…is lots of debris driven onto the beach for Bad Weather created waves, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on (lying liar) CDC Director Walensky stepping down.
Doubleshot below the fold, check out Cold Fury, with a post on Rand being right.
Read: If All You See… »
This is like reading a transcript from a totally 80’s boardroom meeting with all the newspeak
During portions of an interview with NBC News Homeland Security Correspondent Julia Ainsley aired on Friday’s broadcast of “NBC Nightly News,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said he is “not worried about” the expiration of Title 42 and that the Department of Homeland Security has planned and executed on its plans. Mayorkas also argued that “The border is secure because we are maximizing our resources to deliver the most effective results to our border with the most extraordinary workforce in the world.”
Ainsley asked, “Are you worried about Title 42 lifting next week?”
Mayorkas answered, “I’m not worried about Title 42 lifting. We recognize the challenge at the border.”
He also said, “Our responsibility is to plan and to execute on those plans, and that is indeed what we have done and continue to do.”
The plan does not seemingly include sending people caught crossing illegally on their way
In another part of the interview, Ainsley asked, “Is our border secure?”
Mayorkas responded, “Our border is secure.” And also said, “The border is secure because we are maximizing our resources to deliver the most effective results to our border with the most extraordinary workforce in the world.”
It’s one thing to try and paint a rosy picture, it’s something else to be utterly deluded and lie about what’s going on.
Meanwhile
The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) mocked Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday, calling her a “clown” as Title 42’s expiration date looms.
“In 6 days the massive crush of illegal aliens coming through our border will make the last 2 years look like amateur hour,” the Border Patrol Union wrote in a Twitter post.
Title 42, a Trump-era policy that allows the swift expulsion of illegal immigrants from the U.S., will expire on May 11 and tens of thousands of migrants are expected to seek entrance into America after it is lifted.
“Biden doesn’t have one clue about how to contain what he’s unleashed. He has a clown running DHS and a worse clown as VP. Watch what happens,” NBPC said in an effort to draw attention to the ongoing crisis at the southern border.
Will we see what happens from most of the national media? Doubtful. Unless they can Blame Trump.
Trackback URL
This comes from that vastly right wing outlet (sic), the San Francisco Examiner, so, it must be disinformation
Study: EVs do help air pollution, but really only benefit the wealthy
A new study shows that electric vehicles are helping make the air cleaner in California. But it’s only benefiting the wealthy.
From a purely real environmental POV, yes, EVs do not put out the pollutants that gas powered vehicles do. They would definitely decrease things like smog.
The study published on Wednesday was done in collaboration between the University of California at Berkeley, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Miami.
Researchers measured more than 400,000 rebates from 2010 to 2021 to determine how successful California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) has been in actually reducing emissions.
The study found that electric vehicles have been successful in reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, but the benefits are primarily only in wealthy communities, leaving lower-income communities in the dust.
From a purely real environmental POV, yes, EVs do not put out the pollutants that gas powered vehicles do. They would definitely decrease things like smog. And that’s what is mentioned. Cleaner air in those rich folks areas. Because the working and middle class really can’t afford EVs.
Of the 1.1 million or so zero-emissions vehicles on the road in California last year, more than 340,000 were in the Bay Area, according to state data. Seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in the state are in the region, according to census data, with San Francisco having the fourth-highest median household income.
Shouldn’t they be taking mass transit, walking, and biking, being huge leftists and Warmists? I guess that’s only for the peasants, especially since the Elites want nothing to do with the homeless, those on drugs, criminals, and poop in the streets.
But the study found that the distribution of these rebates highly favored people in wealthy communities, at around 46%, while lower-income communities had only around 7%.
Because they can afford them. It’s really that simple. Even if there was charging capacity, they still cannot afford the vehicles.
Read: Surprise: Study Shows EVs Only Really Benefit The Rich »
Funny how uber-Red sanctuary cities like NYC aren’t particularly interested in keeping all the illegals, er, asylum seekers, eh?
NYC plans to send new immigrants to Rockland, Orange. ‘We will not stand for it,’ Day says
Rockland County Executive Ed Day on Friday warned New York City Mayor Eric Adams not to bus migrants here, calling any plan to do so “absurd” and saying the county “will not stand for it.”
Adams’ office confirmed the city will temporarily house asylum seekers at hotels in Rockland and Orange counties due to the huge influx New York City has been struggling to manage. He said they were all single men, and said the placements were the start of a program that the city could expand.
Orangetown Supervisor Teresa Kenny said Friday that Adams had called her that morning to tell her for the first time that the city was considering placing some of the asylum seekers in its care in a hotel in her town.
Day said the City of New York planned to house about 340 adult men in Armoni Inn and Suites in Orangeburg for four months with plans to secure them work permits to integrate into the community.
