…is an evil gas powered stove, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is American Greatness, with a post on a judge overturning NYC’s vax mandate (it’s about time), telling the city they must rehire terminated employees and give them back pay.
Read: If All You See… »
This is Kshama Sawant
(KIRO) Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant revealed her proposal on Thursday for defunding the police department’s budget by an estimated $85 million, effective next month.
“Seattle’s movement is demanding that Seattle Police Department be defunded by at least 50%,” she said.
She backed defunding the police, BLM/Antifa riots, cashless bail, raising the threshold for theft cost, which leads to constant theft at stores now, and pretty much every hard left Socialist endeavor. And now?
Indian American lawmaker slams Seattle police for lack of probe on feces attacks
An Indian American lawmaker is calling out the Seattle Police Department for purportedly failing to investigate her report about an unidentified man who allegedly threw plastic bags filled with human excrement onto her property.
Kshama Sawant, a 49-year-old member of the Socialist Alternative party and the Seattle City Council since 2014, reported the incident after the suspect repeatedly threw the bags of feces in her yard starting this month – an attack she believes is potentially “politically motivated,” according to reports.
Sawant’s husband claimed to have reported the man to the police after the fourth incident on Oct. 8. Instead of launching an investigation, they reportedly told him, “What do you expect us to do?”
Citing a local TV station, The Siasat Daily reported that Seattle police also did not put a police detail outside Sawant’s home for protection.
Protection? From some bags of poop? Looks simply like peaceably protesting and petitioning for redress of grievance. Why would she need protection, when she wants the same taken from the citizens of Seattle?
“As a socialist City Council member who has participated in Black Lives Matter protests, I am being told that my case of six threatening incidents involving human excrement doesn’t merit even a serious investigation, let alone protection,” the City Council member, who is also an activist and an organizer, wrote to Mayor Bruce Harrell, Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz and the City Council.
No, it doesn’t. If she doesn’t want all those thefts from grocery, jewelry, and drug stores investigated, why should she get one? The police have better things to do than help out the elitist Socialist who hates them.
“[That] seems quite odd considering that hospital labs do tests on human fecal matter all the time,” Sawant said. “Most concerning is the very high likelihood that this extreme and hostile behavior is politically motivated. And could turn into more serious and dangerous harassment.”
You mean like the large number of homeless who harass citizens all the time, poop in the streets and in people’s yards? Why should you be different?
On Thursday, the police department released new details regarding the attack on Sawant’s home, including a few pictures of the suspect whom they described as an Asian man standing at around 5 feet and 4 inches tall.
“The department takes incidents involving public officials seriously, and investigators have canvassed for evidence, gathered information from witnesses and reviewed everything collected thus far,” the Seattle Police Department wrote. “At this time, the department has not found any evidence this case would meet the city or state standards for hate crime laws, but SPD will follow available leads should new information arise.”
They did the minimum necessary, because, unless he gets caught or someone turns him in, they aren’t going to spend a lot of time on this, especially when the police department is short on officers. But, this is what Sawant wanted, so, she can suck it up. Put some cameras out there, like the rest of us would. Besides, it’s just property damage, right?
Can you help identify man suspected of throwing feces at city council member’s home? https://t.co/gXFEjumMmE pic.twitter.com/xqvj4WzjgR
— Seattle Police Department (@SeattlePD) October 20, 2022
Just super easy to identify him, right?
Read: Elitist Seattle City Council Member Is Mad Police Doing Little Over Poop Attacks »
If every Warmist would just carbon neutral, giving up their own use of fossil fuels, making their own clothes, growing their own food, living in a tiny home, etc and so on, we could stop this, right?
Actions to limit climate change and avert disaster are falling far short, U.N. report says
When government representatives of nearly every nation in the world meet in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on Nov. 6 to attend the next United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP27, they will be gathering under a cloud.
It’s always interesting that every story around this time of year that mentions a COP fails to say “why are so many Warmists taking fossil fueled trips?” Perhaps we should start with ending these things, just doing them virtually
A new report from the U.N. finds that the pledges made to limit greenhouse gas emissions and avert the worst consequences of climate change are falling far short of their goal.
Only 24 of the 193 countries that signed on to a 2021 agreement reached at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, to “revisit and strengthen” their commitments this year have done so, the report concluded. A year ago, the world was on track for emissions to increase 13.7% from 2010 levels by 2030, according to an estimate in the 2021 NDC (nationally determined contributions) synthesis report from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. According to the NDC synthesis report released Wednesday, emissions will rise by 10.6% by 2030.
