Violent City Of Peace And Love Votes For More Police, Drug Screening

By William Teach March 6, 2024 – 10:30 am

Whomever wrote the headline on this Politico piece was either smoking crack or living in an alternative reality. One of the best parts, though, is that implementing law and order, reducing crime are considered a rightward and conservative shift. So, Democrat policy stands for crime and disorder

City of peace and love votes for drug screening and more police surveillance

The liberal bastion of San Francisco pivoted rightward in Tuesday’s election as voters responded to ongoing drug, homelessness and crime crises by approving policies that bolster police and require drug-screening for welfare recipients.

The results represent a major victory for embattled Mayor London Breed, a moderate Democrat who faces a tough fight for a second full term in November. She hitched her political future to a slate of three ballot measures that aim to move a city struggling with its slow post-pandemic recovery in a strikingly more conservative direction.

Voters approved all three of her measures on Tuesday, including her proposal to screen and mandate addiction treatment for people receiving county welfare.

“We want San Francisco to be exactly what the people who live here want to see,” Breed told supporters at a jam-packed craft-cocktail bar in the Hayes Valley neighborhood. “And that is a safe, affordable place to call home.”

Per Neighborhood Scout, the city of peace and love (maybe in the 60’s and 70’s) is a 1, meaning it is safer than just 1% of US cities. 100 is safest. The violent crime rate is not as bad as you think, with a 1 in 148 chance of being a victim of a violent crime. I’ve seen cities that are much worse. The property crime is what really drives this, with a 1 in 17 chance of being a victim. Burglary is almost 3 times the US rate, same with theft and motor vehicle theft. People in SF have been complaining about car thefts for decades, and that the police almost do not bother because there’s almost no chance of recovering them.

Then there are all the actions that are not necessarily crimes or things that do not get include in a crime rate, like homeless people everywhere, poop, urine, and drug needles in the streets, all the people hassling other citizens.

John Avalos, a former supervisor and longtime progressive organizer in the city, vented about the forces trying to move San Francisco rightward as he passed out brochures to voters Tuesday morning.

“Everyone is operating on the terrain that’s set by the mayor and the billionaire class,” Avalos said, speaking to POLITICO on the phone as he walked the rain-soaked, steep streets of Bernal Heights, one of the city’s most liberal neighborhoods. “It’s a politics of fear, and we need a politics of hope. We’re losing our standing on the hope side.”

I bet he lives somewhere nice which has plenty of police patrols. And doesn’t have to deal with the constant crime in the “downtown” area, which got so bad that the federal building supervisors told their employees to work from home. Businesses are leaving the area big and small. Anti-homeless fences and devices are being erected all over the place. Is it fear to have a chance on being one of the 1 in 17?

The mayor said her shifts on crime and drug policies weren’t made lightly and weren’t motivated by her reelection. She broke down into tears Saturday as she invoked the memory of her younger sister, who died from a drug overdose in 2006. Compassionate responses to the crisis have led to more deaths in the streets, she argued.

Yeah, they have. And led to crime. In fact, the article goes on to note that a record 806 people died from overdoses last year.

The rest is about the politics of Breed running for re-election. It will be interesting to see what the Comrades of SF vote for. They went for the strong on crime policies, will they vote her back in after she pushed the policies? Of course, since the city council and so many of the citizens are hostile towards police, can they create a condition where they are able to hire enough to do the job? To do things like surge officers to areas like the downtown area and forestall criminals? Further, when they catch criminals will they be charged and prosecuted by the leftist DA’s office? Or will they be let go as usual, causing cops to not bother arresting them?

Read: Violent City Of Peace And Love Votes For More Police, Drug Screening »

Posted in Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

SEC To Vote On Silly Climate Crisis (scam) Rule This Week

By William Teach March 6, 2024 – 7:15 am

This is very silly: what does the scam have to due with running a company? How does it actually help stockholder? It’s just a doomsday cult attempting to force every asset of life comply with their dogma

The SEC votes this week on controversial climate change rule: Here’s what’s at stake

Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler on Wednesday will hold a vote on one of his most controversial proposals: a rule that would require corporate America to disclose material risks posed by climate change.

President Joe Biden said climate risk is an “existential threat” and that it posed a greater risk than nuclear war.

The climate disclosure rule was first proposed in March 2022. When it was proposed, Gensler said, “Today, investors representing literally tens of trillions of dollars support climate-related disclosures because they recognize that climate risks can pose significant financial risks to companies, and investors need reliable information about climate risks to make informed investment decisions.”

How many investors? What percent? Are they investing a significant amount?

“Today’s proposal would help issuers more efficiently and effectively disclose these risks and meet investor demand, as many issuers already seek to do,” he added.

The final proposal has not yet been released.

How much will it cost? And we do we not have the final proposal when the plan is to vote on it today?

When the initial proposal was made in 2022, it would have required disclosure in three categories: Scope 1, which is direct emissions the company produces through its sources; Scope 2, which is indirect emissions, such as from generation of energy; and Scope 3, which is emissions from their supply chains and users of their products.

The Scope 3 disclosure requirements have drawn strong criticism from many corporations, who claim the regulations are too burdensome. Reuters has reported that the Scope 3 disclosure requirements will be dropped in the final proposal, and that parts of the Scope 1 and 2 disclosure requirements have been softened.

This is absurd. Indirect? That’s difficult to know, and a time waster, even more than the direct. Scope 3 is even more idiotic. This is just more creeping government socialism (the very definition of Socialism in Political Science 101 is that the government is heavily involved in every facet of the economy, up to and including owning the means of production. There are 2 other components, the Political and the Personal, but, the Economic is the driver) , more of government dictating how companies operate and forcing them to operate in certain ways.

Still, parts of the proposed rule, particularly Scope 3, is facing considerable opposition from the business community, which argues that there is too much disclosure required, and from Republicans who claim that it is another example of government overreach and a backdoor means to push a climate change agenda.

Depending on the scope of the final disclosure requirements, the SEC may face an avalanche of litigation from corporate America.

The rule is probably going to pass, so, expect lots of lawsuits.

Read: SEC To Vote On Silly Climate Crisis (scam) Rule This Week »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Economy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Biden Will Use SOTU To Ask “Who’s Side Are You On?” Or Something

By William Teach March 6, 2024 – 6:45 am

Wasn’t this the same guy who called those who believe in America first as the greatest threats to humanity?

Biden will ask America ‘Whose side are you on?’ in State of the Union this week and accuse Trump of being with Putin, less democratic freedom and higher health costs

In his State of the Union address on Thursday, President Joe Biden will make the case for his stewardship of the country and attack rival Donald Trump and the ‘MAGA Republicans,’ all while asking voters whose side they want to be on.

Biden’s speech comes as Trump is on the cusp of wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination after the Super Tuesday contests, setting up a repeat election between the two men. The prime time address will give Biden a massive platform before the country, just two days after Trump will speak at Mar-a-Lago following the GOP nominating contests.

The president has spent the weekend cloistered in Camp David with top aides working on his address, which will be laced with election year politics.

‘President Biden will make the case to continue to build the economy from the bottom up and middle out that has led to record job creation, the strongest economy in the world, increased wages and household wealth, and lower prescription drug and energy costs – instead of the MAGA Republican agenda: rewarding billionaires and corporations with tax breaks, taking away rights and freedoms, and undermining our democracy,’ said White House Communications Director Ben LaBolt.

This basically sounds like it’s going to be a campaign speech, not a state of the union, and, if he starts going down this road Republicans need to simply walk out.

In his remarks, Biden will ask Americans if they want lower health care costs, democratic freedoms and to keep Ukraine from being swallowed up by Russian leader Vladimir Putin? Or do they want to side with drug company profits, tax breaks for the wealthy and Putin?

He likes spending more money on trying to secure Ukraine, which, let’s be honest, isn’t going to win, than securing the border. Does anyone think he’ll mention how many illegals he’s let in? How sanctuary cities are melting down now that they have to practice what they preach? Will he mention Lizbeth Medina and Laken Riley? The push to get people to take the Wuhan flu “vaccines” has sure enriched drug companies, especially when they were mandatory.

But, if Biden makes a mistake, stumbles or falls on his way to the dais, that could be a political death sentence.

If he starts rambling on and looking lost, having mental errors, it won’t look good.

Read: Biden Will Use SOTU To Ask “Who’s Side Are You On?” Or Something »

Posted in Joe Biden | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Study Claims EVs Are Worse For Environment Than Gas Cars

By William Teach March 5, 2024 – 3:00 pm

Could this be true? The study is a couple years old, but, came back to light

From the link

Electric vehicles release more toxic particles into the atmosphere and are worse for the environment than their gas-powered counterparts, according to a resurfaced study.

The study, published by emissions data firm Emission Analytics, was released in 2022 but has attracted a wave of attention this week after being cited in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Sunday.

It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes, which have “efficient” exhaust filters, bringing gas-powered vehicles’ emissions to new lows.

Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear.

I had a post back in January about the tire issues with EVs, which can only be solved when manufacturers produce tires specifically for EVs. Maybe. And let’s not forget that tires are made from petroleum, and there really isn’t much of a solution for that

“You have a tradeoff. At the moment, the political agenda is very strong towards climate change reduction. EVs do deliver about a 50% reduction in CO2 — that [affects] climate change.”

“But you have this downside of EVs that increases particle pollution. Air pollution is about what we breathe and the health effects,” Molden said, assuring that the toxins in tires have much less impact on climate change than they do on “what we eat and are ingesting.”

Increased exposure to these toxins “can increase the risk of health problems like heart disease, asthma, and low birth weight,” according to the New York Department of Health, which noted that pollution from sources including vehicle exhaust can travel long distances from its source and still cause health issues at unhealthy levels.

“A lot of it [chemicals] goes into the soil and water, affecting animals and fish. And we then go and eat the animals and fish, so we are ingesting tire pollution,” Molden added.

I don’t know about you, but, I’m more concerned with what we eat and breathe than the mythical doom from CO2. But, hey, if you want an EV, get one. That’s your choice. And that’s what it should be: your choice. Not Government’s choice. Especially when the people who are making the peasants get EVs are not driving them themselves.

Read: Study Claims EVs Are Worse For Environment Than Gas Cars »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 5, 2024 – 1:00 pm

…is a calm sea from carbon pollution messing up wind patterns, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bustedknuckles, with a post on things we aren’t supposed to talk about.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bidenomics: Around 50% Have Been Turned Down For Loans Over Debt

By William Teach March 5, 2024 – 10:30 am

Is everyone enjoying Bidenomics?

Rising debt means more would-be borrowers are getting turned down for loans

Half of Americans who applied for loans in the past two years were turned down, according to a new survey from the personal finance site Bankrate.com.

That finding comes at a time when banks have been tightening rules for lending money to consumers. Interest rates have spiked dramatically since 2022, as the Federal Reserve battles inflation.

According to the new Bankrate survey, the odds of getting approved for a loan today amount to a coin flip. Half of the applicants face denial, sometimes more than once. The survey, conducted by YouGov, covered 2,483 adults in January and February.

Unsuccessful borrowers most often reported getting denied a new credit card, or a credit-limit increase on an existing card. Others said they’d been turned down for personal or car loans.

Why?

Banks have been tightening credit in response to the Fed’s aggressive campaign to raise interest rates. Between March 2022 and July 2023, the Fed lifted its benchmark rate from essentially zero to over 5%, a 22-year high.

The Fed raised rates to counter inflation, which reached a 40-year high of 9.1% in June 2022.

“I think the reason why credit is tighter today is how quickly rates turned around and surged,” said Sarah Foster, a Bankrate analyst.

Meanwhile, the Biden regime continued to over-spend and borrow too much while also spending the money poorly, not directing it where it can truly help the economy recover after the Wuhan flu, for one thing.

Tighter credit has descended at a moment when many Americans are relying on borrowed funds to get by.

Roughly half of credit cardholders carry a balance from month to month, up from 39% in 2021, Bankrate reported in another recent survey. The nation’s collective credit-card balance now tops $1 trillion.

“You might feel like you need credit to be able to continue to afford day-to-day essentials,” Foster said.

And people are spending more for the basics of life, like food. Gas is higher. Energy costs are higher. And the Biden regime keeps finding ways to make all sorts of goods more expensive via regulations, and Democrat cities and states do the same. Illegal immigration is costing those same cities and states lots of taxpayer money which should go to American citizens. You elect Democrats, you get poor economic policies.

Read: Bidenomics: Around 50% Have Been Turned Down For Loans Over Debt »

Posted in Democrats, Economy | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Travel To Symposium On Opportunities To Fight Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach March 5, 2024 – 7:00 am

They mean ways to force you to fight global boiling, not themselves, as they all certainly took fossil fueled trips

‘Roads to Removal’ Symposium Looks at Opportunities to Fight Climate Change

Discussions around climate change often center around the bad news – the planet is warming, weather is getting more extreme, resources are increasingly scarce.

But there also is cause for hope. There are options to mitigate climate change, and some of them are already happening.

This was the message behind “Roads to Removal,” a symposium at UC Merced based on the report by the same name. The report was commissioned by the Department of Energy and produced by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in conjunction with scientists from more than a dozen institutions across the nation, including UC Merced.

Roughly 175 people from academia, science, agriculture and business attended the symposium, the first of several planned to highlight what can be done in specific areas of the United States to reduce global warming.

The federal government has set a goal to reach net-zero emissions by decarbonizing the economy, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing at least a billion tonnes – a metric ton – a year by 2050. “Roads to Removal” is aimed at determining how much carbon dioxide can be removed and at what cost. The UC Merced event focused on soils, cropland and management; direct air capture; geologic storage; and biomass carbon removal and storage.

Are you getting the idea that the Cult of Climastrology is interested in controlling agriculture, ie, food? They are sure trying in European nations like France, Poland, and the UK, among others, as we’ve seen from the protests

Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, offered the symposium’s keynote address. She said while there are immense challenges stemming from climate change, there are opportunities as well.

Some of those opportunities include generating technology and manufacturing equipment that is more climate-friendly, and making innovations in the way crops are grown to improve their impacts on the environment.

Researchers estimate the measures they describe taking could create as many as 440,000 jobs – “good, long-term jobs,” Ross said.

What kinds of jobs would those be? Bureaucrats dictating how food is produced? Telling farmers how to do their jobs? Restricting what you can eat?

Read: Warmists Travel To Symposium On Opportunities To Fight Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Food and Drink, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obligatory: SCOTUS Says States Cannot Remove Trump From Ballot

By William Teach March 5, 2024 – 6:45 am

This has made the liberals with Trump Derangement Syndrome very upset, because allowing citizens to vote for someone they don’t like is destroying Democracy or something. Oh, and it took the AP a lot of paragraphs to note that this was a unanimous 9-0 vote

Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack

The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to ban the Republican former president over the Capitol riot.

The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

Trump posted on his social media network shortly after the decision was released: “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!”

The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

I wonder how Democrats would react if Republicans states attempted to remove Biden from the ballot, since he’s violating his oath of office, particularly regarding immigration. Oh, and saying that if he’s too mentally incompetent to stand trial he’s too incompetent to be president

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold expressed disappointment in the court’s decision as she acknowledged that “Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary.”

She wined a lot of Twitter, upset that citizens would actually be allowed to vote for their preferred candidate. And federally elected Democrats are melting down

Read: Obligatory: SCOTUS Says States Cannot Remove Trump From Ballot »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Donald Trump | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

French Government Rolls Out Lease Subsidies For Low Income Citizens To Get EVs

By William Teach March 4, 2024 – 3:00 pm

It’s a nice little way to jam citizens into a vehicle they could otherwise not afford

Government rolls out program allowing low-income drivers to lease EVs for as little as $43 a month: ‘It’s about time’

Electric vehicleE-Vive la France! France has launched a new “social leasing” program for drivers to lease electric vehicles (EVs) for as little as about $43 monthly, in some cases, for six months.

President Emmanuel Macron first announced the program back in October. Thanks to a subsidy from the country’s government, the initiative comes with no down payment for those who are eligible, as well as free charging, as reported by Electrek.

In order for French residents to qualify for the social leasing program, they must have an annual income of less than €15,400 (about $16,650), travel more than about 5,000 miles per year, and live at least 15 kilometers (a bit over 9 miles) away from their workplace.

Those eligible for the program are offered a three-year lease contract with an option to purchase the EV at the end of the leasing period. The leasing contract even covers insurance costs and cancellation fees because of unforeseen circumstances.

Um, how many make less than that and can afford to drop $43 a month? Plus insurance? Upkeep? That’s $1387 a month gross, before all the taxes. When I first read about this I was thinking it was a way to get some EVs into the pool as pre-owned, but, how many can actually take advantage? Unless there are a lot of really, really poor French folks. Maybe it’s for all their illegal aliens? Or seniors who work part time? Because no one can afford the purchase price at the end of the lease.

The lowest cost EV in the U.S. is the Nissan Leaf. They are offering $289 a month, 36 months, with $2669 down (that won’t include things like tax, tags, dealer fee). It doesn’t say what the yearly mileage is, I suspect 10K a year. That’s with excellent credit. The car must be turned in well maintained. So, what happens with France’s program?

Getting more people to drive EVs is a huge win for the environment since they run on electricity instead of burning dirty fuels like gas or diesel, which helps keep the air cleaner and reduces pollution that heats up our planet.

How many of these folks actually had a fossil fueled vehicle to start with? At least in the U.S., there’s virtually zero chance of getting a loan unless your gross is at least $1800-$1900 a month. Even buy here pay here won’t touch it. So France would be replacing no car with one that requires mining in Africa by kids? Huh.

Read: French Government Rolls Out Lease Subsidies For Low Income Citizens To Get EVs »

Posted in Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 4, 2024 – 1:00 pm

…are lemons which are in danger from ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Greenie Watch, with a post on the Texas wildfires having nothing to do with Hotcoldwetdry.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove