Replies

Wait, Is That a Kaaba at Ground Zero?

Excerpt:

Did the jihadis get their victory monument after all?

Tablet magazine published a lengthy (over 8,000 words) and thought-provoking article Wednesday calling attention to a startling fact: “a modernist version of the Kaaba, the distinctive cubelike shrine at the heart of the Islamic faith,” now stands “adjacent to the footprint of the Twin Towers, which were destroyed by al-Qaida terrorists on 9/11.” This cube-shaped “not only reproduces the form of the Kaaba, but also slyly replicates several of the distinctive features of the chief shrine of Islam, including its fabric covering, known as the Kiswa. The building is also tilted at an angle to its surroundings, so that one corner points directly toward Mecca.”

.....The plan was to build a 16-story mega-mosque at the principal site of the 9/11 attacks. The Times, which enthusiastically supported the project, quoted the public face of the initiative, the sinister-visaged imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, explaining what it was all about: “A presence so close to the World Trade Center, ‘where a piece of the wreckage fell,’ said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, ‘sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.’ ‘We want to push back against the extremists,’ added Imam Feisal, 61.”

.....And yet now, there is this Kaaba-shaped building, the strangely-named Perelman Center, which opened on Sept. 13, 2023. The building does bear a striking resemblance to the cube-shaped building in Mecca that Muslims circumambulate during their required pilgrimage to that city. Those who would discount the fact that “the building is also tilted at an angle to its surroundings, so that one corner points directly toward Mecca” on the grounds that virtually every four-cornered building is likely to have one corner pointing somewhere toward Mecca have not paid sufficient attention to aerial photographs (Tablet mag supplies one) showing that the building is oddly skewed off its foundations, as if its designers meant for it to point in a particular direction.

When the Perelman Center opened, the New York Times’ architecture critic, Michael Kimmelman, called it “the most glamorous civic building to land in New York in years,” as well as a “retort to terrorism.” Kimmelman also noted that “its architect is Joshua Ramus. He refers to the building as a ‘mystery box,’ alluding to the three exquisitely engineered, shape-shifting theaters tucked inside it.” Kimmelman also noted, “if you look closely, you may notice that the building’s footprint is oriented at a slight angle to the skyscrapers around it. A serendipity of the underground engineering, the angle is a tad irreverent,” and that “at ground zero, irreverence is new and good.”

..... Feisal Abdul Rauf and his shady developer. Sharif el-Gamal, didn’t get their Ground Zero Mosque. But did they get an Islamic shrine nevertheless? Do they understand the Perelman Center as a sign of Islam’s victory over the Great Satan on Sept. 11, 2001? Or do the Perelman Center’s developers see it as a gesture of good will, and a tacit request please not to do it again? One thing is certain: No reporter will ever ask anyone involved what they were thinking when they constructed this peculiar building.

Whatever the building at Ground Zero really is, the establishment media won’t tell you the facts about it.

A Thunderously Bad Deal: Oklahoma City’s Crony Arena Tax

https://mises.org/mises-wire/thunderously-bad-deal-oklahoma-citys-crony-arena-tax

Excerpt:

Pop the champagne, Oklahoma City! Not only has the Thunder emerged victorious in the 2025 NBA Finals—bringing home the first title in the city’s history—but you, the taxpayer, are footing the bill for the team’s shiny new stadium. Mayor David Holt—citing economic benefits and civic pride—pioneered the measure, securing a full 1 percent of the city’s 4.125 percent sales tax over a period of six years for funding the new arena, which is rather generously estimated to cost a minimum of $900 million to build. Misleadingly, the tax has been almost exclusively referred to by proponents and news outlets alike as a “1-cent sales tax” or a “penny tax”—downplaying the fact that the tax makes up roughly 25 percent of the city’s total sales tax revenue.

Surely, the Thunder owners are chipping in some dough themselves? Well, of course they are! After all, they acquired the team for a measly $325 million less than two decades ago, and it’s now valued at nearly $4 billion. How much are they coughing up? Just $50 million—a pittance, barely 5 percent at most of the total cost. Similar measures across the nation have largely been shot down by voters, leaving team owners to primarily fund new arenas themselves—or not build them at all. The OKC deal is a glaring outlier.

Mayor Holt has cited fears that the Thunder would leave OKC for the highest bidder at the end of their contract if the measure didn’t pass. In other words, he believed that if the city didn’t force taxpayers to shell out funding for the new arena, the Thunder would skip town. This reads more like a high-stakes hostage situation than a matter of municipal finance. Hilariously, Holt even admits this—stating he “felt that the Thunder had all the power” and that “cities like [OKC] never have leverage in these situations.” It appears that the Thunder drew up the play, and Mayor Holt ran it like he was trying to make the team.

Holt has also tried to pass the measure off as a sort of “popular mandate,” citing that 71 percent voted “yes” on the proposition. He neglects, of course, that this 71 percent only includes voters who actually showed up to vote. The 71 percent of “yes” voters constituted 41,129 people—only around 5 percent of the total population of OKC who will bear the burden of the tax every single time they make a purchase in the city. If this vocal minority is so passionate about the new arena, perhaps they should put their money where their mouth is and offer to pay for it themselves—at least in part—rather than subject their fellow citizens to paying more for gas, groceries, and just about everything else, all so they can sip $18 beers in the blinged-out new venue. (It is also worth mentioning that the taxpayer will not have free entry into the stadium for events, they’ll pay again).

.....Ludwig von Mises refers to this kind of scheme—where the state launches “ventures” and funds them through compulsory taxation, lacking information regarding consumers’ actual preferences as revealed through market prices—as “a system of groping about in the dark.” This is precisely what Mayor Holt is doing—taking money from the hands of the people of OKC and giving it to crony billionaires based on “vibes” and “clout.”

Let us reiterate that it is Thunder ownership—and maybe future game attendees who can afford tickets at the new venue—who will benefit. The handful of construction and management companies tasked with bringing the new arena into fruition will surely be handsomely compensated with taxpayer dollars as well. Largely, however, the taxpayers themselves will see their wallets shrinking in order to make all of this happen.

Rather than investing the $850 million (minimum) in tax revenue in efforts to improve public safety, schools, roads, or—radical thought, bear with me—merely leaving it in the hands of the citizens who earned it, the municipal government is pouring it into a basketball palace fit with luxurious boxes for city officials, their cronies, and the like to hobnob at the city’s expense. Sure, they might buy the tickets, but taxpayers foot the bill. The Thunder may have brought home a championship, but the people of Oklahoma City are bringing home a hefty tab.

Wind & Solar Energy Bankrupting Sunshine State

https://miamiindependent.com/wind-solar-energy-bankrupting-sunshine-state/

Excerpt:

The State of Florida, long a model of economic growth and conservative fiscal policy, now faces a paradox: while bathed in sunshine and surrounded by natural beauty, it is flirting with energy insolvency. Despite its bounty of natural gas and a history of reliable and affordable electric power, the Sunshine State is increasingly embracing wind and solar energy—two intermittent sources heavily reliant on subsidies, regulatory distortion and taxpayer support.

According to energy analyst Dave Walsh, a speaker at last weekend’s Reclaim Campaign event in Venice, Florida, this green energy shift is not only misguided—it is a direct threat to Florida’s economic sustainability.

Dave Walsh, former president of Mitsubishi-Hitachi Power Americas and a frequent commentator on energy policy, has issued repeated warnings about the consequences of an overreliance on renewable energy. His central thesis is simple: wind and solar power are not financially or technically viable replacements for baseload energy.

Unlike clean coal, natural gas or nuclear—which produce consistent power regardless of time or weather—wind and solar depend on conditions beyond human control. In Florida, that volatility translates into higher costs, increasing grid instability, and growing dependence on backup generation that negates many of the claimed environmental benefits.

Misguided Incentives

Florida’s flirtation with bankruptcy-by-renewables begins with misguided incentives. State and federal subsidies have fueled the construction of massive solar farms and planning for offshore wind turbines. While these projects are often promoted as “free energy from nature,” they come at a very real cost to taxpayers and utility ratepayers. Solar panel installations require vast tracts of land, expensive lithium-ion battery backups, and regular maintenance, all of which are typically financed through public-private partnerships that shift financial risk onto the state’s utility ratepayers.

At the core of the issue is the fundamental mismatch between renewable energy supply and consumer demand. Florida’s energy usage peaks during hot, humid summer afternoons, when air conditioning is essential for survival. 1. Solar power can help during the day, but its output vanishes at dusk—just as demand remains high.

2. Wind power is even less reliable, as Florida’s wind speeds are among the lowest in the nation and rarely coincide with peak demand periods.

To fill the gap, utilities must maintain parallel fossil fuel infrastructure—effectively paying for two systems at once. The result? Rising electric power rates, wasted investment and fiscal stress.

These costs ripple through the economy. Homeowners and renters see higher monthly electric power rates. Small businesses struggle with energy unpredictability. Industrial users face supply limitations that discourage investment and expansion. Meanwhile, the state government is forced to divert public funds toward green energy infrastructure that fails to deliver dependable supply of electric power. According to Walsh, this is a recipe for economic erosion: “We are funding fantasy energy at the expense of real prosperity.”

Environmental Costs of Green Energy

Beyond the economic ledger, the environmental case for wind and solar in Florida is also more complicated than advertised.

1. Solar panel production and disposal present significant ecological concerns. The panels contain toxic materials such as cadmium and lead, which can leach into groundwater if not properly recycled—a process that is costly and underdeveloped.

2. Wind turbines, for their part, have limited lifespans, and their massive fiberglass blades are largely non-recyclable, often ending up in landfills.

Additionally, there is the issue of land use. Large-scale solar farms require thousands of acres that displace natural ecosystems, farmland or rural communities. The push for offshore wind turbines—though still in early stages in Florida—threatens marine life and local fisheries. Walsh argues that these environmental trade-offs are rarely acknowledged in the glossy marketing campaigns that promote green energy.

Grid Reliability

A particularly insidious consequence of this shift to green energy is the erosion of grid reliability. In a state prone to hurricanes and tropical storms, energy security is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Traditional energy plants are built to withstand storms and restore power quickly. By contrast, solar farms and wind turbines are fragile and must often be shut down in advance of severe weather. After Hurricane Ian in 2022, thousands of Floridians waited days for electric power, and renewable systems were among the slowest to recover. This raises a critical question: can Florida afford to gamble on weather-dependent sources of electric power in a climate that demands resilience?

The answer, according to Walsh, is “No”—and the costs are mounting. He cites California and Germany as cautionary tales. Both jurisdictions pursued aggressive renewable agendas, only to experience spiking prices, grid blackouts and declining industrial competitiveness. We also saw the electric power blackouts in Spain and Portugal earlier this year due to their reliance exclusively on wind and solar power. Florida, he warns, is heading down the same road unless it reverses course quickly.

Energy Realism

What, then, is the alternative? Walsh advocates for a return to energy realism. That means investing in reliable baseload generation—particularly natural gas, in which Florida is rich—and expanding nuclear energy, which produces zero emissions without the volatility of solar and wind. It also means ending the distorting subsidies and mandates that force utilities to prioritize the environmental ideology over energy output. It also means not turning off existing plants that are producing efficient energy, even when they are burning clean coal.
**********************

FPL’s subsidiary NextEra is one of the largest solar energy companies in the country. DeSantis and the Tallyturds are easily bought by big companies like FPL. The EPA and Trump need to end all government subsidies for solar energy. Solar is another industry whose viability is due to government subsidies.