Paper Who Hired Racist: Values Over Rules Will Totally Save Twitter

By William Teach August 9, 2018 – 8:40 am

Over at the NY Times, the same paper which hired virulent racist Sarah Jeong to sit on their editorial board, tech writer Kara Swisher thinks she knows what Twitter really needs

Rules Won’t Save Twitter. Values Will.

This week, Alex Jones, the persistently mendacious conspiracy-theory spouter — yeah, that’s a real job in 2018 — finally became the ultimate swipe left of the social media age.

Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest, Spotify and most other major internet distributors banished Mr. Jones, either permanently or for some unspecified star-chamber-determined amount of time, for hate speech and other violations.

But not Twitter. Instead, Jack Dorsey, the chief executive, founder and tweet inventor himself, took to his own platform to explain in the high-minded tone that one takes with small children that Mr. Jones wasn’t suspended from Twitter because he “hasn’t violated our rules.” (snip)

While principles and rules will help in an open platform, it is values that Mr. Dorsey should really be talking about. By values, I mean a code that requires making hard choices — curating your offerings, which was something Apple got made fun of for doing, back when it launched the App Store, by the open-is-best crowd.

Let me say that I have nothing but admiration for the long-suffering trust and safety team at Twitter, which has been tasked with the Sisyphean job of controlling humanity and scaling civility, armed only with some easily gamed and capriciously enforced rules. How are these people supposed to do that when the company has provided them with no firm set of values?

Values would require that Twitter make tough calls on high-profile and obviously malevolent figures, including tossing them off as a signal of its intent to keep it civil.

Who says people want to keep it civil? Who says people are against the wide open Twitter? Who says they can’t decide for themselves who they want to follow, who they want to interact with, and whom they want to block? If you want to read Alex Jones, that’s on you. Don’t like what he’s writing? Don’t follow. Is he tweeting nasties at you? Block him. We’re adults.

But, it can be a very slippery slope when we start using “values” based on whims. Whose values? Those of the far left?

Of course she jumps into what Trump does on Twitter, because Trump pretty much resided rent free in the heads of all Democrats, before moving to

All this is not to say that fixing Twitter will be easy; in fact, I think at this point it is nearly impossible. Add to that the fact that this is a global issue, making it hard to have any consistent rules that address the complexity of the world and, really, its deep and abiding ugliness.

But will Mr. Dorsey ever stand up to the uglies to protect the rest of us?

I’m an adult: I don’t need Jack Dorsey to protect me proactively. I’ll decide myself.

Interestingly, at the same time Bret Stephens has an opinion piece up defending racist Sarah Jeong

See, when we talk of “values”, again, whose? On one hand, they want to take down Alex Jones. On the other, they’re fine with protecting Jeong. We should also be wondering why a member of the Credentialed Media is advocating private sector censorship.

Read: Paper Who Hired Racist: Values Over Rules Will Totally Save Twitter »

Posted in Unhinged Tools, Wonky Media | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

CoC: The Best Time To Talk About Climate Doom Is During The Summer

By William Teach August 8, 2018 – 3:00 pm

One thing I notice during the warm months is an uptick in stories that mention global warming

From the screed

 “Domino-effect of climate events could move Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state” is how the Guardian described the findings of a study published this week Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The BBC went with “Climate change: ‘Hothouse Earth’ risks even if CO2 emissions slashed”

If you’ve followed the story of the changing environment at all in recent years, you’re likely not surprised by these headlines. The risks of climate change have been clear to us since at least the 1980s, and the predictions of environmental destruction to hit Earth have mostly gotten worse.

That said, there’s still a sizeable population on the planet that doesn’t care about climate change or, worse, denies it’s real. To turn those people around, some of the world’s most preeminent scientists have figured out it makes sense to publish global-warming studies when it’s hot outside.

It was the trick Jim Hansen, one of the world’s leading lights on climate change, used when he gave his now-famous testimony to the US Congress on a blistering hot day in June 1988. In a recent story for the New York Times, Nathaniel Rich shared how the testimony was timed:

In other words, they have to attempt to trick you to get you to believe their “science.”

