…is a rising sea that requires government control due to Other People’s carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post wondering if American higher education can be restored.
I’m hoping the photo shows, having problems with Photobucket this morning.
Read: If All You See… »
The notion of “eco-anxiety” has been growing quite a bit lately, the notion that we are Doomed from a tiny increase in carbon dioxide. Since ‘climate change’ has almost nothing to do with the environment/ecology, perhaps “climate distress” works better. Climate insanity would be unfair to people with actual mental illness. How about climate nutbaggery?
When climate distress becomes too much, the philosophy of eternalism can provide perspective
The first time Heidi Edmonds felt this type of anxiety creep up, she became teary and had to go into the bathroom for a cry.
“I was looking at my nieces … and worrying about their future,” she says, “not feeling like everything was going to be OK.”
Dr Edmonds — who holds a PhD from Griffith University’s Australian Rivers Institute — is a co-founder of Australian Parents for Climate Action, a national volunteer campaign group.
She has two young daughters and like many young parents, manages sleep deprivation and parenting stress with all of her other responsibilities at work and with friends.
Over the last year she’s noticed another kind of pressure weighing on her — climate anxiety.
Our ancestors would have a good laugh at the expense of these nutters, noting that Mankind does much better during the Holocene warm periods, and worse during the cool ones, and that these modern buffoons are freaking out over nothing. Oh, and not making their own lives match their talking points
Dr Edmonds first came across a passage in a self-help book that incorporated eternalism over a decade ago — and says it has stuck with her since then.
“If we think about time as a tapestry, it allows us to focus on giving our children bright moments now … so that no matter what the future holds, they’ll have had these wonderful moments,” she says.
This reference to a tapestry of time resonates with eternalism — a theory that joins the past, present and future in a single block of time.
Kristie Miller, the joint director of the Centre for Time at Sydney University, uses the idea of a Persian rug to explain the concept.
When you look down at a rug, she says, “you can see the whole thing”.
“None of the rug is any more special than any other bit of the rug. The whole thing creates the entire picture, which is the universe.”
So a person’s life in 2019 doesn’t take precedence over another person’s life in 1519 — because there is no objective present moment.
So, seems to be going into a hippy-dippy kind if crazy. But, I guess this is better than the annoying protests where they glue themselves to things, or getting violent, like Progressive protests often seem to include.
Read: Philosophy Of Eternalism Can Help With Climate Distress Or Something »
You’ve heard of the Green New Disaster, er, Deal, right? That’s all about controlling everything on the land and air for the United States and the citizens. It kinda forgot about the oceans, and surely all water bodies in the U.S. And Warmists are getting super-excited over it, despite not bothering to even attempt to pass the GND resolution in the Democrat controlled House
Enthusiasm builds for ‘Blue New Deal’ after climate town hall
A fisherman asked a question at CNN’s climate town hall this past week that got Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) very excited.
With all the focus on protecting land from global warming, he said, what about the other 70 percent of earth? Do we need a “Blue New Deal†to protect the oceans?
“I like that!†Warren responded. “He’s got it exactly right, we need a Blue New Deal.â€
The name is a play on the Green New Deal proposed this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which calls for a massive revamp of the American economy, growth of social programs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Notice that “reducing greenhouse gas emissions” is placed last in what the GND does. Would a Blue New Deal be any better?
“The trouble is, the Green New Deal only mentions our oceans one time,†Bren Smith, the fisherman and oyster farmer said at the CNN town hall, asking Warren for her plan to ensure “that all of us can make a living on a living planet.â€
The Green New Deal doesn’t say much about waterways, only that the government should be “ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected.â€
Some environmental experts argue there needs to be a bigger emphasis on waterways.
All the better to give the government ultimate power. They tried this, mostly, with the Waters Of The U.S. rule, which was shot down by multiple courts, and the Trump admin cancelled
Like the framing of the Green New Deal, he sees the expense of these investments as a way to create jobs and boost coastal economies while reducing pollution and other negative impacts of climate change that so often affect poor neighborhoods and communities of color.
So, more about Social Justice Warrioring than anything else? Huh.
Washington Gov. Jay Inlsee (D), who dropped out of the presidential race last month, was one of the few candidates to call out pollution from ports and shipping in his climate plan. Addressing it could involve carbon pricing and increasing the efficiency of supply chains.
That Inslee got zero traction, despite being an actual governor with executive experience, because he focused his whole campaign on ‘climate change’ should tell you all you need to. Even Democrats were not interested in practice.
Anyhow, let’s see if this Blue New Deal stuff catches on.
Read: Climate Alarmists Are Now Pushing For A “Blue New Deal” »
When she was a prosecutor in California, and all the way up to California’s Attorney General, Kamala was actually rather hardcore on criminals. Now that she is an elected Democrat, and running for the Democratic nomination for president, she is patronizing the hardcores in the Democrat base
Harris seeks end to executions, cash bail, private prisons
California Sen. Kamala Harris, whose record as a prosecutor has been under scrutiny since she entered the presidential race, has unveiled a criminal justice plan that calls for abolishing the death penalty, ending cash bail and collecting more data on officer-involved shootings.
Harris condemns the death penalty as “immoral, discriminatory, ineffective, and a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars.”
The California Democrat also calls for eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing at the federal level and ending the use of private prisons as well as solitary confinement.
Harris says a national standard should be established to allow the use of deadly force only when “necessary” and when no reasonable alternatives are available. She also wants to create a National Police Systems Review Board, which would collect data and review police shootings and cases of alleged severe misconduct. The board would issue recommendations and implement safety standards based on evidence revealed in reviews.
Got that? Make things easier for criminals, go after police. Buzzfeed News notes
It checks many of the boxes of the progressive criminal justice reform movement: legalizing marijuana and expunging past convictions; ending cash bail, mandatory sentencing minimums, and the death penalty; and banning private prisons. And it also includes some new touches that are rooted in Harris’s prosecutorial career, like a focus on reducing recidivism and the creation of a Bureau of Children and Family Justice, which mimics a division Harris created as California attorney general to focus on education, welfare, and juvenile justice.
Yet, despite her words on the death penalty, she’s all in for abortion on demand with zero restrictions. Further, while she’s going soft on criminals, she’s all in on making it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to have a firearm to protect themselves from the criminals she’s gone soft on.
Does Kamala think this will play well during the general election, if she makes?
Read: Kamala Harris Has A Plan To Make The Lives Of Criminals Much Easier »
Remember when we weren’t supposed to listen to anyone who didn’t have a degree in climate science? Heck, even meteorologists didn’t count. Unless they are card carrying members of the Cult of Climastrology, of course, such as Greta Thunberg, who’s mentioned later in the article
Pop sensation Eilish urges fans to join climate protests
Pop star Billie Eilish has called on her millions of fans all over the world to participate in massive climate change protests planned for later this month.
The American singer urged her 37 million Instagram followers to “take it to the streets” on September 20 and 27 in demonstrations to be held around the same time as the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit.
“Right now, there are millions of people all over the world begging our leaders to pay attention. Our earth is warming up at an unprecedented rate, icecaps are melting, our oceans are rising, our wildlife is being poisoned, and our forests are burning,” she wrote.
On Wednesday, the 17-year-old also released her latest music video for the song “All Good Girls Go To Hell,” which was full of symbolic references to environmental catastrophe.
So, will Billie pledge to forgo the use of fossil fuels as she tours around the country? Georgia to California to Nevada to Texas to Oklahoma, back to Texas, then to Mexico. Can’t move all that equipment in Nissan Leafs. She was in New Zealand and Australia earlier in the year.
billie pictured with her team in london today pic.twitter.com/LozW0uOce5
— Billie Eilish Updates (@eilishupdates) July 1, 2019
That would be a private jet for touring.
And, seriously, the pyrotechnics in her current music video released more carbon than my car does all year. I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people like Billie who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis in their own lives.
Read: Climate Scientist Billie Eilish Wants Fans To Join Climastrology Protests Or Something »
…are trees that will die from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on Comrade Bernie bringing out Jew hater Linda Sarsour as a surrogate.
It’s Brazil week!
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! It’s a gorgeous day in America. The Sun is shining, the squirrels are squirreling, and the NFL is back (let’s see how they try to ruin it this season). This pinup is by Greg Hildebrandt, 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
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?
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
This is exactly the problem with “gun control”: Democrats want to impede the rights of law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals, yet, want to treat criminals with kid gloves
(California Globe) The purpose of prison and jail is to separate the criminals from society through incapacitation so they are not able to harm innocent people, and to make them pay for their crimes through retribution. Rehabilitation is supposed to assist with changing criminals into law-abiding citizens once again. But not every criminal can be rehabilitated.
The purpose of putting criminals in prison is to help keep the rest of society safe from them. Citizens pay taxes to the government to pay for jails and prisons. However, in California elected Democrats have chosen to let criminals out of prison as a cost-cutting measure, ignoring the safety and well-being of its citizens.
California Democrats have also passed sanctuary city and state laws, which have served to allow criminal illegal aliens carte-blanche access to innocent citizens, and avoidance of and “sanctuary†from federal immigration officials.
Most recently, a California Appeals Court reversed the gun conviction of Kate Steinle’s shooter, a five-time deported criminal illegal alien. The realities and facts of the case remain unchanged, but the gun charges against the illegal alien killer were dropped.
What is going on in California?
California has an “assault weapons†ban, universal background checks, firearm registration requirements, and firearm confiscation orders, via Red Flag Laws, Awr Hawkins reports at Breitbart. “The state requires would-be gun owners to first obtain gun safety certification from the state and then requires a 10-day waiting period for all gun purchases. They also have a one-handgun-a-month purchase limit and a minimum age of 21 for all gun purchases, whether long guns or handguns. Campus carry is banned, K-12 teachers are barred from being armed in school for self-defense, and concealed carry permit issuance is constrained by a ‘good cause’ requirement.â€
If you’re a citizen wanting a firearm for protection from the criminals that are protected by the State Of California, good luck. It’s not easy to obtain. Carrying it outside of your home? Good luck with that. And, there is no “stand your ground” outside of your home, and the burden is tough in the home. You’ll still probably be arrested and tried, leaving it up to a jury. If you’re the criminal, you will be treated well, and probably get out of jail early.
Proposition 57, also outrageously titled by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, The California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative, was billed to the public as criminal justice reform, allowing early release for “non-violent offenders,†but the initiative not only failed to define who qualified as a “non-violent offender,†numerous heinous crimes qualified as “non-violent†under Prop. 57.
Notably, the crimes Harris considered to be “non-violent†include Rape by intoxication of an unconscious person, Human trafficking involving a sex act with minors, Arson causing great bodily harm, Drive-by shooting, Assault with a deadly weapon, and Hostage taking.
When we say that Democrats are soft on crime, that’s what we are talking about. And Democrats are doing this in their Democrat states around the country. And also Democrats
2020 Democrats Warm to Mandatory ‘Buybacks’ of Assault Weapons
As mass shootings pile up, several Democratic presidential candidates are embracing mandated “buybacks†of assault weapons, a proposal that sharpens the political divide on guns and raises the stakes for the 2020 election.
Kamala Harris speaks during the New Hampshire Democratic Party Conventionon Sept. 7.Photographer: Scott Eisen/Getty Images
In New Hampshire on Friday, Senator Kamala Harris of California told reporters that requiring owners of assault weapons to sell them to the government is “a good idea†because “we have to take those guns off the streets.â€New Jersey Senator Cory Booker said he supports the proposal. He noted that other countries have been able to take military-style semiautomatic weapons “off the streets†and that the U.S. can’t let the National Rifle Association “tell us what’s possible.â€
At the New Hampshire Democratic convention on Saturday, former Representative Beto O’Rourke, who’s made buybacks a signature issue in recent weeks, pressed the idea to a cheering crowd that reflected the growing enthusiasm in the party for controlling firearm ownership. He said measures like universal background checks and “red flag†laws, which his 2020 competitors unanimously support, aren’t enough.
Yet, these same Democrats never talk about initiating harsh laws on those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Usually, they’re letting them out of jail, much like with Kamala’s law. They’re happy to forcibly take your legally acquired property for a small cash payment, though. Leaving you at the whim of a criminal.
I completely, 100% endorse this idea
Democrats must go to war with fossil fuel industry to take on the climate crisis
Nearly every candidate that participated in CNN’s seven-hour climate town hall agreed that we need to invest trillions of dollars in building a clean energy economy fit for the 21st century, and create hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs in the process. However impressive these commitments are, they won’t be worth much if they don’t also take on the fossil fuel industry.
There was plenty of common ground to be found on Wednesday night, where candidates happily focused more on presenting their own visions than tearing down those of their opponents. On what to do with dirty energy companies, though, the differences couldn’t be starker. (snip)
Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, has pledged in his plan for a Green New Deal to make the fossil fuel industry enemy No 1, cutting into their business model and holding them accountable for the years they spent spreading misinformation about global warming. Elizabeth Warren rightly called out the fact that focusing on plastic straws and lightbulbs – as last night’s moderators at CNN insisted on doing – distracts from the fact that responsibility for this crisis is concentrated among a small number of corporations; just 90 companies – most of them fossil fuel producers – have been responsible for two-thirds of manmade greenhouse gas emissions since the dawn of the industrial age.
There has been plenty of debate this cycle over candidates’ relative positions on nuclear energy, with policy wonks not unreasonably arguing that it could be risky to take that option off the table entirely. But any climate plan that doesn’t challenge the gargantuan power of the fossil fuel industry head-on is flatly denying several realities about our energy system. While the cost of renewables has plummeted over the last several years, their share of our energy mix has remained largely flat. Use of natural gas – what Amy Klobuchar called a “transitional†fuel – will need to decline 74% by mid-century, if we’re to take the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seriously, but is poised to grow dramatically over the next several years via fresh development in the Permian and Appalachian basins. Building even prodigious amounts of clean power won’t stop that, or magically outcompete incumbent fuels. In short, there is nothing “inevitable†about the transition to renewables. (snip)
There’s no way around it: curbing the climate crisis means going to war with the fossil fuel industry – not attending their fundraisers.
Well, good luck with this. They’d be promising to, again, skyrocket energy costs and the cost of living, all while making it almost impossible for citizens to get anywhere on their own, since most can’t afford to purchase an expensive hybrid (where will the energy to recharge them come from?). You can kiss air flights goodbye. How will the military operate? You can’t run a tank or non-nuclear ship on solar panels. So, they should push this line, showing citizens just how insane they are. It will make Trump’s re-election that much easier.
Read: Democrats Must Go To War With Fossil Fuels Industry Or Something »
Trackback URL
…is the flag of an Evil carbon polluting nation causing hurricanes, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Mayor Pete’s twisted scripture.
Cleaned out the folder of the final downloaded photo below the fold, so, also check out The Daley Gator, with a post on what Dakota Fanning is defending herself over
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.