Suddenly, Washington Post Is Against Using Food For Fuel (’cause Trump)

By William Teach October 15, 2018 – 7:21 am

This reminds me of the time that the NY Times came to the realization that using food for fuel is a Bad Idea (it’s worth reading the full article, as it still applies today). Of course, that was during the Obama administration (4/7/2011), so there was no hint of Blaming Obama. Now we have the Washington Post Editorial Board coming to the same realization, though, it seems more due to Trump resistance than anything else

Doubling down on the biofuel boondoggle

FOR MORE THAN a decade, the United States has pursued the foolhardy energy policy known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. Thanks to legislation passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush, in 2007, the RFS illustrates the sad-but-true principle of Washington life that bipartisanship is no guarantee of wisdom. In a nutshell, the RFS required the nation’s petroleum refiners to blend ever-increasing quantities of biofuels, chiefly ethanol, into gasoline, purportedly to promote energy independence and fight climate change.

Never mind that the United States has meanwhile become a major oil exporter, due to a production boom. Never mind that the environmental harms of ethanol arguably outweigh its benefits, because it takes massive amounts of energy to distill ethanol from corn — and massive amounts of fragile farmland to grow that crop. Never mind that diverting resources into corn production for ethanol raises the price of food. Never mind all that, because 39 percent of Iowa’s corn crop goes to create nearly 30 percent of all U.S. ethanol. And Iowa is a swing state with six crucial electoral votes and a first-in-the-nation presidential caucus; whatever Iowa wants, Iowa gets, from politicians of both parties.

All excellent points. Biofuels from agricultural sources are pretty much a bad idea. It’s worked well with sugar down in Brazil, but, even there, you have massive soil erosion, air pollution from burning the fields, and it uses a lot of water to produce. And it still doesn’t have the power of gasoline.

But, wait, here we go

Hence President Trump’s announcement, on the midterm-election campaign trail in Iowa, that he would, in effect, double down on this decreasingly justifiable policy. Mr. Trump declared that the Environmental Protection Agency will draft regulations allowing the year-round sale of motor fuel containing 15 percent ethanol, as opposed to the 10 percent limitation in effect for several months a year because of air-pollution concerns related to summertime atmospheric conditions. This would incentivize gas station owners to install pumps capable of delivering the fuel, thus boosting ethanol sales.

Trump was obviously doing this as he stumped in the areas where ethanol production is popular, and the editorial points this out, but, the WPEB never had a problem with Obama calling for more ethanol, issuing more ethanol mandates, nor backing massive subsidy increases for ethanol, among others.

I don’t like ethanol. It’s bad for food prices. It’s bad for the environment. It is bad for climate change. If you believe in man-caused, it puts out massive amounts of CO2. If you’re not a big believer in AGW, well, it actually helps with land use changes which artificially change the localized weather and temperatures in a myriad of ways, such as clear-cutting. It doesn’t provide the fuel power like gasoline that would make you say “OK, it has these problems, but, it’s worth it, but, let’s try and keep it as clean as possible.” I try and avoid gas stations which I know actually use that “may include up to 10% ethanol” and have 10%, because the car doesn’t run as well.

But, this editorial shows that the WPEB is against it simply because Trump is pushing it. Perhaps someone can find an editorial where they were against using food for fuel. I don’t remember one, and I would have posted it. I can’t find one in a search. This is kind of a low level Trump Derangement Syndrome. If Trump came out in favor of an assault weapons ban or became pro-illegal, they’d find a way to be against those things.

Read: Suddenly, Washington Post Is Against Using Food For Fuel (’cause Trump) »

Posted in Energy, Environment, Wonky Media | Comments Off on Suddenly, Washington Post Is Against Using Food For Fuel (’cause Trump) | Trackback URL

Democrats Advised To Stay Away From Talking About Illegal Immigration

By William Teach October 15, 2018 – 6:58 am

Republicans hoping to get elected/re-elected should read this article and constantly bring up illegal immigration themselves, putting Democrats between a rock and a hard place

(Breitbart) Democrats running for re-election in the 2018 midterms are being advised to not speak about the issue of immigration as consultants admit the zero-enforcement, open borders positions of the Democrat Party are unpopular with swing voters.

In a memo obtained by the New York Times, left-wing consultants with the Center for American Progress and the think tank, Third Way, advised Democrats running for election to spend “as little time as possible” talking about the immigration issue facing the nation, where more than 1.5 million immigrants are admitted to the country every year.

