Archive for February 2, 2023

Just yesterday I got hit with another of those fraudulent fact checks that Facebook loves to hurl around whenever a conservative or libertarian posts the actual truth.  I generally rack up several a week, which then earnes me more lengthy stays in Facebook jail.  Like all of their phony fact checks, this one included an article by a supposedly independent news organization.  In this case, the article was from the uber progressive PolitiFact.

A Facebook post says the Great Reset advocates replacing capitalism with an economic system that is “kind of socialism, kind of communism” but “mostly just fascism.”

The World Economic Forum never advocated for the creation of a totalitarian world government or the replacement of capitalism with another economic system. There is no evidence to support this theory, and it has been thoroughly debunked. 

To debunk Facebook’s sham fact check, I went straight to the Great Reset page on the World Economic Forum website.

To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.

That paragraph rather ominously sounds like the WEF is working hard transform the world into a Socialist economy.

The World Economic Forum most definitely embraces the philosophy of Rahm Emanuel who said:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Here is the WEF’s justification for the Great Reset.

All of this will exacerbate the climate and social crises that were already underway. Some countries have already used the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to weaken environmental protections and enforcement. And frustrations over social ills like rising inequality – US billionaires’ combined wealth has increased during the crisis – are intensifying.

Left unaddressed, these crises, together with COVID-19, will deepen and leave the world even less sustainable, less equal, and more fragile. Incremental measures and ad hoc fixes will not suffice to prevent this scenario. We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.

The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream. In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office.

As far as the totalitarian part, check out these paragraphs:

Clearly, the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need. That will require stronger and more effective governments, though this does not imply an ideological push for bigger ones. And it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way.

Moreover, governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.

The only way a government can implement equitable outcomes is through a totalitarian government.  Wealth must be forcibly seized from one group and given to another.  The WEF also seeks to implement the Green New Deal on a global scale.

The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Here, the large-scale spending programs that many governments are implementing represent a major opportunity for progress.  The European Commission, for one, has unveiled plans for a €750 billion ($826 billion) recovery fund. The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans.

Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.

Like all Leftist economic schemes, the Great Reset will rely heavily on socialism and totalitarianism.

Tom Brady has once again retired from Football, this time at the age of 45 as he said he would.

This makes an opportune time to judge if his time in Tampa should be considered a success. First let’s consider it in terms of: “Was it a success for Tampa Bay”?

As I wrote previously before Brady this was Tampa Bay’s History:

  • Had a winning record 30% of the time (13 seasons)
  • Won 11 or more games 7% of the time (3 seasons 1999,2002,2005)
  • Won their division 12% of the time (1970,1981, 1999,2002,2005,2007)
  • Made the playoffs 23% of the time (10 seasons)
  • Won at least 1 playoff game 9% of the time (1979,1997,1999,2002)
  • Won the Superbowl 2% (100% of the times they went 2002)

With Brady Tampa Bay…

  • Had a winning record 67% of the time (2 seasons)
  • Won 11 or more games 67% of the time (2 seasons)
  • Won their division 67% of the time (2 seasons)
  • Made the playoffs 100% of the time (3 seasons)
  • Won at least 1 playoff game 67% of the time (2 seasons)
  • Won the Superbowl 33% of the time (100% of the time)

By any standard for Tampa Bay the Tom Brady Years were the most successful time in their history. It is unlikely to be repeated.

Now let’s look at things from the Tom Brady standard or rather by the Tom Brady standard after age 40 In the 3 years a 40 year old Tom Brady played with the Pats he:

  • Had a winning record 100% of the time
  • Won at least 12 games 67% of the time (at least 11 100%)
  • Won his division 100% of the time
  • Made the playoffs 100% of the time
  • Won at least 1 playoff game 67% of the time
  • Gone to the Superbowl 67% of the time
  • Won the Superbowl 33% of the time

Here is how he did with Tampa Bay in his three years to age 45.

  • Had a winning record 67% of the time
  • Won at least 12 games 33% of the time (at least 11 67%)
  • Won his division 67% of the time
  • Made the playoffs 100% of the time
  • Won at least 1 playoff game 67% of the time
  • Gone to the Superbowl 33% of the time
  • Won the Superbowl 33% of the time

By the Tom Brady standard he had a small drop in performance

Here were the expectations I set at the time of his signing:

  • Tampa Bay Should expect to have a winning record 100% of the time Fail
  • Tampa Bay Should expect to win at least 10 games 67% of the time (Success)
  • Tampa Bay Should expect to make the playoffs 67% of the time (Exceeded expectations)
  • Tampa Bay Should expect to win at least one playoff game 67% of the time (Success)
  • They should expect to win their division at least 33% of the time (Exceeded expectations)
  • They should make the NFC Championship game at least once (Exceeded expectations and they one one Superbowl)

Bottom line, Tampa Bay and Tom Brady can hold their head up high. He delivered for them and they delivered for him.

As for the Patriots…well that another story.