So, that’s good, right? 10.6 is less than 13.7
With less than two weeks to go before the next round of negotiations, the world’s nations remain far off the trajectory that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said is necessary to avert catastrophic climate change: a 50% cut in emissions by 2030.
What’s the carbon footprint of all the people traveling to COP27? How about all the ‘climate change’ believing politicians and celebs and such? What if they all cut their travel using fossil fuels to zero?
The IPCC has found that limiting warming to 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit is necessary to prevent devastating effects of climate change that will usher in a series of dangerous feedback loops, such as massive rainforest dieback and glacial melting, resulting in even warmer temperatures. But the pledges made in Glasgow would only limit warming — which has already reached 1.1°C (2°F) — to 2.2°C if all the latest pledges are fulfilled and 2.7°C based on the current policies actually in place, according to the U.N. The latest synthesis report shows little improvement, as it finds the current national plans put the world on track for 2.1°C to 2.9°C warming by 2100.
What if this doesn’t happen? Who’s held responsible for this fearmongering?
For a small island nation like Barbados, the warming estimates in the new U.N. assessment present an existential threat.
“Two degrees is a death sentence,” the country’s prime minister, Mia Mottley, said in Glasgow.
Nope, not a doomsday cult at all.
Biden already whined once at Arizona Gov Ducey once, telling him to remove the containers …. hey, when’s the last time Brandon or Kamala visited the actual border? … will he do it again?
Arizona governor puts more containers along Mexican border
The state of Arizona has begun installing shipping containers along another section of the U.S.-Mexico border to fill gaps that aren’t covered by a border wall.
The move announced by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey on Monday to install stacks of containers in Cochise County in south-eastern Arizona came two weeks after federal officials told him to remove containers he had placed along the border in southwestern Arizona.
Ducey sued in federal court on Friday, asking a court to allow the state to keep more than 100 double-stacked containers topped with razor wire in place near the community of Yuma, which sits near the California border. It also mentions U.S. Forest Service land where the new containers are being placed hundreds of miles (kilometers) to the east.
The containers near Yuma were placed in August to fill gaps in the border wall as Ducey ratcheted up political posturing against what he called the inaction of the Biden Administration in stopping migrants from entering the state from Mexico.
The new section of shipping containers is aimed at a 10-mile (16-kilometer) section of the border. Ducey said it would take more than 2,700 of the 60-foot-long (18-meter-long) shipping containers to fill the gap.
They aren’t foolproof, but, better than an open border, especially when Brandon and his Democrat Comrades keep essentially inviting people to just come to the U.S., promising money, housing, clothing, medical attention, and citizenship. Most border walls wouldn’t be necessary if every illegal would simply be deported, and any who want asylum would have to apply outside the U.S.
Read: Arizona Governor Doubles Down On Shipping Containers At Border »
What kind of changes could you expect from a Red Wave?
Election Day rout would force big changes on Democrats
Democrats will call for big changes in their party if they lose control of Congress next month, which looks increasingly likely as polls show voters are worried about the economy and trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle inflation.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is expected to retire if Democrats lose control of the House, which political handicappers say is very likely.
If Democrats lose big, it will ramp up pressure on House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) to step down as well, say Democratic lawmakers and aides.
Many rank-and-file House Democrats view the top three leaders as “a package deal,” in the words of one Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity.
Would that happen? Possibly. But, what would getting rid of the old guard mean after getting blown out?
If Republicans pick up 30 or more House seats and win control of the Senate by a comfortable margin, it will also fuel Democratic calls for President Biden not to run for reelection, according to political analysts and activists.
How about reconsidering their destructive left wing agenda?
“You may see a replica of what occurred in the Republican Party after the 2012 election with the so-called inquest. That would be kind of a deep dive into the reasons why the party suffered so badly and probably a cause for generational change, which will certainly redound to the detriment of President Biden running again,” Baker said.
What conclusions would an inquest draw? That they should moderate, or go even further towards the AOC/Tlaib/super leftist side?
Some Democratic strategists say the party needs to better address the hot-button issues of crime and illegal immigration, which Republican candidates have used to bludgeon their Democratic opponents this year.
“It’s more than the economy,” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, and a former adviser to Schumer.
“I do think if we have a bad Election Day, we need to look at [how] voters view us on crime and immigration, first and foremost,” he added. “This is a place where Democrats had self-inflicted wounds. Defund the police, abolish ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], that is a minority view among Democrats, but it was allowed to stay out there and fester.”
I think we all know how this will turn out: the more moderate, non-wackadoodle strategist, like a James Carville, will be blown off the hardcore wackjobs will take over and start pushing things even further out, wanting even more big government, more spending, more soft on crime, more transgender insanity, more screwing with the children, etc and so on. They’d triple down. It’s who they are.
Read: Election Blowout Would Force Big Changes For Democrats Or Something »
…is horrible heat snow because Other People refuse to pay carbon taxes, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post revenge being a dish best served cold.
Read: If All You See… »
This is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying since the early 2000’s, and one of the reasons I switched from anthropogenic global warming believer to Skeptic, namely, that those pushing this the hardest, the ones trying to use government authority on citizens, are climahypocrites
Michigan mayor installs gas line in home after pushing for citywide electrification
The mayor of Ann Arbor, Michigan, installed a new gas line and gas-powered fireplace in his home despite his push for the city to phase out fossil fuel usage and boost electrification.
City permits show Christopher Taylor, a Democrat who has served as mayor of the city since 2014, installed the gas line to hook up to his new fireplace earlier this year, MLive reported. Taylor has been a strong proponent of climate policies, including the so-called A2Zero carbon neutrality plan that calls on residents to buy electric vehicles, install solar panels and rely less on fossil fuels.
“Ann Arbor is not just a basic place. And so, it’s our pleasure to. And our drive to focus on affordability and equity and, you know, a moral imperative to take community climate action and sustainability,” Taylor told local radio station WEMU in August.
“I’ve knocked thousands of doors and talked to thousands of people, and people understand that we are in a climate crisis. They know that we can’t solve it alone. But they also know that it is our moral imperative to do our part.”
Ann Arbor’s government adopted the A2Zero plan in June 2020. Among its provisions, the plan asks residents to voluntarily electrify their homes, cutting off natural gas reliance.
See, he wants you to not only not install natural gas lines and appliances, he actually wants you to replace your gas appliances. Yet, you see what he did. It’s the norm with the ‘climate change’ big wigs.
COP27’s Coke sponsorship leaves bad taste with green groups
This year’s United Nations climate summit is brought to you by Coke.
Soft drink giant Coca-Cola Co.’s sponsorship of the flagship U.N. climate conference, known as COP27, sparked an online backlash and highlighted broader concerns about corporate lobbying and influence.
The COP27 negotiations aimed at limiting global temperature increases are set to kick off next month in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh. The Egyptian organizers cited Coca-Cola’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and key focus on climate when they announced the sponsorship deal in September, which triggered immediate outrage on social media.
Activists slammed the company for its outsized role contributing to plastic pollution and pointed to the deal as an example of corporate “greenwash” — exaggerating climate credentials to mask polluting behaviors. An online petition calling for Coke to be removed as a sponsor has garnered more than 228,000 signatures, while hundreds of civil society groups signed an open letter demanding polluting companies be banned from bankrolling or being involved in climate talks.
How many of these Warmists complaining about Coke will take long, fossil fueled flights to the exotic vacation spot of Sharm el-Sheikh to attend COP27?
Critics say corporate involvement goes against the spirit of the meetings, where tens of thousands of delegates from around the world gather to hammer out global agreements on combating climate change to stop the earth from warming to dangerous levels. This year, the focus is on how to implement promises made at previous conferences, according to the Egyptian presidency.
How many of them will be drinking out out plastic bottles of water, tea, and soda? How many will fly in on private jets? How many will be using vast amounts of energy?
Read: Climahypocrites Of The Day: Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor, COP27 Attendees Whining About Coke »
Right, this is the most important issue, per the Chicago Sun Times, as written by Alderman Matt Martin, Ald. Daniel La Spata, Ald. Mike Rodriguez and Ald. Maria Hadden
Time for Chicago to act boldly on climate change and bring back the Department of Environment
A decade ago, Chicago had a Department of Environment that was tasked with implementing our first ever Climate Action Plan. Released in 2008 with an end date of 2020, the plan was truly ahead of its time, showcasing how cities across the United States and beyond could take the lead in tackling climate change.