The New York Times reported:

“Sanctuary attacks pack a punch,” says a four-page memorandum, prepared by the liberal Center for American Progress and the centrist think tank Third Way, that has been shared at about a dozen briefings for Democrats in recent weeks. The New York Times obtained a copy of the memo, whose findings are based on interviews and surveys conducted over the summer. [Emphasis added] (snip)

Democrats, the strategists who prepared the memo advised, could neutralize the attacks if they responded head-on. But they should spend “as little time as possible” talking about immigration itself, and instead pivot to more fruitful issues for Democrats like health care and taxation. [Emphasis added](snip)

“It is very difficult to win on immigration with vulnerable voters in the states Trump carried in 2016,” the strategy memo said, arguing that “even the most draconian of Republican policies,” such as family separation and threats to deport the Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children — failed to sway most of them. [Emphasis added]

Who would have thought that policies pushing for people to be able to illegally cross our borders/overstay their visas and face no consequences could be unpopular with the average voter? Who would have thought that putting illegal aliens over actual U.S. citizens would be unpopular? Who would have thought that allowing illegal aliens who have committed crimes to go free and protesting them being detained and deported by ICE would be unpopular?

Meanwhile, Democrats have geared up for the 2018 midterm elections by running on a platform that would abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which would end all immigration enforcement across the United States. Three in four swing voters oppose the Democrats’ “abolish ICE” initiative.

That plays well only in the hardcore Democrat areas, but, as politicians screech about this, voters in swing states read what those Democrats want to do, and will want to know if the Democrat running in their area wants the same and will vote against them. Local news is broadcast nationally now, and it is easy to find out what the Democratic Party actually wants.

Read: Democrats Advised To Stay Away From Talking About Illegal Immigration »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

The Midterms Could See A Groundswell Of Climate Change Voters Or Something

By William Teach October 14, 2018 – 5:17 pm

The Cult of Climastrology keeps thinking, hoping, wishing, that ‘climate change’ is suddenly going to make a difference at the ballot box and sweep in politicians who will take the scam seriously and implement all sorts of draconian, Big Government, authoritarian rules, regulations, and law. Keep dreaming, guys

‘We need some fire’: climate change activists issue call to arms for voters
Campaigners say more than 15m people who care about the environment did not vote in the 2014 midterms – can they create a ‘green wave’ this November?

No.

Among the motivating issues for voters in US elections, the environment is typically eclipsed by topics such as healthcare, the economy and guns. But the upcoming midterms could, belatedly, see a stirring of a slumbering green giant.

“The environmental movement doesn’t have a persuasion problem, it has a turnout problem,” said Nathaniel Stinnett, the founder of the Environmental Voter Project, which is aiming to spur people who care about the natural world and climate change to the ballot box. “This group has more power than it realizes. In the midterms we want to flood the zone with environmentalists.”

Any such voting surge would go some way to heeding the increasingly urgent warnings from scientists about climate change. A major UN climate report released this week said the world risks worsening floods, droughts, species loss and poverty without “rapid and far-reaching transitions” to energy, transport and land use. (snip)

Americans of voting age who care strongly about the environment have been unusually reticent to make their voice heard, for reasons that are still unclear. Stinnett said demographics are part of it – the young, Latinos and black people are simultaneously most worried about climate change and least likely to vote – but this doesn’t explain the full story.

“It’s hard to figure out why,” he said. “Even among young people, for example, environmentalists are less likely to vote. The environmental movement has done a lot of things to change the way we eat, travel and work, but it hasn’t flexed its political muscles yet.

It’s easy to figure out. Poll after poll after poll show that ‘climate change’ is a minor care amongst all voters. It typically ranks right there among the bottom 2-3 issues. And the younger voters who are targeted have historically not bothered to show up at the ballot box. Even doomsaying climate change can’t drive them, because they say they care, but their belief is not particularly strong. There’s little adherence, as it is termed in Political Science.

A year prior, no questions on climate change were put to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton during three presidential debates. Trump has subsequently ignored the issue in office, save the odd disparaging tweet, while overseeing an administration that has systematically dismantled climate, air and water pollution regulations.

And virtually no Democrats are talking about it now. No one really cares. This is what all the spreading awareness since 1988 has wrought: no one really cares, except the elites who are trying to create a more authoritarian government.

Read: The Midterms Could See A Groundswell Of Climate Change Voters Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 14, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that shall soon rise up and wipe out Baja Mexico, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on more reasons Trump was elected.