All men, eh? Does Adams think it’s equitable to dump them in the two counties, which are just north of NYC? Didn’t Adams say that other states didn’t have the authority to send the illegals to NYC? Why not send them to Martha’s Vineyard, the Hamptons, Scarsdale, etc.? Leave the middle class neighborhoods alone.
Day said the city plan included short-term funding and services for individuals, but with no details. No realistic plans had been communicated as to who will house, feed, and support these individuals in the long-term, Day said in a statement.
NYC can pay to put them up Somewhere Else, but, not in NYC?
Kenny said she was still awaiting answers about whether criminal background checks had been conducted on the visitors and other details, such as where they are from, how long they may stay and whether they are authorized to work.
And you won’t get those checks. How will the citizens of those counties enjoy the mayhem and crime that accompanies all the illegals, especially when they are all men?
In March, Day and U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-Pearl River, held a press conference warning that a wave of immigration to Rockland had strained the county Department of Social Services, particularly the foster care system; nonprofit food pantries; and the East Ramapo school district.
“Rockland County is not a sanctuary county, unlike New York City and its boroughs,” Lawler said Friday, “and should not bear the costs associated with the Biden administration’s abject failure on border security and immigration policy.”
Simply block the importation into those counties. Send them right back.
Read: Sanctuary City Of NYC Plans To Ship “Asylum Seekers” Elsewhere »
This seems like a common theme, eh? Just about any time a poll or survey is taken, those who proclaim their Belief in anthropogenic climate change say they do not want to pay for it and do not really want to change their own lives. Like this piece from 2019
For example, while nearly half of adults say they would be willing to pay a $2 monthly tax on their electricity bills to help combat climate change, just over a quarter say they are willing to pay $10 extra each month. And while two-thirds support stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the nation’s cars and trucks, increases in the gas tax remain deeply unpopular.
And this one
Another emerging theme from the survey is that people do not want to spend their own money to combat climate change. Thirty-seven percent do not want to pay any additional taxes, and only 14 percent are willing to pay even $1 more a month.
Is it any wonder that I’ve been beating the bandwagon about Warmists not practicing what they preach since the mid-2000’s?
New Ipsos polling finds Americans are split on what is causing climate change—if it is happening at all, something that hasn’t changed in the past five years. Yet, among Americans who believe climate change is caused by human activity, most agree that people could slow or reverse climate change but aren’t willing to modify their behavior. Separately, most Americans continue to experience some form of extreme weather that’s become more frequent or intense in their area compared to ten years ago.
Heck, here in Raleigh it seems that extreme weather, ie, thunderstorms and tropical systems, have become less frequent. With big storms, that is more toward land use, where the development to the west and southwest of Raleigh changes the wind patterns, causing many storms to diminish before they get to the east side of Raleigh.
About half (49%) of Americans believe climate change is mostly caused by human activity, unchanged from 2017 and 2018.
However, while many Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity, over a quarter (27%) believe it is mostly caused by natural patterns, and 7% believe it is not happening at all.
Sad. 30+ years of Spreading Awareness and the best they can do is 49%.
Among those who believe climate change is caused by human activity, the majority (62%) agree that humans could slow or reverse climate change but aren’t willing to change their behavior.
- Along these lines, less than half of Americans say they are likely to make changes in the next year to help limit climate change, such as using public transportation (21%), trading in their car for an electric vehicle (25%), or walking or biking to close locations instead of driving (36%).
- Democrats are more likely than Republicans to make changes in the next year to help limit climate change, such as using public transportation (30% of Democrats vs. 14% of Republicans), trading in their car for an electric vehicle (38% vs. 10%), and walking or biking to close locations instead of driving (45% vs. 26%).
So, most do not want to do a damned thing. How many who say they will get an EV, walk, or bike, actually will? There’s a saying in my business: if you don’t believe the stat, cut it in half. Does anyone even believe the 45% divided by 2 number? I’d think more along the lines of 5%.
And, it gets even dumber, if that’s possible, when it comes to “extreme weather”
First off, wildfires are not weather. And almost all of them have been traced back to someone doing something stupid. But, then notice they blame heat trapping gases for “extreme cold” and “blizzards.” And to top it off, they’re calling earthquakes extreme weather and this is linked to ‘climate change’. Yes, this is a cult.
Read: Surprise: Most Americans Who Believe In Climate Doom Aren’t Making Changes In Their Own Lives »
…are clouds building into Extreme Weather, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Bookworm Room, with a post on America’s loss of self control.
Read: If All You See… »
There’s an old saying I’m confident y’all have heard many times: “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” If Bud had simply stopped making all sorts of statements, some of which were very squishy and didn’t help, their problems might have been over. But, no, still yapping
Bud Light continues to face backlash more than a month after its polarizing pact with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney prompted outrage from conservatives that an industry guru believes was one of the biggest social media misfires of all time.
The saga began when Mulvaney publicized that the beer company sent packs of Bud Light featuring the influencer’s face as a way to celebrate a full year of “girlhood.” Mulvaney said the cans were her “most prized possession” on Instagram with a post that featured “#budlightpartner.” The backlash was swift and parent company Anheuser-Busch has been faced with plummeting sales as a result, losing some $5 billion in market value.
“In my career, and from what I’ve seen, this is by far been one of the most polarizing instances within the social media space,” Viral Nation marketing strategist Emma Ferrara told Fox News Digital.
One question I do not see answered is how the other AB brands are doing. Are people not buying regular Bud, Michelob brands, Bush, etc, or have they escaped the boycott?
“When you’re looking to connect with a new community, which I think is incredibly important, I think there is a right and wrong way to approach that. And it starts with understanding who your core audience is,” she said. “It starts with also understanding who is your brand and what are your values and what’s your purpose.”
There’s nothing wrong with trying to extend your brand, but, you do not want to piss off your core audience. And the thing with certifiable Mulvaney was stupid. It pissed off women, who Mulvaney is demeaning, then the marketing boss demeaned the core audience. Maybe if AB had did this with a gender confused who actually put in the work to sorta look like and act like a real woman, it wouldn’t have been that bad.
Things have gotten so ugly that Anheuser-Busch’s CEO Michel Doukeris addressed the ordeal on an earnings call with investors on Thursday. He downplayed the brand’s partnership, and insisted there is “misinformation” spreading on social media about the company’s team-up with Mulvaney.
“We need to clarify the facts that this was one can, one influencer, one post and not a campaign,” Doukeris said, noting that the company has provided “direct financial support” to the frontline workers impacted by the boycott, naming delivery drivers, sales representatives, wholesalers, bar owners and servers.
This is where you stop digging. We all know it was just one can. It was provided, however, to a wackjob who needs competent mental health treatment who is demeaning real women.
During Thursday’s call, Doukeris said it was too early to tell how the boycott affected Bud Light sales but was bullish that Anheuser-Busch will quickly recover from any setback. He reminded investors that the company has navigated global challenges including temporary bans on beer sales in certain countries and shutdowns of bars and restaurants across the globe during the COVID-19 pandemic.
And the more he talks the more people can and will turn to other brands.
Read: Bud Light CEO Whines About “Misinformation” As Brand Still Tanking »
Do the climate cult members ever really have answers?
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., left one Biden administration official without words Wednesday when he pressed him to answer one simple question: How much would spending $50 trillion in American taxpayer money to become carbon-neutral lower global temperatures?
“If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon-neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Kennedy asked Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.
Turk appeared unable to provide a specific number, and instead began arguing that the U.S. needed to do everything it could to reduce carbon emissions before being interrupted by Kennedy pressing for an answer to the question.
This is something they should have an answer to, right? Not deflecting away?
“How much, if we do our part, is it going to reduce world temperatures?” Kennedy asked again.
“So, we’re 13% of global emissions right now,” Turk responded, before Kennedy jumped in again, saying, “You don’t know, do you? You don’t know, do you?”
“You don’t know, do you, Mr. Secretary?” Kennedy asked as Turk appeared to continue dancing around the question. “If you know, why won’t you tell me?”
“If we went to zero, that would be 13% —” Turk said.
“You don’t know, do you? You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don’t have the slightest idea whether it’s going to reduce world temperatures,” Kennedy said.
He still tried to deflect after that, and Kennedy pointed out that this is taxpayer money. Would you spend your money on things with absolutely no idea what it will get you? Because this isn’t about the climate it’s about controlling people.
WATCH: @SenJohnKennedy Destroys Dep. Energy Secretary – Exposes Climate Change Fraud By Asking One Question
KENNEDY: "If we spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral…How much is that going to reduce world temperatures?"
SEC TURK: "This is a global problem."
KENNEDY: "You… pic.twitter.com/eja5PJzM00
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 4, 2023
Read: Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk Has Tough Time Answering Simple Question On ‘Climate Change’ »
He has a stance beyond “it’s my way or the highway” and “spend baby spend”?
White House Surprised by Lack of Support for Its Debt Stance: Report
As President Biden prepares to meet next week with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other congressional leaders to discuss raising the debt limit, The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein reports that the White House has been surprised that business groups and budget hawks that it thought would be in its corner in this fight are instead siding with Republicans.
The White House has insisted that Congress should raise the debt limit without conditions, as it has done before, and that the risk of a debt default should not be used as leverage to force spending cuts, which can be discussed as part of budget talks. Republicans insist they won’t raise the borrowing limit without some concessions to address the country’s fiscal outlook.
Stein cites a range of groups, from the Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce to the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, all of which have come out in favor of negotiations between the administration and House Republicans. None have pushed for the clean debt limit increase that Biden is seeking.
Um, what made Biden and his regime folks think that budget hawks would take his side? Biden’s all about spending willy nilly with no repercussions. Why would budget hawks want that? Why would business groups want extreme spending which will jack up inflation and the cost of living, which will cause Americans to spend less on goods and services? Are those in the regime that divorced from reality? Yeah, I guess that’s rather rhetorical.
He adds that administration officials were “stunned” by a statement from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calling the House Republican debt limit bill a “realistic and extremely welcome first step.” Biden officials reportedly saw that as encouraging further brinkmanship over the debt limit. “We were livid,” one told the Post.
Or, the Biden regime could come to the table and work on a reasonable and responsible budget, considering this comes from the taxes taken from the American citizens.
Republican strategist Liam Donovan told the Post that the White House made a bad bet on GOP dysfunction. “But with the passage of a GOP debt limit proposal, any industry group or think tank that is more interested in keeping the economy on the rails understands that the path of least resistance is for Biden to sit down with McCarthy and come to a deal that allows everyone to save face,” he said.
This is rather hard when Biden only works about 30 days a week and is gone every weekend.
Read: Brandon Surprised That No One’s Really Supporting His Debt Stance »
Interestingly, the LA Times editorial board fails to mention if they have replaced their own fossil fueled vehicles with EVs. Also, a pretty big admission
Editorial: Replacing the Chevy Bolt with electric SUVs would be a climate tragedy
Can we pour one out for the Chevy Bolt?
When the small electric hatchback came onto the market six years ago, it was a game changer: The relatively affordable battery-powered vehicle with 238 miles of range on a single charge demonstrated the mass-market potential for EVs.
The Bolt has only grown in popularity, as its range improved, gas prices spiked and sticker price cuts made it one of the cheapest electric vehicles on the market. If you can find one for the suggested retail price of $26,500, you could get it for less than $20,000 dollars, after the $7,500 federal tax credit.
But last week, General Motors CEO Mary Barra announced the company will end production of the Bolt at the end of the year as it reconfigures the Michigan plant where it is made to build large battery-powered pickup trucks. Not only does it echo GM’s decision a generation ago to kill off the EV1, its first fully electric vehicle, but the Bolt’s demise is a disappointment for consumers and a step backward in the fight against climate change, including President Biden’s goal of cutting the nation’s air pollution in half by 2030.
Would this be the same Biden who takes a huge amount of fossil fueled travel weekly, and doesn’t travel in an EV?
Discontinuing a small, lower-cost EV like the Bolt to make room for bigger, more expensive models will make it harder for Americans to afford to go electric. This the wrong direction to be heading when the U.S. needs to replace polluting gas- and diesel-powered cars and trucks with clean, zero-emissions vehicles quickly.
In other words, the LATEB is telling us that EVs are mostly too expensive for most people to afford, unless you get a tiny vehicle (the Bolt is 163 inches long with an interior space of 67 cubic feet. The Honda Civic sedan is 169 inches, with 99 cubic feet) with a small combined range of 259 miles. When completely optimal. And it slow charges.
“The industry has decided that if they’re going to have to make EVs, they might as well make the same gigantic behemoths that they’ve been making before,” said Dan Becker, who directs the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign.
As far as SUVs go, that’s what people want. Most do not want sedans. I personally think it is a mistake ending the Bolt. Maybe redesign it, make it a bit bigger. The Bolt is the size of a subcompact, which most manufacturers have stopped making in the US due to low sales.
That’s not too reassuring. Consumer groups are right to be worried that discontinuing lower-priced models like the Bolt will reduce options and shut out an entire segment of drivers who want to buy electric cars but won’t be able to afford them.
So what can be done to push back against ballooning sizes and price tags?
Obviously, more government!
That makes it more important than ever that California continue to modernize and streamline its clean vehicle rebate programs, which have been hampered by long waiting lists, inconsistent and insufficient funding that have prevented people from buying electric cars. The state recently increased incentives for low and moderate-income Californians to buy zero-emission vehicles, allowing them to apply for rebates of up to $7,500. But more can be done to smooth out these programs, such as making them redeemable at the dealership or point of sale rather than forcing car buyers with limited incomes to wait months for reimbursement.
Nice to know that the EB doesn’t understand how tax incentives work. Most will not get $7,500 in cash. Does anyone think the dealers want to take what are essentially vouchers, knowing that it will take months for them to get reimbursed? And where is all this cash coming from?
Read: LA Times Is Very Upset Over Dumping Bolt For SUV EVs »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.