Climate Action without Losing our Minds (CALM) Resolution

By Naomi Allen
24 Feb 2019

Recognizing that existential climate crisis is a growing national security concern that needs to be addressed before it triggers an engineered proletariat uprising that could destroy our democracy;

Whereas climate alarmists rely upon the IPCC’s predicted worst case scenario;

Whereas, that worst case scenario calls for net-zero carbon emissions no later than 2050;

Whereas, the IPCC’s worst case scenario also calls for a reduction of 2010 carbon emission levels by 45% no later than 2030, AND/OR carbon scrubbing technology to eliminate excesses of reduction goals by 2050;

Whereas, there is little confidence that we can meet a 45% reduction by 2030;

Whereas, technology already exists, to capture carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere, which can be further combined with hydrogen to create ultra-low carbon synthetic fuel for aircrafts, large sea vessels, and large motor vehicles;

Whereas, the same carbon-scrubbing technology can be used to recycle carbon-dioxide for greenhouse use, wherever extreme weather may prohibit outdoor agriculture;

Whereas, there is little confidence that renewables are a viable solution for sustaining net-zero emissions, for reasons that include, but are not limited to, unreliability, inefficiency, counterproductive emissions created during production and maintenance of renewable technologies, ineffective costs, deforestation effects, competition with agriculture, and unmanageable manpower requirements;

Whereas, nuclear energy provides carbon neutral energy, and concerns related to nuclear melt-down, hazardous waste, and weaponization of by-products can all be alleviated by both old and new technologies;

Whereas, Thorium Molten Salt energy was developed and proven to work safely, efficiently, without greenhouse gas emissions, and without risk of nuclear meltdown in the 1960s, but was abandoned due to its un-weaponizable characteristics;

Whereas, technology now exists to convert harmful nuclear waste into harmless synthetic diamond batteries that would each provide continuous carbon-free energy for at least one hundred years;

Whereas, our coal industry can be revived, and repurposed for the production of these synthetic diamonds;

Whereas, motor vehicle manufacturers are already transitioning, of their own accord, to produce electric vehicles, exclusively; and DIY kits are already available to citizens to convert their existing motor vehicles from fossil fuel engines to electric motors; and if we are able to develop them, could be adapted as well for synthetic diamond car batteries;

Whereas, Thorium Molten Salt energy plants can be multipurposed for atmospheric carbon scrubbing, production of ultra-low carbon fuel, recycling of nuclear waste for the production of synthetic diamond batteries, and desalination for the purpose of agriculture, reforestation, and alleviating drought through fresh water pipelines;

Whereas, synthetic diamond batteries can be sold to manufacturers for the production of electronics with built in batteries, making Thorium Molten Salt plants profitable enough to at least cover operational costs;

Whereas, Thorium is abundant enough to supply us with fuel for Thorium Molten Salt energy plants for thousands of years;

Whereas, the non-renewable technologies identified in this resolution are already tested, and proven viable;

Whereas, the United States is already involved in cooperative projects with China and India, to improve and advance Thorium Molten Salt technology;

Whereas, the non-renewable technologies identified in this resolution would be all that we would need to reach net-zero carbon emission levels;

Whereas, the non-renewable technologies identified in this resolution would make renewable energy unnecessary and undesirable;

Whereas, these non-renewable technologies can be employed seamlessly into our society, with very little disruption to daily life, with very little disruption of current infrastructure, and would not require the nationalization of industry or the creation of a Total War Machine that would place our nation under emergency rule;

Whereas, these technologies would provide our nation with energy independence, which would allow us the freedom to wage peace, instead of war;

Whereas, these technologies are valuable enough to strengthen our relationships with other nations through cooperative scientific endeavors;

Whereas these technologies would provide long lasting energy products, with low profit margins, making them less conducive to corporate greed, and could best be employed as public utilities;

Whereas, the elimination of the fossil fuel industry would contribute to global peace, by eliminating a major cause of migrant crises that drive a large part of the Western world to adopt inhumanitarianism;

Whereas, the elimination of fossil fuels would provide opportunity to oil rich nations to repurpose petroleum for textile manufacturing within their own countries, improving the lives of their own people;

Whereas, our own oil reserves may be repurposed for textile industries as well, boosting our own economy;

