Woman Who Accused Man Of Sexual Assault With Zero Proof Nominated For “Distinguished Alumni” Award

This makes about as much sense as Barack Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

(WRAL) Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has been nominated for a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Distinguished Alumna and Alumnus award. (snip)

Ford was a psychology major at UNC and earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in 1988.

A nomination letter writes that the nomination shouldn’t be seen as partisan.

“There may be people reading this nomination letter who will take issue with Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony or who may see this letter as an example of partisan politics,” the letter states. “But this letter nominating Dr. Blasey Ford is not about partisan politics: it is about recognizing that the simple act of speaking one’s truth, especially when that truth involves sexual assault, is an act of bravery.”

Criteria for the award is an alumnus or alumna who “has made an outstanding contribution to humanity in any walk of life,” according to the UNC Office of Faculty Governance.” Up to five awards may be presented annually.

Let’s see, her contribution to humanity in any walk of life was accusing a man of sexually assaulting her sometime 35+ years ago while providing zero evidence nor any corroborating witnesses. In fact, everyone she says was there state that they weren’t. The accusation was entirely unsubstantiated. She made the lives of Kavanaugh and his family a living hell while attempting to destroy his career for what was a political purpose.

She was just speaking her own truth, though! No one else’s truth, just her own. This being UNC, she’ll probably get the award.

There’s nothing brave about false accusations.

Read: Woman Who Accused Man Of Sexual Assault With Zero Proof Nominated For “Distinguished Alumni” Award »

Slate: Democrats Can’t Get Angry Because They’ve Become Feminized

This bit of Word Salad from Excitable Jess Zimmerman is as interesting as to how she puts Democrats into a gender role as it is for her calling for them to Get Angry

Why Can’t Democrats Get Angry?
I think it’s because our misogynistic society has pushed them into the same corner women have been forced into. But there’s a way out.

The salient feature of now-seated Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony during the hearing that was intended to assess whether he had committed sexual assault in his youth was, as many have noted, his anger. It was anger that made him lash out inappropriately, anger that contorted his face in a way that made many viewers feel sick. He thought this anger would substitute for integrity, and he was right, or right enough anyway; he didn’t fool everyone, but he did at least shout them down. Meanwhile, the salient feature of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony was her calm, measured, deferential demeanor, complete with tension-defusing apologies and jokes. I am not the first person to point out how heartbreaking this was to witness: that even while talking about an experience that traumatized her for decades, she obeyed the unwritten cultural injunction that women must manage not only their own feelings but the feelings of everyone around them. This has been laid bare in the past few weeks in America, even as it’s a reply of something we’ve all seen before.

What I haven’t seen discussed, though, is the way these same restrictions have constrained the entire Democratic Party. The left—even the moderate left—is feminized in this country to a degree that I have come to believe actually restricts its avenues for acceptable self-expression.

If they’re feminized, it’s their own fault. And isn’t it a horrible inappropriate gender construct to say something has been feminized? I wouldn’t be surprised if SJWs were assailing Jess for daring to write this

Our weird cultural commitment to the gender binary goes way beyond actual living men and women—if it didn’t, people wouldn’t freak out so badly when someone declines to choose. Masculinity and femininity are concepts we layer on top of everything from people to pens to political parties. Sometimes there’s a middle ground, but often we seem lost without our familiar patterns; it’s the confused hetero doofus asking a gay couple “which one’s the woman,” except for the entire world. Take any opposed things—Democrats and Republicans, cats and dogs, even the sun and the moon—and you’ll find one of them associated with physical strength, action, and domineering behavior, and the other associated with emotion, reticence, and calm. That’s not just descriptive; it’s prescriptive, and proscriptive too. If we could judge the moon for yelling, we would.

So, Democrats are all just pajama boys, even the women?

The feminization of the party also restricts how much anger, outrage, and general disgruntlement Democrats are “allowed” to express; they are the party that has to be fair, that has to maintain its commitment to the principles of equality and reasonableness. Somehow, at the same time, every trivial emotion of the right is valorized….

It hasn’t been the Republicans out in the streets getting angry and violent.

The problem with misogyny in this country goes beyond the oppression of women—although that alone should be a reason to shatter the patriarchy where it stands. It’s also the oppression of anything seen as feminine: those who show “weakness,” which is defined in our patriarchal system as anything outside the two acceptable masculine modes of brutish violence and cold indifference. Even cisgender men suffer when they are not able to convincingly perform this twisted vision of manliness.

Seee? Misogyny also applies to whatever they want it to apply to, including the gamma-male Dem voters. The rest is just as nutty as the above. It would normally be hard to take seriously, but, these people are violently serious.

Read: Slate: Democrats Can’t Get Angry Because They’ve Become Feminized »

If All You See…

…is a horrible, world killing plastic bottle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on upgrading Gitmo Jihadi Vacation Center.

Read: If All You See… »

Say, What Does The New Climahysteric Report Expect From You?

And what they mean is forcing you to do something while the big wigs who push this do nothing

What the new report on climate change expects from you

A stark new report from the global scientific authority on climate change calls on individuals, as well as governments, to take action to avoid disastrous levels of global warming.

The report, which maps out four pathways to cap Earth’s average surface temperature at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels indicates that changes in individual behavior can make a difference.

But to do that, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says, would require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

The IPCC’s models emphasize the need for people to change their lifestyle and consumption patterns to more sustainable alternatives, specifically in areas they can control, like modes of transportation, the buildings they inhabit and their dietary preferences.

CNN mentions three things that you could change (among many), which are transportation, buildings, and diets. Let’s really boil it down from uber-Warmist Eric Holthaus

Redistribution of your money by people who already have theirs. And

Funny how they tell us that this is not political, then show that this is all about far left Progressive/Socialist/Marxist/whatever politics.

Quick add on

But all about science.

Read: Say, What Does The New Climahysteric Report Expect From You? »

New “Landmark” Climate Report Recommends $240 Per Gallon Carbon Tax

As you know, there was a big climate change (scam) report released Monday that many media outlets are super enthused over

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/1049446866713305088

Not quite sure what she’s talking about, as most newspapers and TV stations that lean left are covering it. But, are they covering this?

A $240 PER GALLON GAS TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? NEW UN REPORT SUGGESTS CARBON PRICING

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the stretch goal of the Paris accord.

Yeah, pretty much would never happen. But, this is what they were recommending. But, the UN IPCC’s numbers are not quite as high as the reports

In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.

To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.

A 2009 report had the average carbon footprint of Americans at 19.78 metric tons per year. That’s certainly gone down a bit (especially if we take all the Warmists and their extra large footprints out), but, let’s say it’s now 16mt: You’d pay between $160 and $3,200 in 2030 alone. And that’s just your own taxes. You’d also pay a lot more for everything as those taxes are passed on.

So, lead the way, Warmists: pay carbon taxes. Better yet, reduce your own footprints.

Read: New “Landmark” Climate Report Recommends $240 Per Gallon Carbon Tax »

Republicans Recasting Angry Leftist Mobs As Angry Leftist Mobs Or Something

The Washington Post’s Matt Viser and Robert Costa think they’re on to something

GOP adopts midterm strategy of recasting Democratic protests as ‘an angry mob’

When thousands of furious, screaming protesters marched toward the Capitol over the weekend as Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was confirmed, Republican staffers peered out at the scene from the windows above. They were not alarmed but elated.

Weeks ahead of the midterm elections, Republicans have cast the Trump resistance movement as “an angry mob,” a term used by many of them to describe a faceless amalgamation of forces that they say threaten the country’s order and, they hope, energize their voters.

President Trump and the GOP firmly control Congress and the White House and have massive financial and media infrastructure behind them. But in an effort to flip the midterm elections from a referendum on the unpopular president, they are casting themselves as defenders at the barricades.

In Virginia, Rep. David Brat (R) is running against the “liberal mob,” and GOP Senate candidate Corey Stewart has decried the “mob tactics” that “tried to destroy” Kavanaugh.

“When we’re out at grocery stores or at events, we’re finding swing voters are turned off by how Kavanaugh was treated,” Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said. “Chasing senators down the hall, running up the stairs at the Capitol — we’ve been taken aback by how people have reacted to it. And we’re responding.”

So, as they show, there were angry liberal mobs running around being angry. You had ones chasing elected representatives, like Ted Cruz and his wife, out of restaurants. The mob is threatening Senator Susan Collins to the point she now needs security protection. They get out there and take over streets and causing problems. We’ve seen the angry leftist mobs for years, going back to the Bush years, but, really got going during the Obama years. Seriously, these people are deranged. Remember the whole “screaming at the sky” thing on the one year anniversary of Trump beating Hillary using the method laid out in the Constitution?

As you read on through the article, you read example after example of what is, in fact, an angry leftist mob. But, ZOMG, Republicans are taking advantage of that to campaign!!!! It’s almost like politics are being used. Who would have though Republicans would turn the angry mob mentality of Leftists into a benefit! That never happens in politics!

Just the number of unhinged, angry, wacky things these leftists do shows that they are an angry mob.

Now, just for some whataboutism, imagine if these were angry Conservative mobs: how would they be cast?

Read: Republicans Recasting Angry Leftist Mobs As Angry Leftist Mobs Or Something »

Humorless Scolds Not Amused By The “Drinking A Beer For Brett” Meme

Of course these scolds are on MSNBC

(Daily Caller)  Republicans drank beer to celebrate Kavanaugh’s confirmation because of his proclamation that he “likes beer” and “still likes beer” during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A number of news articles during the nomination process attacked Kavanaugh’s credibility because of his apparent love for beer while in high school and college.

“This weekend was a real opportunity for a dignified, respectful response,” cohost Mika Brzezinski said. “Republicans celebrated the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a victory for Republicans. Activists tweeted photos of their alcohol with the hashtag #Beers4Brett.”

“I just don’t know why this is funny,” Brzezinski whined.

“It’s actually not funny,” cohost Joe Scarborough chimed in. “It’s distressing. They’re talking about the United States Supreme Court.”

“This is, again, so unbecoming,” he continued. “I’ve gotta say, classless in this respect that they’re acting like it’s a high school football game.”

If they want to talk about dignified, they should talk to their cohorts. And, at this point, Joe is a Democrat. Can’t remember the last time he took the side of Conservatives/Republicans.

Read: Humorless Scolds Not Amused By The “Drinking A Beer For Brett” Meme »

If All You See…

…is the notion of needed hornets disappearing from the planet because of carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on massive land temperature data discrepancies.

Read: If All You See… »

Not Helping: Charles Blow Declares That This Is War

Earlier, I noted that E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post was doing his part to increase violence from Democratic Party voters. Now we have Charles Blow doing the same at the NY Times. Remember, this is coming from two of the nation’s leading newspapers

Liberals, This Is War

Yes, Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. Rue the day. Rend your garments.

Then, step back, view the entirety of the battle in which you are engaged, and understand that Kavanaugh is just one part of a much larger plan by conservatives to fundamentally change the American political structure so that it enshrines and protects white male power even after America’s changing demographics and mores move away from that power.

This, for them, is not simply a game about political passion and political principles. This is a game of power, pure and simple, and it’s about whether the people who have long held that power will be able to retain it.

For them, Trump is just a useful idiot, a temporary anomaly.

They are thinking generationally, not in terms of the next election cycle but in terms of the next epoch.

Liberals can get so high-minded that they lose sight of the ground war. Yes, next month it is important to prove to the rest of Americans, and indeed the world, that Trump and the Republicans who promote and protect him are at odds with American values and with the American majority.

Chuckles goes on like this for a while, really positioning this as a race thing (he should remember that blacks are less than 13% of the population), softly giving reasons to fight. He allude to voting, but, people take this as permission for violence. He ends with

Folks, Kavanaugh is only one soldier, albeit an important one, in a larger battle. Stop thinking you’re in a skirmish, when you’re at war.

To put it bluntly, Democrat big wigs should be careful pushing this line, and the rank-and-file sheep should be careful thinking they can do this, because it’s Republicans with most of the guns, and we will defend ourselves from your violence. We do not want it to come to this, but, the more violent you become, the more chance that a really bad incident will occur.

And news outlets should be thinking very carefully about pushing this type of line which soft-pedals political violence.

Read: Not Helping: Charles Blow Declares That This Is War »

Crisis Delayed: New Hotcoldwetdry Report Says Chance Of Doom As Early As 2040

This rather contradicts all the current Warmist fear-mongering about ‘climate change’ being here now and causing every single Bad Weather event, like this

Plenty more where that came from. Anyhow

Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

A landmark report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought and says that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has “no documented historic precedent.”

The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population.

The report “is quite a shock, and quite concerning,” said Bill Hare, an author of previous I.P.C.C. reports and a physicist with Climate Analytics, a nonprofit organization. “We were not aware of this just a few years ago.” The report was the first to be commissioned by world leaders under the Paris agreement, the 2015 pact by nations to fight global warming.

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

The new report, however, shows that many of those effects will come much sooner, at the 2.7-degree mark.

So, doom, doom, and doom. And this NY Times article is one of the lesser doom-saying ones out there. Others are completely unhinged. But, anyhow, how can we fix this?

Avoiding the most serious damage requires transforming the world economy within just a few years, said the authors, who estimate that the damage would come at a cost of $54 trillion. But while they conclude that it is technically possible to achieve the rapid changes required to avoid 2.7 degrees of warming, they concede that it may be politically unlikely.

For instance, the report says that heavy taxes or prices on carbon dioxide emissions — perhaps as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100 — would be required. But such a move would be almost politically impossible in the United States, the world’s largest economy and second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China. Lawmakers around the world, including in China, the European Union and California, have enacted carbon pricing programs.

Huh. So, a radical change to a different type of economy (strange that they don’t want to say it’s about doing away with capitalism in favor of a government controlled economy, eh?) And all sorts of taxes and fees. As positioned by “91 scientists from 40 countries” who took long fossil fueled trips, along with thousands of politicians and bureaucrats to South Korea.

But, from the climascientist community, this is total doom. Unlike the standard low level members and non-sciencey big shots (think Al Gore) of the Cult of Climastrology, the higher end scientists (who should know better) had been sticking with the “doom in 2050 or 2100” meme. But no

Absent aggressive action, many effects once expected only several decades in the future will arrive by 2040, and at the lower temperature, the report shows. “It’s telling us we need to reverse emissions trends and turn the world economy on a dime,” said Myles Allen, an Oxford University climate scientist and an author of the report.

Well, really, every year prior to the UN IPCC Conference On The Parties meetings they come out with some sort of “we’re all doomed!!!!” paper.

The report concludes that the world is already more than halfway to the 2.7-degree mark. Human activities have caused warming of about 1.8 degrees since about the 1850s, the beginning of large-scale industrial coal burning, the report found.

What? No. Where did that extra .3F come from? It’s really between 1.4F and 1.5F. Now they’re just making things up. And it is mostly natural. And the Warmists cannot prove it’s mostly/solely man-caused using science.

Read: Crisis Delayed: New Hotcoldwetdry Report Says Chance Of Doom As Early As 2040 »

Pirate's Cove