Gizmodo: Can You Be A Warmist And Still Enjoy A Burger?

By William Teach March 13, 2019 – 7:23 am

An interesting question

From the article itself

You Can Eat a Burger and Still Fight For the Planet

I eat meat. Not every day but most days. I also eat out at least twice a week. That means take-out containers and plastic. I ride the New York City subway just about every day, and I try to avoid cabs. However, I also plan to own a car one day, and I fly for work often enough.

I’m an environmentalist, but I’m not perfect. And I don’t intend to be.

To some, that may sound controversial. To others, it may even sound hypocritical. To all, I say: Screw you! While individuals are free to shape their lifestyles to align with their environmental values, eating salads and riding bikes aren’t going to save the world. Only forcing the fossil fuel industry to clean up its act will—and until that happens, I refuse to believe people should be shamed for living in the world we’ve built.

Of course, these are mostly not environmental values, but Cult of Climastrology values. And a typical deflection in which Yessenia Funes absolves herself of any wrongdoing., choosing instead to blame Big Oil for providing a product that people want.

The shame game has been real lately. Ever since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced her Green New Deal resolution, she’s been getting attacked from all fronts because, well, she’s no saint. PETA gave her shit for not going vegan. The New York Post recently called her out for riding in cars and not composting her sweet potato peels. Right-wingers barraged her after her chief of staff was spotted enjoying a burger for dinner.

But what good does any of that do? As Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter to the New York Post, she’s “living in the world as it is.” That doesn’t mean we don’t deserve a better future—we do! But to get there, we’re going to have to focus on the fossil fuel corporations whose products are responsible for most of our global greenhouse gas emissions, and the politicians failing to shift societies away from our dependency on them.

So, then stop using their product.

Earlier this year, a young high schooler asked me what she could do to help the environment. After a second of deep thought, I told her my truth: Always be mindful of what the most-hard hit communities need. And that’s communities of color and the low-income. Then, I reminded her that saving the world can’t happen only within our homes. It’ll happen by changing what goes on within corporate board meetings, Congress, and the White House. The simple act of voting on who gets to sit in these spaces is powerful.

And you wonder why I call this whole thing a political issue, rather than a scientific one?

So I’ll keep on eating my late-night burger while striving for a better world. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Except, the hardcore Warmists tell us that eating meat is Bad. They try and get government to force people to give up meat, such as Comrade Bill De Blasio declaring schools will be meatless on Mondays. Remember the hypocrisy, though. Always remember that they want their beliefs forced on Other People. On That Guy. On Someone Else.

Read: Gizmodo: Can You Be A Warmist And Still Enjoy A Burger? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

DOJ Ordered FBI To Not Consider Charging Hillary Clinton Over Email Scandal

By William Teach March 13, 2019 – 7:09 am

It’s an interesting thing: you right now have over 50 people, including Hollywood stars Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, charged in a scheme to bribe their kids’ way into college. Felonies. Yet Hillary Clinton, who violated numerous federal statutes, wasn’t even charged. I wonder why? Here’s how the Democracy Dies In Darkness paper explains it

In newly released transcript, former FBI lawyer fires back on charges that bias affected Trump, Clinton probes

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page defended herself and the bureau last year against accusations that anti-Trump bias affected federal investigations of the Trump campaign’s suspected Russia ties and of Hillary Clinton’s emails, according to a transcript released Tuesday by the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

Page, who came to prominence over anti-Trump texts she exchanged with former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok while both were assigned to the Clinton and Trump investigations, stressed that senior bureau officials were also expressing anti-Clinton animus — but that neither affected how agents working those cases carried out their jobs. (more flowing defense of Page for paragraphs)

She pushed back against the suggestion that the FBI “blew over” potentially charging Clinton with gross negligence under the Espionage Act, saying officials did consider it — but decided that the move would be too “constitutionally vague,” unprecedented, and “that they did not feel that they could sustain a charge.” Page also said Richard Scott, the Justice Department official in charge of overseeing the Clinton probe, had advised against making the harsher charge.

So, no big deal, right?

Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer that “the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information,” the congressman alleged in a social media post late Tuesday, citing a newly unearthed transcript of Page’s closed-door testimony. (snip)

“So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory,” Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to a transcript excerpt he posted on Twitter. “But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —”

Page interrupted: “That is correct,” as Ratcliffe finished his sentence, ” — bring a case based on that.” (snip)

Page also testified that the DOJ and FBI had “multiple conversations … about charging gross negligence,” and the DOJ decided that the term was “constitutionally vague” and “had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago,” and so “they did not feel they could sustain a charge.”

That’s a wee bit more specific than what Democracy Dies In Darkness states, eh? Getting beyond the obvious bias of the Washington Post (most other news outlets barely cover the document dump, if at all), what this really highlights is that the fix was in. Exactly what Republicans were saying. That’s how you end up with James Comey laying out a case to prosecute Hillary then saying “na. Never mind.”

Read: DOJ Ordered FBI To Not Consider Charging Hillary Clinton Over Email Scandal »

Posted in Democrats, Hillary Clinton | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Open Borders Activists Attempt To Get Banks To Divest From Prisons

By William Teach March 12, 2019 – 4:45 pm

Day after day, the open borders lobby is exposing that they really are for open borders, much like Democrats overall are exposing just how extremist they all are

IMMIGRATION ACTIVISTS SEE PRIVATE PRISON DIVESTMENT AS A WAY TO ABOLISH ICE

Immigration activists see their campaign to get banks to divest from private prison companies as a backdoor way to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by taking away its capacity to detain illegals caught crossing the southern border.

“It goes even beyond ICE,” Daniel Carrillo, executive director of Freedom to Thrive, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Immigration should be a right.”

Freedom to Thrive, formerly known as Enlace, has pushed major financial institutions and banks, including JPMorgan Chase, to divest from private prisons since 2010, Carrillo said. The group’s stated goal is to “end the punishment-based criminal and immigration systems.”

Activists have focused on two prison companies in particular, CoreCivic and GEO Group. JPMorgan and several other major banks raised $1.8 billion in debt financing with CoreCivic and GEO Group in 2018, according to reports. (snip)

Freedom to Thrive and its allies see the private prison angle as an “organizing tool” for their larger agenda to abolish ICE by crippling its private sector partners, Carrillo said. About two-thirds of ICE detainees were in a privately-operated center.

Detention of an illegal immigrants, including families and unaccompanied minors, started under the Obama administration, but only gained national attention in recent years as part of the larger “resistance” to President Donald Trump.

Who wants to bet the same people pushing this lock the doors to their homes and cars? Because I think it’s a right that I can just go in and take the food out of their fridges, borrow their TV, and use their car, right?

Read: Open Borders Activists Attempt To Get Banks To Divest From Prisons »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 12, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is carbon pollution created snow that shall soon disappear due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on how socialism works.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Commissar De Blasio Declares NYC Schools Meatless On Mondays To Stop ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach March 12, 2019 – 11:05 am

Before heading to Comrade Bill (can’t wait till someone publishes a photo of him eating meat on Mondays), let’s see what the always loopy Paul Krugman has to say, as he rages about Conservatives raging on the Internet about certain things

The Power of Petty Personal Rage

…..By all accounts, the biggest applause line at the Conservative Political Action Conference — eliciting chants of “U-S-A, U-S-A!” — was the claim that Democrats are coming for your hamburgers, just like Stalin. (They aren’t, and for the record, Stalin was a mass murderer, but objectively pro-burger.)

What do these things have in common? All of them involve cases where individual choices impose costs on other people. Plastic straws really are a source of ocean pollution. While nobody is planning to ban beef, flatulent cows really are an important source of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. And phosphates contribute to toxic algae blooms.

Narrator: yes they are. How did Paul miss this as he was writing his missive?

DE BLASIO ANNOUNCES ‘MEATLESS MONDAYS’ TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

New York Mayor Bill De Blasio announced Monday that all New York City public schools will have “Meatless Mondays” beginning in the 2019-2020 school year.

The program, first piloted in Spring 2018 for 15 Brooklyn schools, will offer students all-vegetarian breakfast and lunch menus every Monday.

“Cutting back on meat a little will improve New Yorkers’ health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said de Blasio in a press statement. “We’re expanding Meatless Mondays to all public schools to keep our lunch and planet green for generations to come.”

Schools Chancellor Richard A. Carranza concurred, saying, “Meatless Mondays are good for our students, communities, and the environment.”

“Our 1.1 million students are taking the next step towards healthier, more sustainable lives,” he added. “Our students and educators are truly leaders in this movement, and I salute them!”

Um, no, they aren’t, because they aren’t doing it voluntarily, this is the force of government dictating life choices. I wonder if Commissar Bill will restrict students from bringing their own food which includes meat? Whatever happened to choice?

The move to a vegetarian-based diet once a week for New York City public school children comes on the heels of Democrats in Washington pushing veganism in their Green New Deal plan.

I wonder if Bill will do this for all those who work for the City of New York? Or, hey, perhaps he’ll stop taking all those fossil fueled trips to Italy for vacations.

Read: Commissar De Blasio Declares NYC Schools Meatless On Mondays To Stop ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Air Pollution Is Raaaaacist

By William Teach March 12, 2019 – 6:57 am

Science is joining the Social Justice Warriors

Unequal air: Pollution from whites disproportionately affects blacks, Hispanics

The air that Americans breathe isn’t equal.

Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately breathe air that’s been polluted by non-Hispanic whites, according to a study. This new research quantifies for the first time the racial gap between who causes air pollution – and who breathes it.

“Pollution is disproportionately caused by whites, but disproportionately inhaled by black and Hispanic minorities,” the study said.

Poor air quality remains the largest environmental health risk in the United States, the study warns. In fact, with 100,000 deaths per year, more Americans die from air pollution than car crashes and murders combined.

“Even though minorities are contributing less to the overall problem of air pollution, they are affected by it more,” said study co-author Jason Hill, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota, who is white. “Is it fair (that) I create more pollution and somebody else is disproportionately affected by it?”

Hill said that while the air in the U.S. has gotten cleaner in the past decade, pollution inequity has remained stubbornly high.

What is especially surprising is just how large pollution inequity is and has been for well over a decade,” Hill said.

So, wait, this is Obama’s fault?

Other experts agreed with the research: “These findings confirm what most grassroots environmental justice leaders have known for decades, ‘whites are dumping their pollution on poor people and people of color,’” said Texas Southern University public affairs professor Robert Bullard, who was not part of the research. Bullard, often called the father of environmental justice, is African-American.

Researchers say their pollution inequity formula could be used on other types of environmental burdens.

“The approach we establish in this study could be extended to other pollutants, locations and groupings of people,” Marshall said. “When it comes to determining who causes air pollution – and who breathes that pollution – this research is just the beginning.”

Has anyone considered that there are, get this, more white people in America than blacks and Hispanics? Meh, none of that matters, this is all about race-baiting and SJW mule fritters.

“On average, whites tend to consume more than minorities. It’s because of wealth,” Hill said.

Is he saying minorities are too stupid to achieve? Huh. And, yes, this social justice study was actually published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read: Good News: Air Pollution Is Raaaaacist »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Enviroweenies | 116 Comments | Trackback URL

Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff Say There’s No Point Towards Impeaching Trump

By William Teach March 12, 2019 – 6:45 am

The Resistance on the Left and the #NeverTrumpers on the right are incensed as a bit of Excuse Making happens

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes impeaching President Donald Trump as too divisive: ‘He’s just not worth it’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted Monday as saying she is not in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump, breaking from other Democrats who are eager to exercise their constitutional power to oust the president from office.

In an exclusive interview with the Washington Post’s Joe Heim, Pelosi said Trump is “just not worth it.”

“I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said. “This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before.”

To date, Pelosi has demurred on the matter, telling reporters that impeachment and even an indictment were “open questions,” saying she’d like to learn the results of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s report before deciding on a course of action.

While Pelosi is stating her personal preference, she left some wiggle room to launch impeachment proceedings if the report reveals “something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan.”

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi said. “And he’s just not worth it.”

In other words, there hasn’t been anything that qualifies attempting impeachment, which, interestingly, is confirmed by Excitable Adam Schiff

Adam Schiff: Impeachment gamble not worth it without ‘very graphic evidence’

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., rushed to the defense of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday, saying only “graphic evidence” would warrant an impeachment gamble against President Trump.

“In the absence of very graphic evidence, it would be difficult to get the support in the Senate needed to make an impeachment successful. Again, my feeling is let’s see what Bob Mueller produces. But the evidence would have to be pretty overwhelming,” Schiff told CNN.

Schiff (along with so many Democrats) has been screeching about all the evidence he has that Trump did Bad Things since before Trump even took office. You can find stories all over the place, like this one from March 3rd and here on February 17th.

Read: Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff Say There’s No Point Towards Impeaching Trump »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Excitable John Kasich Wants Free Market Solutions For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach March 11, 2019 – 4:18 pm

Remember, we’re supposed to take this guy seriously. As a big time member of #NeverTrump with massive amounts of #TrumpDerangementSyndrome, other Never Trumpers will listen to this nutter

Kasich: Forget the Green New Deal. We need climate solutions from free-market moderates.

There’s a lot of talk these days about the Green New Deal, a progressive Democratic response to the challenge of climate change. While it is intended to improve our environment, many Republicans and even some Democrats fear that it would stifle economic growth and kill jobs, set off a massive redistribution of wealth, and dangerously centralize federal government power.

But for all those problems, the Green New Deal is serving an important purpose by provoking a more vigorous level of public debate. We’ve finally reached a tipping point. Scientists, business leaders, 13 federal government agencies — including the  Defense Department — and most of our allies around the world are convinced that climate change is happening and that strong, concerted actions are needed to minimize its effects.

