…are horrible plastic stools made from fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Real Climate Science, with a post on lies, damned lies, and climate statistics.
It’s shorts week!
Read: If All You See… »
…are horrible plastic stools made from fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Real Climate Science, with a post on lies, damned lies, and climate statistics.
It’s shorts week!
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in the Once and Future Nation Of America. The Sun is shining, the geese are honking, and the NY Giants are perfect so far this season. This pinup is by Peter Driben, with a wee bit of help.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15
As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your Pinups for Vets calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me. I’ve also mostly alphabetized them, makes it easier scrolling the feedreader
Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!
Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. And do you have a favorite blog you can recommend be added to the feedreader?
Two great sites for getting news links are Liberty Daily and Whatafinger.
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
Of course, this is playing to their unhinged, bat guano insane base, but, it is also reckless in that it whips those same barking moonbats into a frenzy towards violence (non-paywalled Yahoo version here)
‘A Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy
The United States has experienced deep political turmoil several times before over the past century. The Great Depression caused Americans to doubt the country’s economic system. World War II and the Cold War presented threats from global totalitarian movements. The 1960s and ’70s were marred by assassinations, riots, a losing war and a disgraced president.
Riots? Like all the BLM/Antifa ones in 2020? Like Leftists declaring the CHOP zone of Seattle as no longer part of the United States? Taking over police stations? Invading people’s homes and businesses?
These earlier periods were each more alarming in some ways than anything that has happened in the United States recently. Yet during each of those previous times of tumult, the basic dynamics of American democracy held firm. Candidates who won the most votes were able to take power and attempt to address the country’s problems.
The current period is different. As a result, the United States today finds itself in a situation with little historical precedent. American democracy is facing two distinct threats, which together represent the most serious challenge to the country’s governing ideals in decades.
This should be good
The first threat is acute: a growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election.
J6, blah blah blah. No mention of Democrats still caterwauling over the 2000 election, saying Bush stole it with the help of the Supreme Court. And 2004, Diebold voting machines in Ohio. And Russia Russia Russia for 2016. Weird, right?
The second threat to democracy is chronic but also growing: The power to set government policy is becoming increasingly disconnected from public opinion.
The run of recent Supreme Court decisions — both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular — highlights this disconnect. Although the Democratic Party has won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees seems poised to shape American politics for years, if not decades. And the court is only one of the means through which policy outcomes are becoming less closely tied to the popular will.
Does it need mentioning that we are not a Democracy, ie, mob rule, at the Federal level? That 1. the minority has safeguards from majority tyranny, and 2. we have a Constitution which sets the rules, regardless of public sentiment? Unless that majority can get an Amendment through the process. Or that Democrats will sue when the majority votes, such as California’s ban on gay marriage? And gay marriage bans in other states?
Two of the past four presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote. Senators representing a majority of Americans are often unable to pass bills, partly because of the increasing use of the filibuster. Even the House, intended as the branch of the government that most reflects the popular will, does not always do so because of the way districts are drawn.
Hmm, that seems to be denying the rules as laid out by the Constitution for presidential election.
“We are far and away the most countermajoritarian democracy in the world,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and a co-author of the book “How Democracies Die,” with Daniel Ziblatt.
That’s a good thing. The Minority has rights and safeguards. The same Constitutional rules the NY Times is whining about as the second threat keeps Democrats from getting run over in Republican run states. Anyhow, it is a long, wackadoodle piece, ending with
The makeup of the federal government reflects public opinion less closely than it once did. And the chance of a true constitutional crisis — in which the rightful winner of an election cannot take office — has risen substantially. That combination shows that American democracy has never faced a threat quite like the current one.
Yes, the bureaucracy is heavily Democratic Party voters, well above the Republican/Independent/Democrat split. They do not serve the country, they serve their Beliefs. And, as the comment at the Yahoo piece with the most upvotes notes
The biggest threat to the American Democracy is the people that are elected to serve in the House and Senate that do not do the job of representing the people that elected them while at the same time setting themselves up as a pseudo-aristocracy whose only goal is to remain in power. If they would start doing the jobs they were elected to perform there would not be this amount of frustration and dissatisfaction.
Things we could do
Reduce the power of the federal government, returning it to the states. And cities. Where it belongs. People would not need to care that much what is going on in D.C., but, in their town halls and general assemblies. Which are closer to The People. This is not what Progressives, like the folks at the NY Times want. They want a massively powerful federal government which can mandate how citizens live their lives. Yet, they never seem to realize this will apply to their own lives.
Read: NY Times: American Democracy Is In Crisis From Republicans Adhering To The Constitution »
They’re super excited to force Other People onto buses, trains, and bikes. Of course, one major thing missing is Michael Schneider, founder of Streets for All, explaining how he only uses mass transit and bikes (also available at Yahoo News not behind paywall)
Op-Ed: Think bigger. Switching to electric cars isn’t enough
It might feel like the easy solution — just replace your gas-guzzling SUV with an electric SUV, and if everyone does that, eventually we’ll solve climate change. You can see why California regulators decided last month that by 2035, all new cars sold in the state must be electric. After all, car exhaust is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, so surely switching gas-powered cars to electric ones will make a huge dent in fighting climate change.
Except it doesn’t. For starters, electric cars still pollute. They don’t have tailpipe emissions, but the process of producing and transporting them creates pollution. According to the International Energy Agency, the average gas-powered car will create 41.9 tons of CO2 emissions from the point it’s manufactured until it’s retired, in contrast to 21.1 tons of CO2 from an EV. In other words, while the average EV will pollute about 50% less compared with a gas-powered car, it’s still highly polluting.
There’s also pollution, and other harms, that come before the manufacturing stage, especially in the intensifying global competition to procure rare earth materials (concentrated in China) for EV batteries. In the past, we have often been dependent on the Middle East for oil. Do we want to create a future in which we’re again dependent on countries that may not be aligned with our values for required materials for our transportation system?
In fairness, Michael is correct, however, we would be cutting out the smog produced from internal combustion engines. To hell with CO2, cleaner air would be nice, right? Remember how nice it was for air quality during lockdown? Still doesn’t mean you should be forced into an EV, though
The second issue is power capacity. During the first week in September, California faced a historic heat wave, and alerts were issued asking EV owners to not charge their vehicles during peak times. And this is at a time when only 1.9% of cars operating in California are EVs. What happens when that number is 5%? Or 20%? Without a dramatic increase in power production from clean sources, it won’t be possible to supply power to all the EVs without ramping up use of coal and natural gas for electricity generation, increasing emissions from fossil fuels.
So, wait, EVs aren’t the solution? Weird. Has he told People’s Republik of California governor Gavin Newsom and President Brandon?
If all cars were electric, we would still spend a disproportionate amount of money building and maintaining car infrastructure, with little left over to build world-class high-speed rail, bus or bike infrastructure inside and between our cities. We would still have outdated parking requirements for developers — which drive up the cost of housing and aggravate sprawl. And because EVs typically weigh more than their gas-powered counterparts, and heavier vehicles wear down the road faster, we will need to spend even more money on maintenance over the long term.
Electric cars aren’t a panacea to solve climate change. They can be part of the solution, but a myopic focus on electric cars as the solution prevents us from seeing so many other ideas. We need a future with fewer cars (electric or not) and much more public transit and bike usage. We need a complete rethink of how we use our public space, and better infrastructure so people can take short trips without using a car.
And there we go, the climate cult is already pushing away from EVs. At least for you peasants.
Read: Climate Cultists Already Advocating Moving On From EVs »
…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on an activist nutritionist saying eating right is raaaaacist.
Second photo below the fold, so, check out Pacific Pundit, with a post on MSNBC showing migrants thanking DeSantis for sending them to Martha’s Vineyard.
Read: If All You See… »
Good thing we have a press that is going to press the Biden administration for answers, eh?
White House says it’s ‘surging’ resources to Texas to address migrant influx but offers no details
The Biden administration says it is “surging” resources to El Paso, where migrants with nowhere else to go are sleeping in the streets while they scrape together bus money or await immigration proceedings.
Pressed to say what the administration is doing to help migrants, with homeless shelters mostly overwhelmed in Texas’ sixth-largest city, the White House did not elaborate and deferred to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not respond to request for comment.
“They’ve been surging resources to the region and working to quickly decompress the area,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Friday.
Migrants not immediately expelled are screened and processed to have their asylum claims heard by immigration judges in removal proceedings, Jean-Pierre said.
Jean-Pierre should have been pressed to answer exactly what the Biden admin is doing. If your friend made a dubious claim, you’d press them, would you not? Or your kids? A coworker or subordinate? But, the media just lets it go, probably sent an email over to Homeland, then moved on. Nor did they ask how many are being allowed to hang in the U.S. vs immediate deportation. Nor should any be allowed to simply roam free and clear till their asylum claim hearing, which most will not qualify for.
Border Patrol Chief in El Paso addresses migrant concerns from law enforcement, lawmakers
…
El Paso Sector Border Patrol Chief, Gloria Chavez, said agents didn’t release any migrants into the streets.
Chavez said the Border Patrol is making changes to the way it’s handing this latest surge while they deal with a harsh reality.
“As the chief of the Border Patrol in this region, I don’t want to release people into the community. That is something that is not ok with us,” Chavez said. “The reality is that my central processing center is at capacity. I am holding right now, 2,700 people in a facility that is authorize to hold 1,040.
She explained the overflow lot is holding 500 people who are waiting to be processed at the moment.
Still no Kamala at the border to view an area overrun with migrants
During the intake, agents review fingerprints, photograph migrants for biometrics.
“We want to know who they are. If we have any criminals within these groups coming in, they are not going to be released into that community,” Chavez said.
Released? Why not immediately deported?
Congressman Tony Gonzales, who represents a portion of El Paso, shared his concerns about the surge.
“Right now, the Border Patrol is getting about 1,300 migrants a day and the city of El Paso is getting further behind,” Gonzales said.
Yet, Martha’s Vineyard declared an emergency over 50
Gonzales said a handful of Border Patrol agents are able to patrol the border due to the time spent processing migrants.
“On any shift, in El Paso, you have about eight Border Patrol agents in the field. Everyone else is processing. Essentially, there is nobody out in the field to cover this. Meanwhile there is no end in sight,” Gonzales said.
Does that look like a surge?
Read: White House Says Surging Resources To Border Or Something »
I can think of the perfect place for the first ones
Biden plans floating platforms to expand offshore wind power
The Biden administration on Thursday announced plans to develop floating platforms in the deep ocean for wind towers that could power millions of homes and vastly expand offshore wind in the United States.
The plan would target sites in the Pacific Ocean off the California and Oregon coasts, as well as in the Atlantic in the Gulf of Maine.
President Joe Biden hopes to deploy up to 15 gigawatts of electricity through floating sites by 2035, enough to power 5 million homes. The administration has previously set a goal of 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030 using traditional technology that secures wind turbines to the ocean floor. (snip)
The Biden administration “is all-in on making floating offshore wind a real part of our of our energy mix and winning the global race to lead in this space,” Granholm said. ”And that’s why we set this big, hairy audacious goal” of 15 gigawatts of floating offshore wind by 2035.
It’s not quiet deep water, but, how about
Think he’d be good with a bunch of floating wind turbines right there? Or regular ones? Or, will he try and block them like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy did for the Cape Wind project?
Understand, I’m not against this. I’m for it. I think it’s a great idea. We have to account for rough seas and storms and running the power lines, along with upkeep, but, sure, take advantage of the wind which is free without ruining the view. And not having massive concrete pads like for onshore ones. But, you know the Elite climate cultists will not want to see them. And, if they’d stop pushing this stuff because of ‘climate change’, they’d get more support.
Read: Brandon Really Excited To Push Floating Wind Turbines »
They really are freaking out
Massachusetts Activates 125 National Guardsmen To Support 50 Illegal Migrants In Martha’s Vineyard
Massachusetts is activating 125 national guardsmen to help transport the 50 illegal immigrants who recently arrived at the island of Martha’s Vineyard late Wednesday off the island, Republican Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker announced Friday.
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sent the migrants to Martha’s Vineyard on Wednesday as part of the state’s program transporting illegal migrants to sanctuary cities. Massachusetts is now activating its national guard and offering to transport the migrants to Joint Base Cape Cod, Baker announced.
The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) is coordinating with state and local officials to provide food and shelter, according to CBS. Baker said locals had provided temporary shelter to the migrants but were unable to help them long-term.
One of the richest cities in America cannot take care of 50 illegals? Oh, right, they do not want The Poors around the high class and fancy-todo area of Martha’s Vineyard. Diversity is for those Other Areas.
The move to the military base will be voluntary, according to Baker, who noted that Joint Base Cape Cod has previously housed people fleeing Hurricane Katrina and served as a medical site during for COVID-19. It will now offer food and shelter, healthcare and legal services to the 50 migrants, according to Baker.
Voluntary, huh?
They can end the crisis in 48 hours when it is on their doorstep, but won't lift a finger for the communities suffering on the Southern Border. Amazing.
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) September 16, 2022
I’m sure it’s voluntary when they see the NG decked out in full uniform and carrying weapons, right?
Read: Mass. Sends National Guard To Martha’s Vineyard Over Migrants »
…is a horrible Rich Person pool causing climate change, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post wondering when a protest is a stunt.
Read: If All You See… »