09-22-2018 12:30:33 PM -0700
09-21-2018 05:57:21 PM -0700
09-21-2018 04:06:11 PM -0700
09-20-2018 10:29:38 AM -0700
09-20-2018 08:44:42 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Live Blog

Here is your live blog for the day.

You may have read my article this week about France's state-owned AFP Canada fact-checking a piece a wrote about California's new water regulations. I laid out the reasons I believe Facebook incorrectly flagged the article.

AFP Canada finally responded to my request for an explanation this morning, and it did little nothing to ease my fears that the article was unfairly targeted:

The story was fact-checked because it was trending on Facebook in Canada.

The story was rated a mixture due to the following claim, which is made without evidence to support it: "California residents who opt for a shower will only be left with enough water to brush their teeth and perhaps flush the toilet a couple of times before they run afoul of the new state law." [Emphasis added]

If the sentence is corrected, the mixture rating will be removed

They're playing fast and loose with the truth here.

I wrote in my follow-up piece explaining that statement:

The analysis concluded that Americans on average use 80-100 gallons of water per day:

  • A bath uses around 36 gallons of water

  • A 10-minute shower uses 50 gallons

  • Washing clothes takes 25-40 gallons of water, depending on the machine's efficiency

  • Toilets normally use 1.6 gallons per flush (if you're using a low-flow model)

  • Shaving, brushing your teeth, and washing your face take a gallon each

That information came from the Alliance for Water Efficiency, a non-profit "dedicated to the efficient and sustainable use of water." I then did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and determined that if you shower, you'll only be left with FIVE GALLONS OF WATER FOR THE DAY. Yeah, maybe you could manage to do laundry with 5 gallons of water (you could take it outside and beat it with a stick, for example), but normal people using an automated washing machine won't be able to stay under Cali's 55-gallon limit.

So it appears the issue isn't that I didn't provide evidence. The issue is that they didn't LIKE the evidence I provided. It didn't fit their narrative that all is fine in the Golden State. Pay no attention to the draconian water limits.

I call BS on the fact-checkers — again. This is a huge Facebook fail.

Catholic bishop disagrees with USCCB on Janus v. AFSCME.

A spokesman for the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) lamented the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME as an anti-union ruling. This Illinois bishop eviscerated that argument, defending the Court's ruling.

Many unions use "agency fees" to promote abortion. Janus ruled that unions cannot force non-members to pay these fees against their will.

Well, that's awkward.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) isn't in Missouri, but her challenger wants to debate. She has nothing to worry about, right?

Few things I enjoy more than seeing Democrats get bitten in their you-know-whats by their identity politics:

WaPo:

The Democrats’ first mistake was to launch unprecedented filibusters against President George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees, starting with his 2001 nomination of Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, having produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Estrada was a supremely qualified nominee who had the support of a clear majority in the Senate. His confirmation should have been easy.

But Democrats killed his nomination. Why? According to internal strategy memos obtained by the Wall Street Journal, they blocked Estrada at the request of liberal interest groups who said Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” Democrats did not want Republicans to put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Instead, two years after his nomination, they made Estrada the first appeals court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered. It was an extraordinary breach of precedent.

Are we all clear? It is "historic" when the Democrats nominate someone who is a minority to a position for the first time but "dangerous" if the GOP does it.

Again, liberals are bigoted and only care about minorities who vote according to orders.

Excellent. I've really been hoping to increase the speed with which I can waste my time.