Electric Vehicles Are the Veggie Burger of Cars

EVs deserve the fate of plant-based burgers—available in certain high-income urban areas where issues like cost, range, and charging pose less of a barrier.

by David Debertin for American Greatness

Overcoming the impracticality of electric vehicles (EVs) appears to be as big a marketing challenge as convincing diners that plant-based burgers are tasty. Yet, those inspired by the “green” demonization of fossil fuels continue to try.

Detailing such efforts in Seattle was a recent Yale University-sourced episode of “Climate Connections” on NPR. Much of urban Seattle is old and congested. Apartments can be packed together without even offering off-street parking. Single-family homes built before the age of automobiles can lack driveways suitable for a charging station.

Therefore, a Seattle utility is proposing a pilot program to install 30 chargers on certain streets by apartment complexes and older homes to see whether the presence of a street charger encourages residents to purchase EVs. If so, the utility has volunteered to install more chargers.

A charger might work for one EV, but what if two people decide to buy EVs? What if I need the charger and my neighbor has plugged in his EV and gone to bed? What happens if the idea increases EV purchases and several owners need to connect at night for the morning commute? More chargers? Is the utility going to buy a charger for each resident? How will the electricity be billed? 

A limited-range, affordable EV, even one used only for commuting in, say,  urban Seattle, would probably need to be recharged every couple days. Is the public really going to accept the changes necessary to accommodate charging EVs in the manner the activists want just so we can reach a nebulous goal of “saving the planet from the horror of carbon dioxide”? 

A host of practical problems constrain the willingness of people to purchase EVs. Placing a charger on the street that adjoins an apartment complex is not going to resolve other challenges, such as cost and limited range.

EV adoption might follow a pattern similar to what happened with plant-based patties at Burger King. Initially, a group of enthusiastic customers chose the plant-based Whoppers over a meat version because cattle are a purported cause of climate change and eating meat is said to be “unhealthy.” Another group of customers thought it was interesting to see if a veggie burger tasted like real beef. Soon, however, demand for the plant-based version fell off drastically. McDonald’s has also experimented with a plant-based burger at some locations but recently abandoned that effort for lack of customer interest.

Some of the automakers already seem to recognize that such issues as charging, driving range, and price limit the appeal of EVs to a small fraction of consumers.

The “solution,” of course, is to force the public to buy EVs by prohibiting the sale of other vehicles by a certain date, say, 2035. This has been the strategy of the governors of California and Washington in the hope that other states will follow. A politician who says that only EVs can be sold after a certain date, however, will quickly find himself out of step with much of the public because of unanswered questions of convenience and family budgets.

I am not exactly sure how Governors Jay Inslee and Gavin Newsom can pretend their directives are suddenly state laws without specific legislative authority added to it as they approach the 2035 target. What happens in the meantime if a technology far better than troublesome EVs comes along? Do the governors’ orders mean that the two states cannot have dealers that sell any other technology on that date, regardless of what is happening in the auto industry and in the rest of the United States?

Tying the future of California and Washington to a single idea currently popular with EV activists is simply nonsense designed to appeal to special interests and unrelated to realities of technological development.

EVs deserve the fate of plant-based burgers—available in certain high-income urban areas where issues like cost, range, and charging pose less of a barrier. Or where practicality and palatability take a back seat to green-virtue signaling. For most areas, however, petroleum-fueled vehicles, along with beefy Whoppers, will dominate the market. 

X22, On the Fringe, and more- Sept 17

 

Tuesday is a big day. Why? Because that's the day I CAN FINALLY QUIT HEARING AND SEEING ALL THE FUCKING PROMOTION FOR THAT BEYOND PATHETIC AND GAY NCIS CROSSOVER WITH THAT FAKE NCIS CRAP SHOW SET IN HAWAII!!!!! 🥳🥳

SERIOUSLY, I'VE HATED ALL THE DAMN PROMOTION IT'S GOTTEN!!!! All the stinking BTS pics, all the interviews, all the fucking chatter in the #ncis tag on Twitter (it's beyond obvious that the puke worthy part of the whole thing will be talked about the most. 🙄🙄🙄), and let's not even get started on the fact that it got 3 fucking trailers!!! And 1 of them is from a Canadian station!!! Meanwhile, there's 1 NCIS show that hasn't even gotten a stinking trailer yet, AND hasn't fully confirmed yet as to if the person who has held that show together since day 1 will even be in it. 😡😡.

That forced crossover didn't deserve all this fucking promotion. Especially when there's fans who will only be watching the 1st part because we could fucking care less about the puke worthy 2nd part of it that only the mental freaks will love.

With all this out of my system, enjoy tonight's big rally in my home state tonight!

Federalism in Name Only Undermines Liberty at Home and Peace Abroad

The states must be restored to their 

proper place in the federal system.

Recently, Dan Gelernter offered readers an updated diagram of the three branches of government:

This is his snapshot of the national government we now have: one that regulates every aspect of our lives, drags us into fruitless wars, and has replaced the federal government conceived and built by the founders.

How did America lose its way so badly? That is a story with many chapters of course, but the turning point was 1913. 

The original federal government explicitly had limited powers. Here is James Madison in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce . . .

The federal government was to address “external objects” such as “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” John Jay, who would become the first chief justice of the United States, argued the individual states needed a United States to be able to build and maintain a navy capable of defending American shipping and protecting Americans from being taken into slavery by the jihadis then known as the Barbary pirates. That successful war by the new United States is how “the shores of Tripoli” got into the Marines’ Hymn.

The Constitution assigned the federal government “few and defined” powers because of its limited purpose. Its primary focus was to be those external matters better dealt with by a single governmental entity instead of leaving each state to fend for itself among the nations of the world. 

Under the Constitution, the states retained all their powers except for those specifically delegated to the federal government. Madison continues:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

But today the central government rides roughshod over the states and regulates the lives of every American citizen to an extent that would have horrified the founders. The Supreme Court offered a glimpse of a healthy federalism in its recent Dobbs decision, but Dobbs pales into insignificance in the shadow of the vast and utterly unconstitutional monstrosity that stretches from the FDA and the Federal Reserve to the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Education. When we had a real federal government, it was part of a federal system. In the absence of that system, the government in Washington, D.C. is “federal” in name only. 

The important point here is that the political independence of the states in the older, actual federal system was the mainstay of American liberty. Lord Acton, the great historian of liberty, put it this way:

Federalism: It is coordination instead of subordination; association instead of hierarchical order; independent forces curbing each other; balance, therefore, liberty.

Jefferson spoke for the founders’ commonsense understanding of the effect of concentrating powers into one body: 

What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.

Today, the central government in Washington, D.C. can regulate every aspect of our lives because along the way the states were neutered and federalism was abandoned.

When exactly did America abandon federalism, and how were the states neutered? We can date the turn with startling precision. The United States abandoned federalism on April 8, 1913, the day the 17th Amendment was ratified. It provided for the popular election of senators by the people of the individual states, the system we have now. Up until that day, the two senators from each state were chosen by the state legislatures. Consequently, before April 8, 1913, because the legislatures of “the several States” controlled the Senate, they had some control over the federal government. The founders’ purpose in having the Senate constituted by the state legislatures was to guarantee the federal system. 

The 10th Amendment, the final of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, made explicit the central tenet of the federal system:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively . . .

The founders’ design for the election of senators gave the states the political power to maintain the federal system. The original Senate could prevent the federal government from usurping powers reserved to the states. Once senators no longer had to answer to their state legislatures, the governments of “the several States” were essentially shoved aside. Federalism was finished. As Acton and the founders would have predicted, the central government began to transform itself into the thing it is today and American liberty went into rapid decline.

By ratifying the 17th Amendment, Americans in effect repealed the 10th Amendment, though they mostly did not realize that was what they were doing. Progressives cleverly sold the 17th Amendment as “electoral reform.” 

Everything changed in 1913, at home and abroad. Woodrow Wilson took office that year, and he and his fellow Progressives got busy laying the foundations of the new Progressive State of America, which replaced the United States of America. They also abandoned the founders’ commonsense foreign policy, which is easy to summarize: We mind our own business and leave other peoples to mind theirs. The story of how the Progressives replaced the founders’ prudent foreign policy with their ruinous worldview is brilliantly told in  Angelo Codevilla’s magnificent book America’s Rise and Fall Among Nations. When America was the common sense nation, as it was once known, it naturally had a common sense foreign policy. The Progressives instituted a very different foreign policy, the results of which we can see all around us.

The states must be restored to their proper place in the federal system if we are to live again in the liberty at home and the peace abroad that the founders intended for us. Much will be required of us to accomplish that noble purpose. Not the least of our tasks will be the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Repealing that amendment, of course, will not be enough. What is required of us as a nation is re-dedicating ourselves to the American idea. Then all can be accomplished. We can restore the states to their rightful place in the American system of liberty, and reclaim American liberty for ourselves. 

Trump Scores Two Huge Victories In Fight For Special Master

Trump’s win shouldn’t be a loss for the Department of Justice—unless the Biden administration played fast and loose with the facts. 

by Margot Cleveland for The Federalist

The Biden administration cannot use the documents the FBI seized from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home for criminal investigative purposes until a special master completes an independent review of the material, a federal judge held on Thursday.

That decision and the court’s selection of Trump’s preferred special master candidate, coupled with the fulsome review process adopted yesterday by presiding Judge Aileen Cannon, represent a huge victory for the former president. But Trump’s win shouldn’t be a loss for the Department of Justice—unless the Biden administration played fast and loose with the facts and seeks to hide the truth from the country to launch an October surprise.

During the August 8, 2022, Mar-a-Lago raid, the FBI seized more than 11,000 documents, as well as clothing and other items from the Trumps’ home. On September 5, 2022, Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, granted the former president’s request for the appointment of a special master to review the seized property. That order left open several issues, however, including the identity of the special master and the process and timing for the review.

Pending the special master’s review of the seized material, Judge Cannon also entered an injunction prohibiting the government from using the documents “for criminal investigative purposes. Three days later, the DOJ filed a notice of appeal, announcing its intent to ask the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Cannon’s injunction.

The DOJ simultaneously filed a partial motion to stay with the trial court, asking Cannon to put on hold her ruling as to the documents marked classified. Specifically, the DOJ asked the court to hold that while its appeal proceeds, it need not provide documents marked as classified to the special master for review. The DOJ also asked the court to allow it to use the documents marked classified as part of its criminal investigation during the pendency of the appeal.

Judge Cannon denied the government’s request for a stay late Thursday. In a ten-page order, she explained her reasoning, noting first that in seeking a stay related to the documents marked classified, the DOJ effectively asks the court to accept at face value the government’s representations that “all of the approximately 100 documents isolated by the Government (and ‘papers physically attached to them’) are classified government records.” The court was unwilling to accept the government’s representation “without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion.”

In rejecting the DOJ’s motion, Cannon further noted she was “not persuaded that the Government will suffer an irreparable injury without the requested stay.” Here, the court noted that while the DOJ framed its request as necessitated by urgent national security needs, the government has not identified any “emergency” or any likely “imminent disclosure of classified information arising from Plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful retention of the seized property.” On the contrary, the only disclosures seen to date, Cannon stressed, were the “unfortunate” “leaks to the media after the underlying seizure.”

The court further found a stay unnecessary because the special master will be directed to prioritize the review of the approximately 100 documents marked as classified, which Judge Cannon did in a second order entered yesterday.

Cannon’s second order appointed Judge Raymond J. Dearie to serve as special master and established his responsibilities and other logistical duties. Trump proffered Dearie, a semi-retired senior judge for the Eastern District of New York, as one of two recommended candidates. Dearie’s recommendation raised some eyebrows given that Dearie, who had served for seven years on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or “FISA” court, had signed the fourth faulty Carter Page surveillance order that allowed federal intelligence agencies to spy on Trump’s administration and campaign.

While the DOJ objected to the other candidate proposed by Trump, the government agreed that Dearie would be acceptable. In accepting the special master assignment, Dearie, a Reagan appointee, signed a declaration attesting that he had no known conflicts of interest.

Wait, There’s More

The court’s selection of one of Trump’s preferred candidates to serve as special master represents but a sliver of Judge Cannon’s Thursday order, with the remainder of the detailed order providing several additional positives for Trump.

First, Cannon directed Dearie to “review all of the materials” seized during the Mar-a-Lago raid, something the DOJ desperately wanted to avoid, especially for the documents it segregated as marked classified.

Second, Dearie must verify that the property listed in the “Detailed Property Inventory” “represents the full and accurate extent of the property seized.” Here Cannon suggests that Dearie may consider obtaining sworn affidavits from individuals involved in the raid. While not a failsafe, the sworn affidavits will lessen the chance that agents omitted (or added) items from the property inventory list.

Judge Cannon also directed the special master to review the documents for privilege, including for formal assertions of “executive privilege.” This represents another victory for Trump because the DOJ has been adamant that Trump has no right to assert “executive privilege.” But without knowing what documents the DOJ has, Trump lacks the ability to develop an argument that he retains some vestiges of executive privilege.

Knowing what documents the DOJ has, in fact, proves the biggest victory for Trump from yesterday’s order. Cannon ensured that Trump’s legal team can learn the specifics of what was seized, with, most significantly, the court ordering the DOJ to make any documents with classification markings to be made available “for inspection by Plaintiff’s counsel, with controlled access conditions (including necessary clearance requirements) and under the supervision of the Special Master.” The government must also provide copies of all other documents to Trump’s lawyers and for nondocumentary items, the DOJ must make them available to Trump’s attorneys for inspection.

Not only will Trump’s attorneys be entitled to review the totality of the material, then, but Judge Cannon’s order also directs the lawyers to provide their position on which of four categories each item seized falls into: 1) personal items and documents not claimed to be privileged; 2) personal documents claimed to be privileged; 3) presidential records claimed to be privileged; and 4) presidential records not claimed to be privileged. Then the special master will make recommendations on areas of disagreement for Judge Cannon to decide.

The court also directed the special master and the parties to prioritize the documents marked classified—the point Judge Cannon noted further justified her denial of the DOJ’s motion to stay. The entirety of the review must be completed by November 30, 2022, according to Judge Cannon’s order.

While Dearie could complete his review before November 30, 2022, that hard deadline suggests the court is cognizant of the possibility the DOJ intends to use the raid of Trump’s home and future developments in their criminal investigation as an October surprise. Putting the deadline for the special master’s review of the documents after the midterm elections lessens the chance that the Biden administration can use its investigation of Trump to interfere in the elections.

Letting Trump Know What They Took

Allowing Trump’s attorneys to review the materials seized also serves as a check on the politicization seen by the leaks. Now, if leakers wrongly spin the material seized as heavily classified documents related to nuclear secrets, Trump’s legal team will have the knowledge necessary to push back against the narrative. That alone is well worth the cost of admission, as Trump must fund the entirety of the special master work, per yesterday’s court order.

The Biden administration does not want Trump to know what the FBI seized, especially if what his lawyers discover is that all the documents marked classified were previously declassified, just as Trump has maintained. And the government has already promised to seek a stay from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to halt the special master’s review of the documents marked classified.

But given the speed with which the process can progress now, the DOJ’s effort to obtain a stay based on a supposed national security emergency proves unpersuasive. How the Eleventh Circuit will rule on both the motion to stay and the underlying appeal remains to be seen, but what is obvious to anyone looking is that the Biden administration does not want anyone to know what is in the documents. And that suggests a further setup for Trump.

