting up this fall in Baton Rouge.
A big part of the difference is the SEC supports it's own. They've had seemingly countless injunctions in that league yet those schools don't openly criticize each other. They may hate each other behind closed doors, but if that's the case we'll never hear about it in public.
The Big 12, on the other hand, had bitter coaches and athletic directors who couldn't wait to find someone in the media to talk about internal meetings about TT and their outrage that TT would dare consider playing it's $5M portal QB after a judge made him eligible.
And now we're finding out more and more about Cincinnati doing EXACTLY what the others were accusing TT of wanting to do -- knowingly playing a QB who gambled on his own team.
Except Cincy tried to sweep it under the carpet despite being notified in 2024 according to USA Today and Sorsby's agent. Yet there is no outrage for the Bearkats from TCU's Sonny Dykes, or Kansas State's foul-mouthed Gene Taylor, or any of the others who were so outraged at TT. And ever the hypocrite, Cincy even had the gall to vote for sanctioning TT.
There's some indication that behind the scenes only Oklahoma State was supporting TT for doing what 99% of the other universities in the country would do under the same circumstances. That makes sense to me because at the end of the day TT and OSU are probably the most valuable athletic departments and the natural candidates to fill the void left by Texas and Oklahoma.
So why is the Big 12 so petty compared to the SEC when it comes to having each other's backs? My guess is the Big 12 is full of have-nots who are extremely insecure at the thought of anyone becoming the 900 lbs gorilla that TT has quickly become. In the SEC, much like the Big Ten, there are a bunch of gorillas so everyone is pretty secure.
But the Big 12 only has TT and not much else unless OSU returns to prominence or BYU continues breaking through on a regular basis. And the insecurity that comes from that fact means articles like the Iowa State write-up below are never going to defend the league heavyweight. They're just going to be petty, virtue-signaling, and bitter.
I guess the moral of the story is that have-nots seem to only be happy with other have-nots.
I understand why people are uncomfortable with the Brendan Sorsby situation. Betting on sports as a college athlete is serious. Betting connected to your own team creates an obvious integrity concern. Nobody has to minimize that.
But there is another side to this that college football people should at least be honest enough to acknowledge.
When a player becomes part of your program, he becomes part of your football family. That does not mean you excuse everything. It does not mean accountability disappears. It means you do not abandon him the second the situation becomes difficult, public, or uncomfortable.
There is a difference between defending the person and defending the mistake.
Texas Tech is in an impossible spot. Deep down, they may have hoped the final ruling would remove the decision from their hands. Exhaust every option, support the player, let the process play out, and if he is ruled ineligible, accept it. That is the cleanest outcome for a program trying to balance loyalty, discipline, public pressure, and competitive integrity.
But now the court has ruled that he is legally allowed to play. That changes the structure of the decision.
If Texas Tech turns its back on him now, what message does that send to every player and family they recruit? That we will fight for you until the pressure gets too loud? That we will call you family when you are producing, but distance ourselves when standing beside you becomes inconvenient?
If I were recruiting against Texas Tech and they abandoned him after he was legally cleared to play, I would use that every time. Not because the mistake does not matter, but because trust matters. Families want to know what happens when their son is injured, struggling, accused, embarrassed, or sitting in the middle of a situation nobody wants attached to the program.
Accountability and loyalty are not opposites.
You can believe justice should be served. You can believe the integrity of the game matters. You can believe gambling violations deserve real consequence. You can also believe that a program should stand by its people through the full process, not just through the easy parts.
That is the hard part of family.
You do not only fight for your people when the optics are clean. You fight for them through the good and the bad, while still demanding accountability, treatment, discipline, and truth.
Texas Tech may not like the position it is in. Most programs would not. But once he is legally allowed to play and remains part of the Red Raider family, abandoning him strictly because of social pressure would send its own message.
And that message may be harder to overcome than the controversy itself.
Please hold while tens of thousands of reflecting pool rehabilitation experts transition over to New World Bovine Screwworm.
This may take a few minutes but they will be with us shortly.
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
I think the response of "You're not fixing it exactly the way our lobbyists told you to fix it, so we don't want you to fix it anymore" probably should have been a tell.