Glasgow: High-tech finally comes a-calling?

A news item in the Glasgow Evening Times caught my eye. For many reasons.

The event? The scheduled arrival at Glasgow Airport of an Emirates Airbus 380, beginning a regular service to Dubai.

Why the surprise?

Was it the fact that the big jet was visiting Scotland at all?

Was it the fact that the airport had spent an estimated £8 million to equip the buildings with the necessary extended sections, walkways, transfer areas, etc., as the large Airbus is totally oversized for average terminals?

Or was it the fact that one resident commented “Went to put the bin out and saw a crowd of folk in the street. Turned out the Emirates #A380 was landing at Glasgow.”


My eye was caught by this comment, but only to the extent that at least one Glasgow resident has not only been issued with a rubbish bin, but he also actually uses it!

Whats all this Bull***t* about grief for a building?

I have witnessed, over the seven-odd decades I have been reading and watching newscasts, news reports and radio broadcasts, many times when grief should reign supreme. I was thirteen years old when I read the historical work entitled ‘Scourge of the Swastika’, by Lord Russell of Liverpool. As a compendium of doom, of hatred, of a singular listing of Man’s inhumanity to his fellow Man, it has few equals. I was born during World War 2, I just about remember my father visiting us at home in the indoor bomb shelter where I, along with my mother and my two brothers slept every night of those long war years, but it was only after reading of the actions, philosophies and practices of one Nazi Nation, over those few years of that illusory ‘1,000 Years Reich’; did I actually understand why we went to war, why my father served in the British Army, why my uncle died on the fields of Normandy, alongside many thousands of his fellow Servicemen. Those six-odd years, along with the terrible years before war was actually declared, epitomise, for me, the reasons for Grief. The remaining Jewish remnants of a once vital sector of European civilisation had more than enough reason for their grief; as their fellow Jews were slaughtered for the mere reason that they were Jews!

We all experience grief, for happenings both deeply personal and for those who have lost loved ones in disasters large and small. Grief is a truly human emotion, as we feel a hurt and a loss inside our minds and hearts. My sister died when just sixteen years old. She contracted leukaemia, went from the body of a vital, healthy teenager to a ghost with eyes, in the space of months. Her death shattered my father, and my mother was, truly, never the same again. That was grief, so raw, so immediate, so very understandable. My wider family has suffered similar losses, with immediate family watching as illness or disease eats away at a loved one’s very essence; and have to face the consequences. We are no different to millions more.

As the philosopher stated “Man is born to live, to suffer, and to die, and what befalls him is a tragic lot. There is no denying this in the final end. But we must deny it all along the way.”

As I stated, grief is a human emotion, about other human beings, some close, many more distant, but still, the very instance  of one’s passing causes one or many to grieve, and then to heal, and to move on.

So why are so many talking, writing or commenting about their grief over the devastating fire which has consumed the roof and interior of a Catholic Cathedral in Paris?

In links such as thisor this, or this, or even this: they are writing and talking about a Building. A historic building? Yes, but still built of stone, and timber, and glass and iron. It has no beating heart; it does not possess a soul, or a mind, or indeed a conscience: so why indeed this outpouring of an emotion which should be reserved for humanity?

Yesterday Australia: tomorrow, Great Britain & Northern Ireland

Interested yet appalled observers have watched in total disbelief as Australian Governments, through their cack-handed ‘Climate-Change-and pay-for-weather-to-change’ policies have virtually destroyed; through incompetence, venality, belief in  discredited theories about the Climate, and a total lack of political competence; a well-designed, well-managed, cheap and functional electricity distribution system. Replacing it with a set of policies which have doomed the Australian public to decades of brown- and black-outs due to a reliance on electricity generation from solar panels, wind turbines and (believe it or not) super-Carbon-Dioxide-generators powered by diesel engines as main base load generators at what can be categorically stated as the most costly electricity prices on the planet.

For years, Australian power generation policies have rested upon a base load supply generated by coal-fired  and gas-turbine powered generating stations, supplemented by hydro power schemes. Result, a power generation system designed and controlled by Engineers, which delivered electricity cheaply over the vast expanses of the external rim of the Australian Continent. For those who perhaps do not understand how big Australia really is, check out the fact that from Perth to Sydney is 2,700 miles. Through the lunatic policies such as the Renewables Energy Target, the Australian Government, after the forced closure of the Hazelwood coal-burning generation station, allowed AGL, the owners of both Bayswater and Liddell coal-fired power stations to increase their prices for electricity. The Liddell plant was repriced from $40 to $60 per megawatt hour, to greater than $5,000 per megawatt hour, making almost $3 billions extra profit for the Generation giant during the recent power surge. This profit was also boosted by much of the power offered by the Bayswater plant almost doubling in price, from about $40 per megawatt hour, to about $80 per megawatt hour.

