…is a horrible, evil, not good air conditioning unit which should be forbidden for Other People, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on some interesting Hunter Biden emails.
It’s straight up bikini week.
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! Another great day in the Once And Future Nation Of America. The Sun is shining, the geese are honking, and baseball has started. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, 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 »
Sure, a few Beltway Boob Republicans have argued that it’s not quite proper to call them Groomers, but, really, it’s a great single word to describe what the Democrats are doing with their unhinged, insane sexual education of minors, especially those who haven’t even hit puberty yet. If they want to call the Florida bill “don’t say gay,” we’ll call them groomers
‘Groomer’ debate inflames GOP fight over Florida law
“Groomer” is the new favorite term being used by far-right commentators and activists to describe opponents of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, sparking outrage among LBGTQ advocates who say that it is a smear that feeds into a trope casting members of the community as pedophiles.
The Florida bill signed into law by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis week, which opponents have decried as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, prohibits instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten through third grade.
“Groomer” started to gain traction as a term around the time the Florida legislature passed the bill last month. Those on the fringes argue that opponents of the Florida law and other similar measures are enabling children to be primed for abuse by allowing such instruction to push them to question their gender identity.
Fringes? Most Republicans believe that teaching children this stuff is ripe for abuse, even if it’s not teachers sexually assaulting children. Just teaching them these very adult topic, advocating for and pushing the children into these types of adult life changes can cause many problems for the children.
A spokesperson for DeSantis, Christina Pushaw, tweeted last month that the legislation “would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill.”
A segment from Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Thursday talking about gender education in schools was titled “Doom & Groom.” In another early March segment, Ingraham said that public schools have become “grooming centers for gender identity radicals.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has also embraced the descriptor. “Anyone who opposes anti-grooming laws like the one in Florida is pro-child predator. Stop sexualizing children,” she said in a tweet.
The loaded term, which is widely used to describe child sexual abusers who are priming their victims, enrages LGBTQ advocates and allies who say that it is painting teachers and advocates as pedophiles. They suggest that it feeds into a false stereotype that LGBTQ people prey on children.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1512293714319663106
If LGBTQ is enraged, perhaps they shouldn’t advocate for teaching this stuff to pre-pubescent children. They shouldn’t be discussing all their own sexual beliefs with young children. Really, a goodly bunch of these nuts shouldn’t even be school employees, as they look utterly unprofessional. Not all, mind you. But, there are plenty, which keep showing up in videos.
“It’s not only infuriating, but alarming, that the right has chosen to score political points by misusing the term groomer,” said Deb Hauser, president of the sexual education organization Advocates for Youth. “Grooming is an important concept for understanding the prevention of child sexual abuse. It’s disgraceful to see the term being applied to people who are working to keep our children safe and our classrooms and communities inclusive of LGBTQ+ students and families — especially when LGBTQ+ students remain vulnerable to bullying and discrimination in schools.”
Hey, perhaps they shouldn’t have started calling the “don’t say gay” bill. Better yet, perhaps they shouldn’t be teaching this stuff in schools. Along with plenty of their unhinged straight Comrades in the Democratic Party.
Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, executive director of GLSEN, an organization advocating for LBGTQ inclusivity in K-12 education, said that “the presence of LGBTQ+ supportive educators and affirming curriculum is critical to ending the harassment of LGBTQ+ students, who currently experience higher rates of sexual assault and harassment than non-LGBTQ+ peers.”
In other words, indoctrinating young children. Ie, grooming. THey can be upset all they want: the majority of parents approve of the bill, and do not want their children taught this stuff. Even Democratic Party voting parents.
This just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished
Responding to Climate Change the Wrong Way Is Worse Than Doing Nothing
In the 1980s, the government of the United Kingdom introduced financial incentives to promote plantation forestry. Landowners were encouraged, via tax breaks, to cover seemingly “unproductive” peatlands with uniform stands of trees for timber harvest. As a result of this policy and others, about 80 percent of UK peatlands were degraded or destroyed. “It was a disaster from a climate change perspective, as well as from a biodiversity perspective,” says Peter Smith, a soil and climate scientist at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland.
Peatlands are critical landscapes for greenhouse gas storage, explains Smith. They are sinks of undecayed organic matter, holding onto millennia of carbon dioxide and methane that would otherwise be in the atmosphere. When the UK’s peat was drained and planted with trees, the land went from carbon sink to source. It was an environmental mistake, like so many, made in the name of maximizing profit. And it’s one that the UK’s government vowed to correct and not repeat. Yet, as recently as 2020, the Forestry Commission allowed peatland to be drained for tree planting.
Of course, they weren’t planting the trees to Solve Climate Change. It wasn’t even for the environment. It was simply for more trees, using unproductive land.
And it’s a mistake that’s been replicated elsewhere. In Indonesia, for example, US biofuel policy meant to reduce carbon emissions led to the transformation of peatland into oil palm plantations and mass carbon release. Somehow, a land-use shift known to increase atmospheric greenhouse gas was deployed with the specific intent of doing the opposite. Of course, it backfired.
Now, palm oil was meant to Do Something about ‘climate change’, and it wasn’t just the U.S. doing it. Not mentioned by the Sierra Club is that it led to massive defoliation, wildlife habitat destruction, and eradication of wildlife, including the intention hunting of Orangutans. This was Warmists trying to do something and not thinking about the consequences.
There are two ways for us to productively respond to climate change: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation means reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to limit warming. Adaptation, on the other hand, is changing something about our behavior, society, or environment to accommodate the alterations wrought by climate change. For people and biodiversity to thrive, we need both strategies. Yet both can go very wrong.
And, in Warmist World, it is Government that must force this on citizens.
Centuries of putting out fires on landscapes that coevolved with fire has left a buildup of fuel waiting to burn, making western wildfires much worse in recent decades, says David Calkin, a wildfire and forestry researcher for the US Forest Service. “Climate change accelerates the consequences from that.” More warming means more fires, which brings on more suppression and, in turn, even more fires.
No, a slight increase in global temperatures doesn’t do a damned thing. Poor forest management policies do.
Just as fire suppression can be a short-sighted response leading to even bigger, long-term challenges, so too can infrastructure projects like sea walls, which have hard climate limits. If sea level rise or storm surges exceed sea wall capacity, as is likely under continued warming, the barriers quickly become expensive failures. In Manhattan, construction on a controversial sea wall began late last year. Initially, the coastal protection plan was meant to emphasize wetland restoration over fixed barriers, but the final outcome will be a six-mile-long wall that local residents say exacerbates existing inequality by leveling their neighborhood greenspace.
Amplified injustice is a hallmark of maladaptation, says Lisa Schipper, a climate change and human development researcher at Oxford University and an IPCC author. It’s also a devastating outcome when climate change already poses the biggest threat to already marginalized people in the US and globally.
And, we’ve jumped to the inequality stuff, because this is not about science, but, politics. Grievance politics, for one.
If they really want to do something, support nuclear power. How will all these EVs be powered in the Real World? And practice what they preach.
Read: Responding To ‘Climate Change’ Wrong Way Is Worse Than Doing Nothing Or Something »
Trackback URL
…is an old style radiator which requires coal to heat it up, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Virtual Mirage, with a post on Russia threatening Finland if they join NATO.
Doubleshot below the fold, so, check out Weasel Zippers, with a post on even Democrats wanting Trump back in office.
Read: If All You See… »
Remember, Abbott promised to take these illegals in his state and ship them to D.C. and drop them off. This is the first step
Texas begins dispatching buses to the border to transport illegal immigrants to DC
Texas has dispatched buses to the southern border to retrieve illegal immigrants after Gov. Greg Abbott said this week that he planned to send those released in his state to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
Within the last 24 hours, the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) has dispatched an unspecified number of buses to small Texas communities that are said by officials to be overwhelmed by an influx of migrants placed there by the federal government.
“In the last 24 hours, TDEM has dispatched buses to areas where communities have expressed concerns about the federal government dropping off migrants and has the capability to send as many as is necessary to fulfill the requests from mayors and county judges,” Seth Christensen, chief of media and communications for TDEM, told Fox News Digital.
Christensen also said the majority of areas in the state that expressed concern over the large numbers of illegal immigrants being placed in their communities now say the federal government has “stopped dropping migrants in their towns” since Abbott’s announcement.
It will take a lot of buses, since each one only holds about 40 people. But, the logistics of the buses, how long it takes, feeding the illegals, and so forth is meaningless in the face of the optics of dropping them off in D.C. Drop them off right near the White House and Capitol Building. See how Biden and his illegal aliens invasion supporting Comrades like it.
Will Biden try and stop the buses before they get to D.C.? That would be illegal, would it not? Will Biden deploy forces to keep the illegals from getting off the buses? Illegal. Heck, if he tries, drop them off in Biden’s hometown in Delaware.
The question now is “is Texas picking up the illegals and putting them on the buses to ship to D.C.?” I guess we’ll know within a few days.
Read: Texas Gov Abbott Sends Buses To Border To Pick Up Illegals »
They now worship something other than The Word Of God and Jesus
French bishops urge ‘integral ecology’ in response to climate change
France’s Catholic bishops have stepped up calls for an “integral ecology” to protect the environment while also warning citizens not to “expect a savior or messiah” after the first round of presidential elections April 10.
“Our Western societies are aware their remarkable development has taken place at the cost of other world regions — that their race forward in growth has been possible only by polluting or destroying other spaces,” Archbishop Éric de Moulins-Beaufort of Reims, France, president of the French bishops’ conference, said April 8 at the close of the bishops’ plenary meeting in Lourdes.
“We must dare to denounce the structures of sin, and proclaim that other ways of human living are possible. … We are not condemned to behave like predators, sowing death and desolation on the earth,” the archbishop said.
His appeal came as French voters prepared for the first round of the presidential election April 10, in which President Emmanuel Macron faces a strong challenge from far-right leader Marine Le Pen.
Interesting. They’re taking the side of Big Government, rather than freedom, personal choice, and not being forced to follow the dictates of a doomsday cult
Archbishop Moulins-Beaufort said a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released April 4 highlights the need for “drastic change in modes of consumption, production, transport and heating.” (snip)
“The love of Christ urges us to be close to distant brothers and sisters who are the first to suffer the impact of climate change, to be close to all forms of life, rejoicing in our interdependence,” said the archbishop, who was reelected for a second term during the plenary.
Of course, they now want to drag Jesus into their cult
It’s also some sort of Idea with these people
Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours. Here’s what you need to know
A proposed bill winding its way through the state Legislature could make California the first state in the nation to reduce its workweek to four days for a large swath of workers.
The bill, AB 2932, would change the definition of a workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours for companies with more than 500 employees. A full workday would remain at eight hours, and employers would be required to provide overtime pay for employees working longer than four full days.
The bill was authored by Assembly Members Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) and Evan Low (D-San Jose). At the federal level, a bill by Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside) is pushing for similar changes under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
So, anything over 32 would require time and a half? What could possibly go wrong? Companies not allowing any time over 32. Maybe hiring more part time to fill the gap. Passing on the increased labor costs to the consumer. Oh, hey, how about getting the hell out of California. It has a better chance there than nationally.
Reached by phone Friday, Garcia said the idea was prompted in part by the exodus of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of whom were seeking a better quality of life. More than 47 million Americans voluntarily quit their jobs in 2021, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“We’ve had a five-day workweek since the Industrial Revolution,” Garcia said, “but we’ve had a lot of progress in society, and we’ve had a lot of advancements. I think the pandemic right now allows us the opportunity to rethink things, to reimagine things.”
Why is this the business of government? Why can’t they just piss off?
Opponents say a four-day workweek would stunt job growth in the state and could create untenable conditions for employers. The California Chamber of Commerce included the bill on its “job killer” list, writing that it would significantly increase labor costs, expose employers to litigation and impose requirements that are “impossible to comply with.”
Just make everyone part time, hence, no need to pay benefits. It would, of course, increase part time employment. A lot of people would be working two jobs.
The bill as written would apply to employers in California with at least 500 employees. According to the state’s Employment Development Department, that’s about 2,600 businesses and more than 3.6 million employees.
My bet is the number of those companies will get down to about 200, having moved elsewhere.
Unionized workforces, or those with collective bargaining agreements, are exempt, Garcia said.
Surprise! The Dems pushing this know it would hurt union workers, as they would see their hours cut, benefits cut, and companies bolt. If it’s not good enough for them, why is it good enough for others?
I mentioned the SEC trotting out a rule on companies reporting their carbon chain so “investors”, meaning a bunch of Warmists who do not actually own stock in the companies but think they’re allowed to have their say, can make wise decisions or something. Most actual investors only care about the return on their investment. Now, Real Clear Investigations takes deep dive
The Green U.S. Supply-Chain Rules Set to Unspool and Rattle the Global Economy
Making a box of Cocoa Puffs is a complicated global affair. It could start with cocoa farms in Africa, corn fields in the U.S. or sugar plantations in Latin America. Then thousands of processors, transporters, packagers, distributors, office workers and retailers join the supply chain before a kid in Minnesota, where General Mills is based, pours the cereal into a bowl.
Now imagine the challenge that General Mills faces in counting the greenhouse gas emissions from all of these people, machines, vehicles, buildings and other products involved in this Cocoa Puff supply chain – then multiply that by the 100-plus brands belonging to the food giant.
Thousands of public companies may soon have such a daunting task to comply with a new set of climate rules proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Hailed by prominent environmental groups as a long sought victory, the sweeping plan released in late March would force companies to grapple with the unpredictable impact of climate change by disclosing reams of new information to investors. What are your company’s climate risks, such as severe weather, and the possible financial impacts? How have the threats affected your business strategies and what’s the plan to avoid the dangers? The most consequential and controversial piece of the SEC’s proposed regulations would require corporations to calculate their total greenhouse gas footprint, including from the supply chain.
And, of course the companies wouldn’t even consider passing on the extra costs to consumers, right?
While many companies like Walmart and business groups like the Chamber of Commerce generally support the idea of required climate disclosures, they object to what they see as the SEC’s heavy-handedness in standardizing rules across the economy. The Chamber is calling for flexibility so companies can customize their climate disclosures based on what’s relevant to their businesses and investors.
They never learn. The minute you give a little agreement on the climate cult’s agenda, they will demand and take a mile from your inch.
The biggest beef from companies is the rule that would require them to calculate and disclose supply chain emissions, called Scope 3.
Big companies have thousands of suppliers operating in hundreds of countries, making the task of coming up with a reasonable accounting enormously complicated. First of all, many suppliers of products and services are private companies not under the control of the SEC. They may refuse to cooperate in a count because of the costs and the implications that they might have to change their business practices to reduce emissions, said Professor Gerald Patchell, who has analyzed the problems of supply chain reporting.
Another obstacle is that many smaller suppliers, like General Mills’ cocoa farmers in Africa, don’t have the capacity to measure the emissions from their own fertilizers, tractors and farming practices. So companies will have to rely on broad country or industry averages that likely don’t reflect the actual emissions created by the suppliers, according to researchers.
And, if they make it up, fudge it, the SEC will come down on these companies hard.
The upshot is that regulations meant to bring clarity to investors on climate risk may end up providing highly unreliable emissions disclosures, leaving them “worse off,” wrote SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, a Trump appointee who voted against the 500-page proposal. It “forces investors to view companies through the eyes of a vocal set of stakeholders, for whom a company’s climate reputation is of equal or greater importance than a company’s financial performance.”
How many of the vocals are actually stakeholders? Some are probably very, very minor shareholders. Should Apple or Amazon listen to someone who has like 20 shares? No. Most investors want to see money. Period.
Anyhow, it’s a long, long piece, which really starts to delve into how hard it is to comply, and how it will mess up chains.
Read: SEC Climate Scam Rules Set To Create Big Economic Issues »
…is a bright blue sky causing drought from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on NY toughening bail laws (snicker).
Read: If All You See… »
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.