Support Groups Help Climate Cultists Deal With Their Grief Or Something

By William Teach August 30, 2019 – 7:12 am

There are all sorts of support groups out there. AA helps folks with their drinking problems. You have ones for drug use. Ones for folks who have been in combat. These are real things, as opposed to worrying about minor changes to the climate which have happened many times in the past. And now this nuttiness is starting to reach mainstream outlets

From the article

As the planet continues to deal with the effects of climate change, the American Psychological Association says more people are dealing with eco-anxiety, “a chronic fear of environmental doom.” Two women, Aimee Lewis Reau and Laura Schmidt, have created a ten-step program to help people cope with the psychological fallout associated with climate change. They joined CBSN to discuss the issue and talk about the group they co-founded, The Good Grief Network.

“Climate change is here. It’s happening. It’s impacting our lives. We have to build personal resilience, be empowered, make changes and then steady ourselves for the future,” Schmidt told CBSN.

Schmidt, co-founder and executive director of the Network, explained that as an environmental studies major she was disturbed by the reality of climate change and by the government’s response to it.

“I saw that no government was taking it seriously enough and that caused me a lot of eco-grief and climate anxiety,” she said.  “And so what we did is designed a program that can help other people move from that place of despair and disempowerment to building community. Really feeling the weight of the world, but in a good way, in an empowering way, that allows us to make change once we come together and see we’re not the only ones feeling this deep despair.”

So, it doesn’t really help people move on from feelings of doom, nope, it just attempts to redirect those feelings into being nutty activists who go to climate marches (and leave all sorts of trash). It doesn’t sound very healthy from a mental standpoint. It appears as if this all just reinforces those feelings of doom.

The stressful feelings that parents face surrounding climate change is exactly the type of stress APA associates with eco-anxiety. The research concludes “watching the slow and seemingly irrevocable impacts of climate change unfold, and worrying about the future for oneself, children, and later generations, may be an additional source of stress.”

You really need to take a few and watch the video at the link. It is hilarious in their crazy.

Schmidt said The Good Grief Network follows a system with a ritual and a step-by-step process to treat the affliction, similar to Alcoholics Anonymous.

AA’s is not nutty. They also do not charge you a minimum of $20 to download their e-manual. Or recommend your “donation” be $100.

Read: Support Groups Help Climate Cultists Deal With Their Grief Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on Support Groups Help Climate Cultists Deal With Their Grief Or Something | Trackback URL

Hot Take: Popeye’s New Chicken Sandwich Would Be Better Under Socialism

By William Teach August 30, 2019 – 6:59 am

I have not had a chance to try the new Popeye’s sandwich yet, even though one of the few in the Raleigh area is just around the corner, about 6 minutes away. I actually prefer going there over Bojangles, which may seem to be heresy here in the South. I like everything more than Bojangles, except for the dirty rice and tea. Can’t beat those. Plus, they do not have breakfast all day. Or at all. Regardless, John Sexton notices something

Perhaps you’ve heard by now that Popeyes’ new chicken sandwich is all the rage and is creating long lines around the country. This week, socialist magazine Jacobin published a piece arguing that as good as the new chicken sandwich is, it would be even better under socialism.

Vice says that Popeyes’ new chef-d’oeuvre “ascends into a new level of gastronomic achievement that is both a culinary and scientific feat.” The Los Angeles Times claims the fast food delicacy now serves as an “economic indicator” of the country’s fiscal health. The New Yorker suggests the sandwich could “save America.”…

Yet in the face of all this excitement stands a brutal reality: the profiteers of the Popeyes chicken sandwich craze are the bosses, while the workers bear the brunt. With orders exploding at locations nationwide, Popeyes’ employees are working harder under more grueling conditions and few benefits while corporate shareholders bask Scrooge McDuck–style in their riches…

One immediate way to curb this racket would be to increase the minimum wage to $20 an hour. With a full 20 percent of frontline fast food workers living below the poverty line, and many relying on food stamps and other benefits just to survive, raising the wage floor would deliver desperately needed relief to countless workers. While the company’s CEO Cheryl Bachelder recently defended its low wages on Fox Business by claiming the priority is to “grow top-line sales” and that an increase in employee pay would “raise prices for guests and lower hours for employees,” we know Popeyes won’t simply pass on the profit surge to its workers — the company will simply hoard that new wealth for executives like Bachelder.

This sandwich may have been created under capitalism — but under socialism, who knows where the frontiers of snack creation may lie?

The $20 an hour minimum wage is the updated version of the $15 an hour minimum wage which many progressives have championed. There are several problems with this plan of course, starting with the fact that CEO Bachelder is right about what raising wages to that level would do to prices.