Who, readers may well, ask, is paying for this absurd rise in a Generator company’s profits? Well, just as ever, it is the poor, silent Aussie taxpayers who foot that bill, as well as every other attempt at making Climate-Change-and pay-for-weather-to-change’ policies actually work.  But the real reason why the electricity bills for the average Aussie has quadrupled in four years is through the change in the unreal expectations of the Network Owners. Here’s what consumers are paying for: in 2010, the networks began to spend $45 billion, approved by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), on building and upgrading the poles and wires. This unprecedented spending allowance was granted on the back of dire warnings from the networks that energy demand was about to skyrocket, and unless the networks were allowed to spend tens of billions, the poles and wires simply wouldn’t cope.

Unfortunately, the networks did not realise that Electricity generation was changing, and this vast upgrade, built to give a system which could withstand upheavals, missed the revolution indicated by solar and battery technology

Here’s what consumers are paying for: in 2010, the networks began to spend $45 billion, approved by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), on building and upgrading the poles and wires. This unprecedented spending allowance was granted on the back of dire warnings from the networks that energy demand was about to skyrocket, and unless the networks were allowed to spend tens of billions, the poles and wires simply wouldn’t cope.

It just so happened that this demand spike was predicted to be the most dramatic in NSW and Queensland, the only two states where the networks are government-owned. However, things did not go according to plan. As soon as the networks started spending, energy demand didn’t skyrocket – it did the opposite. In 2010, for the first time in Australia’s history, demand went down, and it’s gone down ever since.

Here’s the rub: the networks had a strong incentive to ignore the naysayers, because the more they built, the more they got paid.

Despite year-on-year reductions in demand, the networks carried on building to match their over-inflated projections, installing Rolls Royce infrastructure that consumers hadn’t asked for, and would never need. Eventually, when the evidence was too pressing to ignore, the networks did rein in some of their spending, but not enough to stop electricity bills going through the roof.

Before the networks even had their spending approved, industry observers and experts were warning them – and the regulator – that their demand projections were way too high, and would lead to unnecessary investment.

“There were signs. Many organisations and individuals – and I was one of them – said their demand forecast was simply too high,” says analyst Bruce Mountain, who’s been advising regulators around the world for almost 25 years.

“But I think also one needs to ask the question: have they profited from an expansion of their capacity? Was this something from which they stood to gain? The answer is obviously yes. They stood to gain very sizeably.”

Here’s the rub: the networks had a strong incentive to ignore the naysayers, because the more they built, the more they got paid. Not only could they charge every dollar of that $45 billion back to consumers through their bills; they could also add on another 10 per cent – their “regulated rate of return” – and charge that back to consumers as well.

This incentive was supercharged in 2006 by state governments: they wrote the rules for the regulator to enforce, thanks to a deal with former prime minister John Howard, who gave them rulemaking authority in exchange for their blessing to replace state-based regulators with one new federal body.

The most egregious overspending on the poles and wires occurred in NSW and Queensland, where the networks are government-owned. This also happens to be where network profits have risen the fastest, via the bills of businesses and households across both states.

For the foreseeable future, consumers will continue to pay for investment they didn’t ask for, and will never need, every time they pay their electricity bills.

Bruce Mountain has conducted detailed analysis of network profits in these two states. According to his calculations, in 2008 – prior to their multi-billion dollar spending spree – the profit they earned on every electricity connection (every house or business connected to the grid) was $180. Today, it’s $500.

“I haven’t seen network charges higher in any other region or country of the world,” says Mountain.

Much of this profit was generated by a neat trick: back in 2010, using a combination of lobbying and legal appeals, the networks secured a 10 per cent interest rate on their cost of borrowing. This was several percentage points higher than they had to pay their lenders, especially in NSW and Queensland, where the networks borrowed at low government interest rates. But no matter what rate the networks actually had to pay, consumers were charged the full 10 per cent.

Calculated on billions of dollars, every percentage point the networks could secure above the actual interest rate they paid equated to hundreds of millions – all of it pure profit, and all of it paid for by consumers through their electricity bills.