It’s Mexican ladies week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach October 14, 2018 – 9:48 am

Patriotic Pinup Gil Elvgren

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in America. The sun is shining, there’s a bit Fall in the air, and the NHL is in full swing. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. 357 Magnum notes what may happen if you keep breaking into homes
  2. Blazing Cat Fur links to gays being terrified to criticize trans ideology
  3. Chicks On The Right discusses why Melania Trump wore the “I really don’t care do u” jacket
  4. Creeping Sharia covers a month of Islam in America
  5. Datechguy’s Blog notes that hysterical females are deadly
  6. DC Clothesline covers what happened after that Taylor Swift endorsement
  7. Geller Report notes a French hero and not wanting to offend Muslims
  8. Jihad Watch discusses Dem Krysten Sinema and her America hatred
  9. Legal Insurrection features Democrats dropping Chrisine Blasey Ford like a microwaved Hot Pocket
  10. Moonbattery features quantum physics and queer identity
  11. Watts Up With That? discusses not having multiple doomsdays
  12. The Deplorable Climate Science Blog notes what happened back in 1954
  13. Ice Age Now covers harvesting wheat in the snow
  14. neo-neocon shows that Kanye West brings out the worst normal in Democrats
  15. And last, but not least, Pacific Pundit highlights totally not a mob trashing the NY GOP HQ

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. 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.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

LA Times: America Needs A Dia de las Muertos Or Something

By William Teach October 14, 2018 – 8:42 am

What is that? It is Day of the Dead

(HuffPost) What’s the difference between Día de los Muertos and Halloween?
Día de los Muertos — also known as “Día de Muertos,” or “Day of the Dead” in English — is a holiday with Mexican origins that is celebrated on November 1 – 2. While some imagery might be close to that of Halloween, there are significant differences between the two. Día de los Muertos is a day to celebrate death — or, more specifically, the deceased — while on Halloween, death is seen as something to be feared. Día de los Muertos has both indigenous origins from the Aztec festival for Mictecacihuatl, The Lady of The Dead, and Catholic origins from the Spanish conquistadors’ All Saints and All Souls Day.

OK. Sounds interesting. Especially the wild costumes. And, it should be noted that some have it beginning on October 31st. Let’s see what Melinda Welsh, former editor of the Sacramento News & Review, thinks

Americans need a better version of Halloween: an official Dia de los Muertos

It took the brilliant Pixar film “Coco” for me to figure out what was missing: the dancing skeletons, the flower-adorned grave sites, the altars crowded with candles and framed photos of deceased loved ones. I’m talking about Dia de los Muertos, and though the celebration of this Mexican holiday is already established in Latin corners of the United States, I’m proposing we go full throttle and declare the Day of the Dead an official American holiday.

Here’s why I’m stumping for the idea. I’m a 62-year-old journalist, first diagnosed with cancer in 2014. As I’ve written in The Times on other occasions, despite surgery, chemo and radiation, my disease metastasized in 2015. When three different doctors told me I would live six months or “a yearish,” I began to think a lot about death.

Until then, like most Americans, I’d avoided the subject. Death was something to run away from — a giant negative, a dark mystery, the end of everything. Pain and grief seemed all that awaited any consideration, forced or otherwise, of what Shakespeare called “the undiscovered country.” It doesn’t take departed psychologist Ernest Becker, who won the 1974 Pulitzer Prize for his book “The Denial of Death,” to recognize that most of us will do anything to ignore mortality until it’s coming straight for us or a loved one.

For Becker, this kind of avoidance “pervades human culture” and “is one of the deepest sources of intolerance, aggression, and human evil” on Earth. I’ve learned the hard way to stop with the death denial. And that’s where “Coco” enters into it.

The Day of the Dead acknowledges, joyfully, that an end is coming for us all.

Well, you know, I can see her point, especially when she writes

Dia de los Muertos is a celebration, but it’s no frat party. It’s got a deeply spiritual side. In Mexico, families pay their respects to the souls of the dead with parades, picnics around grave sites, all-night vigils, prayer gatherings and lots and lots of music. Some families build altars — ofrendas — to the dead, heaped with mementos, the deceased’s favorite food and drink, and photos. They tell stories of lives lived and loved ones gone. Religion plays a role, but the festivities are not really about belief in an afterlife. Ultimately, the Day of the Dead is a fiesta of what ties together the living and the dead.

Perhaps at the same time we could bring Halloween back to being something scary, rather than an excuse to see who can wear the sleaziest costume and get beyond liquored up. But, wait, what’s this

Formally expanding this beloved Mexican holiday into the United States could be a repentant bow to a country whose relations with America are at an all-time low thanks to border walls, ethnic slurs, family separations and cynical immigration politics. And it’s not just that country we’d be acknowledging — parts of Africa, China and Japan also reserve a special day each year to honor their dead. Towns and cities all over the West already make room for the holiday with sugar skulls and papier-mâché skeletons, pan de muertos and ofrendas laid out among the headstones in cemeteries, in museum galleries and in parks.

And that’s how you ruin an interesting piece, delving into hardcore leftist politics in support of illegal aliens.

And it would also be amusingly fun when the social justice warriors start screeching about cultural appropriation. And you know they would.

Oh, and you just know that they’d turn it into a sexy holiday, right?

Read: LA Times: America Needs A Dia de las Muertos Or Something »

Posted in Holidays, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 13, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is the notion of having just 10 years left to solve climate change doom, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on Facebook removing over 800 Conservative sites.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Bummer: Climate Is Totally Breaking Down, Hence, We Need Socialism

By William Teach October 13, 2018 – 10:30 am

This time of year always brings the most dire of ‘climate change’ doomsaying, kicking it up to 15/10, as a Big Report always comes out a month or two prior to the next UN IPCC climate change meeting a great vacation spot where 10,000+ take fossil fueled trips. And we get stuff like

Climate is not just changing – it is breaking down

Climate change or climate breakdown? Growth or wellbeing? Growth as development? Degrowth? Prosperity without growth? Climate capitalism or ecosocialism?

It matters hugely how this week’s news from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is framed in public debate. The most authoritative scientists tell us that unless global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial times, the world faces extreme weather events, food shortages, wildfires, dying coral reefs, droughts, floods and poverty for hundreds of millions.

To avoid this outcome, the world economy needs a transformation of unprecedented speed and scale, involving far-reaching changes in society. We have only 12 years, they say, to achieve it by making huge strides towards eliminating greenhouse gases arising from fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. The report underlines the qualitative difference between the 1.5- and 2-degree reductions previously seen as less stark. The case for radical action is reinforced by its finding that on present trends we are heading for more than a 3-degree increase by 2100 – catastrophic territory.

Climate change is an anodyne and demobilising way to describe such urgent tasks and prospective disasters, according to the ecological writer and activist George Monbiot. That’s why he calls his online movement #climatebreakdown. He makes a powerful case for the more dramatic word, to get more people talking about it and media to take the threats much more seriously.

Monbiot is a lunatic, and 25+ years of fear-mongering sure hasn’t worked out so far.

Climate breakdown on this scale poses huge conceptual, ideological and political challenges alongside the physical and technical ones. Herman Daly, whose book on steady-state economics in the 1970s pioneered modern environmental economic analysis, explains in a recent interview that steady-state comes from the realisation that “the economy is a sub-system of a larger system, the ecosphere, which is finite, non-expanding, materially closed”. We now “convert too much of nature into ourselves and our stuff, and there’s not enough to provide the biophysical life-support services that we need”.

Interesting. Steady state economics preaches about keeping the economy and the population at one size. So, population control. Who controls? Government, of course. Economy? Government is solely in charge.

Another signatory of the letter is Peadar Kirby of the University of Limerick, the author of several books on these themes. His latest work poses the question of pathways beyond the optimism underlying climate capitalism, which claims it will be possible to make the low-carbon transition by technical-scientific means, including large-scale geoengineering. Not so, says Kirby, because capitalism’s commitment to indefinite growth cannot be reconciled with a sustainable future for humanity.

In that case, he argues, we should draw inspiration from the Austrian socialist economist Karl Polanyi who argued in the 1940s and 1950s that capitalism disrupts social relations so profoundly as to provoke periodic movements to counter and reconstruct market power. We are living through such a period, he suggests. Ecosocialism, combining local sustainable initiatives with worldwide analysis and action, is his preferred way forward.

Such alternative ideas are badly needed in these dangerous times.

Huh. So, socialism. Government in full control of the economy. Which means the lives of citizens, too. Strange how Warmists keep going to this same well.

Read: Bummer: Climate Is Totally Breaking Down, Hence, We Need Socialism »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Vox: Say, We Should Abolish The Supreme Court

By William Teach October 13, 2018 – 7:30 am

Oh, Vox Vox Vox. Back when Barack Obama was appointing hardcore Progressives Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagen to the Court everything was lollipops and unicorns. But now that Donald Trump has appointed Constitutional originalists Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court we have Leftists melting down

The case for abolishing the Supreme Court

When he was arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous branch to the political rights of the Constitution,” in part because he believed the federal courts would stand above the political fray and act as a bulwark against tyranny from all directions.

But it’s hard to defend the Supreme Court on these grounds today.

As my colleague Matthew Yglesias noted last week, the Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests. And the recent disaster that was the Brett Kavanaughconfirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.

So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we should abolish the Supreme Court, or at the very least strip the Court of its ability to overturn laws that it rules unconstitutional. If the Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, if it’s gradually shape-shifting into a partisan weapon, then maybe it’s time to rethink its role in our constitutional system.

Got that? Since the court is there to make decisions based on the Constitution rather than how some people voted, abolish it! Which is an interesting notion, considering how often liberals use the Supreme Court, and many lower courts, to overturn the will of the voters. Think, not so long ago they took it to SCOTUS to overturn many voter referendums that made gay marriage illegal in several states. Without the Court, that doesn’t happen.

Anyway, writer Sean Illing goes on to discuss this all with Mark Tushnet, a law professor at Harvard, and there’s way too much to fisk. And, really, this is all about Democrats being sore losers. Who should remember that without judicial review, many of their pet initiatives would be killed. There would be no Roe V Wade. Gay marriage would be against the law in California. And so much more.

Stop being sore losers. Stop having kneejerk sore loser reactions to everything. They won’t.

Read: Vox: Say, We Should Abolish The Supreme Court »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Liberal World | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Calls Confederate General Robert E. Lee Great General Or Something

By William Teach October 13, 2018 – 7:16 am

This has made the Washington Post’s Gabriel Pogrund Very Upset

Trump asked African Americans for their votes at a rally where he also praised Confederate icon Robert E. Lee

President Trump praised the Confederate general Robert E. Lee whilst asking African American voters to “honor us” by voting for him at an Ohio rally which included an unexpected and provocative monologue on America’s Civil War history.

Addressing an open-air rally of around 4,000 supporters, Trump appeared buoyant as he declared that Lee was a “true great fighter” and “great general.” He also said Abraham Lincoln once had a “phobia” of the Southern leader, whose support of slavery has made his legacy a heavily contested and divisive issue.

The comments came during an anecdote about Ohio-born president Ulysses S. Grant’s alleged drinking problems. “Robert E. Lee was winning battle after battle after battle. And Abraham Lincoln came home, he said, ‘I can’t beat Robert E. Lee’,” Trump said. “They said to Lincoln, ‘You can’t use him anymore, he’s an alcoholic.’ And Lincoln said, ‘I don’t care if he’s an alcoholic, frankly, give me six or seven more just like him.’ He started to win.”

Minutes earlier, Trump had hailed African American unemployment numbers and asked black voters to “honor us” by voting Republican in November. “Get away from the Democrats,” he told them. “Think of it: we have the best numbers in history … I think we’re going to get the African American vote. And it’s true.” He also celebrated hip-hop artist Kanye West’s visit to the Oval Office on Thursday, adding: “What he did was pretty amazing.”

Trump’s speech threatened to reignite a highly divisive debate over America’s racial history with just weeks to go until the midterms. Trump has previously defended statues commemorating Confederate leaders, tweeting last year: “Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.” Critics say such statues glorify historic advocates of slavery.

So, that third paragraph, where the actual context is supposed to reside, is rather tortured, is it not? The article goes on to mention that Ulysses S. Grant being a native born Ohioan, which was the point of the what Trump was saying. Twitchy has a post up about “you’re about to see libs attack Trump” over the Robert E. Lee quote, which includes

But

Cam provides a lot more context, worth reading his tweets over at the Twitchy post. And this is yet another example of why the Leftist news media is untrustworthy.

Lee was, in fact, a great fighter and a great general. His record before the Civil War as part of the U.S. military was spectacular, and he did pretty well during the Civil War, up to a point. Even though he was a part of the German military during WWII, we can say that Rommel was a hell of a general, can we not? Admiral Yamamoto was a hell of an admiral, right?

Read: Trump Calls Confederate General Robert E. Lee Great General Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 66 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove