…is snow disappearing from a mountain because Other People didn’t march for climate change, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on transgender social contagion being like 1692 Salem.
Read: If All You See… »
Especially when the Helpful Hand Of Government is involved, as the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board notes
The city’s new environment-friendly, years-in-the-planning garbage pickup program has left the Los Angeles businesses and condo associations that rely on it with a severe case of sticker shock.
Back in 2014, when the City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti approved the program, there was a lot of talk about the environmental benefits of the program — which are real — but little mention by city leaders that the service would cost more.
The initiative, called recycLA, switched multi-family residential buildings, restaurants, factories and other businesses from the open market, in which they could negotiate with the garbage company of their choice, to an exclusive franchise system, in which the city selects one trash hauler for that area, sets the rates and regulates the service. The city, for example, requires all the participating companies to provide recycling bins and to drive cleaner trucks.
This does not affect single family homes nor small apartment complexes (yet). Anyhow, how much more is this program for consumers who have had their choice removed?
Now recycLA customers are getting bills for the new city-controlled service, and many are finding the price of trash pickup has increased significantly. Some customers report their bills have doubled or even tripled compared to what they paid before. There have been complaints of missed pickups and scheduling problems.
The waste haulers are also allowed to impose lots of new city-sanctioned fees, including charges if the truck driver has to unlock a gate, if the hauler has to move the trash bins more than 100 feet during pickup and if the container is so full that the lid doesn’t completely close.
Under the old system, customers who felt they were getting nickel-and-dimed by their trash company could take their business elsewhere. Now? Their only recourse is to complain to the company or the city and hope for some response.
The LATEB goes on to tell us that it doesn’t have to be this way, completely missing the point that this is an issue created by government in the first place, because they rushed to “be green”, and were very aggressive about their goals control. There are massive recycling goals, which can reduce the forced costs on the users, except “the infrastructure or services to turn food scraps into compost or energy aren’t yet in Los Angeles.” The recycling monopoly companies hired by the city have to pay their people a “living wage” of at least $12.73 and purchase more “environmentally friendly” garbage trucks. And pay franchise fees which enrich the city to the tune of $35 million a year. The editorial ends with
It’s time for city leaders to be straight with Angelenos about the costs of being more environmentally responsible with our waste. There’s also the reality that the lack of competition in the exclusive franchise areas leaves customers vulnerable to being gouged. The city created these monopolies, and now it has a responsibility to police them.
Government created these problems, but, don’t expect them to fix them. They mean more money in the pockets of government and more control for government.
What is the Australia solution? A simple explanation is offered at the UK Guardian, which is brought up in the wake of Las Vegas to say that the gun grabbyness is being eroded in Australia
In 1996 politicians managed to come to a bipartisan agreement to change our gun laws. The main changes included: a ban on semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns, a gun buyback, the introduction of a uniform registration and licensing system and an acknowledgment that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right. These laws were implemented into each state and territory legislation which implemented a national approach to gun regulation.
So, not everything. This article from 2016 explains in depth who can own which guns of those that are still legal.
It’s actually not that hard to own a gun. But you do have to have a genuine reason. You have to be a member of a target shooting club or a hunter and you have to prove it. For hunting, you can get written permission from a landowner who says you are hunting on his land. Or you can join a hunting club. Pistols [handguns], on the other hand, are heavily restricted. All applicants undergo a background check by the police and there is a mandatory 30 day cooling off period for all license applications, both long arms and pistols. Firearms safety training courses are mandatory as well.
There are 6 classes of license, which also includes if you want an air rifle. Yeah, that would be a BB gun. You want a handgun? There’s a license for that. H license. You must compete in at least 8 competitions to keep it. It’s a competition license. “This firearm may be a single-shot air pistol, a single-shot .22-calibre pistol or a .22-calibre revolver or self-loading pistol.” As far as I can determine through multiple articles, those are the only ones allowed. There is no category for “protect myself from criminals” licenses.
It’s not a full ban, but, it’s pretty close. So, we now see many pushing it. Like at the Washington Post
How Australia beat the gun lobby and passed gun control
“Lynched in effigy, but no real harm done.†The words belong to Tim Fischer, Australia’s deputy prime minister in the mid-1990s — the moment when Australia radically changed its gun laws. He used the phrase yesterday when, in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, I asked him about the political pain involved in taking on the gun lobby.
Australians are confounded by the unwillingness of American politicians to institute reasonable gun control. We performed the necessary operation, so why can’t our friends over the water?
It may be useful to recount what happened in Australia in 1996.
And that’s what Richard Glover does, and Australian attempting to tell the United States what to do. Mind your own business, Richard. We have a 2nd Amendment. Australia didn’t. Anyhow
It wasn’t only the gun owners who had something to complain about. The banned guns were not confiscated. They were “bought back.†An extra 0.2 percent levy on national health insurance was used to finance the National Firearms Buyback Program to compensate the gun owners for the banned weapons that were surrendered.
Trigger warning for any National Rifle Association (NRA) members: 660,959 firearms were duly handed in. They were then destroyed.
They were turned in because it would have been illegal to keep them. Anyone in possession would have been charged criminally. Might as well get some money for them.
This is the problem with the gun grabbers: they are all about punishing the law abiding for the actions of the criminals. Because they want to ban guns for Other People. Let’s say the U.S. tries this: anyone think there won’t be exclusions for Certain People? And that those Certain People, such as Hollywood celebs, won’t also be out there saying we need to ban guns?
Liberals know that a full gun grab isn’t going to work, so they will push the Australia solution, just like Obama and Hillary Clinton mentioned. So we get
And plenty, plenty more. At the NY Times, opinion writer Roxane Gay tells us that background checks do not work (and attempts to Blame the gun stores where the weapons were bought). Weren’t Democrats pushing universal background checks? Will this change? She dinks and dunks around simply banning guns in total.
But, hey, go for it, Democrats. Give it a shot. You’ll be soundly defeated. But, first, why not deal with your own lawlessness in your own violent cities. This is what happens when you’re weak on crime. And, instead of dealing with the crime, you want to penalize law abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves from the criminals Democrats enable.
I often run this graphic when the gun grabbers yammer about going after “assault rifles”
Under the Australia solution, both would be banned.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: In Wake Of Las Vegas, Gun Grabbers Are Back To Pushing The Australia Solution »
Trackback URL
There really is an easy answer to this
(Reuters)Â A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled for the second time over how to resolve whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months should be able to seek their release while deportation proceedings unfold.
A majority of the justices appeared sympathetic to the idea that immigrants held long-term should be eligible for a bond hearing that would let them argue for their release.
Some of the court’s conservatives seemed skeptical over whether such a hearing should be triggered automatically after six months, as a lower court had ruled. But conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed concern about detainees being held for lengthy periods without any hearings as a result of government delays, suggesting he could side with the four liberals.
Let’s be honest, they have a point. But, so do other Conservatives. Not that Kennedy is much of a Conservative. More of a Lindsay Graham/John McCain type
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito was among those who questioned why there should be a hearing triggered after six months. “Where does it say six months in the Constitution?†Alito asked.
Chief Justice John Roberts said a “more palatable option†would be to restrict claims to individual detainees who have been held for a long time rather than having a blanket rule requiring hearings for all.
Obviously, the Liberals on the court very much want the illegals to be released on bond, at which point they will disappear into America yet again.
The liberal justices were more openly sympathetic to the plight of immigrant detainees. Justice Stephen Breyer noted that even “triple ax-murderers†get bail hearings. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that allowing people to be detained indefinitely was a sign of “lawlessness.â€
Of course, the triple ax murderers typically get denied bail, as do those who are flight risks. Like…… illegal aliens!
The simple solution? Make sure there are enough judges to adjudicate deportation hearings, so illegals, regardless of whether they crossed the border or overstayed their visas, are sent packing within a month of being caught.
…is a wonderful big city, bringing everyone close together, which should be mandated by government, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on the terrorist supporting mayor of San Juan.
Read: If All You See… »
The Hill trots out a missive by Arturo Casadevall, MD, Ph.D. (chairman of the Molecular Microbiology & Immunology department at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and Ferric C. Fang, MD (professor of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology at the University of Washington) with the pithy headline
showing that Warmists have completely given up on attempting to persuade, and simply going for insults.
Well, that is very interesting. Who tends to be against these vaccines? Mostly leftists, especially Hollyweirdos. How about GMOs? These are overwhelmingly people who vote to the Left.
Those who deny specific scientific findings and theories are neither idiots or Luddites. Such individuals have no problem using the fruits of science and technology such as cell phones, medicines and computers. Science deniers are selective in their rejection of science when it focuses on a specific finding that they do not like.
Yes, those same things that create “carbon pollution.” When will Warmists give these up? BTW, a lot of these same Warmists also despise Big Business, which brings them all these products and medicines.
Despite the widespread evidence of science denialism, there is no organized opposition to broad swaths of scientific theory. For instance, no one is denying major theories such as the standard model of particle physics, the germ theory of disease, general relativity, lunar origins, continental drift or Mendelian genetics. Those who make war on science are opposed to some particular scientific finding rather than the scientific method or the entirety of science.
That’s because those are real, as proven by the use of said Scientific Method. Warmism isn’t. Hence, how the authors put it in political, consensus, and smear terms.
But, they are right: science will win out in the end. The Cult of Climastrology will be proven to be wrong. Because it isn’t about science, as Casadevall and Fang inadvertently state
On the other hand, the denial of climate science is centered on resistance to economic and lifestyle changes that would bring about major disruption to certain ways of life, as we switch away from carbon-based fuels. Similarly, resistance to forensic science reform is based on a reluctance to change prosecutorial practice.
I wonder if either of these doctors have given up their own use of fossil fuels and made their own lives carbon neutral, disrupting their own economic lifestyles? Do they require their patients and/or employees to only take sustainable means to their offices? How about requiring their buildings to only use non-fossil fuels energy? What’s that? There wouldn’t be power to do what they do? Huh.
It’s long been understood that methane is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long, but, it also doesn’t have the doubling effect like CO2, and again, it’s is anywhere from 25 to 45 times more potent (some even claim stronger). But, the Cult of Climastrology has mostly ignored it, because, first, what are you going to do, take food away from people?
Second, it requires a rational, thoughtful, scientific based solution to reduce, unlike with “carbon pollution”, which is a nebulous thing, leading to policies of taxation, fees, and more government control.
Third, it’s hard to have a discussion on methane when it devolves into cow farts. But, they are giving it a shot, starting with a study being pimped that states that the methane output from agriculture, mostly meaning cows, is 11 percent higher than previously thought. And then we get this
Grass-fed beef is bad for the planet and causes climate change
Prince Charles is wrong to support grass-fed beef. The idea that beef from cows raised on bucolic pastures is good for the environment, and that we can therefore eat as much meat as we want, doesn’t add up. New calculations suggest cattle pastures contribute to climate change.
“Sadly, though it would be nice if the pro-grazers were right, they aren’t,†says lead author Tara Garnett of the University of Oxford’s Food Climate Research Network. “The truth is, we cannot eat as much meat as we like and save the planet.â€
Many meat eaters have long felt guilty that the beef steaks they love are bringing environmental disaster.
Not me. How about you? If they feel so guilty, they should stop eating beef. And all meat, really. And this new report claims that cattle eating grass (what else are they supposed to eat?) is making things much worse. Which leads back to the 11% study
Garnett’s conclusion is supported by a study published on 29 September, which found that methane emissions from cattle are 11 per cent larger than older methods would suggest, and thus a bigger contributor to global warming (Carbon Balance and Management, doi.org/cdpz).
“We need to reduce emissions from livestock,†says Benton. “That needs to come from dietary change.â€
In other words, people need to stop eating so much meat. And, this being the Cult of Climastrology, they will certainly want a government solution, with a forced reduction in meat production. Because this is what they do.
What they mostly do not do is stop eating meat themselves. Go figure.
Democrats, as usual, took full advantage of the Las Vegas massacre to politicize their hatred of Other People owning guns. They say now is time for the debate. You know what? They’re right. Let’s have this debate, so we can see exactly what they will propose.
Late night shows, which are supposed to be funny, but gave that up long ago, were in high dudgeon. Jimmy Kimmel had a long diatribe, long on blamestorming, short on policy proposals. Stephen Colbert went with the same laundry list
He then highlighted a number of legislative options that have been proposed to combat gun violence, such as universal background checks, semi-automatic weapons bans, and mental illness screenings. “Doing nothing is cowardice — doing something will take courage,†Colbert stated.
Same old same old, with nothing showing what this will bring, other than gun confiscation and categorizing people as mentally ill when they aren’t.
James Cordon didn’t offer any more, just complaints. Seth Meyers made it purely political. Trevor Noah did the same. But, what of actual elected officials, who can, get this, submit legislation? Senator Kamala Harris goes political
My thoughts on the horrific shooting in Las Vegas. pic.twitter.com/52UN7mbMsh
— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) October 2, 2017
She has no policy proposals. The Washington Post gives a platform to Senator Chris Murphy, D-Ct
Mass shootings are an American problem. There’s an American solution.
On awful, gut-churning days such as Monday, I find it important to remind myself that mass shootings happen almost nowhere else but the United States. As we become normalized to the regular pace of massive, execution-style killings — Sandy Hook, Charleston, Orlando and now Las Vegas — it’s critical to understand that the Groundhog Day phenomenon of horrific mass shootings is exclusive to the United States. I find consolation in this fact, because if the problem is particularly American, then the solution can be, too.
If you’re thinking that this is going to be one long diatribe against the NRA, Republicans, and gun owning Americans, you’d be correct. Almost the entire thing is meant to bring emotion without really offering that “American solution”. Just this short part
First, contrary to the mythology spread by the gun lobby, there is not much real controversy around the first steps we should take to trim rates of gun crime. Large majorities of Americans support universal background checks, permit requirements for gun ownership and bans on the most dangerous kinds of weapons and ammunition. The gun lobby, and the loud vocal minority it echoes, make the issue seem like more of a hot button than it is.
Second, scores of research shows that these interventions work to a stunning degree. In my states of Connecticut, which has expanded background checks and requires issued handgun permits, gun crimes have dropped by 40 percent.
The Las Vegas shooter purchased multiple guns at gun stores and passed the federally required background checks. The rest? The 40% stat is bordering on a complete load of mule fritters. All it does is make it hard for law abiding citizens to arm themselves per their Constitutional Right to protect themselves. It doesn’t stop criminals from doing what criminals do.
That’s it from Chris, who, like Kamala, and so many other Democrats, forgets that he can submit legislation as an elected lawmaker.
The NY Times gives former Democratic representative Steve Israel a shot, and he makes complaints, rather than offer solutions. It’s the gun lobby this, Republicans that. The list of Democrats, both in and out of Congress, could go on and on and on, but it comes down to one thing: what policies do you recommend to reduce actual gun crimes? Put them up for a vote. Let’s see them. Because, so far, most of your recommendations only affect the law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves, not those who use weapons for crimes.
Why not crack down on criminals? How about this: if you use a gun in the commission of a crime, you get sent away for life to a prison built in the cold wilds of Alaska. No parole. Let’s crack down on the criminals. Remember, these same Democrats are against stop-and-frisk, which takes so many criminals, and even ones who have illegal guns, off the streets. Democrat ideas are to disarm the law abiding citizens.
Yet, interestingly, these same Democrats refuse to give up their own armed security. Weird, right?
Double interestingly, these same Democrats never connect the dots when it is Islamists perpetrating the attacks, ones which do not always use guns.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: In The Wake Of Las Vegas, Democrats Have Lots Of Ideas Or Something »
We have 58 dead and over 400 wounded. We do not know the why’s of the shooting. The bodies weren’t even at the morgue before the gun grabbers were pulling their normal schtick. You have insane people calling for automatic weapons to be banned (which they already are). And you can see more insanity covered at Twitchy, Hot Air, Daily Caller, and so forth, or just head to the crazy sources, like the Democratic Underground, view nutters on Twitter like Kamala Harris and Alyssa Milano, the Washington Post, and, hey, here’s Excitable Nicholas Kristoff
Preventing Mass Shootings Like the Vegas Strip Attack
After the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas, the impulse of politicians will be to lower flags, offer moments of silence, and lead a national mourning. Yet what we need most of all isn’t mourning, but action to lower the toll of guns in America.
We don’t need to simply acquiesce to this kind of slaughter. When Australia suffered a mass shooting in 1996, the country united behind tougher laws on firearms. As a result, the gun homicide rate was almost halved, and the gun suicide rate dropped by half, according to the Journal of Public Health Policy.
Funny how they keep telling us they do not want to confiscate guns then cite a situation where they confiscated most guns.
1. Impose universal background checks for anyone buying a gun. Four out of five Americans support this measure, to prevent criminals or terrorists from obtaining guns. (we pretty much have this, and criminals don’t generally purchase guns from a gun store)
2. Impose a minimum age limit of 21 on gun purchases. This is already the law for handgun purchases in many states, and it mirrors the law on buying alcohol. (which could violate the Constitution)
3. Enforce a ban on possession of guns by anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order. This is a moment when people are upset and prone to violence against their ex-es. (In principle I agree, however, this is removing a Citizen’s Constitutional Right prior to judgement)
More below the fold
…is an area flooding and turning to desert, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a post on leftist activists explaining leftist activism.
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.