…is a horrible, evil fossil fueled vehicle that should be restricted for Other People, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The People’s Cube, with a post on Comrade Bernie doubling down on his support of Comrade Castro.
Read: If All You See… »
Obviously, the Scottish government thinks women are not capable of earning enough money to buy pads and tampons. Rather a sexist opinion, right?
Scottish parliament voted almost unanimously on Wednesday to provide “free” feminine hygiene products to anyone who needs them, by offering pads and tampons in certain public spaces to the tune of an estimated $31 million annually.
The move makes Scotland the only country in the world to offer “free” sanitary products to all women, and CBS News — citing a proposed bill by a Democratic congresswoman from last year — reported that “the U.S. could be next.”
Reuters reported that “The Period Products (Free Provision) Scotland Bill passed through its first stage with 112 votes in favor, none against and one abstention.” The second stage involves members offering amendments to the legislation.
As it stands now, the proposal would mean the Scottish government would pay to make sanitary products available free of charge at places like pharmacies and community centers “for anyone who needs them,” according to the BBC. The country already has a federal policy of providing such products at schools and universities.
In other words, the money will just magically appear from the Money Unicorn to pay for this. It certainly won’t be all the taxpayers, right?
The bill’s sponsor, Monica Lennon, celebrated the measure as a “milestone moment for normalizing menstruation in Scotland and sending out that real signal to people in this country about how seriously parliament takes gender equality,” The Washington Post reported.
Scotland’s new law is in response to the movement against “period poverty,” the concept that not all women and girls can afford sanitary products. A gender-equality activist movement has taken hold of the issue, arguing that it is the government’s responsibility to provide feminine hygiene products to the public or at the very least reduce or remove so-called “tampon taxes” on such items.
Let’s be honest: despite all the SJW yammering, this is really about patronizing women in order to attempt to buy their votes. Nothing more, nothing less. If Democrats truly attempt this here in the U.S., there will be all sorts of flowery talk but it will still be about buying votes using Other People’s money. But, as they, and the Scots, are doing this, they’re basically saying that women are too stupid to be able to earn the small amount of money necessary for these products.
Read: Scottish Government Votes To Patronize Women By Giving Them Free Feminine Products »
Here’s Excitable AOC
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1232772838861484037
Yet, she is still not demanding that it be passed. I wonder why?
Report: Green New Deal Will Impose A $75,000 Per Year Cost On Swing-State Households
Americans in nearly a dozen swing states could expect to spend roughly $75,000 per year if the Green New Deal is ever implemented, according to a report Wednesday from a conservative nonprofit group.
The Green New Deal would cost households an average of between $74,287 and $76,683 in Colorado, Michigan and Pennsylvania, among others, a report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted. CEI worked with Power the Future and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on the report. (snip)
“Our analysis shows that, if implemented, the Green New Deal would cost for American households at least tens of thousands of dollars annually on a permanent basis,†Lassman said.
“Perhaps that’s why exactly zero Senate Democrats, including the resolution’s 12 co-sponsors, voted for the Green New Deal when they had the chance,†he concluded.
In my business, we use a training program which also talks about cutting metrics in half, such as, “returning customers close at 63%. Don’t believe that? Cut it in half. 31.5% is still better than the closing percent of a brand new customer.” Of course, cutting that $75k in half is still not good
Other reports have made similar findings. The Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion over 10 years, a report from right-leaning group American Action Forum (AAF) noted in 2019.
All told, that amounts to $36,100 to $65,300 per American household per year to meet the lofty proposal’s goals, AAF reported in February 2019. The plan initially intended on producing widespread high-speed rail, guaranteed jobs, universal health care and refurbishing every building in the country.
Heck, cut the $36,100 in half. Are you excited to pay that? How about you, Mr./Ms. Warmist? You good with that?
And why are you not demanding a vote, AOC?
Read: CEI Report States Green New Deal Would Cost Households Almost $75,000 Per Year »
This has made many an Open Borders advocate very upset
Appeals Court: Trump Can Withhold Funding from Sanctuary Cities
A federal appellate court on Wednesday ruled that President Trump’s administration can, in fact, withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that insist on shielding criminal illegal aliens from arrest and deportation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Trump administration has the authority to withhold federal grant money from sanctuary jurisdictions due to their failure to meet federal requirements that include abiding by federal immigration law.