Not quite sure what is grueling about working in the stores. My local one looks pretty darn clean, and it is always a pleasant experience. Under socialism, we don’t get the sandwich, because it would be too expensive, and only the hoi-palloi will be able to afford it. Plus, it wouldn’t have been developed, since why have something that most people can’t afford to purchase as such? And, under the Modern Socialist plans, the number of chickens available to become delicious sandwiches would be drastically reduced under their ‘climate change’ plans.

And, notice that we’re now up to $20 an hour for the minimum wage. As Sexton points out “Suddenly, instead of sharing the chicken sandwich wealth, managers are thinking about who they can lay off.” That might be generous. Managers would be thinking more of being able to find a new job, because the store would be soon closing permanently, since no one would be willing to pay $7 or more for the sandwich, which, let’s be honest, wouldn’t have been developed in the first place. What, exactly, other than misery, has been developed under Socialism?

Read: Hot Take: Popeye’s New Chicken Sandwich Would Be Better Under Socialism »

Posted in Liberal World | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 29, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are clouds certainly caused by a carbon pollution created hurricane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on NASA showing more fires in Africa than Amazon.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NJ’s Red Flag Law Goes Into Effect Today

By William Teach August 29, 2019 – 10:30 am

Guess what? There’s no penalty for people to make false claims, and it violates the 4th and 5th Amendment

It will now be legal to ask a judge in N.J. to take someone’s guns away

…

1. What does the law actually do?

The law (A1217) is officially called the “Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018.”

It allows family members or those who live in the same household to submit an application to state Superior Court showing why a judge should issue an “extreme risk protective order” to keep guns away from someone “who poses a danger of causing bodily injury” to themselves or others by purchasing or possessing a gun or ammunition.

It also allows law enforcement to petition the court.

People who are neither family or a law enforcement officer can ask a law enforcement agency to file a petition.

The judge can then issue the order if they find the person “poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or others by possessing a firearm.” That will bar the person from owning, buying, possessing, or receiving any firearms during the period the order is in effect.

The law also allows the judge to issue a warrant to seize a person’s firearms if they’ve been issued an order.

I’ll say it again, I’m not against a properly crafted Red Flag law, because, let’s face it, some people really shouldn’t be allowed to have firearms. But, this law isn’t it. It gets close, but, like most, is more about finding ways to take people’s guns away rather than protecting their Rights

3. How can the person get their guns back?

A person has 45 days to file an appeal once an order is granted. They can also seek to have the order terminated at any time after the order goes into effect.

If a law enforcement agency has “probable cause” to believe that a person continues to pose “a significant risk” after one year, the agency may request another order. A judge may also issue another order.

So, they can arbitrarily take away someone’s firearms, their property, their 2nd Amendment Right, and it’s up to the Citizen to prove them wrong. This violates, again, the 4th and 5th (no due process) Amendments, and, though this is not an actual criminal prosecution, the 6th allows for confronting witness in legal proceedings. This doesn’t seem to allow that.

Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said the law “allows confiscation of legally owned property without advance due process, based on false claims of third parties, and‎ with no penalty for making false allegations against someone.”

“It is a tyrant’s dream, and a citizen’s nightmare,” Bach added.

How much abuse can there be without penalties for false claims. Yes, other laws could be used, but, they could take forever to adjudicate, which is a big problem when someone’s Rights are crushed with a sledgehammer. This whole thing flips the Rights of Citizens on their head.

From the comment section

CommonSenseProgressive: Every person you know that possesses guns is an extreme risk to themselves or others. Report everyone as a risk and we can get guns removed from our communities.

It may just be one comment, but, you see how it can go very wrong?

Read: NJ’s Red Flag Law Goes Into Effect Today »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Any Green New Deal Must Include “Decarceration” Or Something

By William Teach August 29, 2019 – 8:19 am

Remember, the Green New Deal Is all about science, not politics

A Green New Deal for Decarceration

This June, after nearly two decades of organizing, local activist groups in eastern Kentucky stopped construction of a federal prison in Letcher County. In a powerful rebuke to Kentucky Congressman Hal “Prince of Pork” Rogers, the project to build the prison on a reclaimed mountaintop looks dead for good: Trump’s proposed 2020 budget rescinded $510 million previously approved for construction.

The news is a major victory — not just for the anti-prison activists who have fought for decades against the new facility, but also for the environmentalists who became their allies.

In fights against prison expansion, activists across the country are forging alliances on unexpected common ground: the struggle against ecological devastation. These campaigns’ lesson — that the fight against mass incarceration and for environmental justice are tightly interwoven, and require the same political coalitions — should inform the policies and principles of the Green New Deal movement.

Strange how they’re able to link the totally science issue of man-caused climate change with pretty much everything, eh?

The devastation wrought by blowing up mountaintops to extract buried fossil fuels parallels the community ruin caused by forcibly removing residents from their neighborhoods to be warehoused in massive, faraway, high-security institutions. Both cause enormous injury to humans and habitats alike. Neither offers long-term economic benefit, security, or safety to the communities in whose name these extractions are publicly justified.

These communities deserve better. Instead of prison-building as local development, they deserve real investment in living-wage jobs, social infrastructure for healthy living, and just solutions to ecological and social problems, from rampant inequality to the climate emergency.

If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. But, hey, they only do the crime because the world has warmed a minimal 1.5F in 170 years, and it’s because you drive a fossil fueled vehicle

In other words, they deserve a Green New Deal. And like the people housed inside the correctional institutions they are asked to embrace, what they really deserve is what we’re calling a Green New Deal for Decarceration.

A Green New Deal for Decarceration echoes Bernie Sanders’s sweeping criminal justice and Green New Deal plans, released over the past week. But in order to expand the climate justice and decarceration movements and build the coalitional power required to avoid both carceral and ecological catastrophe, we need to integrate these fights, and tell a clearer story about shared values, goals, and strategies. We need to get explicit about how the exploitation and racism underpinning climate change are also those that animate mass criminalization and mass incarceration.

Science!

Read: Any Green New Deal Must Include “Decarceration” Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Most House Democrats Play Coy On Impeachment

By William Teach August 29, 2019 – 7:58 am

Most House Democrats know, either from being smart enough to figure it out, or, most likely, being told by others, that actually attempting impeachment won’t work out well for them. Poll after poll show that the majority of Americans do not want impeachment. Even most Democrats do not want it. It’s an electoral loser. But, they’ve dug this hole with their Trump Derangement Syndrome, counting on the Mueller Report early on. They really have no evidence, despite all the Democrats, such as what Excitable Adam Schiff and Crazy Jerry Nadler say they have. Russia Russia Russia has failed. So….

House Democrats blur lines on support for impeachment

House Democrats facing pressure from constituents back home over the August recess are increasingly blurring the lines on where they stand on impeaching President Trump.

While about 30 Democrats have announced support for beginning the impeachment process in some form since heading back to their districts for the summer, none have said they’d be ready to vote to immediately impeach Trump when they return to Washington next month.

Only about 20 Democrats are on the record saying outright that they believe Trump should be impeached, according to an analysis by The Hill. But most have long been vocal proponents of impeachment for months, if not years, and well before former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress before the start of the House’s six-week August recess.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) gave many Democrats cover when he said this month that his panel is already effectively conducting an inquiry to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment as it reviews potential abuses of power by Trump, stating in a CNN interview that “this is formal impeachment proceedings.”

Democrats on the Judiciary panel are also battling in court for grand jury material underlying Mueller’s report, arguing they need the information in order to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.

That has led many Democrats to make announcements in recent weeks merely stating that they support the existing investigations, and without actually expressing outright support for impeaching Trump.

For most, even if they support impeachment, they are moderating their language, trying to empower the nutjobs while playing coy for the majority of voters

Still, liberal groups like Indivisible, MoveOn, Need to Impeach and Stand Up America have ramped up pressure on Democratic lawmakers while they are home in their districts for town halls over the six-week break, demanding they back a formal impeachment inquiry.

There’s the danger when your major, primary backing groups are hyper-leftist nutjobs, and keep pushing the party even further left. How do you patronize them, soothe them, while not causing the rest of the voters, along with Independents, the unhinged #NeverTrumpers, and even some squishy Republicans, to vote Democrat?

This is their own bedbug ridden bed in their cockroach infested room they’ve made. How do they ride it out?

Read: Most House Democrats Play Coy On Impeachment »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Dairy Queen Doesn’t Have Human Meat In Their Burgers

By William Teach August 28, 2019 – 5:59 pm

Or, bad news, if you’re into that kind of thing (via Jazz Shaw)

(NY Post) Dairy Queen has had to oddly clarify that the store’s food does not contain “human meat” after one of its South Carolina restaurants was swarmed by federal agents last week, sparking gruesome rumors online.

“At Dairy Queen, we are very proud of our 100 percent beef hamburgers,” the fast-food chain tweeted Friday. “We serve a high-quality hamburger with no additives or fillers.”

The statement was in response to a news story published by the Index-Journal, of Greenwood, SC, reporting that someone complained about “human meat being inside a burger” at the local Dairy Queen.

As Jazz points out

As it turns out, the swarm of law enforcement descending on the restaurant (including the FBI and Homeland Security) had nothing to do with cannibalism. A couple of guys were allegedly running an illegal money transfer and/or laundering business out of the restaurant and were using a safe there to store hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash. That’s quite different than the allegations blowing up on social media.

Serendipity.

Read: Good News: Dairy Queen Doesn’t Have Human Meat In Their Burgers »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Eco-Anxiety Causing Stress, Panic In Millions Or Something

By William Teach August 28, 2019 – 3:00 pm

Crazy people making themselves crazier

‘Eco-anxiety’ over climate change causing stress, panic in millions, experts say

Alysis Morrissey was sitting at her desk last October when she stumbled upon a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“It said we only have 12 years to change our course and prevent a climate catastrophe from threatening life as we know it,” she recalled.

Immediately thinking of her two young children, she pondered, “What’s going to happen to them? Will they have a future?”

Morrissey’s heart rate increased, she couldn’t breathe and began hyperventilating. This quickly turned into a full-blown panic attack and she ended up in the nurse’s office at the private school in Connecticut, where she’s director of communications.

Experts say they’re seeing more panic episodes like this due to what’s termed “eco-anxiety,” or anxiety about impending catastrophic climate change.

Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a Washington psychiatrist, said she’s seen “an enormous uptick” in persons who identify climate change as a factor with their anxiety.

“Unless you live in a cave, you’ve been hearing about sea level rise, dreadful storms and headlines that warn a quarter of the population will be without water by a certain year,” she said.

Well, sure, some weak minded people will respond to the constant Pronouncements Of Doom. Climate cultists are already brainwashed enough so that all these reports make them even crazier.

Laura Schmidt and Aimee Lewis-Reau, co-founders of the Good Grief Network — a 10-step program to reduce eco-anxiety — said young people and children, the elderly and persons who have suffered some sort of trauma or grief are most vulnerable. But Van Susteren said just about everyone is experiencing such anxiety on some level — whether they know it or not.

See? Even though you aren’t a member of the Cult of Climastrology, you are still suffering from it. You just don’t know it. But, if you pay a tax, that can be solved.

Oh, and here’s a good example (via Twitchy)

Read More »

Read: Eco-Anxiety Causing Stress, Panic In Millions Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 28, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil road for fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Elephants, with a post on climate hysteria and why the media pushes it.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

San Jose Mayor Is Asking Residents To Buy Gun Insurance Voluntarily

By William Teach August 28, 2019 – 10:30 am

This is as Sam Liccardo is attempting to make it law

Commentary: I’m asking San Jose residents to insure their guns

…

Mayors who experience such suffering in their communities after senseless gun violence do not have the luxury of waiting for Congress to act, as lawmakers offer their “thoughts and prayers.” Cities demand problem-solving over posturing. So this month, I proposed an oft-considered but as-yet-never-implemented idea: require every gun owner in the 10th-largest city in the United States to buy liability insurance.

Every U.S. state mandates that automobile drivers buy liability insurance; we should require no less of gun owners. Cars and guns have exacted a similarly grim human toll, each causing about 40,000 deaths in 2017. If San Jose’s gun owners can’t get liability insurance, they can comply with the mandate by paying a fee to compensate taxpayers for the “gun violence subsidy” borne by the public.

That is, for decades, taxpayers have subsidized gun ownership and the harms that accompany it. Direct costs of gun violence to California taxpayers—for ambulances, cops and emergency rooms—exceeded $1.4 billion last year, according to a study from gun-control advocacy group Giffords. While the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms, it does not require taxpayers to subsidize the exercise of that right. Courts routinely uphold the imposition of reasonable, nonobstructive fees or taxes on constitutionally protected activities, such as forming a tax-exempt nonprofit, selling a newspaper and purchasing a gun.

Insurance can provide a useful mechanism for harm reduction. Risk-adjusted premiums provide financial incentives that reward good driving and installing air bags, and discourage parents from handing the keys to their risk-taking teenagers. Similarly, insurers could use premium discounts to prod law-abiding gun owners to take gun-safety courses, purchase gun safes and install child-safety locks—a welcome improvement for a nation where more than 4.6 million children live in a household where a gun is kept loaded and unlocked. Insurers would also hike the premium on a 19-year-old looking to buy his first semiautomatic weapon, someone such as the Gilroy shooter.

Except, they all know that the cost of insurance would be so high as to make it unaffordable, which would mean a citizen could not exercise their 2nd Amendment Right, and you could bet that the “fee” would also be too high. Heck, some even say the insurance would be racist, and make a good argument for this.

Essentially, this is, at the top, requiring citizens to pay to use their Constitutional Right. Do you need insurance to speak and practice your religion? To petition for redress of grievance? What it really is is an attempt at a stealth ban, because too many would not be able to afford to have a firearm.

Read: San Jose Mayor Is Asking Residents To Buy Gun Insurance Voluntarily »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove