If All You See…

…is a rising ocean that will soon erase liberal coastal cities, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Green Jihad, with a post on Biden reversing Trump’s climate policies.

Read: If All You See… »

Portland Commissioner Who Wants To Defund The Police Calls 911

She felt unsafe, and played the Race Card

Portland city commissioner who wants to defund the police called 911 on Lyft driver

Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, who has pushed for police budget cuts, called 911 after a Lyft driver canceled her ride and asked her to get out of his car.

Lyft driver Richmond Frost told two Portland Police Department officers, who responded to the scene on Nov. 1, that Hardesty “became irate when he refused to roll the windows up,” according to a dispatch report,

Frost pulled into a Chevron gas station, canceled the ride and apparently asked her to leave the vehicle. Hardesty allegedly said she refused to exit the vehicle because “it was cold and she was a woman and alone.”

She called 911, telling the operator: “Well, I’ve got a Lyft driver that decided he would just drop me off at a filling station. Well, I’m not getting out of the car, in the dark, at a filling station, not happening. All because I asked him to put the window up. I’m not leaving.”

“I am not going to allow him to leave me on the side of the road. I paid for a ride and he says he canceled it, so I’m just going to sit here until he sends me another ride.”

The thing is, Lyft wants windows down to reduced the chance of spreading COVID19. The police dispatcher told Hardesty that there is no law broken, it’s his car, and he can tell her to get the hell out if he wants. The driver also called 911, telling that that she refused to get out of the car.

She told the Portland Tribune that she called 911 because she felt unsafe.

“I don’t call 911 lightly, but I certainly am not going to do anything that would put my personal safety at risk,” Hardesty told the newspaper.

“It’s a lot harder when you are Black or brown in America to make that decision … But I ultimately had very limited options.”

So, wait, it’s dangerous for a black or brown woman in a hardcore Biden voting city? Huh. It is highly interesting that she’s fine with calling 911 over something so minor because she feels unsafe, but,

Hardesty has been pushing for a budget amendment that would “reallocate $18 million from the Portland Police Bureau to reinvest in community, COVID-19 relief, and police alternatives.”

That push failed, and, it was just a week ago, and here she is calling 911 because she won’t get out of a car. Tells you something about the Elites, eh?

Read: Portland Commissioner Who Wants To Defund The Police Calls 911 »

Climate Crisis (scam) Will Make Parts Of U.S. Uninhabitable Or Something

But people are still moving there!

Climate Change Will Make Parts of the U.S. Uninhabitable. Americans Are Still Moving There.

Over the past year, the advent of a professional economy powered by people working from home has quickened the conversation about where to live, particularly among millennials. “Is now the right time to buy property in Minnesota?” “Is Buffalo the new place to be?”

How important is proximity to fresh water? Should you risk moving somewhere that has fire seasons? How far north do you have to go to find liveable summers?

Americans have defied the norms of climate migration seen elsewhere in the world, flocking to cities like Phoenix, Houston and Miami that face some of the greatest risks from soaring temperatures and rising sea levels.

Those patterns seem likely to change.

New data from the Rhodium Group, analyzed by ProPublica, shows that climate damage will wreak havoc on the southern third of the country, erasing more than 8% of its economic output and likely turning migration from a choice to an imperative.

The data shows that the warming climate will alter everything from how we grow food to where people can plausibly live. Ultimately, millions of people will be displaced by flooding, fires and scorching heat, a resorting of the map not seen since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Now as then, the biggest question will be who escapes and who is left behind.

But, but, but, people are still moving there! It’s almost like people do not really believe in the scam they’re preaching. I’ll believe they really believe when they all move from their coastal areas. Which will be hard without fossil fueled transportation.

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Will Make Parts Of U.S. Uninhabitable Or Something »

Good News: Reinstating Net Neutrality Could Be A China Joe Priority

Here’s an issue that never came up during election season: Net Neutrality. It seems like a small issue, but, since most of us use the Internet, it is actually pretty dogone big. China Joe surely loves him some Big Government control of the Internet, just like Obama and China

Bringing back net neutrality rules is high on Biden’s tech agenda

The Federal Communications Commission will confront a number of issues in the coming years, from the digital divide to social media policy to 5G infrastructure. So what could the FCC’s priorities look like under President-elect Joe Biden?

I spoke with Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC from 2013 to 2017. He said one major issue will likely be restoring Obama-era net neutrality rules that required internet service providers to offer equal access to content on the web. Current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reversed those rules in 2017. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.

Tom Wheeler: You’ve seen the beginning of particularly wireless carriers favoring their own kinds of activities. For instance, AT&T Wireless says, “Hey, if you buy [AT&T-owned] HBO [Max] from me, I won’t charge you data rates. But if you want to go to Netflix, I’m going to charge your data rates.” I think we need to have a level playing field so that there can be competition across all platforms. And that’s a new opportunity that will be opened up to the Biden FCC.

People get freebies all the time. T-Mobile gives free MLB package (I wish it was the NHL package). Who cares if people get freebies? Unless it’s just an excuse to control the mobile industry as an extension of controlling the Internet

Amy Scott: Net neutrality has been such a big issue. What do you think the consequences are of this kind of seesawing back and forth, depending on who’s in control of the White House?

Wheeler: Well, I hope that the Biden FCC can put it to bed, at least for the next four years. The Congress, if it’s possible to legislate, could do that themselves, but hasn’t been able to do that. And the concept that is behind net neutrality is something that in this country literally traces back to the Pacific Telegraph Act of 1862, which said that you need to have first-come-first-serve nondiscriminatory access to this essential service called the telegraph. It was a concept that then got extended to the telephone as it replaced the telegraph. And now as the internet has replaced the telephone as the most important network, we need to have the same kinds of concepts. And I think Biden’s return to net neutrality will return us to that kind of stability that we’ve had since 1862.

Seriously, got, that? We’re looking back to the telegraph. From 1862. It’s cute language, but, it hides the notion that Government needs to be in control in order to make things “fair.” There’s no such thing as fair. You can purchase faster speeds and more bandwith from your Internet provider and phone company. And phone companies have put A LOT, and I mean A LOT, of time and money into getting the wireless Internet to where it is today.

(The Hill) Another broadband-related issue where Biden’s position is clear is net neutrality. The president-elect has backed the Obama-era rules that allowed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to go after companies that discriminate against traffic.

The reinstatement of the rules that Trump’s FCC chair Ajit Pai rolled back is a near certainty, especially given the popularity of net neutrality.

Popularity? What popularity? Well, interestingly, there are polls that support the hell out of it. Sadly. Because this is not “do you prefer strawberry or grape jelly with your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?” It is much more in depth and more involved. Back to that in a moment.

What has Joe said on the subject?

(Futurism) Biden’s campaign platform specifically calls for a return to Obama-era net neutrality rules — when Biden was serving the role of vice president, as Bloomberg reports.

But

“Biden has moved on from yesterday’s net neutrality battles and will seek a new Communications Act that addresses the booming communications sector,” Brent Skorup, a senior research fellow at free market think tank Mercatus Center, told Adweek.

So yes? No?

(Mediapost) President-elect Joe Biden has already indicated that he favors bringing back net neutrality rules.

In July, the “unity” task force put together by Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont promised that Democrats “will restore the FCC’s clear authority to take strong enforcement action against broadband providers who violate net neutrality principles through blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, or other measures that create artificial scarcity and raise consumer prices for this vital service.”

Maybe? Possibly? Mark Jamison thinks there are 3 reasons Joe will not push it

Reason 1: Revived net neutrality regulation will demonstrate its folly

Net neutrality regulation would hinder internet development. How do we know? Lifting net neutrality regulations in 2017 improved the American internet’s performance relative to more regulated contexts. As my AEI colleague Bret Swanson noted, US internet speeds rose 40 percent in 2018. And as I wrote earlier this year, “During the pandemic, networks in countries without net neutrality performed better than networks in other countries. And economic research has shown that net neutrality regulations are more likely to hinder internet development and innovation than help it.”

Net neutrality facilitates this result by limiting funds for expanding the internet. In 2018, I demonstrated how network providers increased debt by about $264 billion to develop wireless broadband while software and content providers that use the networks accumulated about $207 billion. Unsurprisingly, Google, Netflix, and Facebook have spent billions of dollars developing specialized networks (see here, here, and here) that would not be subject to net neutrality constraints.

Without the Obama era NN, the NN all the Useful Idiots were pushing, the Internet moved way, way ahead. Just like it did before the silly and short lived NN rules. It has always worked best when government had a light touch.

Net neutrality regulation would also slow US 5G development. In 2017, I explained:

5G will use network slicing, which enables multiple virtual networks on a common physical infrastructure. Each slice can be customized for specific applications, services, customers, etc. Network slicing means the end of treating all internet traffic the same — if that ever really happened — which was supposed be a core principle of net neutrality. 5G explicitly customizes the network to different types of traffic.

Remember, regular telephone service was stifled when Government had a heavy hand in regulation. When that hand was removed, wired phone service exploded in development. I won’t spend time describing it, you can read about when you want, but, it then led to the explosion of wireless service.

Anyhow, Mark provides two other ideas, worth the read. Missing is that this is a power grab by the Government. Mark stays more in the tangible, but, the intangibles of control are important. Do you want government controlling what you write on the ‘Net? Do you want them censoring it like China? Do you want your prices to go up? Home phone service was higher priced for less service before the removal of regulation. Just like everything else, the true intention of NN is, and I cannot stress this enough, control.

Read: Good News: Reinstating Net Neutrality Could Be A China Joe Priority »

Are Republicans Really Fleeing Trump And Trumpsim?

Well, no

Republicans aren’t fleeing Trump or Trumpism. That’s the tragedy of Biden’s limited win.

The silence is deafening.

Days after vote counts and media projections declaring Joe Biden the president-elect, only a few Republicans have stepped forward with congratulations and offers to work with the soon-to-be 46th president.

Former president George W. Bush said he thanked Biden “for his patriotic message.” Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, no fan of President Donald Trump, wrote a gracious column in the Wall Street Journal. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, praised Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris as “people of good will and admirable character.” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she’ll be “ready to work with their administration when it takes office.”

But the top Senate Republican, majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, declined to acknowledge Biden’s win in a floor speech Monday and defended Trump’s legal fights. Trump is “100% within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options,” he said. Senate Judiciary chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pledged to investigate voting irregularities and misconduct. (snip)

Trump’s on the way out. He’s got 10 weeks left. Why are Republicans sticking by this one-term washout and refusing to acknowledge that we’re about to have a new president?

There are over 71 million reasons why. That’s the number of Americans who voted for Trump, and that total will rise as votes continue to be counted. We’re in a second wave of the pandemic — the worst public health crisis in a century. Nearly a quarter-million people have died, over 11 million are unemployed, families are shattered. And yet the president who presided over this grotesque calamity, downplayed it, said it would go away quickly, still got more than 71 million votes.

If we were ready to abandon him, even with faults (hey, who doesn’t have faults? Which president didn’t?), why did 71 million vote for him? Why are most refusing to concede? We know that it is a long shot to retain the White House with the cheating, because the media is excusing the cheating. But, we aren’t giving up and moving on. Yes, we’d like Trump to tone it down a bit, stop the friendly fire, and tell us more of the good conservative things he’s done. Also, try and cut the spending. Really, who thought this NY liberal would be, in action, one of the most Conservative presidents ever? He’ll never be Ronald Reagan, but The Gipper would be proud of Trump’s actual record.

Of course, this article is written by Paul Brandus, the founder and White House bureau chief of West Wing Reports and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, so, as usual a so-called reporter who does opinion

Trump’s a loser, thank God. But even in defeat, his hold on voters is impressive. This means that while Trump himself will soon be gone, Trumpism — and all the destructiveness the term conveys — will endure. Republicans have 71 million reasons not to break free of his toxic spell. That’s a tragedy. And a warning for the future.

You know what Trumpism is? Fighting back and enacting Conservative policy. Again, Trump turns that amp up to 11 too often, but, other Republicans could learn something, name, to stand firm and fight back.

Read: Are Republicans Really Fleeing Trump And Trumpsim? »

If All You See…

…is an area flooded by extreme rain from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on Dems turning on minorities for straying from the plantation and voting Trump.

Thanks for your patience. Dreamhost did a big server update, and it just wouldn’t even start. Had to spend time on chat with them, then, when it started, something was wonky so couldn’t get into single posts, Jetpack not working, and the plugin I use to create folders for photos was erroring. It is amazing how simple the fix was for those last things. Please let me know if see anything wonky. Thanks.

Read: If All You See… »

Good News: Wall Street Is Concerned Over Climate Crisis (scam) Regs From China Joe Admin

Sure, sure, we can all hate on Wall Street, but, people have a ton of their money in the markets, especially for retirement. And banks that hold our money. This should mess them up

Wall Street braces for climate change scrutiny under Biden

Big Wall Street banks, facing the prospect that Democrats will impose new rules to force lenders to deal with natural disasters and rising sea levels, are positioning themselves as eager allies with a Joe Biden administration in fighting climate change.

Banks are accelerating efforts to get ahead of the issue and make clear to Biden’s team that they want a place at the table when decisions are made. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs are among the firms that have committed to hundreds of billions of dollars’ in investments that they say will reduce carbon emissions. The head of the Institute of International Finance, which represents global financial firms, pledged to Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein that the industry would be “a willing and active partner” on climate.

But Biden’s win would expose U.S. banks to intense scrutiny for their role in providing billions of dollars of financing each year to fossil fuel production that contributes to climate change. Leading Democrats want to go even further by forcing lenders to abide by disclosure rules and stress tests to make sure they aren’t the source of a new crisis. The fear is that destructive climate events – as well as a costly transition to a lower-carbon economy – will wreak havoc on the banks’ portfolios and destabilize the financial system.

“Their customers shouldn’t bear the burden of risky loans made to yesterday’s technologies and power sources,” Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, told POLITICO. “The market can’t fix this. Congress must step up and work to combat our climate crisis.”

All these banks and such should not bow to the Cult of Climastrology, because it’s just going to make them easier marks. Once you give in once, they’ll ramp up the pressure for you to give in more.

Further, anything these banks and such do will just be passed on to the consumers at higher costs. They won’t bear the cost.

Democrats had a chance in 2009, when they controlled Congress and the White House, to Do Something. Instead, they jammed through Obamacare. Why doesn’t Sherrod give up his own use of fossil fuels and go net zero, and get his Democrat buds to do the same?

Bankers see an opportunity in potentially helping Biden’s goal of investing $2 trillion in clean energy projects as president.

They see themselves getting lots of that money.

Read: Good News: Wall Street Is Concerned Over Climate Crisis (scam) Regs From China Joe Admin »

China Joe Calls For Bold Bat Soup Virus Action, Starting With Giving Virus To Other Countries First

China Joe being China Joe

Biden Calls for ‘Bold’ Action on Novel Coronavirus While Offering Few Specifics

Former Vice President Joe Biden argued on Monday that “bold action” was required to combat the novel coronavirus pandemic over the next few months, but stopped short of offering specific recommendations. (snip)

During the press conference, which lasted less than 11-minutes and was not open to questions from the media, Biden did not offer any new proposals for the “bold action” that would be required to prevent the spread of the virus. In fact, only at the end of the event did the former vice president broach a specific recommendation for how to stop the spread of the virus. Even that point — that people should continue wearing masks and practice social distancing, though, was made in a larger political context about needing to end the “politicization of basic responsible public health steps.”

In all fairness, Joe does have lots of stuff on his website, but, really, we’re asking quite a bit if we’re asking him to recite specifics with his mental decline. Really, most of the stuff is being done here in the U.S. and around the world, yet, COVID rates are still going up up up even in nations that were the most restrictive.

Joe Biden Coronavirus Adviser: Vaccine Should Be Distributed Globally, Not to America First

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who was named to Joe Biden’s coronavirus advisory team on Monday, published a paper in September arguing that any coronavirus vaccine should be distributed globally according to something called the “Fair Priority Model.”

Emanuel, the lead author on a paper in Science called “An ethical framework for global vaccine allocation,” argued that there should be a “fair international distribution of vaccine,” rather than what he and his co-authors call “vaccine nationalism.”

Will anyone in the media ask China Joe about this?

Read: China Joe Calls For Bold Bat Soup Virus Action, Starting With Giving Virus To Other Countries First »

Iran Is Super Excited For A Biden Presidency

Let’s see: the nation that constantly chants “death to America” hated Donald Trump, but loved Barack Obama with Joe Biden as VP, and is now happy that Joe (most likely) won

Iran’s president calls on Biden to return to nuclear deal

Iran’s president called on President-elect Joe Biden to “compensate for past mistakes” and return the U.S. to Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, a state-run news agency reported Sunday.

Hassan Rouhani’s comments mark the highest-level response from Iran to Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris clinching the Nov. 3 election.

“Now, an opportunity has come up for the next U.S. administration to compensate for past mistakes and return to the path of complying with international agreements through respect of international norms,” the state-run IRNA news agency quoted him as saying.

Under President Donald Trump, tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated, reaching a fever pitch earlier this year. One of Trump’s signature foreign policy moves was unilaterally withdrawing the U.S. from Iran’s nuclear deal in 2018, which had seen Tehran limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Yes, limit. Because the deal allows Iran to resume attempting to make nuclear weapons in under 10 years from now. Obama gave Iran hundreds of billions of dollars, and through the relaxation and removal of sanctions allowed the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorist and an avowed hater of the U.S. to garner even more money for their operations.

Also Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted that “the world is watching” to see if the new Biden administration would depart from Trump’s approach toward Iran and seek international cooperation.

You mean the approach of not coddling Iran? Will China Joe help Iran? We’ll see, but, you can pretty much bet that Joe will return to the deal (a former aid says he will), for which Iran will demand more since Trump took us out of it, and Joe will give them what they want.

Read: Iran Is Super Excited For A Biden Presidency »

TDS: Trump’s Policies Have Accelerated ‘Climate Change’

Realistically, even with the stuff Barack Obama put in place there was nothing substantive to actually reduce so-called carbon pollution. But, you know, TDS, this from hyper-Warmist Coral Davenport (who fails to demand that the NY Times give up their own use of fossil fuels and make the company net zero)

What Will Trump’s Most Profound Legacy Be? Possibly Climate Damage

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. will use the next four years to try to restore the environmental policies that his predecessor has methodically blown up, but the damage done by the greenhouse gas pollution unleashed by President Trump’s rollbacks may prove to be one of the most profound legacies of his single term. (snip)

Moreover, Mr. Trump’s rollbacks of emissions policies have come at a critical moment: Over the past four years, the global level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere crossed a long-feared threshold of atmospheric concentration. Now, many of the most damaging effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, deadlier storms, and more devastating heat, droughts and wildfires, are irreversible.

So, wait, does this mean that other countries are still putting out emissions and not doing much of anything to reduce them? I know you’re thinking “China and India”, but, really, most nations are only making pledges, not really doing much.

And abroad, the influence that the United States once had in climate talks was almost certainly damaged by Mr. Trump’s policy rollbacks and withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Those actions slowed down international efforts to reduce emissions and prompted other governments to follow the American lead in weakening emissions rules, though none have followed the United States out of the agreement.

Why couldn’t they do stuff on their own? They weren’t really doing much more than pledges while Obama was around.

“We’ve lost very important time on climate change, which we can ill afford,” said Richard Newell, president of Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan energy and environment-focused research organization in Washington. “There is severe damage. To ignore climate for four years, you can’t put a price on that. It’s a huge issue that needs to be confronted with long-term momentum and extreme dedication, and we have lost that.”

Why lost time? Certainly those who Believe could have made changes in their own lives, and in other countries, right? But, hey, TDS is fun!

Read: TDS: Trump’s Policies Have Accelerated ‘Climate Change’ »

Pirate's Cove