Whereas, the elimination of the fossil fuel industry would reduce government corruption, and would release monies horded by the fossil fuel industry into the public sphere, thus contributing to the wealth of our people, improving upward mobility, and would thus restore the American Dream;

Let it be resolved…

That a committee be formed to explore issues of safety, regulation, viability, advancement, and employment of these non-renewable technologies, in consideration of all types of extreme weather, and to explore how we can best collaborate on related projects with the rest of the world;

That hearings be held with experts in relevant fields to help us establish a net-zero carbon energy network that includes these reasonable non-renewable solutions, with consideration of how carbon-scrubbing technology can alleviate public panic by extending initial target dead-lines from twelve, to at least thirty years;

That legislators and prominent activists receive counterintelligence briefings that warn them of how adversarial entities may be using climate alarmism to undermine our democracy;

That we may avert a climate crisis without having to sacrifice our democracy, and without losing our minds; so that we can keep CALM and carry on with our lives, while creating a more peaceful world.

Democratic Socialism is not Social Democracy

By Naomi Allen
17 Feb 2019

“Democratic” Socialists have long used countries like Norway as evidence that socialism works. And it’s really nice to see that people are starting to point out that the Nordic Model is actually social democracy, not socialism. But now… in an attempt to save their narrative, the DemSocs are pretending that social democracy is all they want.

The point that we, Liberals, are trying to make, when we remind people that the Nordic Model isn’t socialism… is that Democratic Socialists need to stop comparing what they’re trying to do with the Nordic Model… because what they are pushing for, isn’t anything like the Nordic Model at all.

I am all for us giving the Nordic Model a try. Tax funded education, healthcare, and pensions? Unionizing everything and allowing collective bargaining on a national level? Let’s do it. But that’s not what democratic socialism is about.

Social democracy doesn’t aim to abolish capitalism or replace private industry with public ownership like democratic socialism does. Those who claim that these political ideologies are the same thing are either naïve or being dishonest.

Why is it, that socialists can only defend socialism by making it look like social democracy? If socialism is so great, why aren’t they defending it for what it is, instead of by pretending it’s something different?

Here’s a bright idea: Instead of pretending that democratic socialism is social democracy, how about people ditch democratic socialism and start promoting social democracy for real?

The Great American Value Shift. Happening Now.

By Naomi Allen
12 Feb 2019

Kamala Harris was asked, on the View, if she thought that AOC and the “socialist left” could splinter the Democratic Party.

In defense of the introduction of socialist ideas, she said that: Defending a premise, requires one to “reexamine” and question whether the premise is still relevant… whether it has impact and meaning… and if we are not able to defend the merits of the status quo… then let’s explore new ideas.

Even if I’m wrong about how this might mean that she is questioning the merit and relevancy of democracy, I’m pretty sure that this definitely means that she thinks socialism is worth considering.

She followed that up with a brief comment about us having stuff in common… then gave a nod to the existential climate crisis and how we’re running out of time.

All of the democratic candidates seem to be using the same talking points. They all say that climate change is an existential crisis. They’re all beating drums for the Green War Machine. They’re all using the language of intersectionality to rally for the cause of environmental justice.

Was there a DNC meeting, in which these talking points were given to them as the new party lines? If so… I’d really like to know who came up with the idea, because these things are triggering a value shift for the Left… the same way Trump’s migrant horde did for the Right. They’re smashing our democracy, without even knowing it.

I was once “all in” for Kamala. But after this? I’m out.

Once again, “No. She didn’t say that.”

By Naomi Allen
12 Feb 2019

After everything I wrote here, people are still sending me messages to insist that Tulsi Gabbard is an Assad apologist.

So… I am right about this or that accusation being a total lie, but…

“She once said that she didn’t believe he is responsible for the chemical attacks, and that proves that she supports him.”

I challenged those people to show me an actual statement from her about this. Turns out, one does not exist. I was sent this, instead:

“So she didn’t say he didn’t do it. But she did say that if he was found guilty of it, she would be the first to call for his execution. Well, he’s been found guilty, and she hasn’t called for his execution. So there… she supports him.”

God. So sick of this.

That isn’t what she said. She said that if there is evidence that he ordered the attack, he needs to be tried for war crimes by the ICC.

While y’all accuse her of protecting Assad, the reality is that she called for him to be put on trial… but that fell on deaf ears, and no such trial ever happened. People really need to start paying attention to her actual words and actions, instead of all the journo mansplaining, and troll hyperbole that’s being planted on her behalf.

It is mind-blowing to discover just how much OpEd journalism is wrecking our realities.

The Abyss

By Naomi Allen
11 Feb 2019

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” — The US Constitution

Once people realize that Tulsi is neither an Assadist nor a Putin-lover, and once they’ve overcome their Hinduphobia, there’s usually one more thing that they still want to rail against Tulsi over: “Anti-gay” religious beliefs that she expressed when she was a LOT younger. A video of her when she just 15-years-old (back when most of America was against gay marriage) has served as particularly inflammatory.

Tulsi has apologized for her younger comments and says her views have changed. But whether she does or doesn’t still believe (as a lot of Christians and Muslims do) that homosexuality is a sin, is really not any of our business. What matters, is that she believes in the separation of church and state, and her voting record proves that she does.

She has been a strong advocate for LGBT rights, and even helped overturn the Defense of Marriage Act that Clinton enacted, and that she herself once rallied for when she was younger.

People present Tulsi’s history as if it’s new news… as if it is some hidden dirty secret that they’ve uncovered. But the truth is that Tulsi was very open about her history when she first ran for congress. A large part of her platform included a heartfelt apology to the LGBT community, and a promise to correct the injustices of intolerance that she once engaged in. She recognized she was once part of the problem, and she asked her community to elect her to make things right, and be part of the solution. She kept, and continues to keep her promise. Her path of redemption has included setting the nation upon its own path of redemption… and I applaud her for it.

I personally don’t think she still thinks homosexuality is a sin… but if she does, she has proven herself capable of religious tolerance… which would make her a lot more liberal than so-called progressives, who are growing more authoritarian every day. And that is what is happening here. Progressives are beginning to define a group morality, with zero tolerance for deviation. They are turning into monsters, not unlike those they claim to fight. They who would condemn Tulsi’s religious beliefs as a disqualifier for office are the real bigots.

“But… her religious views are too extreme to tolerate!” You know what’s super interesting? Not only is this unconstitutional, but it is as well exactly the sort of “progressive” thinking used to justify dictatorships in the Middle East. You know… the kind y’all keep saying, all the live long day, that we need to topple? Is that really what y’all want for our nation? I certainly hope not. It’s a free country. Let’s keep it that way, shall we?

Notes on Syria

By Naomi Allen
10 Feb 2019

Someone messaged me to say, in response to this, that I should write about how Assad is a good leader, and about how the US is illegally trying to overthrow him for oil.

Uh… no. I shouldn’t. Because that isn’t my position.

I really can’t say what, if any, ulterior motives our government might have for fomenting or supporting civil war in Syria. I can only speak to what they have publicly declared as their justification. I think this is the only productive way to have this debate. Otherwise, we wouldn’t even be talking about Syria anymore.

When I hear about chemical weapons being used in Syria it upsets me. I can’t help but feel that the whole of the civilized world needs to do something to stop these horrible atrocities from happening, and that we should punish those who commit them. Honestly, I often wish someone would just put a bullet in Assad’s head, and I have been one of those who has cheered on our government support for the SDF.

But… I remember when Obama announced we’d be sending arms to Syrian rebels. I remember saying, “This is a really bad idea. Didn’t we learn anything in Afghanistan?”

I remember having conversations about how, if we’re going to wage war, then it needed to be a proper war. And if we couldn’t wage proper war, then we shouldn’t do it at all. Because this irregular warfare thing we keep doing is fucking bullshit. Supply weapons to civilians? Without manpower? Those civilians would need real fighters. And if it wasn’t us, it would be Al Qaeda. And if Al Qaeda came to their aid… if Al Qaeda ended up being the ones who train them… they’d turn Syria into a recruitment ground. Al Qaeda’s ranks would grow… with our own weapons and money.

Turns out, this is exactly what ended up happening. But, anyway… sending our own troops to help fight that battle wouldn’t have been a good thing, either.

Speaking as a military veteran, I can tell you that while irregular warfare is shitty, directly fighting a civil war for someone else is even shittier. Because when we put boots on the ground in another country, it is never viewed by the people of that country as assistance, but rather, as an invasion… and we end up fighting innocent people… which is why so many of our combat vets are so fucked up in the head.

Furthermore, if we are going to put boots on the ground in another country to fight against that country’s government, we need to recognize that by doing so we are committing an act of war against that country… and such things should not be done without an official declaration of war. Not if we want to continue calling ourselves a civilized nation.

I say this because a civilized nation does not engage in war without proper justification, without a clear end-goal, without an exit strategy, and without the means to sue for peace. A civilized nation doesn’t start wars it cannot end.

Which raises the question: Do we have justification for declaring war on Syria? In actuality… we don’t. Because they have neither attacked, nor threatened the United States.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t do anything at all? I don’t think so. Syria is a member state of the United Nations and the Chemical Weapons Convention. There are mechanisms in place for dealing with these issues that don’t involve rogue military action. So why aren’t we using them?

One could argue that we don’t, because these mechanisms have proven to be ineffective. But… I think that, instead of disregarding these options,  our international leaders need to sit down and have a conversation about why they’re ineffective.

I have a feeling that we haven’t, thus far, because if we were to do so, our leaders would have to be honest about a few issues that none of them want to confront. But that’s just tough. For the sake of world peace–which should be their primary objective–the conversation needs to happen.

And while deliberating about what we can and should do about Syria in response to human rights violations, I think we really need to give careful consideration to the issue of whether that response should involve displacing Assad at all, and what that would ultimately mean.

Assad is a bastard, but he is only the face of what Westerners object to… which is the inherently brutal and ruthless nature of dictatorship itself. So… what most of us really mean when we say we need to get rid of Assad, is that we need to get rid of Syria’s system of dictatorship.

But what should it be replaced with? Many believe that if Syria’s dictatorship falls, it would automatically be replaced with democracy… but that isn’t how things work out in reality. It could happen. But only if it is born of the people’s own struggle and will for it. It has to be their fight. If your desire is for a democratic Syria, then the best thing to do, is let them struggle for that themselves.

And here’s something that a lot of Americans don’t realize. Assad may be a dictator, by our own stardards… but he is an elected one. Syria actually is already a democracy. It’s just not a liberal one like ours.

And so… if you are for intervention, then you need to get real and stop using “democracy” as a reason for it. And you must accept that it would likely lead to the election of a different dictator… or more likely, the propping up of theocracy, which is even more oppressive. And if democracy is your only reason, it may be time to rethink your position.

There is a small voice in military strategy that says, “The Middle East is not ready for freedom.” This is an extremely difficult idea for Westerners to grasp… because who in their right mind doesn’t want to be free? I, too, had a hard time understanding this. Until I started making friends with people from the region.

Recently, one of these friends very patiently told me about his sister in Syria, who calls every week… in tears. And he said to me, “Americans have a hard time understanding why we would want a dictator… even a cruel one… but these are the only guys who can suppress extremism and ensure secularism for us.”

This haunted my thoughts for weeks–and still does… especially since our own political culture is starting to lean toward this sort of illiberal, intolerant democracy.

It’s time for Kremlinologists to Rethink Tulsi Gabbard

By Naomi Allen
08 Feb 2019

The other day, I wrote about why I no longer think that Tulsi Gabbard is an Assadist, and about how I am pretty sure that pro-Russia folk have been running a reverse psychology Op, to get us to hate her. Now… after doing more research on her… I think I know why they would do such a thing.

For all the praise she’s getting from the far right and far left for being the anti-intervention candidate… which previously led me to believe that she’s bought into the anti- American Imperialism thing… she actually isn’t an isolationist or non-interventionalist at all. What she is, is anti- regime change war. A lot of people really don’t understand the difference. The isolationists have been pretending to be peace-mongers for so long, that when someone who actually does mean to wage peace comes along, we have trouble realizing it.

I’d like to write more about that, but later. Right now… I feel like I need to get a few distracting things out of the way:

She is not a conservative homophobe. When she says that she has grown up, and no longer believes in anti-gay policies, I believe her… because her congressional record shows that she’s been working for, and not against, LGBT rights.

She is not a Hindu Nationalist. In fact… after meeting with Modi (on a fact finding mission), she said:

“If India were to enact government policies that punish their citizens simply for being of a minority religion, I would condemn that action.”

The religious group she is involved with is not a “weird cult”. I called my cousins who live in Waianae (where Tulsi allegedly engaged in cult activities) and they laughed when I asked about it… telling me that the whole thing is a smear job started by two conservatives who are really pissed that Tulsi no longer advocates against gay rights.

Anti-Kremlin folk, like me, who previously disregarded her as a Putin Puppet should really take a closer look at her… because she would actually not be good for the Kremlin at all… and it would actually be in their best interest for her to fail.

She is the only candidate who acknowledges that we are engaged in a Cold War with Russia. Did you hear that? She didn’t call it “election meddling”. She didn’t make it all about Trump “collusion”. And she didn’t try to brush it aside with nonsense about how the existential climate crisis should be the only thing we focus on. She calls what is happening between us and Russia, “a New Cold War”. And she wants to put an end to it.

And just in case you’re wondering if that, by “ending” the New Cold War, she might mean appeasement… think again. Because Tulsi was the one who pushed for the US to supply weapons and financing to Ukraine, and she’s been calling for the revival of Iron Curtain policies since 2014.

“We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine’s territorial integrity. We must offer direct military assistance—defensive weapons, military supplies and training—to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia’s aggressions and defend themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in the future.” — Tulsi Gabbard (2014)

Let that sink in.

Related thread on Twitter:



Corrections 10FEB2019: Changed, because I wrote it oddly and my original meaning wasn’t clear: “She is not a member of a weird religious cult.” to, “The religious group she is involved with is not a “weird cult”.”

Tulsi Gabbard is not an Assadist

By Naomi Allen
07 Feb 2019

I haven’t spoke very highly of Tulsi Gabbard in the past. Assadist. Hindu nationalist. Bigoted conservative. Trump appeaser. Isolationist. Useful idiot who helped derail the democratic party during the last presidential election. Left-wing darling of the alt-right. Bannon’s not-so-secret political crush. These are some of the unkind words I’ve said of the congresswoman from Hawaii.

My impression of her only got worse after she announced that she’s running for president… because the Nazis… literal Nazis, like Richard Spencer… and other white supremacists like David Duke… they all came out to sing her praises. So did the socialists. So did Russian state TV. And the vicious Bernie Bros? They’re out in full force… Berning for Tulsi.

But then… I came upon weird chatter on the dark web that sort of threw me for a loop.

“The Deep State military industrial complex is doing some reverse psychology. They’ve got their MSM mocking birds trashing her so people will actually like her.”

While publicly endorsing her, the Russophile NazBols are privately talking about how liberal operatives are trashing her to trick them into liking her. Which made me wonder… have the baddies actually been running a Reverse PsyOp on us… throwing down Russian and Nazi support… to get us to not like her?

I began to wonder if my impression of her was rooted in reality… or if I had fallen for propaganda. When did I start disliking her… and why? And I remembered… I started hating on Tulsi back when I followed Louise Mensch on Twitter… before I started suspecting Mensch of alt-right sock-puppetry.

Mensch has always had the most vile things to say about Tulsi… telling people that she’s a Kremlin operative… going on and on about her secret trip to visit Assad… implying something treasonous was going on. I stopped listening to Mensch a long time ago… yet the bad impression she had painted of Tulsi stuck with me.

But maybe it shouldn’t have. Because after doing some research I discovered that the things that made me hate her from the beginning weren’t even true. Her trip to Syria wasn’t a “secret” rendezvous with Assad. Unlike Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, Tulsi’s visit was approved in advance by the House Ethics Committee.

And all that talk about how the trip was paid for by a group linked to a Pro-Assad nationalist terror group? What those articles fail to mention is the fact that Kucinich made all the arrangements.

Also… she had not planned to meet with Assad. Her plans, were to meet with the people, including refugees and opposition leaders… and she did… to learn firsthand about what was going on in Syria, so she could make informed decisions as a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees.

None of that sounds nefarious or treasonous to me. In fact… it seems quite thoughtful. And after searching for days, despite the hundreds of hit pieces that accuse her of being an Assad apologist, I could not find a single statement from her that actually expressed praise or support for Assad.

Kucinich is the shill who is always talking about what a good guy Assad is. Why isn’t anyone giving him crap? Why isn’t anyone giving Pelosi crap? Pelosi came back from Syria gushing over Assad, insisting that we can trust him.

Tulsi very rarely ever expresses an opinion about Assad’s character, but when she does, she has always described him as a “brutal dictator“, and she has called for him to be tried by the ICC for crimes against humanity. How does that amount to praise or support?

I also discovered evidence of her long standing support for one of Assad’s most formidable enemies: The Kurds. And not just with words, but in tangible, meaningful ways.

So why was she so bothered by Trump taking military action against Assad? She believes that Trump should not be able to launch military action without congressional approval… and that he should not try to justify military action without even trying to present congress with evidence. I agree with her on this. 100%. Personally, I think that Russia could be the actual culprits.

And if that alone wasn’t enough to completely convinced me… her showing up to this year’s State of the Union Address with a high ranking SDF leader did. Would an Assadist have a close enough relationship to an SDF leader, to even ask her to be her guest? I think not.

And here’s the kicker… when I took the time to research her congressional record on Russia… Tulsi is a Russia Hawk. The most hawkish I’ve ever seen among today’s politicians. Putin’s puppet? More like Putin’s worst nightmare. She has been a thorn in his side as a congresswoman… imagine what she would do as President? Just… holy shit.

I really think that many have jumped to the wrong conclusion about this… about her trip to Syria… based on preconceived notions due to her endorsement of Bernie the Russophile. And some may have easily mischaracterized her because of Hillary.


I think it is totally fucked up that journalists are giving her grief over refusing to recognize Assad as an enemy or adversary of the United States. How the fuck can she say yes to either? Especially since, according to the legal definitions of these terms, he is officially neither? Such a declaration from a military officer or any of the presidential candidates would have serious repercussions for our country… It would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

She may not be willing to make such a serious and consequential declaration… but I’m pretty sure she is not an Assadist.

As far as the other things I’ve said about her? I don’t know yet. I still have a lot of research left to do.

Related thread on Twitter:

The Road to Smashing Democracy is Paved with Good Intentions

By Naomi Allen
07 Feb 2019

There is no doubt that unmanageable debt was the trigger for their existential crisis, but I don’t think that alone would have been enough to cause the fall of the Weimar Republic.

Economic depression was experienced just about everywhere at the time, and many Western democracies (including our own) were able to overcome their hardships by transitioning into social democracies.

Social democracy was also being considered in the Weimar Republic. But it never took hold. Instead, their government was overthrown, their democracy replaced with totalitarianism, and they became Nazi Germany.

  • Smashing the State from Within
    I don’t think this would have happened, if the Nazis had not formed a large, uncompromising coalition of illiberal and anti-democracy politicians, who successfully worked to undermine, and to destroy their state from within.
  • Turning Democracy Upon Itself
    I don’t think the saboteurs could have gotten away with what they did without the support of the people… which they had… because the people had learned to distrust the state, and saw its destruction as the product of their own will.
  • Ressentiment
    But even with this distrust… I don’t think the people would have actually wanted to smash the state, if they held a strong belief in democracy. Unfortunately… they had grown to instead believe that liberalism and democracy was to blame for all of their problems.
  • Leading and Following into Battle
    These anti-liberal and anti-democracy perspectives would not have taken hold of their society without an actual shift in values… toward authoritarianism. People don’t just give up their values, if they have nothing to replace them with.
  • Something to Fight For
    For the Weimar Republic, this shift happened as their society grew more militant in response to both external threats and domestic culture war… which made them value, more than democratic freedoms, what kept them mobilized and battle-ready.

As I see it, this was the progression of the Weimar Republic’s downfall… This was how their society was conditioned, and prepared, to abandon the freedoms of democracy for totalitarianism. And all the while… the people thought they were fighting for something good… even for freedom itself.

Sadly… I see all of these things unfolding in our own country, on both sides of the political spectrum. And I worry… since political campaigns now engage in such fierce political warfare… that the upcoming presidential elections will make matters even worse.

What can we do about this?