This is all perfectly permissible, according to the networks’ peak body, the Energy Networks Association. Every dollar of network spending has been assessed and approved by the Australian Energy Regulator – it’s not the networks’ fault if that decision was too excessive. Besides, if the networks were to be forced to return some of their profits, that would create an unstable – and untenable – investment environment that would end up costing consumers more in the long run.

But even the regulator has conceded the network price increases are “hard to justify”. In its 2011 State of the Energy Market Report, the AER said it was restricted from making “holistic assessments” of how much of the investment was efficient or necessary, and that “this restriction has led to consumers paying more than necessary for a safe and reliable energy supply”

Yes, the networks needed to upgrade their poles, cables, substations and other transmission equipment, but it is the average poor bloody Aussie who cannot afford to buy the solar panels and the storage batteries which can take advantage of Australia’s bountiful sunshine, and who are tied to the networks cables for their electricity.

But readers must turn, reluctantly, from the stark lack of choice imposed upon Australian energy users to the equally stark choices being forced upon us here in Great Britain & Northern Ireland (GB&NI). After the grovelling morons (MPs) in Westminster voted in the Climate Change Act, we in GB&NI have watched as the Climate Change clowns have steered  us towards an Energy collapse; by starving coal power stations of maintenance funding because they do not comply with EU Regs; by vast amounts of subsidy (your taxpayer cash) flooding into the holy ‘Renewables’ cashbag (wind turbines, solar, and by burning wood (Yes, Wood) at Drax Power station): as well as by not building replacement power stations to replace the old nuclear stations as they approach the end of their safe working lives! We also watch the un-dead hands of the greedy thieving culprits as they use the pretence of pushing ‘Climate Change’, and the billions of £ sterling therein, towards enriching themselves at the public expense. For instance Lord Deben, a.k.a. the former MP John Selwyn Gummer is alleged to have enriched his family company by up to £600,000.00 by facilitating contracts for those companies who have made substantial payments to his family company. In speech after speech, the QUANGO which he chairs has pushed the acceptance of battery-powered cars to the point where his Committee is advising the Government to push for all petrol- and diesel-powered cars to be banned by A.D. 2030 rather than A.D. 2040. He makes no mention of the fact that Johnson Matthey, who paid his company nearly £300,000.00, is planning to build a huge vehicle battery plant somewhere in GB&NI.

But nowhere in this huge pile of lying garbage spun out by this same Climate Change Committee is given the slightest hint of the sheer problems which will be unearthed once the demand for charging all these “Carbon-Neutral’ battery powered cars becomes evident. We will need the present number of power stations which give a coherent, stable base load to be increased by a factor of 200%. The reasons for this huge increase in power availability is not only through the need to power the millions of battery charge points to give battery-powered vehicles the stable source needed; but also to also absorb the huge increase in generation load once the ban comes into force whereby all gas-fired boilers will be removed, BY LAW, and replaced with electricity-powered heating systems. This last statement is not envisaged as yet, but as the same Committee is pushing for all new homes to be fitted with electric boilers, (so as not to add to the “Carbon Dioxide” emissions, so denigrated by the Climate and Greenie-brigades: it will not be far behind, as the dreaded “Carbon-Dioxide fuelled Climate Change” is just around the corner. Also not included is the vast expense of installing suitable electrical connections for the aforementioned electric boilers, and the slightly secondary problem of where all these skilled electricians, necessary for the electrical boiler and electric stoves to be fitted: are going to be found, trained, paid and overseen!

Also unforeseen, but would be self-evident, is the total upgrade of the National Grid, together with all the towers, overhead cabling, switchyards, massive transformers and associated switchgear; as the present system is just managing.

The final item, forgotten by all except those, who like me, think things through to the end: is ‘who is gonna’ pay for all these things? The new electrical boilers, the stoves, the switchgear, the towers, the cabling, the skilled staff to install and run the very upgrades, the new power stations: they don’t come cheap. As ever, its you and I, the bloody taxpayers, who will be forced to foot the bill financing this fools’ paradise!

The Party which gets my votes does not yet exist.

All three Political Parties, Tory, Labour and the SNP have all proven themselves absolutely against following the basic, easily-understood instruction given them by 17.4 million British People. We told them, in a ballot which was authorised by that same Parliament, that we wanted to Leave; and what do we get in return?

From Labour, an agonised indecision, fuelled by the plain fact that that most Labour MPs are Remainers, and a vast percentage of Labour voters want to Leave. Labour loves the EU for many reasons, too many to elaborate on within these paragraphs. Labour loves the ‘Socialist-Authoritarian’ manner in which Regulations are handed down from on high within the Commission, and also loves how the voting rights of nations have been gerrymandered by the Lisbon Treaty through Qualified Majority Voting.

From the Tories, a straight split between those who understand that, despite a possible short-term upheaval in trading relations between the UK and the Continent of Europe, the best way possible is just to get out, and trade on GATT terms with both the EU and the World, and the compromisers, who wish us, as a nation, to be bound by steely ropes, listed within Withdrawal Agreement, which would prove to be unbreakable in terms of having to abide by EU Regulations for as long as the EU so desired.

The Scottish National Party is determined to stay within the EU, and votes accordingly. They see the split and break-off of the United Kingdom as a barrier to their wished-for dream of Independence for Scotland, as they accept that, if given the chance of an Independence Referendum, and a diminishing chance of winning that Vote, they would then have to join the very back of the queue to rejoin their beloved comfort blanket which is the EU.

Readers will note that I do not include the Lib-Dims, or the Greens, as they are, increasingly, irrelevant in these times.

So, which Party to vote for? In terms of Europe; or in terms more importantly, in terms of policies which benefit the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland?

I would vote for a Party which espouses:-

  • Accepting the Instruction, received in the 2016 Referendum, and proceeding to enact Legislation to sever all Treaty ties with the EU.
  • An immediate repeal of all Hate Speech law, removing the atrocious legal barriers which make the accused having to prove his innocence before the law, instead of the other way around. Removing the atrocious ideals of having to accommodate an accusation of having ‘offended someone’, without that someone have to literally prove that ‘offence’ had been taken.
  • A similar repeal of ALL GENDER legislation, and an acceptance that there are only two genders, Male and Female, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignored; 100%.
  • An updated Treason Law, which would take action by removal of passport and citizenship rights, against anyone who campaigns for a proscribed group, supports by actions such as moving to an area and supporting a terrorist organisation or encouraging acts of violence against British Citizens; anywhere in the world.
  • Accompanying the amendments to the Treason Laws would be the reintroduction of Capital Punishment. Crimes which would merit the Death Penalty would be Murder, any murder, not just Police Officers or members of British Armed Forces, Treasonous Activity, the sale and supply of Listed Drugs and other proscribed substances. Allied to the reintroduction of Capital Punishment would be a statutory removal from a Trial of any proposed Juror who will not swear, on oath, that he or she would support the Death Penalty; if the accused was found guilty.
  • An immediate repeal of the Climate Change Act (CCA), which would save this Nation some £18 billions over the next ten years.
  • Allied to the afore-mentioned CCA, a removal of all subsidies for wind turbines, solar panels; allied to a new drive to build and commission our own Nuclear Power stations, gas-fired CCGT stations, and the reintroduction of coal-fired power stations.
  • An Amendment to the International Development Act 2015, removing the specified target of 0.7% of GDP, and this to be replaced by a maximum of £1 billion, which shall be retained and disbursed by the DFiD only for true emergency aid; such as relief after earthquakes or hurricanes.
  • The balance of the specified DFiD spend to be  given, in totality, to improving our Defence Forces. Services Recruitment outsourcing to be cancelled immediately, and revised, old-fashioned face-to-face interviews in recruiting offices be renewed. Proven  military technologies must be spent within the United Kingdom excepting already proven large-spend items; such as aircraft, and all spends must be on an open tender, which must state that all overspends will not be billed to the UK Taxpayer.
  • The immediate cancellation of all taxpayer-funded payments and subsidies to Charities.
  • The cancellation of all out-sourcing of Government activities, the re-introduction of Government-funded activities such as Forensic Laboratories,
  • The absolute removal of all taxpayer-funded Quasi Autonomous  Non-Governmental Organisations (QUANGOs); with the exceptions of the Nuclear Power Authority, the Arts Council and the Food Standards Agency.
  • The immediate withdrawal of all Inheritance Tax legislation, this being paid for by the savings accrued from the removal of all QUANGO costs.

The afore-mentioned list is, as the old saying goes; a start.

The probability of such a Party emerging into the political morass which is today’s Britain? It would indeed be a miracle, but, unfortunately, the age of miracles is long past: if it ever existed in reality!

Transgender: Paradise or Paradox?

I rarely write or comment upon any sport. I have absolutely no interest in following any so–called competitive sport, probably because I just cannot understand the tribal urge to support one team, or one person, in trials of alleged sporting prowess. If the world’s ruling sports bodies followed my ideal, every known and even unknown drug would immediately be legalised, but the sport concerned would have to be renamed “The (Add Pharmaceutical Company name here: Merck. Roche, Glaxo, etc.) 100 metre championship’, for example, to reflect the truth. That truth being that, in virtually every competitive sport on this planet, ordinary competitors are being outclassed, no matter how high their training and athletic prowess is, by others whose actions are being enhanced by artifice, by drugs, and by manipulation.

But I do not come today to write, or condemn, or even to justify the performances which are illegally enhanced by competitors using the methods of blood-doping, or of use of medication for an alleged allergy; and in doing so by-pass the strict doping regulations which ruling bodies state are being rigorously enforced. I write instead of the farce which is underway whereby men, fully grown and mature athletes, are able to compete, legally, against those of a vastly inferior stature, by virtue of a simple statement that they are claiming to be “Transgender’; and allegedly ‘Transitioning’ to another gender. They are also being aided by statements from very senior ruling sports bodies that, under the rules, if they confirm that they are, and have been, in receipt of testosterone treatment, for nine months; they are legally able to compete, on level terms, with female athletic competitors. The level of testosterone which has been fixed as the measured acceptable level, for transgender competitors is 270 (ng/dL).

There are, however, many things besides testosterone which build a human body. Men, by virtue of their physiological make-up, have broader chests, larger hearts and lungs, longer limbs, better muscles powering those limbs, and many, many more items which build world-class male athletes. But it is testosterone, during and after puberty, which is the driving force behind the physical difference between men and women. The statistics state categorically that if a ‘Trans’ athlete abides by the rules, and takes treatments which reduce his/her/its testosterone levels to the agreed levels,  they still have the physiological traits given them by nature, and, by virtue of the ‘rules’, they will have an unbeatable advantage in weight, power, ability and agility over their female opponents.

So, where we once had a Paula Radcliffe, long-distance and marathon specialist supreme; we could now see a low achieving man, built and fashioned by his genes and natural testosterone input, challenge a similar woman to Radcliffe on the grounds that he is now a ‘trans’ athlete, and beating her all hands down, on the sheer basis that, to all purposes, he is still a man, but acting under literally false pretences.

Drugs, I can perhaps understand, but politically-correct placing of biological men into women’s events on the basis that they have achieved a purely artificial testosterone level in order to compete? Garbage! Check out the photo at the top of the linked page. Do you see three women on the podium? Nope, you see two slim-hipped, short stature women as runners-up: and the Winner, in every respect, is still a Man!

The New York Times: & the “So-Called Troubles”

The stance and political viewpoint of the New York Times (NYT); the alleged ‘Paper of Record’ in the area of the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GB&NI) can be encapsulated in a short extract from a puff-piece written in the NYT which purports to describe Irish attitudes towards Brexit, the British, and the once-claimed and much-fabled Six Counties of Ulster:-

“The Good Friday agreement ended 30-odd years of fighting in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, between predominantly Catholic communities that favoured joining the Republic of Ireland and largely Protestant loyalists of the British crown, backed by British troops. During the so-called Troubles at least 3,500 were killed and relations between Dublin and London were deeply strained ”

  • The direct quotes ‘During the so-called Troubles, at least 3,500 were killed and relations between Dublin and London were deeply strained.’ as well as ‘30-odd years of fighting between predominantly Catholic communities and largely Protestant loyalists of the British crown, backed by British troops.’ is, putting it mildly, an abortion of the truth. The terrorism onslaught, committed and commenced by a murderous collection of IRA thugs and criminals, which targeted members of the British Armed Forces, sent specifically to Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic communities from a sectarian mob of Protestant gangs. The IRA targeted British soldiers, as well as both Protestant and Catholic communities indiscriminately, and killed and injured hundreds on the Mainland with their bombing sprees.


  • For literally decades, the NYT applauded and spoke warmly of the IRA/SinnFein crowd as ‘freedom fighters’, giving ever-more broadly applauding commentaries and headlines, such as I.R.A. Hero Wed, this same day as three British soldiers were murdered in Crossmaglen.


  • Such warm words, along with the collection of literally millions of dollars from Irish-American ‘Plastic Paddies’ by Noraid, most of which went towards the purchase and smuggling of Armalite rifles and Semtex, which would target The Royal Ulster Constabulary, British soldiers or Members of the British Judiciary. These collections, incidentally, which were given the quiet approval of the American (‘I did not have sex with that woman) ’: otherwise known as President Bill Clinton.


  • The New York Times, along with many other Left-leaning and liberal-minded newspapers in America, continued with this attitude of applauding ‘Terrorists’, who of course were always known as ‘Freedom Fighters’, until America was suddenly given a taste of what they had been applauding and funding for decades: when the Twin Towers were brought down by two jet aircraft being flown into them: when the Pentagon suffered a similar attack, and when the passengers of Flight 93 fought back and crashed their jet into a Pennysylvania field. President George Bush’s  warning-cum-declaration in the wake of the attack: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” made one hell of a difference. Suddenly, the masked, gun-toting bombers of the ‘Freedom-fighting’ IRA were transformed into what we here in Great Britain had known all along: which simply stated was that SinnFein/IRA is, was, and always had been: a bunch of terrorists.


  • But still, the warm words and slogans litter the newspaper which is the NYT. Known throughout the English-speaking world for its left-leaning journalistic principles. When a bunch of thugs is given the get-out-of-jail-free slogans such as ‘IRA Hero’: when my own brother, on patrol in a Republican ghetto of Belfast, was faced with the soldier in front of him being gunned down by an Armalite-wielding thug, and actions such as that were nodded away without so much as ‘We feel your pain!”


Mayor De Blasio, Gov. Cuomo: & the Deep Red A.O.C.

In normal times, I would be laughing my head off to read of the total frustration experienced by New York’s Mayor De Blasio, along with his cohort-in-crime Governor Cuomo, when they heard of the demolition of their Amazon’s new office paradise dream; planned to be built in Long Island City, Queens; in New York City. After a year’s long negotiation, and a Amazon-type search for the best  location for their office complex (the best including how much of a tax-break the City or State was willing to concede or forego in order to get the online shipping-shopping giant to locate to their specific vicinity), it was announced that New York City had triumphed, and 25,000 jobs would be heading towards that Queens suburb. Although some of the celebratory speeches were given through thinned lips, Amazon being one of the Left’s favourite targets (Amazon long being accused of near-sweated labour regimes in its warehouses, minimum wage structures, etc.): all in, it was felt, by De Blasio and Cuomo, that it was a good deal for all, with a massive new tax contributor to both City and State, along with lots of jobs.

They celebrated too soon, as the American Mid-Term Elections threw out a couple of Left-wing outriders, both of whom came equipped with very Left-wing views, and the mouthiest of these was a young activist named Alexandria Occasio-Cortez (AOC). She had come out of nowhere, barnstorming the Federal elections, whipping up left-wing sentiments and ideals, and making the usual hard-left promises which sound absolutely marvellous to the unsophisticated young voters, but which prove to be totally ruinous in real life. The news about Amazon spurred this young Congresswoman to initiate a programme of persuading local political entities to fast track opposition to the Amazon deal. She pushed ex-Mayor Bloomberg to state his opposition to the deal, and got a hardline Democrat, Michael Gianaris, who is on the Public Authorities Control Board which approves such tax arrangements and spending, to drop the hammer on Amazon.

Ocasio-Cortez hailed the Washington Post report on Friday as a victory of the citizen over the corporation, when she tweeted a link to the Post article and added:

“Can everyday people come together and effectively organize against creeping overreach of one of the world’s biggest corporations? Yes, they can.”,

Ocasio-Cortez also cheered the news that Amazon pulled out of a deal that promised 25,000 high-paying jobs for her constituents and at least $25 billion in additional tax revenue over ten years.

“Anything is possible,” she tweeted.“Today was a day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world.”

She stated:- So I firmly believe that if we want to take that $3 billion dollars that we were willing to give to Amazon and invest it in our local community, we can do that. We can make those jobs. We can make 25,000 jobs. But we don’t have to give away and allow our subway system to crumble so that Amazon essentially owns a part of New York City. We can create 25,000 jobs with Mom-and-Pops; we can create 25,000 jobs with companies that are willing to come to the table, but we should not be giving away our infrastructure, our subway system, our schools, our teachers’ salaries, our firefighters’ budgets, to a company that has not shown good faith to New Yorkers.

Except that is not at all how the deal was structured. There was no giveaway. The $3 billion was a tax cut, was New York allowing Amazon to keep its own money. In other words, if Amazon owed $23 billion in taxes, the company would only pay $20 billion. But maybe AOC didn’t get that, maybe AOC doesn’t understand anything beyond the headlines: maybe AOC is just another Chavez, talking big, and sending his whole country into ruinous 1,000,000 % inflation in his socialistic nightmares!

Amazon meanwhile took the hint, cancelled their 25,000 jobs idea in New York, and went instead to Northern Virginia.