Gavin Newsom Makes a Laughably Desperate Demand of Ron DeSantis

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

I’m not sure there’s a worse governor in the country than Gov. Gavin Newsom of California. Given that several of our editors and contributors reside in his state and are fighting the good fight, RedState has always been on the cutting edge of news from the state.

For his part, Newsom has been doing his level best to make sure he remains in the spotlight. With so much going wrong under his tenure, that’s meant lashing out at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Newsom has previously accused DeSantis of being a “bully” for disallowing teachers to talk about sex with kindergarteners. He also ran an ad campaign in Florida touting ultra-regulated California as the real place of “freedom.”

(related DeSantis Lands a Solid Jabs on Biden, ‘Hair Gel’ Newsom Over Migrant Bussing ‘Investigation’)

It’s been a joke, and Newsom continued delivering one-liners on Friday when he challenged DeSantis to a debate regarding the Florida governor’s recent move to send illegal aliens to Martha’s Vineyard.

There are so many things about Newsom’s demand that are incredible that it’s hard to know where to start.

First, can we talk about the fact that Newsom is challenging a governor 2000+ miles away to a debate when “hair gel” himself had to be shamed by the press to finally agree to a debate in his current gubernatorial race? Maybe guys who are terrified to answer questions in their own backyard shouldn’t be demanding things of people a five-hour plane ride away. Just a thought.

Then there’s the fact that he’s quoting Dan Rather and suggesting the debate take place on CNN. Does that sound like a neutral venue to you? As I’ve said many times, any Republican who chooses to go on that network deserves what they get. DeSantis is way too smart to fall into that trap. Would Newsom appear at a debate hosted by Fox News? There’s zero chance of that, and it makes him look silly when he tries to act all tough by demanding a debate on…CNN. If you’re gonna pretend to be a player, don’t ask DeSantis to meet you on your home turf.

Lastly, there’s the fact that Newsom just looks pathetic continuing to go after DeSantis when the Florida governor is so busy winning on the issues. Newsom is the little dog nipping at the big dog’s heels, and that comes across clearly.

Here’s the thing to know. Newsom is desperate. He’s desperate to turn the topic away from his myriad of failures in his state, and he’s desperate for attention in order to turn himself into a viable 2024 candidate. Meanwhile, DeSantis is cool and collected, constantly setting the pace and the narrative. If you’re reacting, you’re losing, and Newsom is constantly reacting.

DeSantis should laugh at this stupid ploy and keep doing what he’s doing. Newsom may want the cameras, but DeSantis wants the wins, and he’s way too busy delivering them to waste time on a clownish governor from California with delusions of grandeur.

Democrats Wail After LA County Supervisor Raid, Irony Dies in the Process

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

On Wednesday, Jennifer Van Laar dropped a report on a Sheriff’s raid of the home of LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. Kuehl previously made national headlines for calling those opposed to mask mandates, “snowflakes.”

The county supervisor also happens to be caught up in a corruption scandal involving the directing of a large sum of money to an organization run by her friend for a little-used LA Metro sexual harassment hotline. But while you’d think Democrats are all on board with dawn raids given their more recent reactions to the FBI using such tactics, you’ll be shocked to learn they are really upset by this.

LA politicians lined up to condemn the raid, and irony died in the process.

These are the same people from the same party that pumped their fists at the raid of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. They loved the pre-dawn raids of Trump associates, with them being marched out in handcuffs in their underwear. They said that no one should question the actions of law enforcement and that information about searches should be kept secret. Yet, the moment that law enforcement stops being used for their political purposes and starts actually investigating legitimate corruption, the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins.

The mention of the warrant having “no information in it at all” is especially rich. Well, what did they expect? Warrants rarely lay out more than the basic right to search and what’s seizable. Did she think there’d be a dissertation on it?

Kuehl served on the board of directors for the LA Metro. She personally helped steer nearly $1,000,000 to a close friend’s non-profit for a service that is largely unnecessary. Who needs a million bucks to answer a few phone calls a day? It’s so obvious what happened here, and prosecutors should be looking deeply into the details for possible criminal activity. That some LA politicians are upset by this is a good thing. It just means the Sheriff is over the target.

Personally, even though I don’t think this investigation of Kuehl is political, I love the implications of it. Make Democrats play by their own rules. Make them deal with raids if they break the law. Show them there isn’t a two-tiered justice system that will always protect them. It’s the only way to bring some semblance of credibility and sanity back to the current situation.

Ukraine war: Biden warns Putin not to use tactical nuclear weapons

 

US President Joe Biden has warned Russia not to use chemical or tactical nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine.

Speaking during an interview with CBS News, Mr Biden said such action would "change the face of war unlike anything since World War Two".

He would not say what response the US would make to the use of such weapons.

Russian President Vladimir Putin put the country's nuclear forces on "special" alert following its invasion of Ukraine in February.

He told defence chiefs it was because of "aggressive statements" by the West.

Nuclear weapons have existed for almost 80 years and many countries see them as a deterrent that continues to guarantee their national security.

Russia is estimated to have around 5,977 nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

It, however, remains unlikely that it intends to use such weapons.

Tactical nuclear weapons are those which can be used at relatively short distances, as opposed to "strategic" nuclear weapons which can be launched over much longer distances and raise the spectre of all-out nuclear war.  

In an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley in the White House, President Biden was asked what he would say to President Putin if he was considering using weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine.

"Don't, don't, don't," was President Biden's response.

Mr Biden was then asked what the consequences would be for Mr Putin if such a line was crossed.

"You think I would tell you if I knew exactly what it would be? Of course, I'm not gonna tell you. It'll be consequential," Mr Biden responded.

"They'll become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been. And depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response would occur."

The war in Ukraine has not gone as well as the Kremlin had hoped.

In recent days, Ukraine says it has recaptured more than 8,000 sq km (3,088 sq miles) of territory in the north-eastern Kharkiv region.

Despite the apparent setback, President Putin has insisted that Ukraine's successful counter-offensive will not stop Russia's plans of continuing its operations in the east of the country.   

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62936643?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_campaign=64&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_medium=custom7&at_custom4=E7F50AC6-369A-11ED-B933-D572FC756850&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom2=twitter

Democrat-Run Cities: 'Let's House the Homeless in Hotels Right Next to Paying Guests - What Could Possibly Go Wrong?'

Jim Thompson reporting for RedState 

My wife and I often travel to Washington state and we used to stop for the night in a small town called Klamath Falls, Oregon. My wife had booked a room online at the same hotel we had used the year before. We pulled up, checked in, and drove to the room. We “stayed” about three minutes. The hotel was a homeless haven. The door of the room we had booked, was open. A man was about 10 feet from our room sitting on the ground smoking. “We’re not staying.” I turned the car around and my wife told the clerk that we were leaving and to credit our payment. The clerk understood.

Using hotels to room “homeless” is one of the worst of bad ideas. Don’t take my word for it – hotel owners across America have seen their properties vandalized destroyed, gutted, or burned to the ground by “homeless” occupants.

Last month, LA City council members wanted to force hotels to house the homeless alongside paying guests. The proposed ordinance would have required hotels to report open rooms by 2 PM which would have allowed the city to hand “vouchers” to homeless addicts and mentally ill people. In theory, and by example, the Ritz Carlton would be forced to give open rooms to a homeless addict with a hotplate, right next to a couple paying $300 a night. The ordinance was voted down. One of the few sane council members, Joe Buscaino, called the measure the “dumbest” he had ever seen. Hotel owners and tourism lobbyists convinced enough council members to agree and vote it down.

During the pandemic, LA City decided to house the homeless at hotels. It was a disaster. One hotel owner described what happened: Rampant drug use and constant fights. Small fires eventually led to bigger fires. Thus, it was tried during the pandemic with awful results. So when you have an abject failure on your hands, what do you do? You double down. After the ordinance was voted down, the council voted to put the measure on the ballot for 2024.

The ballot measure reads:

“The Los Angeles Responsible Hotel Ordinance will help ensure that new hotels do not contribute to the City’s lack of affordable housing, burden the City’s social services, or result in undue transportation and traffic impacts. New and already existing hotels will be required to adhere to responsible business practices, including making guest rooms available to unhoused Angelenos on a non-discriminatory basis, and be subject to City oversight.”

I’m guessing, but if the nuts in LA City vote for this, I think the main oversight will be firefighters on ladders dowsing flames. If the measure passes in 2024, LA hotels might be a mass of smoldering wreckage just in time for the 2028 Olympics.

It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in social science to see that housing the homeless in hotels right next to paying customers is a terrible idea. Some think that hotels will use this to “get rich.” That, I think, is an absurd suggestion.

If hotels are burned to the ground by the homeless or constantly wrecked and vandalized what insurer would be dumb enough to insure them? Are hotel owners dumb enough to take short-term money and risk long-term disasters? I don’t think so.

Well, gosh, why not just convert small hotels into homeless “homes”? Yeah, that doesn’t work. In 2021, in Fresno, a homeless person burned down his (or her) hotel room. It was repeated at a different location in 2022, where a homeless occupant burned up a motel. It has been repeated in San Francisco, Seattle, San Jose, and many many more cities. I stopped looking for examples to keep this article shorter than Melville’s “Moby Dick.”

Austin, the most liberal city in Texas, decided the best way to deal with homelessness was to buy a hotel for nine million dollars and house the homeless. Great idea, right? It didn’t turn out quite the way Austin liberals envisioned. It was wrecked from top to bottom.

“This damage spans all three floors of the building and nearly every room,” Kelly said Thursday. “Nearly every door is bashed in. Clothing, belongings, and trash were strewn throughout the property and several televisions were ripped from the drywall and stolen. The entire hotel was stripped of copper. Washers, dryers, air conditioning systems and electrical wiring were destroyed.”

The good news for Austin? Its hotel wasn’t burned to the ground — likely because there was nothing left to burn. So, Austin can still house its homeless at its nine-million-dollar debacle. It still has a roof – I think.

The Great Economic Pretending Yet Again Meets Main Street Reality

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

The great economic pretending is predicated on denying that major western economies are shrinking because political leaders are collectively destroying cheap and reliable energy production (oil, coal, gas), while simultaneously chasing expensive and [un]sustainable energy development (wind, solar).

The Build Back Better / Green New Deal climate change agenda is destroying every economy based on ‘collectively agreed‘ energy policy.  Energy driven supply side inflation is crushing consumers in every western economy.  Sales and purchases of goods have stopped.  Affording food, fuel and housing is the focus of billions. Yet, denial is everywhere.

It was not that long ago, June 23rd to be precise, when Fedex gave a forward-looking forecast based on existing operational results.  In late June Fedex anticipated a generally stable continuation of business operations.  Here we are, three months later and Fedex business collapsed in the last quarter.  CEO Raj Subramaniam says shipping demand unexpectedly plummeted.  The great economic pretending meets reality.

Keep in mind, about six weeks ago Maersk, the international shipping company that delivers millions of containers of goods all around the world, mostly by ship, said they saw demand and orders plummeting as shipping warehouses were full of unsold goods {link, Aug 3rd}.

[The Fedex Collapse] – […] The company scrapped its forecast for its earnings in its current fiscal year that it had issued less than three months ago. For the three months ended Aug. 31, FedEx now projects adjusted earnings per share of $3.44 and $23.2 billion in revenue. That’s below analysts’ consensus forecast of $5.14 adjusted earnings per share and $23.6 billion in revenue, according to FactSet. (more)

The company is also revising its 2023 financial outlook and said it expects conditions to worsen further in its second quarter. Economists have sparred for months over whether or not the US is heading into a recession. (more)

The Great Pretending Continues….