The Second Circuit Appellate Court wrote in their introduction:
The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whether the federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigrationâ€related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States.
In question was the Trump administration’s withholding 2017 Byrne Program Criminal Justice Assistance grants from the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia for their failure to meet federal immigration requirements due to their sanctuary policies.
In other words, if they want the money, they have to actually enforce the laws.
(Washington Times) Judge Reena Raggi, a Bush appointee to the court, said government has a valid interest in getting state and local officials to cooperate with Homeland Security — and, under the law, a tool to do so. She said jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate are flouting federal law.
“There is something disquieting in the idea of states and localities seeking federal funds to enforce their own laws while themselves hampering the enforcement of federal laws, or worse, violating those laws,†she wrote in the opinion for the three-judge panel.
However, it might work better to just arrest and charge all those state, county, and local officials who are involved with violating federal laws on illegal immigration, but, that never seems to happen.
And here are the whiners violating federal law but still wanting that money
(NY Times) “President Trump’s latest retaliation against his hometown takes away security funding from the number one terrorist target in America,†Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City said in a statement, “all because we refuse to play by his arbitrary rules.â€
“We’ll see President Trump back in court,†he added. “And we will win.â€
Gurbir S. Grewal, the attorney general of New Jersey, said he was “disappointed by the ruling†and he, too, indicated that the fight was not over.
“It’s unfortunate that the federal government has decided to weaponize the federal grant funding process in order to carry out the president’s anti-immigrant agenda,†Mr. Grewal said, “but I’m confident that we will ultimately prevail in the courts.â€
Enforce federal immigration laws. Heck, simply cooperate when ICE comes calling. Be passive. And then the money would flow. But, instead, these jurisdictions intentionally violate federal immigration law, actively look to thwart federal immigration agents, let illegals go when they would go after legal US citizens, shield illegals, make communities less safe by releasing hardcore criminals, etc. I’m betting de Blasio wouldn’t give money to companies and groups that wouldn’t cooperate when he was in lower level politics. And probably not now as mayor of NYC.
Want the money? Cooperate.
Read: Court Rules Trump Admin Can Withhold Grants From Sanctuary Jurisdictions »
I have some ideas for them to incorporate it
New UC president must prioritize addressing system’s climate change shortcomings
only continued to bring the heat.
The current UC President, Janet Napolitano, announced last year she would be stepping down in August. Soon after, a special committee was formed to review potential candidates and recommend an appointment to the Board of Regents.
At a town hall hosted by UC Berkeley as part of the presidential search, Board of Regents Chair John Pérez said the board would consider climate change in their process of selecting a new president.
The decision came only after the UC San Diego Green New Deal sent a petition containing roughly 2,000 signatures from members across all UC campuses to the regents.
But despite the UC’s hesitant commitment to including climate change on the docket, the regents have yet to add the issue to the official selection criteria.
The UC hasn’t exactly been convincing in its attempts to portray itself as an entity that prioritizes mitigating its contributions to climate change – and its recent actions haven’t helped bolster its image. The regents shouldn’t be discussing the pressing issue of climate change in an apathetic manner, especially given their large platform and ability to influence universities beyond California. And stating that climate change will be considered in the selection of a new president isn’t anywhere near sufficient in proving that the UC is serious about asserting itself as a proponent against the climate crisis.
Hey, if the kids really want something done
Oxford official to students demanding divestment:
"I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice. But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off w/immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”https://t.co/Q0MBDNCjVU
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) February 3, 2020
All the UC schools can turn off their heat and AC. Shut down the school buses and make the kids walk or ride a bike or skateboard or something. Make the kids pay an extra fee (carbon tax) to attend college and each class. Make them plant trees or other manual labor for the WiFi which uses energy. Restrict the use of hair dryers in the dorms. Turn off the power to the dorms after 11pm. Limit showers in the dorms to 3 minutes. And so forth. Make the kids practice what they preach.
Read: University Of California Warmists Demand Colleges Prioritize ‘Climate Change’ »
…is corn which will soon go extinct from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on Comrade Sanders wanting to help black people by legally allowing them to sell drugs.
Read: If All You See… »
Well, it can certainly teach us that these Warmists are nutballs and their cultish beliefs make them link everything to their cult, but, I doubt that’s what David Wallace-Wells at NY Mag means
What Coronavirus Teaches Us About Climate Change
…
Not all that long ago, climate change was a story unfolding only in the future tense. Now that it has begun roaring into the present with a terrifying fury, the matter of reducing warming through decarbonization (often called “mitigationâ€) has been displaced, to a degree, in the public conversation among policymakers, advocates, investors, and futurists. There is more and more talk now, instead, about what’s called “adaptation†— not how to reduce carbon emissions to limit warming, but how to adapt to a world defined by climate pummeling in ways that would allow us to endure those blows. This shift has been most pronounced among the world’s conservatives — it has been the basic response of Australian prime minister to his country’s devastating fires, for instance — but it is not a perspective confined to the right. Recently, the New York Times considered the plan, advanced by the Army Corps of Engineers, to construct a sea wall, enclosing all of New York harbor, that would stretch for 6 miles and cost at least $100 billion. In South Florida, they are also talking about flood walls, but there the Army Corps is proposing building them not off the coast but on the mainland, leaving all of Miami Beach — and the states’ other barrier islands — exposed. In Europe, they’re talking about damming up the entire North Sea — a 400-mile barrier in two parts, to be built at a cost in the hundreds of billions.
We have to go to the 8th paragraph, the final one of the screed, to find out the headline
An even better contemporary illustration about the dilemma of adaptation — or, really, the false choice between adaptation and mitigation — may come not from the challenges of climate change but the coronavirus. In the scariest projections, 70 percent of the world could be infected by COVID-19, with probably 2 percent of those numbers dying from the disease — a worst-case scenario of 100 million or so deaths. But while even these scenarios spare the overwhelming majority of the species, of course they are also horrifyingly large death tolls, and therefore not an argument for complacency but for vigilance — from both public-health officials and workaday citizens. Quarantines are imperfect tools in the fight against diseases like this, and yet of course we would prefer to see the problem contained, to the extent it can be, rather than watch it grow as quickly and expansively as possible, trusting we could clean up the mess on the other side. The health infrastructure we have today (in certain parts of the world at least) is one reason that the death rate is as low as 2 percent; the health infrastructure we are building today (construction of new hospitals, the deployment of military resources, research in pursuit of a vaccine) may drive that figure lower, perhaps even to zero, over the course of the next year or so. But those facts alone — or, rather, the partial hope that they represent — is not a reason to forego action today. Best of all, of course, would have been if we could have avoided the virus in the first place.
Read: Say, What Can The Coronavirus Teach Us About ‘Climate Change’? »
They really shouldn’t be surprised: there are almost never any questions on ‘climate change’ at Democratic debates, because, while people say they Care in theory, in practice, they do not want to practice what they preach, and debating ‘climate change’ would mean exposing the authoritarianism and taxation involved, like
Steyer Says He Would Use Presidential Powers To Tell Companies ‘What Kind Of Cars They Can Build’ https://t.co/JSUaekziOR
— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) February 25, 2020
“I will use the executive emergency powers of the presidency to tell companies how they can generate electricity, what kind of cars they can build, what kind of buildings we’re gonna have,†he told CNN’s Chris Cuomo at a town hall event in South Carolina.
It’s those types of unscripted moments that keep the questions away
“Not a single climate change question,” she tweeted. “Horrifying.” One of the participants, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), agreed, responding, “A disgrace.” The Democratic candidates don’t shy away from talking about climate change on the campaign trail; billionaire investor and environmentalist Tom Steyer told voters in South Carolina on Tuesday that climate change is his “No. 1 priority,” and if elected, he will declare a climate emergency on his first day in office.
Yet, AOC has failed to demand that her Green New Deal be voted on in the House of Representatives. Bernie hasn’t offered any legislation in the Senate, and voted “present” when the Senate voted on the GND. Steyer made his money from fossil fuels, yet, now wants to restrict you from using them.
Poll after poll has shown that climate change is a key issue for voters; last week, the Pew Research Center released a survey showing that for the first time in two decades, a majority of Americans believe that tackling climate change should be a main priority for the president and Congress.
Now ask citizens if they are personally willing to pay a lot more for everything, what they are willing to sacrifice, and how much freedom, liberty, and choice they are willing to give up. And if Bernie and Tom are willing to give up their own private jets.
Read: AOC, Comrade Sanders Horrified There Were No Climate Crisis (scam) Questions At Debate »
The strange thing is, none of the critics are truly offering a detailed plan
Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response
Lawmakers in both parties on Tuesday expressed growing alarm that the threat of coronavirus in the United States is serious, and that the Trump administration is not doing enough to fight it.
Two Cabinet members at separate hearings were grilled over what lawmakers described as an insufficient response so far, while Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said the White House’s budget request to handle the disease was lackluster.
“It seems to me at the outset that this request for the money, the supplemental, is lowballing it, possibly, and you can’t afford to do that,†Shelby told Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a hearing on the agency’s budget request.
“If you lowball something like this, you’ll pay for it later,” he added, telling reporters he planned to recommend a “higher†amount without offering details.
Thanks for the serious plan, Richard.
Democrats were unsparing on their criticism, with Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) saying the administration was showing “towering and dangerous incompetence†in its response to the virus.
He called for at least $3.1 billion in funding and for the administration to appoint a czar to oversee the response.
And what is the Executive Branch to do with $3.1 vs $2.5 billion? And what is the czar to do? No details, Chuck?
Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah), the only Republican to vote for Trump’s impeachment earlier this year, also harshly criticized the administration.
“I’m very disappointed in the degree to which we’ve prepared for a pandemic, both in terms of protective equipment and in terms of medical devices that would help people once they are infected,†Romney said.
What would you do, Mitt? How is the government to prepare and deal with this? Any ideas?
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) questioned Azar at a hearing Tuesday about whether the U.S. was ready for an outbreak, questioning why the country doesn’t have enough medical supplies and protective gear stockpiled.
“We are disregarding scientific evidence and relying on tweets and an emergency supplemental without details, and we’re not stockpiling things right now we know we might possibly need for this or for any other future pandemic,†she said. “I am deeply concerned we are way behind the eight ball on this.â€
There’s lots of whiners all around, none of them who are offering any ideas. But, this is the way it works with career politicians, they always have to grandstand but are short of solutions.
House Democrats plan to put forward their own funding bill at a higher amount.
“The House will swiftly advance a strong, strategic funding package that fully addresses the scale and seriousness of this public health crisis,†Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement Monday night.
OK, it’s Wednesday: where is it?
Read: Congress Whines About Trump Coronavirus Budget Request »
Now, if you had a cheeseburger, that would cause a depression
The Next Economic Recession Will Likely Come From Climate Crisis
American companies are ignoring the risks of climate change at their own peril, according to a researcher warning that extreme weather caused by the climate crisis could result in a devastating economic recession.
Financial markets are failing to account for the risks that increasingly frequent and worsening floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events pose to the economy, according to an article published in the journal Nature Energy this week.
“If the market doesn’t do a better job of accounting for climate, we could have a recession — the likes of which we’ve never seen before,†said study author Paul Griffin, an accounting professor at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management.
Griffin said in the article that his years of research concluded that “unpriced risk†was the “main cause†of the 2007-08 Great Recession and companies are once again failing to assess the damage extreme weather events can wreak on their business.
Bad weather never happened before fossil fuels, you know. Hey, remember the recession caused by Hurricane Camille? Or the Great Galveston one of 1900? The Miami hurricane of 1926? Andrew? Katrina? It’s always some sort of future doom from these folks, but, what this type of stuff actually does is allow the Cult of Climastrology to set the stage to blame ‘climate change’ when a recession happens, and, one certainly will, because they always do.
Read: The Next Recession Will Be Due To You Driving A Fossil Fueled Vehicle And Having A Burger »
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.