Not all our political leaders have come on board with that consensus, but denial is no longer enough. The time has come for people who understand the need to be good stewards of our economy as well as our environment to put forward a responsible program.

I am convinced that conservatives and moderates, including many Democrats, can agree on a commonsense set of policies. They would be based on responsible economic principles of free-market capitalism and personal choice, not coercion. They would actually reduce regulation and lighten the heavy hand of government, while stimulating job growth and the economy, encouraging innovation, benefiting working-class Americans and — most important — protecting and improving the environment we share with the world.

And his ideas?

That’s just one example of a national climate change response that could win support from elected leaders with a broad range of political convictions. They can start with a carbon tax or a cap and trade program, which is a market-based trading system to incentivize carbon reduction. These approaches have already shown they can work.

Neither program is free market, as they are established by the government. There is no choice when implemented.

We also need to continue research supporting Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the automotive fuel-efficiency requirements that have significantly reduced greenhouse gas pollution in recent years. We should not eliminate or weaken these mandates. CAFE requirements need to stay.

They aren’t going anywhere, Trump just rolled back the massive change made under Obama. And they aren’t free market, either.

And by “invest,” I mean spend a lot of money, not a measly few pennies, on the research and innovation that can make a giant difference in the lives of our people. Strategic investments are needed in technologies that will drive advances in energy derived from renewables — solar and wind — as well as natural gas, a resource we have in abundance. And don’t dismiss nuclear energy, using small-scale modular technologies now being developed.

Not free market.

The United States has no business withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, which the president has threatened. If that international accord is as flawed as the White House insists, we should work to fix it. The American people, our industries, our economic and strategic interests — all need to be at the table. The United States must lead with the accord, not abandon it. There’s too much at stake.

Not free market, and most certainly coercive and takes away personal choice.

The Green New Deal might not be the answer. But it’s asking the right question. It’s time for free-market moderates on both sides of the aisle to come up with answers of their own.

What’s the question, how to empower government and take more money and freedom from citizens?

Read: Excitable John Kasich Wants Free Market Solutions For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Idiot GOPer's | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 11, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is snow created by the carbon pollution from America, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Elephants, with a post on whether Democrats have gone too far.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Need To Get Serious On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach March 11, 2019 – 10:30 am

An interesting piece by Mona Charen at the Boston Herald

Democrats have to get serious about climate change

Do you ever wonder why people run for office? I mean, unless you’re a total cynic, you must assume that at least part of the motivation is wanting to do good. Sure, those who run for office want fame and prestige, but they also have strongly held views and want to affect public policy, right? So why in the world would they engage in sabotage of the ideas they hope to advance?

That’s undeniably what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey have done with their juvenile Green New Deal.

Consider: The caricature of environmentalists is that they are just using climate change as a stalking horse for their true agenda, which is to socialize the entire economy. And lo and behold, what does the Green New Deal resolution call for? Net zero carbon emissions in 10 years, universal health care, guaranteed jobs for all, paid family leave, paid vacations, refurbishing every single building in the country to meet environmental standards, eliminating nuclear power and on and on. In fact, most of the resolution doesn’t even address climate change. Here’s a flavor:

The Green New Deal seeks “To promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’).”

Okaaaaay. So what Ocasio-Cortez and Markey have achieved, along with all of the Democrats who’ve endorsed this childish wish list, is to make themselves look like dummies and to reinforce the impression that they are totally unserious about combating climate change.

They are unserious about solving the problem they say exists. And the GND shows it. It encapsulates what this whole thing is about, claiming there’s a problem and using it to solve every other Leftist issue. It creates bigger and bigger government, more control over our lives, more control of the economy. Everything. More taxes and fees. Limiting how people move around the country. Trying to force people into big cities.

Ms. Charen goes on to point out that one method for “solving” anthropogenic climate change, mainly in terms of carbon dioxide output, is nuclear power, which the GND is 100% against.

The greatest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions were achieved by France in the 1970s and ’80s when the country made a big switch to nuclear energy. They reduced their carbon emissions by 2 percent per year while still providing their people with affordable energy.

Heck, Hans Blix, who was the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997, and was the head of U.N. inspectors in Iraq from 2000 to 2003, argues that nuclear energy is the way forward. It is cheap, reliable, and pretty safe. There have been very few incidents in all the decades it has been used. There have been three accidents in all this time. And few died. Skeptics might not agree on anthropogenic climate change, but, we could agree on the use of nuclear power to replace coal and oil.

They won’t agree to it, though. They’d rather hold to their guns and want to put up tons of wind turbines which only work when the wind blows and solar panels which do not work without the sun, which provide little energy for the cost and size of their footprint.

Read: Democrats Need To Get Serious On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove