More Detail On NY’s Proposal For Social Media And Internet Searches For Gun Ownership

By William Teach November 23, 2018 – 11:41 am

You remember the reports of the State of New York considering searching social media and Internet searches for gun permits? Well, here’s a bit more

New legislation calls for social media search before pistol permit in NY

New legislation submitted in the State Senate would require social media checks before someone could get their pistol permit.

We’ve been told for years to keep passwords private. If you’re trying to get a pistol permit in the future…that may change.

According to a new bill in the New York State Senate, pistol permit applicants would have to give up their social media usernames and passwords to allow government officials to search for posts that “cause concern”.

I’d like to say that something as intrusive as this would be killed quickly by a federal judge, but, nowadays, you never knew what a judge will do. But you know there will be a lawsuit filed about 2 minutes after the Governor of NY signs it, provided it passes as such.

How long are you supposed to give up your passwords and private information for? Do they check in on it periodically? Are they now monitoring you?

“The judge who grants or denies a permit has fairly broad digression under New York State law. And it has to have a rational bases. So they can’t say they don’t like your gender or your race,” said Sheldon Boyce, an attorney with Brenna Boyce PLLC. (snip)

A main issue with this bill, is it does not clearly define what is “concerning”  or if each individual judge (or county sheriff-) could rule what they believe is “concerning or not”.

Of course, Democrats think anything said by a Conservative is “concerning”, so you can bet permits would be denied at a high level. This would be a complete invasion of privacy and infringement on our 2nd Amendment Rights, along with others.

Read: More Detail On NY’s Proposal For Social Media And Internet Searches For Gun Ownership »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | Comments Off on More Detail On NY’s Proposal For Social Media And Internet Searches For Gun Ownership | Trackback URL

Island Nation Of Vanuatu, Which Depends On Fossil Fuels, Considers Suing Fossil Fuels Companies For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 23, 2018 – 7:07 am

Over 40% of Vanuatu’s GDP comes from tourism. Since they are a group of islands, the vast majority will arrive on either a fossil fueled ship or a fossil fueled airplane. There are 30 airports scattered throughout the islands (not all are for international flights, mind you). They get the vast majority of their electricity, over 80%, from fossil fuels. Yet

Vanuatu considers suing fossil fuel companies over climate change, as global carbon dioxide levels hit new record

Low-lying Vanuatu is considering suing fossil fuel companies and industrialised countries that use them for their role in creating catastrophic climate change, the foreign minister of the Pacific island nation said on Thursday.

The comments came as the UN World Meteorological Organisation warned that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had hit a new record in 2017, with no sign of slowing down.

Vanuatu, with an estimated population of 280,000 people spread across roughly 80 islands, is among more than a dozen Pacific island nations that already face rising sea levels and more regular storms that can wipe out much of their economies.

Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu said it was time that some of the billions of dollars of profits fossil fuel companies generate every year goes towards the damage they cause in countries like “desperate” Vanuatu.

“This is really about claiming for the damages,” he told Reuters in an interview.

So, this is a shakedown. Said fossil fuels companies should refuse to sell their product to the government of Vanuatu if the suit is filed, but, what the nation is really hoping for is some free climate cash, especially from the fossil fuels companies.

“My government is now exploring all avenues to utilize the judicial system in various jurisdictions – including under international law – to shift the costs of climate protection back on to fossil fuel companies, the financial institutions and the governments that actively and knowingly created this existential threat to my country,” he said.

So, when will the islands nation give up its own use of fossil fuels?

Anyhow, we’ve mentioned that the seas are barely rising around the nation, and, in fact, the nation is growing. They are just trying to play the Victim to get Other People’s money.

Read: Island Nation Of Vanuatu, Which Depends On Fossil Fuels, Considers Suing Fossil Fuels Companies For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

“Migrants” Defy Trump At Border Or Something

By William Teach November 23, 2018 – 6:47 am

You can’t really call them illegal aliens yet, as they haven’t snuck across the border unlawfully yet. And they can “defy” all they want, but they’re still stuck in Mexico

Migrants defy Trump at Mexico border as US forces flex muscle

Hundreds of Central American migrants staged a boisterous demonstration on the US Mexico border Thursday, screaming for President Donald Trump to let them in as US soldiers and riot police put on a menacing show of force.

The increased tension over the presence of a thousands-strong migrant caravan came as Trump marked Thanksgiving Day by threatening to close the border if he thinks Mexico has lost control of it.

Vehicle and pedestrian traffic at the busy San Ysidro crossing came to a halt for 40 minutes as dozens of US police wearing helmets and holding rifles formed a line facing the Mexican side of the frontier. Separately, riot police rehearsed deployment movements. US Customs and Border Protection called all of this a “large-scale readiness exercise.”

American soldiers in khaki-colored uniforms set off rockets that exploded with a pungent-smelling white smoke. Helicopters hovered overhead. (snip)

At almost the same time as the police and troop exercise, at another nearby border crossing called El Chaparral, Central American migrants from the caravan emptying into Tijuana defied the president with a loud rally.

“Open the gates, Trump! We are not looking for war, but work,” shouted Alberto Ruiz, a 22-year-old Honduran.

Defied him! ZOMG! How is this defying him? I guess you could say they are challenging him, but, only with words. But they’re still stuck in Mexico. The very same Mexico which offered them asylum, which they refused. Which means this is all a stunt. And they reportedly won’t be let in the U.S. prior to their asylum claims being processes

Central Americans who arrive at U.S. border crossings seeking asylum in the United States will have to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed under sweeping new measures the Trump administration is preparing to implement, according to internal planning documents and three Department of Homeland Security officials familiar with the initiative.

According to DHS memos obtained by The Washington Post on Wednesday, Central American asylum seekers who cannot establish a “reasonable fear” of persecution in Mexico will not be allowed to enter the United States and would be turned around at the border.

The plan, called “Remain in Mexico,” amounts to a major break with current screening procedures, which generally allow those who establish a fear of return to their home countries to avoid immediate deportation and remain in the United States until they can get a hearing with an immigration judge. Trump despises this system, which he calls “catch and release,” and has vowed to end it.

Of course, you know some judge will nix this plan. At which point the illegal aliens should be released in that judge’s town and told to stay there till their court date. For which most will fail to appear. We don’t really need a wall, we need to establish the conditions that would keep most from attempting to come to the U.S. illegally or forcing their way in, along with those who overstay their visas. Stop giving them aid and comfort, stop catch and release, stop allowing them to use their kids as anchors, and so forth.

Read: “Migrants” Defy Trump At Border Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 22, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is carbon pollution causing gigantism in animals, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Elephants, with a post noting that the difference between the political parties couldn’t be clearer.

Also doing Thanksgiving are (below the fold)

Eat well today, for tomorrow we….well, I guess some will shop. Some will work. Some will do nothing.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Happy Thanksgiving! (sticky for day)

By William Teach November 22, 2018 – 8:40 am

Wishing the best to you and your family.

Read: Happy Thanksgiving! (sticky for day) »

Posted in Holidays | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Hottest Take Ever: Beauty Magazine Explains How To Implement An Almost Total Ban On Private Ownership Of Firearms

By William Teach November 22, 2018 – 8:31 am

Everyone goes to Harper’s Bazaar, a magazine primarily about fashion, beauty, celebrity, culture, and food and travel, for diatribes about gun bans, right? But, remember, no one is advocating taking away your guns

How We Can Stop Mass Shootings in America
Australia’s national gun buyback and gun registry worked. It can work for us, too.
….

We don’t have to live this way.

There is a lot we can do in society to discourage violent outbursts. Encouraging young men to be comfortable expressing emotions rather than turning their anger into murderous violence would be a great start. But in the meantime, because that’s going to take a while, let’s take away the guns.

Yeah, I know, you want a gun to kill a bear. Fine. Let’s take away the vast majority of the guns. Because we’re going to keep having mass shootings in America until we do something about America’s gun problem. And we can, because other countries have. As the Onion regularly—too regularly—has to point out, we are the only country where this regularly happens.

(a few rebuttals to common 2nd Amendment supporter arguments)

There are going to be fans of the second amendment who respond to that by saying, “Well, the right to bear arms wasn’t in the constitution in other countries.” Yeah, the constitution includes what’s commonly referred to as an Elastic Clause. It’s Article 1, Section 8 and it grants congress the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” It’s commonly understood that the founders included that clause because they could not accurately anticipate the needs of the populace, say, 250 years in the future. Given that the constitution is intended to provide people with “domestic tranquility”— which no one can experience when our schools, our movie theaters, our concert halls and our yoga studios are places where we might have to contend with a mass shooter—it would be a pretty great time to make use of that elastic clause.

This is perhaps the hottest of hot takes on the 2nd Amendment I’ve ever read. I usually reserve red for my own interjections, but, bold red works for this one, which has to be taken in whole. As grandma says

Excitable Jennifer Wright has zero clue how the Constitution works in relation to the Bill Of Rights. By her definition, the Congress could simply pass a law that restricted free speech, due process, oh, hey, freedom of the press, all for “domestic tranquility” and such. Do I really need several paragraphs to explain how utterly insane her reasoning is? That it’s false? What are they teaching in schools? How do people get these wackadoodle ideas?

But good news. You don’t have to ban all guns entirely. You just have to put laws into place to make sure that they are hard to get, and safely handled. (snip through a discussion of the Port Author shooting in Australia, which led to their forced confiscation and bannings)

After Port Arthur, Australia did make certain guns illegal. They prohibited the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and made it illegal to import those weapons.

Yes, she is recommending the Australian solution, which would be forced confiscation with some compensation (you can’t buy back my gun, because the government didn’t sell it too me) and a ban on most private ownership of firearms. Then, when each 2nd Amendment supporter is left with owning tons of 6 shooters, speed loaders and bolt action rifles (except for the criminals, who kept their semi auto and auto weapons), they will have to be registered. But, you’ll only be allowed to carry them when hunting, so, open and concealed carry will be verboten.

Good luck with this. First, you’ll have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Her idiocy on the “Elastic Clause” won’t work.

Second, good luck getting the hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms from their owners.

Read: Hottest Take Ever: Beauty Magazine Explains How To Implement An Almost Total Ban On Private Ownership Of Firearms »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Unhinged Tools | 64 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Ready To Gather ‘Round The Turkey And Argue ‘Climate Change’?

By William Teach November 22, 2018 – 8:04 am

It’s finally here! A day for Warmists to argue with all their bestest of friends and relatives! Well, really, they argue every day (right before they use a ton of electricity and travel in fossil fueled vehicles), but, now they can do it to a relatively captive audience which just wants to watch parades, football, and have pleasant conversation with people, some of whom they haven’t seen in some time. The NY Times’ John Schwartz is on it

It’s Cold Outside? Gather Around the Turkey and Argue About Climate Change.

It’s going to be a chilly Thanksgiving in the Northeast, with near-record cold temperatures in some cities. Which means, of course, that you can expect to get an earful from Uncle Walter over your turkey and stuffing about how global warming is just a hoax. He might bring up sunspots. Or something about Al Gore.

Many of us have an Uncle Walter, to borrow the character from the Ben Folds Five song, in some form. People can be cantankerous and counterfactual at any age.

But how to respond?

Well, first of all, it is undeniably going to be colder than usual for this time of year. On Twitter, Zeke Hausfather, a climate researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, delivered a forecast of frigid temperatures and a high probability of climate denial:

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1064379407039553537

See, when a small area is above normal, that is Definitive Proof Of Anthropogenic Climate Change doom. When a huge swath of America is below average (and into Canada, a good chunk of Europe, and parts of South America and half of Australia, the latter two which are in late spring), well, that means nothing. It’s surprising that it’s not being positioned as being caused by ‘climate change’.

We have discussed how to survive the Thanksgiving climate change argument before. The trick is not to get flustered in the moment that your debate partner brings up a theory or nugget of truthiness that you haven’t encountered before, such as a reference to the medieval warm period (irrelevant) or the allegation that the planet is actually cooling (nope).

If you must rebut, take a deep breath and excuse yourself for research. With the internet on our phones, a quick trip to the bathroom is like visiting the library, and sites like Skeptical Science and the denial response collection at Grist can be helpful.

Or you could refuse to engage. That’s what Mr. Hausfather does. He, too, has “a couple of Uncle Walters” on his wife’s side of the family, he said. “In general, there are just certain conversational topics we tend to avoid talking about at the Thanksgiving table to ensure civility.”

The problem here, of course, is that most of these conversations are started by hardcore liberals. Because everything is political to them. Yet, they usually do not know what they’re talking about beyond a few talking points and slogans, hence the reason to excuse yourself for research.

Conservatives do not need this kind of advice. The ones who tend to start this stuff are usually liberals, and in cases when they don’t, they make it too hardcore. Even when they start it, they make it too hardcore, because someone dared respond. The Huffington Post continues to retweet this October 31 article

The NY Times has three articles on getting into arguments showing in the opinion section on the front page (here, here, and here). Other outlets are running their own, because this has become a thing. And because it has Become A Thing, many others are recommending staying away from certain topics and/or how to de-escalate. Which is something those of us who aren’t Democrats already know how to do (unless we’re simply trolling for a good laugh. It can be a good way to get Democrats to stomp off and sulk so we can watch football).

On the plus side, in reality, despite all these pieces, most people aren’t going to get into an argument. It’s just the media with too much time on their hands.

Read: Who’s Ready To Gather ‘Round The Turkey And Argue ‘Climate Change’? »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Global Warming, Holidays, Liberal World | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

National Parks In The Selfie Era: ““Most visitors just don’t know how to behave in a wild place”

By William Teach November 21, 2018 – 3:51 pm

The UK Guardian is usually a hotbed of hardcore Leftism, ‘climate change’ insanity, and environmental extremism. This, though, is worth the full read, a long expose by Annette McGivney, Patrick Reilly, Brian Maffly, Todd Wilkinson, Gabrielle Canon, Michael Wright and Monte Whaley

Crisis in our national parks: how tourists are loving nature to death

Just before sunset near Page, Arizona, a parade of humanity marched up the sandy, half-mile trail toward Horseshoe Bend. They had come from all over the world. Some carried boxes of McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets, others cradled chihuahuas and a few men hid engagement rings in their pockets. But just about everyone had one thing at the ready: a cellphone to snap a picture.

Horseshoe Bend is one of the American west’s most celebrated overlooks. From a sheer sandstone precipice just a few miles outside Grand Canyon national park, visitors get a bird’s-eye view of the emerald Colorado river as it makes a U-turn 800ft below. Hundreds of miles from any large city, and nestled in the heart of south-west canyon country, Horseshoe Bend was once as lonely as it was beautiful.

“It was just a local place for family outings,” recalls Bill Diak, 73, who has lived in Page for 38 years and served three terms as its mayor. “But with the invention of the cellphone, things changed overnight.”

Horseshoe Bend is what happens when a patch of public land becomes #instagramfamous. Over the past decade photos have spread like wildfire on social media, catching the 7,000 residents of Page and local land managers off guard.

According to Diak, visitation grew from a few thousand annual visitors historically to 100,000 in 2010 – the year Instagram was launched. By 2015, an estimated 750,000 people made the pilgrimage. This year visitation is expected to reach 2 million.

The two sad parts are that they are damaging the areas and they don’t even really care about the beauty of the view, they just want a selfie or a shot for Instagram or something. They aren’t there to respect and appreciate the beauty.

“Social media is the number one driver,” said Maschelle Zia, who manages Horseshoe Bend for the Glen Canyon national recreation area. “People don’t come here for solitude. They are looking for the iconic photo.”

That should be “the iconic photo of themselves.”

Backcountry trails are clogging up, mountain roads are thickening with traffic, picturesque vistas are morphing into selfie-taking scrums. And in the process, what is most loved about them risks being lost.

No comment necessary

On a recent August day in Hayden Valley, a “bison jam” stretched nearly two miles long. As the herd moved steadily across the road, a scene of frantic commotion began to unfold. Travelers excitedly scrambled from their vehicles. Bison passed within inches, even brushing up against the cars. Some tourists temporarily abandoned their vehicles in the hope of getting close enough for a photo.

Impatient motorists tooted their horns as park rangers tried to bring order. “My job is to manage people, not animals, and I try not to get upset,” said one in uniform. “Most visitors just don’t know how to behave in a wild place.”

People can’t just enjoy things anymore, they have to make it all about themselves. Read the rest. Which gets worse, if you can believe it, as it also includes the messes left behind.

Read: National Parks In The Selfie Era: ““Most visitors just don’t know how to behave in a wild place” »

Posted in Environment, Good Move Slick | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 21, 2018 – 2:37 pm

…is living with nature and reducing your carbon footprint, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the Portland Antifa mob riots.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

DHS Proposal For Assigning Gender Has “No Basis In Science” According To Science Journal

By William Teach November 21, 2018 – 10:30 am

When science nutters attempt to propagate mental illness (via Twitchy)

From the article

The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.

As Twitchy notes “So gender is a social construct … that doesn’t sound like science.” Exactly. So, Nature is not writing about science anymore, and should just give up. It plays into the whole “gender is not biological” push, that it is more a state of mind. Which leads to this Daily Mail piece

In 20 years we’ll look back on the rush to change our children’s sex as one of the darkest chapters in medicine, says psychotherapist BOB WITHERS

…

I have been a psychotherapist for more than 30 years and, in that time, I have worked with a small but significant number of patients who wished to change gender.

For everyone’s sake, I believe that surgery – which is irreversible – should only ever be a last resort. We should always begin by working to help the mind fit better with the body before we start altering the body to fit the mind.

Yet in today’s NHS, professionals are enabling hundreds – possibly thousands – of teenagers to have major surgery to change their gender.

It is being done, almost unchallenged, in the name of transgender rights. But in 20 years’ time, I believe we will look back on this folly as one of the darkest periods in the history of modern medicine.

We will question why we failed to challenge their belief that they were born in the ‘wrong’ bodies.

We will ask why we so readily ignored the clanging alarm bells that many were autistic, or had mental health problems.

There is a lot more in this piece, too much to excerpt. And Dr. Withers is exactly correct: this is being pushed willy nilly, and anyone who urges caution or objects will get massive pushback, and protests. Mental health professions are now afraid to actually do their jobs properly.

Yet the debate on this issue has been silenced by transgender activists who label as ‘transphobic’ anyone who dares to challenge their dogma.

This blind adherence to ideology has real, dangerous consequences.

In my field, for example, many psychotherapists are now afraid to properly question a patient who identifies as trans: afraid to explore their past, ask questions of their sexuality, or look into their mental health. They won’t go there, for fear of being struck off.

If an adult wants to go for it, that’s on them. Pushing this on children is a bad idea. But, SJWs have suddenly made this a big issue, and push people to be gender confused. And they do not want to listen to mental health professionals, and now science is pushing that science no longer applies to gender.

Read: DHS Proposal For Assigning Gender Has “No Basis In Science” According To Science Journal »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on DHS Proposal For Assigning Gender Has “No Basis In Science” According To Science Journal | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove