Yesterday's Democracy Now recording echoed a report in the journal Science (not to mention the one in The Guardian) about Exxon. The headline started at about 2:45 of the recording, after Amy Goodman cited a couple of climate-change amplified weather disasters:
Just three days ago there was an open thread on climate change here at C99%. At any rate, climate change isn't going away, regardless of how fiercely the local Barnes and Noble outlet promotes the newest fashion in climate denial.
The terms hell for leather and hell-bent are similar but have different meanings. We will look at the meaning of hell for leather and hell-bent, where the terms come from and examine some examples of their use in sentences.
Hell for leather means as fast as possible. The term was first used in print in 1889 by Rudyard Kipling, specifically referring to riding a horse at breakneck speed. The leather in this case either refers to the leather in the saddle or the leather in the crop.
Hell-bent describes someone who is determined to do something no matter how the effort effects himself or anyone else, at any cost. Hell-bent is an adjective that carries a connotation of recklessness or foolishness, it is an American word that was first used in the early 1800s. Interestingly, a new term is beginning to emerge that combines hell for leather and hell-bent. Hell-bent for leather describes someone who is determined to do something no matter what the cost, and does it in a ferocious manner.
The West sure seems not only hellbent for leather but hellbent for hell as well. Especially Europe. IMHO, the West's wealth is being hovered up at a rapid rate. There are so many things happening at once and it all appears to be aimed at the middle class. The rest of the West is being fleeced as well, but Europe is really in the hotseat.
This diary was prompted by a Grist piece: As heat wave grips Western states, officials warn of blackouts.
So okay let's dig in:
I lived through what seemed like the idyllic mid to late 50s. Marched my way through the tumultuous 60s. Cruised through the raucous 70s and its political changes. Worked hard to make it through the the 80s. Watched the overton window lurch to the right in the 90s. Saw the result of that lurch to the right in the 2000s. Witnessed the financial robbery of the 2010s. I'm still here, alive and kicking, in the 2020s, so far.
Never, through all of those years, did I have an inkling of what it would be like in the here and now. Even if I had a possible clue I would have considered it a fevered dream. This is some crazy shit we're living through folks.
So we're not going to regulate carbon emissions either. Clarence Thomas' wife said so.
The Great Reset. Let's talk about it.
I'm sure by now we all have a pretty good idea of what the Great Reset is all about, Klaus Schwab and the WEF are not shy about their plans. So, let's not focus on the various tenets of the design, but let us take a look at the reasoning behind what seems to be a rush to implement the Great Reset now rather than the previously projected 2030 timeline.
One world government has always been the stated goal of the Reseters, but, IMHO, it's greed and power that are the true impetus. But why does there now seem to be a frenzied rush to get it done?
Here are a few of the reasons I've come up with than may explain the rush to Reset:
It will be called "The Joe Rogan Obsession."
Okay, so today's offering has one distraction and one truth. Let's start with the distraction. This caught my eye:
I know! Write a negative review of "Don't Look Up." Here's the most recent extension of the general gab-fest that has surrounded this movie since it came out, from Breaking Points:
