…is horrible heat snow from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Last Refuge, with a post on the special master order which says “Page #2 and Page #3 of Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling cites a quote from the DOJ own legal filing, dated May 10th, that Joe Biden ordered the National Archives and Records Administration to provide access to the FBI to review the Trump records.”
Read: If All You See… »
Let’s consider
(Breitbart) Former President Donald Trump’s legal team blasted the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI for scattering documents seized from Mar-a-Lago across the floor “for dramatic effect” in its latest court filing on Wednesday. (snip)
Trump’s legal team also cautioned that the DOJ would leak parts of its investigation to the media. “Left unchecked, the DOJ will impugn, leak, and publicize selective aspects of their investigation with no recourse for Movant but to somehow trust the self-restraint of currently unchecked investigators,” wrote Trump’s attorneys.
And
(Breitbart) Top House Republicans are concerned that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s unwillingness to provide certain information about the Mar-a-Lago raid to Congress through “transparent” channels will result in the public gleaning information only through Democrat leaks to the media.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was the first to raise the issue, noting in a letter last week that a Justice Department offer to meet with a “narrow group” in Congress “mimics initial engagements by the Obama Administration during the Russia collusion hoax investigation.”
Leaks that came from the DOJ and elected Democrats who were briefed on select information. So, what do we get now? Here’s the Washington Post
Files seized at Mar-a-Lago include material on foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities
Some of the documents seized on Aug. 8 detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them.
Of course the piece is behind the paywall, hence, other outlets are covering the WaPo screed
(Newsweek) Former President Donald Trump may have declassified a document about another country’s nuclear defense capabilities—if he is correct that material stored at Mar-a-Lago was declassified.
A document about a foreign government’s defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was among material stored at Trump’s Florida residence, according to The Washington Post.
The newspaper reported late on Tuesday that material discussing the nuclear-defense readiness of a foreign government was among documents seized by the FBI during the August 8 raid at Mar-a-Lago, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter.
Some of the documents seized were so sensitive than many national security officials would not be able to access them without special clearance obtained from the president, the cabinet or near-cabinet-level officials.
Sources did not tell The Washington Post which country the document related to or where it had been stored at Mar-a-Lago. More than 100 classified documents were seized from Mar-a-Lago on August 8.
So, lots of innuendo, it’s all anonymous sources, so no one can verify the veracity, and all about the FBI/DOJ being pissy about a special master being appointed.
Christopher Kise, a lawyer for Trump, criticized leaks about the investigation in comments to The Washington Post published on Tuesday.
Kise said that “the damage to public confidence in the integrity of the system simply cannot be underestimated. The responsible course of action here would be for someone —anyone—in the Government to exercise leadership and control.”
“The Court has provided a sensible path forward which does not include the selective leak of unverifiable and misleading information. There is no reason to deviate from that path if the goal is, as it should be, to find a rational solution to document storage issues which have needlessly spiraled out of control,” he said.
But, this isn’t about a rational solution. There was no reason for this big dawn raid, which included tossing his wife and child’s rooms. Heck, the FBI knew where the documents were being kept, and they weren’t in Melania’s closet. Making a big show of it, coming in with military grade weapons and kevlar vests, it was all for show.
Read: Surprise: DOJ Leaks Info Claiming Trump Had Declassified Nuclear Material »
See, he doesn’t like that free market Republicans are trying to interfere with what all these private firms are doing, forgetting that a lot of this stuff is being required by Government
On Climate Change, Republicans Need a Crash Course in Capitalism
Republican elected officials seem to think they’ve found three new evil letters to pair with their favorite bugaboo, CRT, or critical race theory. This one is called ESG, which refers to investment strategies that consider environmental, social and governance issues. Critics call it “woke capitalism.” There’s just one problem: They don’t seem to understand capitalism. And flogging ESG is not only a terrible economic mistake. It will be a political loser, too.
Most people have zero idea what ESG, so, the only people who will object to blocking it are leftists
Republican critics of ESG have focused primarily on the “E,” arguing that climate change should not factor into investment decisions. Texas has adopted a law restricting the state, localities, and pension boards from doing business with financial firms that seek to limit their exposure to fossil fuel companies. Even firms that have large investments in fossil fuels are being banned, if they dare attempt to price climate risk into their portfolio allocations. Oklahoma has enacted a similar law, and other Republican leaders are moving in the same direction. Last month, Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, supported a resolution barring pension fund managers from considering ESG factors.
ESG is, in fact, woke capitalism bordering on socialism, because the government is requiring this stuff.
All these anti-ESG crusaders position themselves as defenders of the free market. But they are attempting to use government to block private firms from acting in the best interests of their clients, including retired police officers, teachers and many others who depend upon public pensions. And in doing so, they are turning the most basic investment rules on their head.
Are they in the best interest of their clients? Remember, the SEC is trying to make climate risk disclosures a thing. Anyhow, Mike goes on and on and on from a climate crisis scam point of view, all while refusing to reduce his own outsized carbon footprint.
The thing is, ESG, on the surface, is not a problem. It’s an experiment in investing. However, as usual, the Leftists in charge took the idea and turn the Progressive nob up to 11. It’s what they do. It’s how you get things like
It helps increase the cost of energy by messing with reasonable, return focused investment.
(National Review) But if investable funds are not even chasing profitability, many more dollars are likely to be invested in companies pursuing product plans that do not gain support from the market or suffer from ineffective execution. Meanwhile, startup founders and management of existing companies will likely receive market signals that steer them away from the task of efficiently meeting customer needs and toward other priorities. They may conclude, for example, that it is better to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion than to make product improvements, causing them to expend more of their scarce resources on the former than the latter.
They large firms are often blowing off their fiduciary responsibility to make a proper return in favor of their Wokeness.
Like many movements in America’s past, the ESG-investment crusade has taken a reasonable idea and stretched it well beyond reason. If institutional investors continue to deploy funds according to shifting criteria other than long-term profitability, and relying on imprecise metrics while doing so, they will undermine the ability of the U.S. economy to grow and to thereby improve our standard of living.
That’s what the leftists do. Of course, the ones doing this are making lots and lots of money, eh?
Read: Mike Bloomberg’s Rather Upset Over Republican Resistance To ESG »
We’ve only known about the chip shortage since early in 2021. We were told it was super important to get the legislation so we could get them made in the U.S. About that
U.S. Commerce aims to seek chips funding proposals by February
The U.S. Commerce Department said Tuesday it hopes by February to begin seeking applications for $39 billion in government semiconductor chips subsidies to build new facilities and expand existing U.S. production.
Congress in August approved $52.7 billion for semiconductor manufacturing and research and a 25% investment tax credit for chip plants, estimated to be worth $24 billion. That credit applies to projects that start construction after Jan. 1.
“We’re going to negotiate these deals one-at-a-time,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told reporters, adding they would need companies to prove government funding is absolutely necessary for production. “They’re not going to get anymore than necessary to make these investments,” she added.
President Joe Biden signed the legislation to boost efforts to make the United States more competitive with China and to subsidize U.S. chip manufacturing in a bid to alleviate a persistent chips shortage that has affected everything from washing machines and video games to cars and weapons.
Commerce said Tuesday “funding documents, which will provide specific application guidance… will be released by early February 2023. Awards and loans will be made on a rolling basis as soon as applications can be responsibly processed, evaluated and negotiated.” Raimondo said she hopes some money could be awarded by spring.
By the time the funding is actually going out the chip shortage will probably be over. It would be nice not to have to depend on other nations for the chips, but, once the companies start looking to actually make them the extrem-enviros will look to block all mining of the metals necessary for the chips. This was all something that needed to be done early in 2021.
Raimondo told Reuters in an interview last week the first priority was to get a team in place to oversee the program and then issue “high level principles and guidelines for how we’re going to be running this program and then we’re going to have a period of pretty intensive stakeholder engagement” over “the next handful of months.” Raimondo said Tuesday the team would consist of about 50 people.
A typical exercise in government idiocy that will produce less than nothing.
Read: Good News: Commerce Dept Looking For Semiconductor Chip Applications By February »
Kim is basically speaking for the vast majority of Warmists, especially the grand high poobahs in the Cult of Climastrology
Kim Kardashian amid private jet flak: I ‘pick and choose’ how to help climate change
Kim Kardashian says she’s doing her part to combat climate change — despite using her relatively new private jet to fly everywhere.
“I believe in climate change, and I believe that anything can help,” she told Interview magazine in her butt-baring cover story published Tuesday. “But I also believe in being realistic and I think sometimes there’s so much to worry about on this planet, and it can be really scary to live your life with anxiety.”
The “Kardashians” star, 41, said she loves “learning” from her “super climate change-involved friends,” but when it comes to her life, she needs to assess the practicality of going green at an extreme level.
“I do what I can, but you have to pick and choose what really works for you in your life,” she said. “No one’s going to be 100 percent perfect.”
Really, you could substitute Warmists like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Sheldon Whitehouse, etc and so on. They all want to push this on you, but, aren’t willing to forgo their own big carbon lifestyles
Kardashian’s comments come as she, Kylie Jenner, Taylor Swift and more stars have faced criticism for their constant use of private jets over using the more plebeian method of commercial airlines.
In July, the Kylie Cosmetics founder was called a “climate criminal” for using her jet for a 17-minute flight when she easily could have driven.
“Why do I have to limit my meat consumption and use paper straws while the 1% gets to pump tons of carbon into the atmosphere for a day trip to Palm Springs?” wrote one follower.
Why? Because you little climate cult disciples allowed yourselves to be indoctrinated, rather than pushing back against the high priests of the climate cult. You’ve enabled and embolded Government to use force to require all sorts of climate crisis (scam) measures. How many of you are pushing back on the People’s Republik Of California’s EV requirements? How many of you are questioning whether the people requiring you get an EV are driving one themselves? Did you expect the big wigs to modify their own lives while forcing you to modify yours? How many of the Democrats who voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, which was mostly about the climate scam, are driving EVs, taking the bus, or taking the train, vs fossil fueled flights and big SUVs? The media has bought into this, so, they refuse to ask elected officials why they are climahypocrites.
Italy to turn down winter heating to help save on gas usage
Italy plans to turn down the heating in homes and businesses over the winter to help cut the amount of gas it uses and reduce the risks linked to a total halt of Russian gas flows.
Italy imported around 40% of its gas from Russia before the conflict in Ukraine began in February but has moved rapidly to seek alternative supplies and reduce its reliance on Moscow.
Under a government plan announced on Tuesday, the temperature in apartment blocks and other public buildings will be regulated at 19 Celsius (66 Fahrenheit), one degree Celsius lower than previously. The figure will be set at 17C for industrial premises. The heating will be on for an hour a less each day.
Does anyone think the politicians of Italy will be turning their thermostats down at home and work?
European cities look to phase out cars in ‘transportation revolution’
…
Across [Europe], urban centers are restricting cars from entering certain parts of cities as well as imposing new fees. In Paris, which holds car-free Sundays, only newer, less-polluting diesel and gasoline-powered cars can travel into “low-emission zones” across the city; by 2030, only electric or hydrogen will be able to enter the French capital at all. In Norway, where 78% of new vehicles are electric, Oslo eliminated most on-street parking spots in the city’s core. The medieval Belgian city of Ghent limits vehicles in the city center by offering free shuttles from low-priced car parks on its periphery. Drivers heading into London during business hours must pay congestion fees of $17 a day and further entry fees of $15 simply to enter “ultra-low-emission zones”; in some parts of the city, cars will soon be forbidden altogether.
Who wants to bet that the politicians and big wigs are exempt from this?
Read: Kim Kardashian: I Pick And Choose How I Do Something About ‘Climate Change’ »
…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post wondering if justice is a matter of color in Lexington.
As a sidebar, the gun on the lower left is actually the most dangerous of the four.
Read: If All You See… »
California elected Democrats are like the Hobbit trilogy. What should just be a fun, children’s adventure was turned into a massive, 3 part movie, adding in all sorts of things that were not necessary, changing parts of the actual plot, creating drama where it was not needed, inventing characters, and just trying to make it Epic, and, instead, making it rather not so good. They even screwed up Smaug, and Bilbo’s interaction with him. Dems took an idea of protecting fast food workers and made it very, very bad, because government just doesn’t know when to stop.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed off a landmark new law that could pave the way for a $22 minimum hourly wage for fast-food workers in the state.
The bill allows the creation of a 10-member Fast Food Council at the state’s Department of Industrial Relations to set minimum standards for workers in the industry, ranging from wages and training to health and safety, and protection from discrimination and harassment. This would cover workers at chains including McDonald’s, Starbucks, Burger King, and Subway.
“For years, the fast food sector has been rife with abuse, low pay, few benefits, and minimal job security, with California workers subject to high rates of employment violations, including wage theft, sexual harassment and discrimination, as well as heightened health and safety risks,” the bill says.
Because it’s fast food. It’s a job. Meant for young folks to get some work experience and make a bit of spending money. And people who want a part time gig to pick up some easy extra dough. Job security? Please. Anything else could have been covered by a minimal piece of legislation, and, really, probably covered by existing legislation.
The Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, which covers fast-food chains with at least 100 restaurants nationally, stipulates that the minimum wage set by the council for 2023 “shall not be greater than” $22 an hour. After that, it can be adjusted for inflation with increases of up to 3.5% each year.
To come into effect, at least 10,000 fast-food restaurant employees in the state would have to sign a petition approving the creation of the council.
The council would have to hold public meetings at least every six months and conduct a full review of the fast-food restaurant health, safety, and employment standards at least every three years and issue or amend standards as appropriate.
It would be made up of one representative from the Department of Industrial Relations, two representatives each of fast-food franchisors and franchisees, two representatives each of fast-food workers and of their advocates, and one representative from the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.
Will they vote for it? Or will they see this is a fast-track to unemployment, with the companies who have to follow this, which are mostly single ownership franchises or owned by small, local groups, deciding to replace a large number of workers with automation and technology? We’ve already seen a lot of them replacing employees with self-order screens and apps. And, this legislation will increase costs on businesses that already run rather lean, so, cut employees and increase prices, great idea in an already expensive state in the middle of a recession.
Restaurant workers have been quitting their jobs at record rates during the pandemic, with many citing poor wages, a lack of benefits, rude customers, long hours, and a lack of protection from the coronavirus.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the implications for workers and the public when a disempowered workforce faces a crisis in a sector with a poor history of compliance with workplace health and safety regulations,” the bills says.
Interesting, since it was Government that decided that fast food joints could stay open while regular restaurants were closed. And, yes, they’re disempowered. They don’t own the businesses. They don’t run them. They’re employees. They don’t have skin in the game.
Some franchisees, restaurant trade associations, and right-wing politicians have opposed the bill, questioning why it excludes chains with fewer than 100 restaurants and saying it will drive up menu prices.
It’s going to cause lots of problems, and drive many small business owners out of business. It will empower the lawyers in filing lawsuits, though.
Read: California Fast Food Workers Cheer As Governor Signs Bill That Will End Their Jobs »
What do their voters think? Will they go alone with this little scheme?
17 states weigh adopting California’s electric car mandate
Seventeen states with vehicle emission standards tied to rules established in California face weighty decisions on whether to follow that state’s strictest-in-the nation new rules that require all new cars, pickups and SUVs to be electric or hydrogen powered by 2035.
Under the Clean Air Act, states must abide by the federal government’s standard vehicle emissions standards unless they at least partially opt to follow California’s stricter requirements.
Among them, Washington, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Vermont are expected to adopt California’s ban on new gasoline-fueled vehicles. Colorado and Pennsylvania are among the states that probably won’t. The legal ground is a bit murkier in Minnesota, where the state’s “Clean Cars” rule has been a political minefield and the subject of a legal fight. Meanwhile, Republicans are rebelling in Virginia.
The Minnesota Auto Dealers Association says its reading of state and federal law is that the new California rules kick in automatically in the state, and it’s making that case in court as it tries to block them.
“The technology is such that the vehicles just don’t perform that well in cold weather,” said Scott Lambert, the trade group’s president. “We don’t all live in southern California.”
How is that one state can dictate how the other 49 act? Could this lead to lawsuits against the Clean Air Act for violating the terms of the 10th Amendment? What will many states do?
“We are not California. Minnesota has its own plan,” Gov. Tim Walz said in a statement. He called Minnesota’s program “a smart way to increase, rather than decrease, options for consumers. Our priority is to lower costs and increase choices so Minnesotans can drive whatever vehicle suits them.”
Amazing that the state must develop a plan to fight off the Big Government folks trying to take away consumer choices
Oregon regulators are taking public comments through Sept. 7 on whether to adopt the new California standards. Colorado regulators, who adopted California’s older rules, won’t follow California’s new ones, the administration of Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said.
Interesting with Colorado. What will the people of Oregon decide? They’ve shot down climate scam rules several times. Pennsylvania and Virginia are looking to divorce them from those rules.
Under federal law, by Lambert’s reading, states have to either adopt California’s rules in full or follow less stringent federal emission standards. He said they can’t pick and choose from parts of each. And that effectively means there’s a “ban on the books” in Minnesota for sales of new conventionally fueled vehicles starting with the 2035 model year, he said.
If EVs are so great, why aren’t all the people pushing for them driving them?
Read: 17 States Considering Following California’s EV Mandate »
Funny how The Respectable Republicans never seem to slam Democrats, eh? Did you see ones like Liz Cheney slam Biden for his Nazi like speech last week? Nope, she lauded him
Members of the House January 6 committee said that former President Donald Trump’s criticisms of the FBI at Saturday rally may be a way of inciting his supporters to violence.
At the rally in Pennsylvania for GOP midterm candidates, Trump claimed the August 8 FBI raid at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida was part of a plot by his political foes.
“The FBI and the Justice Department have become vicious monsters, controlled by radical left scoundrels lawyers and the media who tell them what to do … and when to do it,” Trump said.
Rep. Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans sitting on the committee, said his shows Trump was deliberately seeking to stir violence.
“Trump is attacking law enforcement and yet again using language he knows will provoke violence. Only one group of Americans has a chance to diminish this danger — Republicans,” tweeted Cheney, who was recently ousted from her Wyoming congressional seat following a campaign by Trump.
“If my fellow Republicans fail to step up to stop this, they will share the blame for all that follows.”
According to The Principled Republicans, people are no longer allowed to speak out against the government, which is the exact main reason the 1st Amendment principle of free speech exists. It was not so people could call each other aholes, it wasn’t to beat up on pop stars, it was to criticize the government without fear of reprisal. But, for TPRs and their Democrat Comrades, they get Very Upset over anyone criticizing the Federal Government and deem them enemies of the state. Castro, Mao, Hitler, Chavez, and others would be very proud.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat on the January 6 committee, gave similar remarks in a Sunday interview with CNN.
When host Jim Acosta asked Lofgren if Trump’s comments constituted incitement, she said: “Well, potentially yes.”
There’s really not much in the 1st Amendment these people like, because it interferes with their plans.
Read: Excitable Liz Cheney Says Trump “Inciting Violence” By Slamming FBI »
This is so horrible! We used to have to wear heavy clothes when we went ice skating and attended the carnivals on the frozen River Thames during the Little Ice Age, now (Yahoo non-paywalled version here)
Dressing for Hot: How a Warming Planet Is Changing What We Wear
Shirts made from the same polymer as plastic bags. Jeans infused with crushed jade. Garments constructed using computerized knitting for superior ventilation, or made with cooling technology designed for astronauts by NASA.
As climate change brings more intense heat waves, the next frontier in climate resilience is the clothing we wear, with innovations that promise to cool and dry the hot and sweaty masses. They could make life more bearable for construction workers, farmers, soldiers, and others who can’t retreat indoors as days and nights get hotter.
Clothing designed for heat is moving from a niche product into the mainstream, said Lorna Hall, director of fashion intelligence for WGSN, a company that tracks and forecasts consumer trends.
Niche? I live in North Carolina, and have been wearing that stuff for a long time. Wicking pants and shirts for that. I buy specific boxer-briefs (thanks to covid, my favorite brand is no longer available, have to use a different type) for it. A minor 1.5F increase since 1850 means nothing.
But the industry’s response to rising temperatures also illustrates the challenges of adapting to climate change. The most promising options tend to be the most expensive. Consumers must navigate confusing or questionable claims. And improvements in one area almost always entail trade-offs elsewhere.
Here’s a look at some of the garments already available, and others on their way — and what they reveal about the challenges of dressing for a warming world.
They go into all sorts of things, like wearing shorts to work (I wish). Undoing a button. Wearing booty shorts. Some of you might want to hold off on this. Oh, BTW, if the world is warming so badly why do so many women wear leggings/yoga pants when it’s 98 outside?
In some cases, making clothing better suited to heat can exacerbate other climate problems.
One of the most breathable natural fibers is cotton. But growing enough crop for 1 pound of cotton fiber requires almost 350 gallons of water in a good year, according to data provided by the Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The best type of cotton for heat is often called Pima or Egyptian cotton, which makes garments that are thinner and lighter. Yet growing Pima requires even more water than lower-quality cotton, according to the USDA — in some cases, twice as much.
That trade-off between breathability and sustainability is a conundrum, said Sara Kozlowski, vice president at the Council of Fashion Designers of America, an industry group.
It’s always climate doom with these cultists.
Read: A Warming World Is Causing Us To Change How we Dress Or Something »
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.
