Giant Gender Confused Crushing Competition At Asian Games

By William Teach December 11, 2018 – 10:30 am

Hey, all you women who back this kind of insanity, are you cool with these gender confused people taking over your sports (via Moonbattery)

He Played Handball For Australia’s Men’s Team. Now Transgender, He’s Dominating Women’s Handball.

Standing at six-foot-two and weighing-in at 220 pounds, male-to-female transgender handballer Hannah Mouncey is dominating at the women’s Asian Championships in Japan.

Before his transition to female in May 2016, Mousey played for the Australian men’s handball team.

According to Handbolls Kanalen, Mouncey scored four goals in a match against Kazakhstan on Friday and contributed a combined eight goals in matches against Japan and Iran. (snip)

Due to Mouncey’s weight, height, and testosterone levels, he was barred from entering the Australian Football League, Women’s (AFLW) draft, last year. Mouncey wrote a piece for The Guardian in September blasting the AFL for their regulations. He noted specifically that the weight regulation is a form of “body shaming” and a blow to all women, transgender or not.

“My biggest concern is the fact that weight is being used as one of the key physical measures for possible exclusion. Forget the fact that in a game that has such an emphasis on endurance and speed, being heavy is not necessarily an advantage and think about the message it sends to women and girls about their bodies: if you’re too big, you can’t play. That is incredibly dangerous and backward,” Mouncey said.

Lots more at the link. As Moonbattery’s Dave Blount writes “Stick a fork in women’s sports; they are about done. Soon they will be dead of the sickness that is the transsexual agenda.” They are. How many times do you see a woman “transitioning” to be man compete in men’s sports like this? Almost impossible to find. But, there are many, many cases of gender confused men competing in women’s sports, and very much dominating them.

Read: Giant Gender Confused Crushing Competition At Asian Games »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats May Push To Block Lawmakers From Carrying Firearms At Capitol

By William Teach December 11, 2018 – 8:20 am

Normally, articles like this should be taken with a grain of salt, as there has been no actual legislation or anything else offered at this time, however, since these are Democrats involved, it could well happen

Dems Might Challenge Rule Allowing Lawmakers to Have Guns at Capitol

For five decades, members of Congress have been allowed to have firearms in the Capitol—but that law might be changed if murmurs between California Democrats come to fruition. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said his objective has the support of likely incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, her spokesperson has said Pelosi vows to “revisit” the law.

Although a Republican counterpart—Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky—says the move is just evidence that the liberals are trying to “solve a problem that doesn’t exist,” the effort could be a harbinger of things to come as the anti-gunners ramp up efforts to force more gun control down our throats.

Massie has a point. When was the last time you heard about a congressional representative going through the halls of the Capitol waving a gun. Huffman was even hard-pressed to name any colleagues who have guns in their offices.

We can only surmise that if the gun control folks start by limiting the rules on congressmen, it will give them more motivation to go after the rights of ordinary citizens because, after all, we can’t have more rights than the people in charge.

How many Congressman and Senators carry? Or even have a firearm in their office? There’s no study on that. And do they really need one? They have lots and lots of armed security all over the Capitol building as well as the separate office buildings they use. But, that’s not the point. The rule is about providing for self defense as authorized by the Bill of Rights.

The wider point is that Democrats do, in fact, want to ban gun from the hands of law abiding citizens (well, with lawmakers, that might be abidingish). And one may well be a federal red flag law. The American Conservative’s Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is concerned, like many, over the potential for abuses with state run red flag laws, and point to something which hasn’t received much press

Since March, Florida and several states have passed red flag bills, bringing the total to 14 including the District of Columbia. Several Republican-majority legislatures have thwarted similar efforts in their states. But it may not matter. Armed with a new majority in the House of Representatives and seeming bipartisan support in the Senate, Democrats are closer than ever to passing new gun control legislation and federal “extreme risk protection orders” are the most likely to succeed in the next session. Why? Because prominent Republicans in the Senate, specifically Senators Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, are already on record with their own bills, adding to popular Democratic proposals in both houses.

“The Emergency Risk Protection Order is designed to fill a gap in current law,” Graham said upon introducing the bill with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal last March. “It can be utilized when an individual has moved into crisis, but has not yet committed a crime.”

“The bill we introduce today is a starting point,” Graham continued. “It’s the place where we begin a long-overdue discussion about firearms and mental health. But we must start.”

We could get into the wider discusses of the merits and problems with red flag laws, but, really, do want need this at the federal level? Getting beyond the notion that not only does the Constitution not authorize Congress to be involved in this type of issue, it explicitly bars Congress from getting involved. And would we want Los Federales to be the ones issuing confiscation orders? How hard would it be to fight them? How costly? How abused?

Read: Democrats May Push To Block Lawmakers From Carrying Firearms At Capitol »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Unexpected: Warmist Charles Lane Covers How The Cult of Climastrology Has Failed

By William Teach December 11, 2018 – 7:55 am

This opinion piece at the Washington Post from Leftist Charles Lane really lays out the failure of the Cult of Climastrology, which was very much not expected

It’s time to look at the (political) science behind climate change

This year, California recorded its deadliest wildfire in state history. The combined intensity and duration of the Atlantic and eastern Pacific oceans’ tropical storms and hurricanes reached a new recorded high. A group of researchers reported that worldwide fossil-fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to hit 37.1 billion tons in 2018, yet another annual record. (the wildfire and tropical storms have nothing to do with CO2)

It’s time to take a clear-eyed look at the science behind these developments — the political science.

The data show that, for all the evidence that climate change is real, manmade and dangerous, and despite wide public acceptance of those propositions, people in the United States do not necessarily want to stop climate change, in the sense of being willing to pay the cost — which is the only sense that really matters.

The data coming from actual science doesn’t actually show that climate change, otherwise known as global warming, is anything other than real. It doesn’t prove causation. But his point about not being willing to pay the cost is a big one.

“The public’s level of concern about climate change has not risen meaningfully over the past two decades, and addressing the problem with government action ranks among one of the lowest priorities for Americans,” according to a comprehensive review of public opinion literature published in 2017 by Patrick J. Egan of New York University and Megan Mullin of Duke University.

In a series of open-ended Gallup surveys this year asking Americans to name the “most important problem facing the country,” environmental issues never scored above 3 percent.

The problem here is that ‘climate change’ is stacked in with real environmental issues.

Even before the recent riots against President Emmanuel Macron’s climate-change-related fuel tax hike in France, there was a quieter backlash of sorts in the United States: Anti-fossil-fuel referendums lost in Colorado, Washington state and Arizona during last month’s elections. (snip)

Of course, the climate-change movement was not exactly silent during recent history. What’s crucial, after accounting for the battle between the movement and its opponents, is the inherent nature of climate change as a political issue: It requires voters to accept “up-front costs that, if successful, will stave off never-to-be experienced long-term damage — policy for which election-oriented politicians can easily foresee receiving blame instead of credit,” Egan and Mullin note.

While they were actually primarily anti-carbon tax, people, even Warmists, aren’t willing to pay through the nose for their vehicle’s food. Nor for other policies. They’re cool if it is on That Guy, but, most realized that they will end up getting taxed and fee’d along with That Guy.

Anyhow, Charles continues on in this vein for a bit, highlighting polls that show ‘climate change’ being a very low ranking issue, failures to pass different carbon taxes and other Warmist priorities, and you keep waiting for the authoritarian shoe of the Cult to drop. The closest is this

The most politically feasible climate-change proposals, Egan told me in an email, may be those which “address the problem in a more piecemeal and thus less visible fashion,” such as raising automobile fuel economy standards, or, at the state level, requiring that a minimum share of energy come from low-emission renewable sources.

Dink and dunk their way. But, see, that’s not what the CoC is about. Those measures won’t get them the control of citizens, the economy, and private entities that they want, especially at the federal level.

Either way, the larger point — the inconvenient truth, you might say — remains. It’s not easy to persuade citizens of a democracy to accept real financial sacrifice in the here and now for the sake of a diffuse benefit in the future.

Another of 2018’s lessons, therefore, is that the climate-change movement faces a democratic deficit. It must either overcome that deficit or fail.

The larger point is that the CoC has been pushing this stuff for 30 years, and has mostly failed. We could probably find some common ground measures between the CoC and Skeptics, but, most Warmists are inflexible, and common ground measures wouldn’t get them the political authoritarian dominance they want.

Read: Unexpected: Warmist Charles Lane Covers How The Cult of Climastrology Has Failed »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Save: Fashion Companies Take A Stand Against ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach December 10, 2018 – 2:52 pm

Gotta love when a company that relies on shipping their products all over world which requires lots of fossil fuels climavirtue signal

Stella McCartney, Burberry among fashion brands uniting against climate change

The multitrillion-dollar business of fashion, with its complex and long supply chain, is worryingly vexed with problems contributing to climate change.

The fashion industry emits more greenhouse gas than all international flights and maritime shipping journeys combined, and it’s estimated that a garbage truck’s worth of clothing is either burned or sent to a landfill every second. On top of that, thanks to our powerful washing machines, our clothes pollute the ocean with microfibers equating to approximately 50 million plastic bottles each year. (microfibers is a real environmental issue, unlike AGW)

Conversation and action around sustainability and climate change has been quiet and slow to come within the sector, but Monday marks another move toward collective change. A fashion industry charter for climate action was formally launched at this year’s United Nations climate change conference, COP24, in Katowice, Poland.

Support for the new charter has come from high street retailers, luxury fashion houses and other suppliers within the sector. Stella McCartney, Burberry, Adidas and H&M Group are included in the list of 40 signatories.

Aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the new charter includes 16 principles and targets. The companies involved have committed to reducing their aggregate greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030 and they’ve agreed to prioritize low-carbon transportation suppliers and favor climate-friendly materials.

So, they’re pledging to Do Something. And whatever they do means the cost of their products will go up. Hooray!

Oh, and I’ve never considered Adidas to be a fashion company.

The charter is typical Stateist gobbletygook, and includes

  • Decarbonization pathway and GHG emission reductions
  • Raw material
  • Manufacturing/Energy
  • Logistics (through Clean Cargo Group1)
  • Policy engagement
  • Leveraging existing tools and initiatives
  • Promoting broader climate action

Uh huh.

Read: We’re Save: Fashion Companies Take A Stand Against ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 10, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled plane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post on things Democrats want to ban.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Surprise: Gun Grabber California Sees Firearm Homicides Up 18%

By William Teach December 10, 2018 – 10:30 am

California, as we all know, is one of the most restrictive states for firearms in the nation, and basically has every bit of gun control Democrats call for and way more. So…

Gun Control Fail: California Firearm Homicides Up 18 Percent

California, a state with every gun control imaginable, witnessed an 18 percent rise in firearm homicides from 2014 to 2016.

This rise in firearm homicides comes despite the fact that Democrats, gun control groups, and the establishment media constantly claim that states with the strictest gun controls see lower rates of violence and death.

California has universal background checks, gun registration requirements, red flag laws (i.e., Gun Violence Restraining Orders), a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a one-gun-per-month limit on handgun purchases, a minimum firearm purchase age of 21, a ban on campus carry, a “good cause” restriction for concealed carry permit issuance, and controls on the purchase of ammunition. The ammunition controls limit law-abiding Californians to buying ammunition from state-approved vendors–all of whom are in-state sellers–and adds a fee to any ammunition bought online, also requiring that ammunition to be shipped to a state-approved vendor for pickup.

Additionally, the state mandates gun free zones in businesses where alcohol is sold for on-site consumption. Therefore, the few concealed carry permit holders in the state must enter myriad restaurants without any means of self-defense. This provides a target-rich environment for attackers who want to be sure no one can shoot back when they strike. We last saw this on November 7, 2018, when an attacker opened fire with a handgun in the gun-free Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California.

Despite all the stringent gun controls a bill filed by Assemblyman Marc Levine (CA-D-10) admits California firearm homicides were up between from 2014 to 2016. The bill says, “Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation, more effort is necessary to curtail gun violence. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that from 2014 to 2016 gun homicides increased 18 percent.” In light of this gun control failure the language of the bill goes on to suggest more gun control.

We can fix this with a tax, though. And by more bans and confiscations, which is where they will surely be going next.

Read: Surprise: Gun Grabber California Sees Firearm Homicides Up 18% »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | Comments Off on Surprise: Gun Grabber California Sees Firearm Homicides Up 18% | Trackback URL

Shut It Down: Mueller Team Going After Trump Family Business

By William Teach December 10, 2018 – 7:20 am

It really is long past time to shut down the Russia Russia Russia “investigation”

Done With Michael Cohen, Federal Prosecutors Shift Focus to Trump Family Business

When federal prosecutors recommended a substantial prison term for President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, they linked Mr. Trump to the crimes Mr. Cohen had committed in connection with the 2016 presidential campaign.

What the prosecutors did not say in Mr. Cohen’s sentencing memorandum filed on Friday, however, is that they have continued to scrutinize what other executives in the president’s family business may have known about those crimes, which involved hush-money payments to two women who had said they had affairs with Mr. Trump.

After Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in August to breaking campaign finance laws and other crimes — he will be sentenced on Wednesday — the federal prosecutors in Manhattan shifted their attention to what role, if any, Trump Organization executives played in the campaign finance violations, according to people briefed on the matter.

This goes on and on and on, but, what’s missing? Anything having anything to do with Russia Russia Russia. Which was the entire point of this so-called investigation. After almost two years, there really is no proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Where there contacts? Yes. But there is zero proof that anything nefarious was going on. I bet if Mueller investigated Hillary’s campaign they would find contacts there, as well, because nations want to find ways to have influence with whomever may win.

We already know that Russia was screwing around with our election with….social media ads. No one can say whether that had any influence. They didn’t cause Hillary to fail to go to must win states, nor pass out on 9/11, nor use an unauthorized server, among others. The US under Obama with Hillary as his Sec State screwed with Russian elections (and other nations, as well).

Almost everything from Team Mueller has nothing to do with the point of this whole theater. Many are process crimes because of the investigation. Time to shut this down and move on if Mueller cannot show any collusion.

Read: Shut It Down: Mueller Team Going After Trump Family Business »

Posted in Current Affairs, Donald Trump | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

Questions Of Massive Regulatory And Taxation Schemes Are Burning Up At UN Climate Meeting

By William Teach December 10, 2018 – 6:59 am

It’s great when you have 10,000+ members of the Cult of Climastrology taking long fossil fueled trips to tell us that fossil fuels are bad and we need lots of regulation and taxes on Other People

Why We Don’t Need a Moonshot to Solve Climate Change

The prospect of solving climate change often prompts grand metaphors of moonshots and the Manhattan Project, with top scientists dedicating time and energy to come up with a breakthrough that will solve global warming.

But that may not be necessary.

A wide range of scientists, engineers and thinkers agree that we have the technological capacity to stem warming, keeping temperatures below the 1.5°C target that scientists warn would bring some of the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. What we’re missing is not big technological improvements, but rather the right mix of policies and political will to implement them.

Other nutters think we need to “declare war” on ‘climate change’, but, anyhow, it’s strange that this always devolves into politics and forcing people to comply, eh? What the Warmists are debating in Poland is the so-called rule book, which would put in all sorts of rules that would harm the economies and middle/lower classes in producer nations while giving lots of money from producers to non-producer nations.

But the rulebook is just a small representation of a much bigger puzzle. Across the planet, efforts to address climate change have stalled because of a lack of policy and political will. Take carbon pricing, the policy most economists and policymakers say will serve as an important step to reducing emissions. Such a measure, which could take the form of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, would require companies to pay to pollute. The revenue could be used to support something like a green jobs program or fund a tax cut.

“It’s about making markets work well,” Nicholas Stern, former head of the British Academy and World Bank chief economist, tells TIME. “Markets can fail if people don’t pay for what they’re buying, and if you use fossil fuels you are causing big losses to other people.”

So, all the people who took fossil fueled trips to Katowice are causing big losses to other people? Huh.

But countries have struggled to find ways to make carbon-pricing efforts politically palatable. In Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has tried to push through a national carbon-pricing scheme, the issue has become a controversial campaign talking point. This week French protesters succeeded in stopping President Emanuel Macron from implementing a gas tax, arguing that it was an out-of-touch policy that would hurt the poor.

Even in places where citizens are concerned about climate change carbon pricing discussion have devolved into fights over what form it should take. In Washington state, for instance, progressive voters rejected a carbon tax in 2016 because it funded a tax cut. This year, voters there rejected a restructured carbon tax because it lacked transparency. In Katowice, negotiators are trying to figure out how to make the nuts and bolts of how to make carbon-pricing work on an international level with deep disagreements about accounting and trading credits.

Hooray! People who took long fossil fueled trips from around the world want to figure out an international carbon tax, despite actual voters turning against them.

And then there are others who advocate for regulatory solutions that would simply ban or restrict activity that pollutes while directly funding programs that advance clean energy and other climate solutions. These solutions are in the vein of a Green New Deal, proposed by leading progressive voices, that would fund a large-scale U.S. green jobs program. Scientists say these efforts would reduce emissions, but the stringent opposition makes them politically challenging.

In other words, government forcing people to comply with the hardcore beliefs of cultists. These same cultists tend to be rich enough that their policies won’t hurt their own lives.

“The real economy is moving in one direction not even linearly but exponentially,” Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN’s climate change program and a key framer of the Paris Agreement. “If there’s an alignment between politics and economy then of course things can move forward much quicker because all the stars aligned in the same direction.”

The trick, then, is getting those two things aligned.

Not a science. Pure politics.

Read: Questions Of Massive Regulatory And Taxation Schemes Are Burning Up At UN Climate Meeting »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Citizens Must (Be Forced) To Engage On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach December 9, 2018 – 7:39 pm

I wonder, have members of the Cult of Climastrology, such as writer Eric Giddens, ever considered that we do not want to actually engage?

Citizens must engage on climate

It’s hard to miss the news about extreme weather these days — hurricanes, fires, and closest to home, flooding.

The climate is changing, and as a result our communities are hurting. The federal government’s National Climate Assessment released Nov. 23 assessed the impacts of climate change across the United States, both now and throughout this century. The findings are sobering if not downright terrifying: If we do not take action, climate change will cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars annually and will increasingly threaten our health and well-being. Citizens and local governments bear most of the brunt of this destruction and the costs of repair.

So what can we do? The problem can feel overwhelming and out of our control.

Bad weather has always happened, and is actually out of our control.

The good news, though, is that much can be done at the community level, and community-scale action can collectively put a major dent in the problem. Even better news is local climate action strengthens local economies. Here’s what you can do to be a part of that community-focused solution:

Understand the cause. Greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) form a blanket over the earth that trap heat. Greenhouse gases are emitted by burning coal and natural gas to produce electricity, natural gas to heat buildings and water, gasoline and diesel to power motor vehicles, and by solid waste as it decomposes in landfills. We emit more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than can be re-absorbed by plant materials on the surface of the Earth, and the Earth’s average temperature is rising as a result. This atmospheric disruption causes the extreme weather events that we are witnessing.

That’s weird, absolutely no mention of the #1 GHG, water vapor. It’s almost like they’re sandbagging. And whining about the trappings of modern society that make it run.

Accept responsibility. We are all responsible for this. No one is exempt. We all use electricity and natural gas. We all use water. We all move around in automobiles and rely on goods and services that are transported with motor vehicles. We all produce solid waste. And in the United States, we do all of these things far more intensively than people in other countries do.

OK, when will Warmists accept responsibility and start living like it’s 1499? Here’s the big one

Advocate for action in your community. Local governments, accountable to local people, can enact policies and implement programs to reduce electricity and natural gas consumption through conservation and energy efficiency, shift electricity generation to renewables, reduce vehicle miles traveled through planning, conserve water and reduce waste. These actions that reduce emissions and other actions that make our landscape and built environment more resilient will also enhance our local economies. Saving energy saves money, investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy creates jobs, and building resilient communities reduces the risk of catastrophic loss due to extreme weather events associated with climate change.

Got that? You’re supposed to ask the government to tax you out the ying yang, artificially increase your cost of living, and to take lots of your freedom away. All for some un-scientific, cultish belief.

Read: Citizens Must (Be Forced) To Engage On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 9, 2018 – 2:22 pm

…is horrible evil ice cream from evil cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post about a huge right wing protest in the U.K.

No theme this week, cleaning out the folder.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove