…are super awesome trees being cut down for carbon heavy power and heating for Other People, and you don’t like it, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Joshuapundit, with a post on what we know about Obama’s AG pick, Loretta Lynch.
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in America. Birds are chirping, sun is shining, the battery in my car wisely died at a time I could easily replace it (last night near a Pep Boys). This pinup is by Joe Chido, with a wee bit of help. BTW, Joe is a fantastic graphic artist, but I rarely use his stuff because it doesn’t usually go with my themes. You can check out a bunch here.
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. 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
Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
Unsurprisingly, the “world’s largest solar plant” is struggling, so they want a bailout from US taxpayers to help repay the loan provided on the taxpayers back
(Fox News) After already receiving a controversial $1.6 billion construction loan from U.S. taxpayers, the wealthy investors of a California solar power plant now want a $539 million federal grant to pay off their federal loan.
“This is an attempt by very large cash generating companies that have billions on their balance sheet to get a federal bailout, i.e. a bailout from us – the taxpayer for their pet project,” said Reason Foundation VP of Research Julian Morris. “It’s actually rather obscene.”
The Ivanpah solar electric generating plant is owned by Google and renewable energy giant NRG, which are responsible for paying off their federal loan. If approved by the U.S. Treasury, the two corporations will not use their own money, but taxpayer cash to pay off 30 percent of the cost of their plant, but taxpayers will receive none of the millions in revenues the plant will generate over the next 30 years.
The loan itself was at a lower than market rate, and, apparently, Google and NRG have no cash themselves. Despite that almost $11 billion in net revenue Google generated in 2013.
But since [Ivanpah was unveiled in February] the plant has not lived up to its clean energy promise. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the plant produced only about a quarter of the power it’s supposed to, a disappointing 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity from January through August, not the million megawatt-hours it promised.
It’s failing to generate the promised power? Only 1/4 of what was promised? The hell you say! Here’s a good reminder of the way the different methods shake out
That’s from the Mad, Mad, Mad World Of Climatism, where we see the capacity being 16%, which is about normal. 50MW promised, 8 delivered, using 2 square miles for a power density of 4. Only wind is worse for density, though capacity tends to be better. And that’s what tends to happen with solar: big promises, low returns, when it comes to these giant plants. One day it will be ready for prime time. That day is not here. Yet.
A NRG spokesman blamed the weather, saying the sun didn’t shine as often as years of studies predicted. However by the four-year mark, NRG has “every confidence that the plant will function as anticipated for the life of the facility,”according to the company.
Um, Ok. You took $1.6 billion in taxpayer money and had a faulty study that resulted in losing three-fourths of your projected power generation? If “the weather” isn’t cooperating now, why would it cooperate in the future, when your studies were wrong? Could it be that the plant is just not capable of producing the power promised? Hey, maybe the spokesman thinks birds are weather
The problem is that birds see the mirrors as water. As they approach, the 800º F solar beams roast any bird that happens to fly by. A recent study released by the California Energy Commission conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity called Ivanpah a “mega-trap†that will kill up to 28,000 birds a year.
28K birds could block a lot of light, eh? Of course, Ivanpah disputes the numbers, much like they live in a fantasy land where the plant will suddenly start working and generating the promised power. It’s like watching one of those restaurant rescue shows where the owners and/or cooks say “hey, they love our food!” and the host says “who’s they? The restaurant is empty.”
I’ll say it one more time: if we’re going to use federal money for grants and loans, I’d like to see it go more towards R&D in order to make the alternatives, primarily wind and solar (we know hydro and geothermal actually work), worthwhile. And, focus more on small scale projects, like for homes and small buildings.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Failing Ivanpah Solar Plant Wants Federal Grant To Repay Federal Loan »
…is a beach that will be destroyed by hundreds of feet of sea rise, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, who wonders, seriously, if the man in the White House is mentally ill.
Read: If All You See… »
This might be the answer
(Daily Caller) In the fight of her political life, Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu took the gloves off on day 1 of the runoff election between her and Republican candidate Bill Cassidy. Fewer than 24 hours later, the attack Landrieu launched went horribly wrong.
The day after neither candidate reached the 50 percent plus 1 vote threshold, Sen. Landrieu held a press conference where she slammed her opponent as absent during the devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Standing in front of a VA Medical Center construction site, Landrieu called Cassidy “wishy-washy, unreliable, undependable, not sure who he is, not sure who he was and not sure who he wants to be.â€
Landrieu then proceeded to ask, “When this hospital needed a champion to build and rebuild, literally out of the rubble of Katrina and Rita, where was Sen. Landrieu? Standing here and fighting. Where was Bill?â€
She went whole hog on the message, even tweeting in Outrage. Of course, there was a bit of a problem. Classify wasn’t in politics at the time of Katrina. And, he responded thusly
The next day, Rep. Bill Cassidy told Louisianans where he was. At the time of Katrina and Rita, Cassidy was a medical doctor in Baton Rogue, he wrote on Twitter. Moreover, immediately after Katrina hit, Cassidy took the initiative in setting up a makeshift emergency hospital in an abandoned K-Mart to administer aid and care for victims.
Sadly, there are quite a few dumbasses in Louisiana who voted for Mary really lives in D. C., and will do so again during the runoff. She really stepped into the propeller blade on this one.
BTW, where was Mary? In Washington. And getting bitched out by Anderson Cooper.
The hell you say!
(Phys.org) Americans are undergoing a significant shift in thinking about climate change, but rising public awareness of a warming climate has not translated into action, according to new survey research.
In the recent 2014 Empire State Poll, 82 percent of New Yorkers say they believe climate change is happening. Downstate New Yorkers are even more convinced – 86 percent say climate change is real. However, less than 1 percent of the 800 New York state residents polled think climate change is the most important issue facing the state, and less than 20 percent would be willing to take political action.
With support from the Atkinson Center’s Rapid Response Fund, a multidisciplinary team of Cornell researchers set out to identify factors that may motivate Americans to mobilize for grassroots action on climate change. Mobilizing could include voting, serving on boards, contributing money, attending marches or demonstrations, and other forms of political participation and activism.
Huh. I thought this might be about Warmists actually taking actions within their own lives to significantly reduce their own “carbon footprints”. In fact, as you all read, this is about Warmists taking political action in an attempt to force Other People to practice what Warmists believe.
Wendy Wolford, the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future’s faculty director of economic development, said: “Many things we take for granted today – like women’s right to vote, diversity in the university and an eight-hour workday – were fought for by ordinary people in protests, demonstrations and social movements …. Over coming years, our group will be able to document not just why people would hypothetically organize, but why they actually did.”
So, again, what we see is that this is all about politics. Comparing a fake issue like climate change with universal suffrage is beyond stupid. Climate change is all about hardcore leftist politics.
Read: Surprise: Belief In Hotcoldwetdry Doesn’t Always Lead To Action »
They really are Very Concerned. SCOTUS Blog reported Friday
The Supreme Court, moving back into the abiding controversy over the Affordable Care Act, agreed early Friday afternoon to decide how far the federal government can extend its program of subsidies to buyers of health insurance. At issue is whether the program of tax credits applies only in the consumer marketplaces set up by sixteen states, and not at federally operated sites in thirty-four states.
Rather than waiting until Monday to announce its action, which would be the usual mode at this time in the Court year, the Justices released the order granting review of King v. Burwell not long after finishing their closed-door private Conference.
Hot Air takes a deep dive into the issue, well worth the read. The issue comes down to the way Democrats wrote Ocare, setting it up so that only those who obtain insurance through State run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. We could say “hey, read the bill next time,” but they intentionally set it up so that States would want to buy into Ocare, rather than having the federal government run their exchanges. The NY Times Editorial Board is appalled that the Supreme Court could decide that language has meaning
Will five Supreme Court justices eliminate essential health care subsidies for more than four million lower-income Americans, based on a contorted reading of four words?
It sounds inconceivable, but that would be the effect of a ruling in favor of the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. On Friday, the justices announced that they would hear that case, King v. Burwell, a dispute over the meaning of a single phrase — “established by the State†— in the 900-page health-care reform law.
Because one subsection of the law says these subsidies are available on an exchange “established by the State,†the plaintiffs claim there can be no subsidies for anyone living in the 36 states where the federal government established a health exchange after state officials did not.
The NY Times and Ocare supporters do not like that language is important. That said, it is not just one subsection, is a major component of How The Ocare Subsidies Work.
In cases where there is a dispute over statutory wording, a well-established legal principle requires courts to defer to a government agency’s reasonable interpretation of the language at issue. In fact, the plaintiffs concede that their strained reading of the law could render several other provisions nonsensical.
In other words, the NYTEB knows that Democrats really messed up in crafting the bill, one which the majority of the country is still against.
The Supreme Court itself has said repeatedly that when construing laws, “we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.â€
In fact, one of the key architects of the law, Jonathan Gruber, who was paid $400,000 to help, had this to say in 2012
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.
That was the intent. It was written that way on purpose. The Democrats could have rewritten it and passed legislation when it was pointed out while they still controlled both the House and Senate. They did not. So, if it’s a mistake, they sure didn’t think so back in 2010. Ezekiel Emanuel has also said the same thing about the intent. The intent was explicit and purposely put into the law as a way to coerce reluctant states into setting up exchanges to get at the federal goodies.
Read: NY Times Very Concerned Over SCOTUS Taking On Ocare Subsidies Case »
The midterm shellacking continues to roll on. Mostly it is delusional, but a few tidbits of reality leak through. Here’s one of them
Democrats Say Economic Message Was Lacking
For all the finger-pointing among Democrats over Tuesday’s election calamity, the White House, Congress and party establishment all share responsibility for weaknesses that the defeats laid bare, critics say, and should confront them as the 2016 contest takes shape.
The problems are fundamental, involving questions of where Democrats focus their party-building efforts, what voters they talk to, and most crucial, what they say to those voters. Missing this year, many Democrats say, was a broad economic message to enthuse supporters and convert some independents.
After that, the Times jumps into all sorts of other excuse making and blamestorming for many, many paragraphs
Even before Tuesday’s results were in, some Democrats were complaining that the party had failed to develop a national economic message and policy agenda that would appeal both to white men and to women and minorities, as well as counter the Republicans’ own lack of an affirmative policy platform. Many blamed Mr. Obama, yet the president was all but banned from the campaign trail given his unpopularity.
“Absent any clear or far-reaching national agenda and message to address people’s real economic concerns about jobs, wages and opportunity,†Mr. Teixeira and Mr. Halpin wrote late Thursday, “the Democrats essentially ceded control of the national campaign, opting to try their luck with a series of localized and targeted campaigns.â€
In other words, Democrats stressed abortion and the #WarOnWomen and other minor issues, while avoiding any sort of coherent message on the economy. The closest they came was pushing for a minimum wage raise to $10.10 an hour.
Another analysis released Friday, from Democracy Corps and the Voter Participation Center, which works to increase turnout among unmarried women — a quarter of the voting-age population — concluded that single women’s support fell short because they “did not hear issues important to them: an economic agenda for working women and men.â€
In comparison, Republicans talked about the dozens and dozens of economic bills sent from the House to the Senate, which were immediately tabled in committee without even a hearing. They talked about repealing and replacing Ocare, which has been a drag on the economy. Reducing the role of government within the economy (for the liberal impaired, it doesn’t meandoing away with the role, just reducing the size and scope). Balancing the budget. Stopping the flow of illegals, who tend to reduce overall pay. Stopping the threat against fossil fuels, which harms the economy. Reducing all the burdensome regulations that harm business. Having a proper tax policy. And many others. That’s what Thom Tillis did here in North Carolina, and what Republicans did in other states. Just because the message was lost in the liberal media outlets doesn’t mean that voters did not hear it.
What was the Democrat message? Let’s hit the DNC website, shall we? Um, let’s see, there is no agenda when you click on Issues>jobs and the economy. There are blog posts, the last of which was May 9, 2014. On green investment.
How about the DSCC? You’re taken right to a “Thank you” page, already asking to sign up so they can take back the Senate. With not skip button. Let’s try dscc.org again. And right back to the loser page. I think we can safely assume any issues were about #WarOnWomen, minimum wage, free money, and the other policies that avoid the overall economy.
BTW, have you noticed that, while the economy is still pretty crummy, the bleeding stopped when Republicans took over the House and stopped the Democrat agenda? Now that they control the House and Senate, we can finally see some progress, provided Mr. Obama cooperates with the will of the voters.
Over at the Washington Post, Republican Michael Gerson writes about the midterm shellscking, focusing on the harm Obama caused Dems. You’re welcome to read that, and within he has some interesting advice
To be a national party, Democrats need to contend for rural and small-town voters, for older voters, for working-class white voters, for white Catholics, even for suburban evangelicals. This requires not just a populist economic message (which is important) but the recognition of a set of values — a predisposition toward social order, family and faith — that is foreign to most liberal bloggers and Democratic strategists. In Colorado, for example, Democrats tried to apply a blue-state strategy — emphasizing abortion rights and the supposed Republican “war on women†— in a purple state. It backfired. (In contrast, Bill Ritter was elected governor of Colorado in 2006 as a pro-life Democrat.) In the Obama era, nearly every cultural signal sent by the national Democratic Party would be applauded in the faculty lounge.
Especially focusing on the first half, there is no way that Democrats would take that advice. The Oakland Raiders have a better chance of winning this year’s Super Bowl (they’re 0-8). Liberals despise the people mentioned. They tend to hate Southerners, rural folks, those in the Midwest, all of whom they sneeringly refer to as Flyover County. Hicks. Rubes. Rednecks. Neanderthals. You’ve heard this before, so I shan’t belittle the point, but they really do hate people who aren’t like themselves politically. Passionately. And certain groups like those mentioned. They are very intolerant people.
Which is interesting, considering how many liberals are escaping their Blue areas, which they have destroyed with their policies, and coming to Red areas.
Anyhow, more on the Democrat autopsy here. And here.
Read: Election Advice To Dems That They Will Never Ever Take »
Over at the Washington Post, Republican Michael Gerson writes about the midterm shellscking, focusing on the harm Obama caused Dems. You’re welcome to read that, and within he has some interesting advice
To be a national party, Democrats need to contend for rural and small-town voters, for older voters, for working-class white voters, for white Catholics, even for suburban evangelicals. This requires not just a populist economic message (which is important) but the recognition of a set of values — a predisposition toward social order, family and faith — that is foreign to most liberal bloggers and Democratic strategists. In Colorado, for example, Democrats tried to apply a blue-state strategy — emphasizing abortion rights and the supposed Republican “war on women†— in a purple state. It backfired. (In contrast, Bill Ritter was elected governor of Colorado in 2006 as a pro-life Democrat.) In the Obama era, nearly every cultural signal sent by the national Democratic Party would be applauded in the faculty lounge.
Especially focusing on the first half, there is no way that Democrats would take that advice. The Oakland Raiders have a better chance of winning this year’s Super Bowl (they’re 0-8). Liberals despise the people mentioned. They tend to hate Southerners, rural folks, those in the Midwest, all of whom they sneeringly refer to as Flyover County. Hicks. Rubes. Rednecks. Neanderthals. You’ve heard this before, so I shan’t belittle the point, but they really do hate people who aren’t like themselves politically. Passionately. And certain groups like those mentioned. They are very intolerant people.
Which is interesting, considering how many liberals are escaping their Blue areas, which they have destroyed with their policies, and coming to Red areas.
Anyhow, more on the Democrat autopsy here. And here.
Read: Election Advice To Dems That They Will Never Ever Take »
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.
