RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.aol.com/news/californias-dead-burial-option-human-033705405.html

California will begin allowing an alternative burial method known as human composting in 2027, under a bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday.

Assembly Bill 351 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) will create a state regulatory process for natural organic reduction, a method in which human remains naturally decompose over a 30-to-45-day period after being placed in a steel vessel and buried in wood chips, alfalfa and other biodegradable materials. The nutrient-dense soil created by the process can then be returned to families or donated to conservation land.

Supporters say it’s an eco-friendly alternative to traditional end-of-life options. Cremation, for example, is an energy-intense process that produces carbon dioxide emissions, while traditional burial uses chemicals to embalm bodies and a nonbiodegradable coffin to store them.

California will join Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Vermont in allowing human composting.

“With climate change and sea-level rise as very real threats to our environment, this is an alternative method of final disposition that won’t contribute emissions into our atmosphere,” Garcia said in a statement.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/09/21/biden-student-loan-plan-backfire-most-call-it-a-political-move-and-unfair-ii-tipp-poll/

No doubt, President Joe Biden and his advisers believed student-loan forgiveness would be a big winner in the upcoming midterm elections. If so, it was a political miscalculation, with most Americans rejecting the idea as unfair and a political stunt, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.

Under Biden’s plan, unveiled in late August, he will cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for those who had have Pell Grants and up to $10,000 in debt for those earn less than $125,000 per year, $250,000 for married couples.

By a margin of 59% to 32%, Americans agreed that Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan “is unfair to those whose children are not in college or who have already paid for their kid’s education to have to pay for other people’s education.” Another 8% called themselves “unsure.”

Perhaps surprising is that the rejection of the idea is multi-partisan in nature. While Republicans, as might be expected, agreed that it is unfair at the highest rate (67%), Democrats (55%) and independents (56%) weren’t that far behind.

Among all respondents, only one group was below 50%: Those who self-identified as “liberals.” Just 42% of that group agreed student-loan forgiveness was unfair. Among “moderates,” the level of agreement was 60%; for “conservatives,” it was 72%, tied for the highest for any of the other major demographic and political groups that I&I/TIPP polls routinely measure.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-migrant-busing-to-climate-change-were-awash-in-fake-virtue-esg-carbon-capitalism-moral-imperative-

“American-led capitalism—unencumbered by the modern mandates of ESG, impact investing and the rest—has done an astonishing job of creating wealth for all, lifting more people out of poverty than any economic system ever devised. The morally righteous urge to rein it in has always led to greater poverty, and the current prevailing ideology will be no different.”

With the labor market tight, you would think that the transfer of buses and planes of migrants to Democratic strongholds would be considered an economic opportunity for struggling liberal plutocrats.

If you were a leading progressive warrior for diversity, equity and inclusion battling it out in the trenches of Martha’s Vineyard, wouldn’t you be delighted at the sudden arrival of a little extra (minimum-wage) help from down south to assist in the final push toward social justice?

What self-respecting ESG fund manager wouldn’t welcome some additional (low-cost) labor to lower the Pride flag over her perfectly whitewashed clapboard colonial every evening or iron her copy of the New York Times in the morning?

But the layers of hypocrisy in our immigration debate are so thick you could wear them to shield yourself from the stiff breeze that can ruin your T-shot to the short 16th at the Edgartown Golf Club.

The White House calls the transfers “shameful.” New York Mayor Eric Adams describes them as “horrific.” Leading Democrats condemn them as “literally human trafficking” and “crimes against humanity.”

Somehow the Biden administration’s own shipping of thousands of migrants to New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere isn’t judged by the same standards. Homeland Security Department officials reportedly dubbed the moves the “Abbott plan,” in jocular homage to the earlier transfers organized by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, whose actions progressives put on a moral par with those of the greatest despots in history.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/20/a-requiem-for-black-lives-matter/

Black Lives Matter has yet to receive a requiem, a summation in print. More than seven years into the globally unavoidable anti-police movement, there certainly exists a sizable BLM academic literature, dealing – as my political science colleague Bob Maranto has pointed out – with questions ranging from how the movement impacted on youth-voter turnout to the social impact of Ben & Jerry’s selling politically themed flavours of ice-cream.

However, almost no one has examined how well Black Lives Matter met its initial goals: reducing the police violence that was invariably presented as ‘epidemic’ or ‘genocidal’ and reducing crime more broadly, as brothers and others came to trust a fairer criminal justice system. For that matter, whatever happened to the literally billions of dollars donated, in good faith, to national and local BLM chapters?

This article takes a shot at those tough questions. In most cases, unfortunately, the blunt but real answer seems to be: Black Lives Matter had few, if any, positive impacts. Police violence is down slightly, if at all, while overall crime in BLM-affected areas has sky-rocketed back to 1990s levels. As Dr Maranto and I recently noted for Commentary magazine, rates of fatal shootings of civilians by US police – per an authoritative database from the Washington Post – appear to have hardly budged during the post-2014 BLM era. There were 994 fatal police shootings in toto in 2015, 958 in 2016, 981 in 2017, 993 in 2018, 999 in 2019, and 1,020 in 2020.

Not only was this change in rate clearly not significant in statistical terms, police shootings of citizens actually increased almost three per cent during the period under review. Fatal police shootings specifically of black Americans followed a very similar pattern year-on-year, with 258 black men and women shot in 2015, 236 shot in 2016, 222 in 2017, 228 in 2018, 251 in 2019, and 243 in 2020. The same was true for killings of unarmed persons: 95 ‘fatal shootings of an unarmed individual’ did take place in the outlier year of 2015, but we then saw 64 in 2016, 71 in 2017, 58 in 2018, 54 in 2019, and 60 in 2020 – a variance of less than seven per cent between the first typical year given here and the last.

https://www.commonsense.news/p/crime-is-a-construct-my-morning-with?utm_source=email

In the last couple of months in Park Slope—the baby bjorn-wearing capital of bourgeois-bohemian New York—a thief absconded with $200,000 worth of jewelry in a smash and grab, three boys stole a bunch of iPhones off of subway riders, a ticked off customer attacked the owner of a bike store, $6,000 was stolen from an auto shop, and a beloved pet was catnapped from a bodega on Seventh Avenue. 

But it was the death of a golden retriever mix named Moose that activated the residents of the South Brooklyn enclave. 

Early in the morning on August 3, Moose and his owner—Jessica Chrustic, 41—were out on a walk when a homeless man who lives in the park gave chase. He hit them both with a large stick and threw a container of urine on Moose, while muttering about immigrants taking over the park. The dog died a few days later from internal injuries, after two emergency surgeries. The man who killed him is still at large.

A few weeks later, on August 20, Kristian Nammack issued a call to action on Nextdoor, a social media site for local organizing: “Do we want to organize a community safety patrol, and take our park back? Think what the Guardian Angels did to take back the subways in the 70s/early 80s. We may also get to wear cool berets. I’m being serious.” 

Nammack, 59, had been part of the 2008 Occupy Wall Street protests, and his financial consultancy firm focuses on themes of “climate, renewable energy, gender lens, racial equity, economic advancement. “How about PARK SLOPE PANTHERS as a group name?” he suggested.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/09/19/justice-department-desperate-to-conceal-classified-records/

With one sentence, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon spoke for the majority of Americans who no longer have faith in the nation’s top law enforcement agency. “It is also true, of course, that even-handed procedure does not demand unquestioning trust in the determinations of the Department of Justice,” she wrote in her September 15 order denying the government’s request to prevent a third-party review of allegedly “classified” documents seized by the FBI during the raid of Mar-a-Lago last month.

At issue is the validity of claims made by prosecutors that roughly 100 records taken in the unprecedented pillage of a former president’s home on August 8 have classified markings and therefore do not belong to him. The kerfuffle began earlier this year when the Justice Department acted on a criminal referral by the national archivist, who accused Trump of unlawfully keeping classified material at his home. 

Although Trump’s representatives cooperated with investigators for months, Attorney General Merrick Garland nonetheless authorized the nine-hour raid conducted by at least a dozen FBI agents resulting in the seizure of more than 11,000 pieces of evidence, including personal items such as books, medical files, tax information, apparel, and passports.

And his office has been backpedaling ever since.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/administrative-bloat-and-bidens-college-loan-forgiveness/

In a nod to his progressive base and what seems to be a naked tactic to buy the votes of young, educated future Democrats, President Biden seems to have made good on at least one of his campaign promises.

In August, the White House announced a plan to eliminate for borrowers some of the “skyrocketing cumulative federal student loan debt—$1.6 trillion and rising for more than 45 million borrowers.”

“The Department of Education,” the statement read, “will provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients [usually awarded only to undergraduate students who display ‘exceptional financial need’] . . , and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients. Borrowers are eligible for this relief if their individual income is less than $125,000 ($250,000 for married couples).”

Criticism of the loan relief program was immediate and ubiquitous, the cost to American taxpayers being foremost among it. Experts estimated the final amounts to range between $360 billion and $427 billion; a forecast from the National Taxpayer Union Foundation (NTUF) also “calculate[d] that the average burden per taxpayer in the U.S. is $2,503.22, up from [its] earlier estimate of $2,085.59.”

Beyond the high projected cost to taxpayers, and even the ability of the President to unilaterally and legally forgive loans in the first place, is the issue of fairness. Why should taxpayers who may have never even attended college themselves be responsible for paying the indebtedness of someone who chose to go to college and signed a loan to make that possible?