But in 2012, then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel disbanded the department, arguing that its work could be spread across multiple departments without impacting efficiency and effectiveness. Unfortunately, that assumption has proved incorrect. (snip)
By themselves, however, these new regulations and declarations won’t guarantee that Chicago meets the moment in its ongoing battle against climate change, which continues to disproportionately affect historically underserved communities. Indeed, time is running out for us to act boldly with our budget by re-establishing a Department of Environment.
In fall 2019, Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced the creation of the Office of the Environment to be housed within the mayor’s office. Unfortunately, that proposal included only one position — a proposal that was so out of step with the scope of the problem that some dubbed it a “cubicle” of the environment.
Several weeks ago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced that the Office of the Environment would be renamed the Office of Climate and Environmental Equity and include six total positions. But this represents only one additional person beyond the five existing environmental policy team members, and is less than half the size of City Hall’s press office.
That’s two more than were killed in Chicago Monday. And 2 less than those who were shot.
In fact, a re-established department could ultimately save us money. Improved recycling and composting would mean less city funds being paid to landfills. An expanded tree canopy would lower neighborhood temperatures, thereby reducing the need for air conditioners. Improved stormwater management would reduce the frequency and severity of basement flooding.
In early 2020, City Council declared a state of climate emergency in Chicago and, in doing so, pledged to “work with the Mayor’s office and city departments to develop a budget that promotes urgent climate action.” A couple additional cubicles in the mayor’s office won’t cut it.
It’s time for City Council and the mayor to re-establish the Chicago Department of Environment.
They do realize they are members of the city council, right? And can submit legislation? Perhaps the upper middle class and rich folks in Chicago might care, but, how about all those Chicagoans who have to deal with the crime? There’s a 1 in 103 chance of being a victim of violent crime in Chicago, and a 1 in 39 chance of being a victim of a property crime. But, hey, go for it, do your climate crisis scam stuff.
Read: Chicago Needs To Act Boldly On Climate Doom Or Something »
In fairness, the NY Times’ Jonathan Weisman and Neil Vigdor aren’t really working all that to carry Democrats water, probably not seeing a lot of point with so few days left, just going through the motions
Democrats Can’t Ignore the Economy. But Can They Survive It?
Democratic candidates, facing what increasingly looks like a reckoning in two weeks, are struggling to find a closing message on the economy that acknowledges the deep uncertainty troubling the electorate while making the case that they, not the Republicans, hold the solutions.
For some time, the party’s candidates and strategists have debated whether to hit inflation head on or to heed warnings that any shift toward an economic message would be ending the campaign on the strongest possible Republican ground. Since midsummer, when the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade, Democrats had hoped that preserving the 50-year-old constitutional right to an abortion and castigating Republican extremism could get them past the worst inflation in 40 years.
That is looking increasingly like wishful thinking.
Hey, they dug that grave, but, come on, what actual record do they have?
On Monday, Democrats unveiled new messages that appeared to switch tacks, incorporating achievements of the past two years with expressions of sympathy on the economy and dire warnings for what Republicans might bring.
Former Rep. Steve Israel, who headed the House Democrats’ campaign arm in a strong cycle of 2012 and weak one in 2014, said the dispute over how to address voters’ economic distress was essentially being resolved in favor of trying to accomplish a political feat that he said would be the trickiest he has ever seen: Democrats would continue to hammer Republicans on abortion and their ties to former President Donald Trump to boost turnout among their core supporters, while simultaneously trying to win over undecided voters whose biggest concerns are inflation and crime.
Good luck with that. Even Democrats do not trust Democrats on the economy and crime.
Lake, in an interview Saturday, said Democratic strategists were “extremely concerned” that the wave of support the party saw over the summer was evaporating at the worst possible time. But she insisted there was time, with barely two weeks to go, to correct course.
“A lot of candidates aren’t really clear about what the economic message is,” she said. “What we need to do is set up a more vivid contrast. People are getting more pessimistic about the economy.”
Getting? They’ve been pessimistic for well over a year. And, under Democratic Party ownership of the Congress and White House, none of their concerns have been addressed.
In two years, the party has passed a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, a generous tax credit for parents that brought child poverty to historic lows, legislation that made good on the popular, long-standing promise to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, and the biggest investment in clean energy in history — all achievements that could be framed as helping people cope with rising prices.
None of those address inflation, rising cost of food and goods.
On Friday, four veteran Democratic strategists published a piece in The American Prospect, the liberal magazine, that pleaded with Democrats to find a new message that acknowledges the pain of rising prices and answers voter concerns. To do that, they argued, candidates need to convey their legislative successes while setting up culprits other than themselves: Republicans who voted against popular measures such as capping the price of insulin, and wealthy corporations that are jacking up prices and reaping more profits.
Voters “want to know you understand what is going on in their lives,” the strategists wrote. “They want to know you are helping with their No. 1 problem and have a plan. They want to know the difference between Democrats and Republicans when they cast their votes.” The piece was written by Patrick Gaspard, president of the liberal Center for American Politics; Stanley Greenberg and Celinda Lake, veteran Democratic pollsters; and Mike Lux, a senior White House aide under former President Bill Clinton.
I read that one, and almost blogged it. Because, really, Democrats do not understand and do not care what’s happening to the working and middle classes. If they did, they wouldn’t be telling people they could save money on energy by spending $20K+ on solar panels and $56K (average cost of an EV) on an EV. Biden going to Delaware or Camp David almost every weekend. Wouldn’t be opening up the border, wanting more low wage workers when the wages of Americans aren’t keeping up with inflation.
(Newsweek)…In a bit of loose-lipped candor, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, testifying this week before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, let slip his belief that “the more pain” Americans feel at the pump, “the more benefit” there is for electric vehicle owners.
Such astounding disdain and haughtiness from a Cabinet official, if it were to come under a Republican administration, would make headline-grabbing fodder for weeks. It would dominate the late-night shows, as Jimmy Kimmel poked fun at those nasty, “Gordon Gekko”-esque robber baron Republicans.
Americans, especially Independents and wishy washy Democrats, see this. Those wishy washy Dems may not vote Republican, they might just sit it out.
Read: NY Times Wonders If Their Democrat Comrades Can Survive Their Crummy Economic Record »
Strangely, most of the people responding that they want more action do not do much, if anything, in their own lives voluntarily
Most in US want more action on climate change: AP-NORC poll
Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the federal government is not doing enough to fight climate change, according to a new poll that shows limited public awareness about a sweeping new law that commits the U.S. to its largest ever investment to combat global warming.
Democrats in Congress approved the Inflation Reduction Act in August, handing President Joe Biden a hard-fought triumph on priorities that his party hopes will bolster prospects for keeping their House and Senate majorities in November’s elections.
Biden and Democratic lawmakers have touted the new law as a milestone achievement leading into the midterm elections, and environmental groups have spent millions to boost the measure in battleground states. Yet the poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that 61% of U.S. adults say they know little to nothing about it.
Then they aren’t paying attention, and the news is doing a terrible job. But, let’s face it, most Americans care more on the latest from Kanye, the Kardashians, and all sorts of inconsequential stuff
While the law was widely heralded as the largest investment in climate spending in history, 49% of Americans say it won’t make much of a difference on climate change, 33% say it will help and 14% think it will do more to hurt it.
Well, those aren’t good numbers for the New Green Deal, er, IRA
Americans are generally more likely to support than oppose many of the government actions on climate change included in the law, the poll shows. That includes incentives for electric vehicles and solar panels, though relatively few say they are inclined to pursue either in the next three years.
So, people aren’t interested in paying through the nose for solar panels and EVs for themselves? Weird
Overall, 62% of U.S. adults say the government is doing too little to reduce climate change, while 19% say it’s doing too much and 18% think it’s doing the right amount.
Democrats are more likely than others to think the federal government is doing too little on climate: 79% say that, compared to 67% of independents and 39% of Republicans. About three-quarters of Black and Hispanic Americans think there’s too little action, compared to about half of white Americans.
And about three-quarters of adults under 45 think there’s too little action on climate, significantly higher than the roughly half of those older who think that.
They can take action in their own lives, right? Oh, right, they want some of that sweet, sweet, redistributed cash, never considering if it will be their own cash.
The poll of 1,003 adults was conducted Sep. 9-12 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.0 percentage points.
What’s also weird is there’s no link to the poll. I wonder why? 79% of Dems think not enough action, 67% of independents, and 39% of Republicans say the same. If we dig into the toplines, though, we see a D/R/I skew of 45/36/19 (page 20). That is one hell of an oversample.
This is also interesting
Looks like a lot of Warmists are upset that Other People are not willing to reduce their use of energy, not investing in solar and wind, and pay more for energy. Should have asked the questions “are you willing to reduce your own energy usage?” “Are you willing to pay more for energy?” “Are you willing to invest your own money in “renewables”?”
Read: AP: Most Americans Want More Government Action On Hotcoldwetdry »
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.