Read: CoC: The Best Time To Talk About Climate Doom Is During The Summer »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Uncategorized | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 8, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible sea flooding because Other People use air conditioning, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on an actress testing the value of the market.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Surprise: Warmists Admit Carbon Taxes Are Jobs Killers

By William Teach August 8, 2018 – 10:30 am

This won’t get any airplay here in the U.S., nor most other countries, because it’s inconvenient

https://twitter.com/Blazingcatfur/status/1026989378743062528

The Blazing Cat Fur post leads to this piece in the Toronto Sun (for those not familiar, that’s Canadian PM Justin Trudeau to the left, Climahysteric Minister Cathering Mckenna (liberals were very upset that someone set up a parody account, and got it yanked. There is a new one. She’s also called Climate Barbie)

The Liberals have now admitted the carbon tax is a job-killer

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna admitted an inconvenient truth last week: the Liberal carbon tax would drive jobs out of Canada. The admission came in the form of a partial flip-flop on the issue.

The government quietly posted a document online indicating that 80%-90% of greenhouse gas emissions of large industrial corporations would be exempt from the tax. The reason? The government wants to avoid high costs that push industrial production out of Canada to places without carbon taxes.

But wait; McKenna has told us all along that the carbon tax would actually help our economy. Now she accepts it could simply move business, jobs and emissions out of Canada to more polluting countries where the emissions would ironically be higher. (snip)

So, if the Liberals really cared about the earth, they wouldn’t impose a damaging carbon tax on the world’s cleanest industries. Instead, they would admit the world needs more Canada, and keep industry and jobs here.

It is not clear if the Liberals have accepted this common-sense argument or if McKenna climbed down to avoid having the carbon tax lead to mass layoffs in the middle of the coming election year.

Whatever the reason, it’s problematic that the Liberals are not making similar exemptions for consumers who will pay the tax on 100% of their heat, gas and other fuels. If the Liberals cared as much about hard-working Canadians as they do about large industrial players, Minister McKenna would have offered them a break too. After all, we have to heat our homes. But, unlike industry, we don’t have the option of moving if we can’t afford Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax. So, industrial corporations get a break, but working families pay more. And the government won’t even come clean about how much more.

They don’t care about the average citizen, who would pay $1,000 a year (Canadian money) or more, because those people are stuck. Meanwhile, the same people who push this run around in fossil fueled vehicles and take fossil fueled flights all over, including to climate change conferences which complain about Other People using fossil fuels.

Read: Surprise: Warmists Admit Carbon Taxes Are Jobs Killers »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on Surprise: Warmists Admit Carbon Taxes Are Jobs Killers | Trackback URL

Illegal Aliens Are Sad That The Detention Centers Are Kept Cold

By William Teach August 8, 2018 – 7:42 am

There’s a simple solution to this issue of what the Washington Post refers to as the “latest source of border controversy” on their web front page: stay home. Don’t come here illegally.

Amid migrants’ complaints of frigid holding cells, a battle for control of border thermostats

The tired and poor masses crossing the border illegally do a lot of huddling after coming to America. It’s the air conditioning.

So notoriously cold are the U.S. Border Patrol’s detention cells that those heading north are warned the first stop will be a hielera, or “icebox.” The shivering stay is a rite of passage, and at the busiest border stations, the floors and benches are crowded with detainees bundled in silver polyethylene sheets, the only blankets made available. Their shifting bodies produce a constant crinkling, like the sound of Christmas gifts being unwrapped for hours on end.

A fight for control of the temperature inside these facilities is the subject of litigation between the U.S. government and immigration advocacy groups who accuse the Border Patrol of using the thermostat as a tool to deter migration and gain leverage over those in custody. While these accusations stretch back years, the uproar triggered by the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” family separation policy has brought new claims of hypothermic misery.

In other words, this was happening under President Obama, but, fable teller Nick Miroff didn’t want to mention his name. Anyhow, yes, groups which support illegal immigration (who should be held responsible for enticing people to make long treks across Central America and Mexico, putting them in danger from the element, gangs, rape, starvation, dysentery, etc) are suing because it’s a bit cold in the detention centers. There’s another solution: catch and deport immediately.

Customs and Border Protection officials vigorously dispute allegations of mistreatment. Many of the migrants in custody are from rural parts of Central America, they note, and simply not accustomed to air conditioning, or what some Border Patrol officials refer to as “refrigerated air.” The agency says temperature settings are never used for punitive purposes and thermostats are checked regularly to ensure they are between 66 and 80 degrees, the range that CBP deemed reasonable under the terms of the Flores settlement.

I keep mine at 72. Most of these centers are in the desert areas of the American Southwest, which gets hot, and we’re used to AC. I’d rather out citizens be comfortable, rather than law breakers.

Driving the air conditioning dispute is the fact that two distinct groups must share the detention facilities — migrants and Border Patrol agents — and they have very different needs.

Our folks come first.

Stories of sleepless nights on concrete floors are repeated throughout migrants’ testimonies in the Flores suit, and the CBP official acknowledged that mats are not always available for adults. “There are facilities that do have mats. There are others that do not,” the official said. “At the larger facilities, there are mats for juveniles.”

Don’t like it? Don’t come.

The inspector, Henry A. Moak Jr., wrote in a June report provided to Gee that during his visits to eight detention facilities, he found only one instance of a temperature setting below the established range.

In most facilities Moak measured, the temperature ranged between 70 and 75 degrees. But in interviews with 38 detainees, many also told Moak they were cold, including one 4-year-old boy from Guatemala. Moak noted that the temperature in the cell was 76.4 degrees, but the boy’s father told him they had not received a blanket or mat after four hours in custody.

If they’re cold, stay in their nations.

Read: Illegal Aliens Are Sad That The Detention Centers Are Kept Cold »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

$42 Trillion Over 10 Years: The Cost Of Democratic Socialist Policies

By William Teach August 8, 2018 – 7:26 am

Those evil far-right extremists at Vox are doing their best to highlight how stupid it is to back the Democratic Socialist agenda (which is pretty much the Democratic Party’s agenda)

From the link

Democratic socialism is having a moment. Sen. Bernie Sanders mobilized millions of voters during the 2016 campaign, nominally as a Democrat but with many self-professed socialists in his bandwagon. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will likely bring her own brand of socialism to Congress next year, having knocked off New York Rep. Joe Crowley in a primary.

However, the democratic socialist agenda will face resistance not only from other lawmakers but from basic math. Their promises, which include free college, a single-payer health care system, guaranteed jobs, and more, would require astonishingly high expenditures that would cause the federal deficit to skyrocket. Once the costs become clear, most mainstream politicians and voters will surely balk. Making big promises is one thing; paying for them is another.

These involve policy proposals like Medicare for all, paying off the $1.4 trillion in student loan debt (which comes from the high cost of college run by Democrats for worthless degrees from Democrat run colleges), free college for all, a guaranteed job at $15 for all, and much more. And this is $42 trillion over the baseline spending by Los Federales

According to the left’s own sources, democratic socialism will cost $42.5 trillion in its first decade. How would the US pay for it?

Under the most generous assumptions possible, liberal proposals would cut $8.5 trillion on the spending side. To begin with, state governments no longer burdened with health care costs would save $4.1 trillion, according to the Urban Institute. The popular leftist goal of slashing defense spending down to Europe’s target of 2 percent of GDP, for which there is no plausible blueprint, would nonetheless save $1.9 trillion if achieved, according to CBO data. Charitably assuming that the jobs guarantee would reduce antipoverty spending by one-quarter would save $2.5 trillion.

Paying for the remaining $34 trillion would require nearly doubling federal tax revenues. Let’s examine three paths using data from CBO’s menu of budget savings:

Those three recommendations would be 1) taxing all “rich” people and companies. If you took 100% of their money, you’d get the $34 trillion. Second would be a value added tax (national sales tax). Wait, I thought all this stuff was free? Third would be a payroll tax of 37% on top of the existing payroll tax.

Taxing the rich is not enough. America would need to match, or even surpass, Europe’s enormous tax burden on the middle class. There is no evidence that American voters will accept this level of taxation.

Which is why “Democratic socialists are disingenuously cagey about the exorbitant tax burden they require.” Realistically, this isn’t the old saying by Margaret Thatcher about socialists eventually running out of other people’s money: they’re coming directly for your money right from the get go.

Let’s not forget that these are the non-partisan and liberal sourced numbers. When you get to the real numbers, they would be much, much worse.

Read: $42 Trillion Over 10 Years: The Cost Of Democratic Socialist Policies »

Posted in Democrats, Taxation | Comments Off on $42 Trillion Over 10 Years: The Cost Of Democratic Socialist Policies | Trackback URL

Bummer: Businesses Are Refusing To Hire Illegal Alien DACA Kids

By William Teach August 7, 2018 – 5:22 pm

This is shocking stuff, folks. Businesses are favoring Americans and those who are lawfully present under federal law over illegal aliens. No worries, Vox is on it!

Some businesses are refusing to hire DACA recipients. They are fighting back.

Daniel Marques would probably be working as a financial adviser for a big investment firm in New Jersey right now.

David Rodriguez might have landed an internship with Procter & Gamble in Miami.

Sandy Vasquez might be an engineering intern in Silicon Valley.

Ruben Juarez might have snagged a finance internship in Connecticut.

All four of them went to college and graduated with honors. And all four of them say they were denied jobs, even though they had valid work permits because they are part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA.

The Obama-era program began in 2012 and offers temporary work authorization and deportation relief to qualified undocumented immigrants under the age of 38 who grew up in the United States. In January and February, two federal courts ordered the Department of Homeland Security to continue renewing work permits for DACA holders after President Donald Trump tried to end the program in 2017.

Here’s the thing: even Obama said it was extra-legal and un-Constitutional. Furthermore, it was only meant to be temporary relief: at what point does it end? Anyhow, what are these entitled illegal aliens doing

As the legal battle over DACA continues to wind its way through the courts, a related legal battle is on the rise. DACA immigrants are suing US employers for denying them jobs because they aren’t citizens. Despite presenting valid work permits from US Citizenship and Immigration Services, recruiters at several large corporations told them they only hire US citizens or immigrants with green cards. Some said they only hire employees whose work permits don’t expire (DACA must be renewed every two years).

DACA workers say these actions are a form of citizenship discrimination prohibited under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. At least four DACA workers who were denied jobs in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and California are suing the companies that turned them away using that argument.

The outcome of these class-action lawsuits has huge implications for American companies, and for the estimated 700,000 immigrants with DACA status who are living in the United States. A verdict in favor of the workers could force businesses to change the way they treat job candidates enrolled in DACA, giving them the same chance to land a job as anyone else. It would also open the door to other groups of authorized workers who are affected by some of these hiring restrictions: refugees, asylum holders, and victims of human trafficking.

That’s right, they are suing, despite not actually being, you know, citizens. They have no actual standing under federal law, and, realistically, this could end up utterly backfiring on them if the rulings use actual federal law regarding these people being unlawfully present in the U.S. They could find out that not only are they not Entitled to a job, but that they shouldn’t even be in the U.S. and find themselves being deported.

And this just goes to the point that rather than be humbled and coming with their hats in hand, these illegal aliens are demanding that the U.S. and its citizens give them stuff, and they’ll sue to get it.

Read: Bummer: Businesses Are Refusing To Hire Illegal Alien DACA Kids »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 7, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to sand from drought, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Climate Change Dispatch, with a post on California wildfires being a people problem.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmist Letter To Child Describes World Without Hikes, Fun At Beach, And Just Doom

By William Teach August 7, 2018 – 10:44 am

I’m hoping this excitable member of the Cult of Climastrology places the letter somewhere where the child will find it in 2051 so that the kid goes “what in the hell was the matter with my dad and his Comrades?

A Letter to My Child on a Changing Planet

To my five-year-old son:

By the time you’re my age, the year will be 2051. I don’t know what the planet will look like. And that scares me.

Today, it’s obvious that nature is changing too fast, too much. Of course, nature’s not the culprit. We are. Humans. Your parents, your grandparents, and so many generations who came before us.

We’ve been selfish and careless. We’ve forgotten to think about the future. We’ve screwed up the environment with our plastic water bottles and our massive landfills, and most of all, our fossil fuels.

Dear Gorg: I’m sorry that the fossil fueled cars we drove ended the ice age. Our bad

What am I fighting for? I want you to share these four moments with your own kids, in 2051.

1. Hikes in the woods, among the trees and the bluebells, deer peeking out at you through the brush, birdsong floating all around us. I want you and your kids to love to explore the woods. Climate change causes droughts and forest fires. It threatens our whole ecosystem in countless ways, endangering too many species, particularly bees and butterflies and other pollinators (which are vital to our eco-system). I will fight for your future forests.

2. Fun at the beach. The beach is my favorite thing in the world, other than you and your dad. I’m in awe of the vastness of the ocean. As I dig my toes into the sand, I feel connected to the Earth. Like I belong. I want you to have those long, lazy summer days at the beach, swimming and body surfing, stretching out on a towel to read a book, and building sandcastle after sandcastle. But climate change threatens beaches, with tides rising and coastlines eroding, whole cities disappearing. I will fight for your future beach days.

Also, lazy summer days will be a thing of the past. And

3. Snow. I remember taking you out in the snow for the first time. It was magical. I want you to experience that same magic with your children. But as temperatures soar, winters in many parts of the world will be under siege. Winter freezes could shrink or disappear. I will fight for your future snowball fights.

It’ll be a thing of the past. Except when heat trapping greenhouse gases make winter freezes.

The good news is that it’s not too late. We can change our ways. We can give you a wonderful future.

We can demand clean energy. We can conserve energy. And recycle. And compost. And clean up litter. And eat less meat. And use public transportation. And drive cars that pollute less.

All these big and little choices make a difference. If we all do our parts to help — and if our governments do theirs — we can give you a beautiful, healthy planet in 2051. Along the way, we can teach our children how to make good choices, how to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Have you ever been to one of their protests or marches? Any left side one? They leave tons of litter behind (when they aren’t creating smog through burning things). And few give up meat. Nor give up their own fossil fueled vehicles. And Common Dreams writer Norah Vawter forgets to tell us how she’s given up her own use of fossil fuels, gone carbon neutral, and done the other things mention.

Read: Warmist Letter To Child Describes World Without Hikes, Fun At Beach, And Just Doom »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Unhinged City Council Votes To Remove Donald Trump’s Star

By William Teach August 7, 2018 – 8:40 am

Add the West Hollywood City Council to the list of those utterly unhinged over Donald Trump

(WRAL) The West Hollywood City Council has unanimously approved a resolution seeking to remove President Donald Trump’s star from the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

The resolution urges the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and Los Angeles to remove the star because of what it says is Trump’s “disturbing treatment of women and other actions.”

However, chamber president Leron Gubler tells the Los Angeles Times the chamber has never removed a star because it’s considered part of the walk’s “historic fabric.”

Monday’s vote came after a man accused of taking a pickax to the star last month was charged with a felony count of vandalism. The star was previously vandalized days before the November 2016 election.

The reasoning behind this is simply a smokescreen to cover for Trump Derangement Syndrome, as you could find plenty of stars with a star on the Walk of Fame who have done far worse then make a few sexist remarks. Bing Crosby has been accused of being abusive to women and his children. How about Bill Cosby? Leron Gubler, president and chief executive of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, stated about his star being removed “The answer is no. Once a star has been added to the Walk, it is considered a part of the historic fabric of the Hollywood Walk of Fame.”

Oliver Stone has defended Hitler and gone on anti-Jew rants. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. How about Arnold Schwarzenegger and his groping accusations? Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle was accused of rape, which led to a woman’s death. You could find lots and lots of folks with stars that are still there.

Further, someone pays $30,000 for those stars: will the West Hollywood City Council reimburse whomever paid for Trump’s star? Most likely the Chamber of Commerce will not remove it. This is just a way for the city council to proudly stand up with #Resistance and stuff.

Read: Unhinged City Council Votes To Remove Donald Trump’s Star »

Posted in Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove