Washington Post Finally Finds Way To Dismiss Iran Deal Revelations

By William Teach May 3, 2018 – 7:25 am

Exactly what does America get out of the Iran deal? Sure, there are a few things, like not having to go to war and stopping Iran (on paper) from developing nuclear weapons for a time, which are both issues created because Iran is run by despicable people. A few companies, such as Boeing, get to sell some products to Iran. It gave Obama and Kerry something to say for a legacy. But, how does it benefit America as a nation? Had there been a true measure to ban all nuclear weapons for all time for Iran, then it would be worth it. But, anyhow, the Washington Post Editorial Board will always find a way to back Obama and America’s enemies over Israel and America

Netanyahu’s revelations aren’t enough to justify ripping up the Iran nuclear agreement

AS PRESIDENT Trump approaches his May 12 deadline for deciding whether to abrogate the Iran nuclear deal, allies are lining up to lobby him — something our attention-craving president no doubt is savoring. Last week the French and German leaders trekked to the White House to make their pro-pact cases; now, via televised address, comes Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the accord’s most determined opponents. Mr. Netanyahu had something unique to offer: a trove of Iranian documents outlining work on nuclear arms, pilfered by the Mossad from a Tehran warehouse in January. What he didn’t have was a coherent case for why the deal should be scrapped.

It being based on lies is apparently not a reason. Here’s where it gets interesting

Mr. Netanyahu argued that Iran violated the deal by lying to the IAEA about its previous pursuit of a weapon. But that, too, was well known. The real purpose of the pact was to curb Tehran’s future activity, at least for a decade or so. Multiple IAEA reports and even the Trump administration have confirmed that, on that score, Iran has complied. That’s why Mr. Netanyahu’s own top national security officials support the agreement; the Israeli army’s chief of staff recently said , “Right now, the agreement, with all its flaws, is working and putting off realization of the Iranian nuclear vision by 10 to 15 years.” (snip)

Mr. Trump has been coy about his intentions, allowing suspense to build, but he seems strongly inclined to withdraw from the accord. It’s not clear he has studied the merits of doing so, or the possible consequences; on Monday he grossly misstated the terms of the deal, saying that, under it, “in seven years . . . Iran is free to go ahead and develop nuclear weapons.” (In fact, Iran is permanently banned from developing nukes.) Mr. Trump has frequently said he does not want the United States to fight more Middle East wars. If so, it would be in his interest to look beyond Mr. Netanyahu’s video appeals before making a final decision.

Which is it? There are various sunset provisions

Several of the key limitations on uranium-enrichment activities phase out between 10 and 15 years after implementation of the accord, which occurred in January 2016. For instance, starting in January 2026, Iran is free to enrich uranium using advanced centrifuges and install and operate a greater number of first-generation IR-1 centrifuges. Currently, Iran is restricted to using 5,060 IR-1 machines to enrich uranium. In January 2031, the 300-kilogram limit on Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium will expire, and Iran will be permitted to enrich uranium to levels greater than 3.67 percent uranium-235.

The expiration of these limits will shorten Iran’s potential breakout time, the time it would take to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, to less than the current 12 months. Yet, additional barriers remain in place—some will expire subsequently, others are permanent—that are intended to prevent or deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

Some of those are demands for inspection. Well, we already know Iran is playing games with secret sites, and some sites were excluded from inspection. They couldn’t possibly be doing anything there, right? But, what about

The reason is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This treaty prohibits Iran and all other non-nuclear weapons states from ever developing nuclear weapons. Iran and the United States along with nearly all other nations in the world (except Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Sudan) are signatories. Critics claim that the JCPOA is not a “real” treaty because Congress did not ratify it. By contrast, the NPT is indeed a real treaty, ratified by the United States Congress in 1969, having gone into effect in 1970.

Iran signed it in 1970, and, yet, they were actually doing the work to develop nuclear weapons. But, hey, they would never cheat on it again, because Obama told them not too, right? The Islamist nation of Iran is totally above board in everything, totally trustworthy.

So, since the deal was signed, Iran was given billions of dollars by Obama, they’re getting all sorts of treasury enriching cash from nations and companies since the sanctions were removed, they’ve gotten even friskier in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is considering their own nuclear weapons program due to their concern over the sunset provisions and Iran being big, fat liars. Iran has seemingly become more entrenched in their hard lines, when we were told that the moderates would come out of the woodwork and take over. Things have essentially gotten a lot worse in the Middle East with the Iran deal in place.

There are cases to be made for and against keeping this bad deal. The WPEB is making a bad one, based on wanting Obama to keep his legacy (which will be interesting when Iran suddenly says “hey, we have nuclear weapons” in the future) and hating Israel.

Read: Washington Post Finally Finds Way To Dismiss Iran Deal Revelations »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Iran, Wonky Media | Comments Off on Washington Post Finally Finds Way To Dismiss Iran Deal Revelations | Trackback URL

Surprise: Enviro-Weenies Protest Clean Power Project

By William Teach May 2, 2018 – 3:08 pm

I’ve said it before and I’ll say…ok, write…it again: the greenie weenies are great with alternative energy in principle, but not in action

(Daily Caller) Environmentalists in New England are voicing concern over a proposal that would provide an abundance of clean hydropower, hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue every year.

Charlie Baker, the moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts, has worked relentlessly to reduce his state’s carbon footprint and is now looking to Canada for renewable energy sourced from a series of dams. The environmentally-friendly governor is in negotiations to obtain a large swath of electricity from Hydro-Québec, a province-owned energy company that generates all of its electricity from its colossal system of 63 hydroelectric power stations.

If completed, the arrangement would power 1.2 million homes with 1,200 megawatts of low emission hydropower and reduce overall energy costs. Additionally, it would generate an estimated $18 million in annual property tax revenue and create 1,700 new jobs during its construction phase.

What has the greenie weenies with their panties in a wad?

Environmentalists, however, are still questioning the project.

To get Hydro-Quebec’s electricity to Massachusetts, Central Maine Power will need to construct a 150-wide path through New England and need 1,000 support structures. Some conservationists are opposing any sort of development in the region’s forests and surmising that the project will not even reduce carbon emissions.

It’s like they think the power will magically appear from the power station to the consumers. This same thing has happened many times before, where, if they can get the “green” energy facility (wind, solar, hydro) built, the GWs complain and even sue to block running transmission lines. They always have some excuse to protest and sue.

Of course, many of them are cool with tons of giant wind turbines despoiling the countryside when they aren’t actually near themselves.

Read: Surprise: Enviro-Weenies Protest Clean Power Project »

Posted in Energy, Enviroweenies | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 2, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible asphalt used for fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on the NY Times wishing Karl Marx a happy birthday.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

It’s Politics, Not Science, Which Can Solve Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach May 2, 2018 – 11:03 am

Further reinforcement that this whole thing has little to do with science, and everything to do with far left Progressive (nice Fascism) policies

Science can’t solve climate change — better politics can, former IPCC scientist says

It’s not every day you hear that the climate change debate needs to be “more political and less scientific” — but that is exactly what Mike Hulme is calling for.

It’s not every day that you hear the cat let out of the bag

The 2015 Paris agreement was declared “a victory for climate science“, but Professor Hulme — who used to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — is not convinced that the Paris deal will work.

In fact, he said he thought climate change was in danger of becoming a “fetish” and that rallying cries to “save the planet by limiting global warming to 2 degrees” could distract us from the “political logjam” in front of us.

Meanwhile, representatives of the 197 countries that signed on to Paris are making fossil fueled trips to Bonn, Germany, to yammer on again. What’s that carbon footprint for the thousands who will head to Bonn?

The professor is arguing that rather than global agreements, there needs to be agreements between small areas, like cities and town. This is also something that the Progressive gun grabbers are attempting to do with gun control: implement draconian, people controlling regulations at the localized level.

“Sometimes, framing actions as [tackling] climate change will not bring people into a community meeting. But framing it as making savings on energy bills will gain more traction,” said Macquarie University geographer Donna Houston, who hosted a postgraduate workshop with Professor Hulme in Sydney last week.

Her research found that when local councillors or community members were trying to gain support for climate action, they sometimes gave it a different label, such as “sustainability”.

“It was often easier not to refer to climate change,” she said.

In other words, bullshit people in order to allow government to force them to change their behavior.

They can’t convince us that AGW/ACC is real, that mankind is mostly/solely behind the small increase in average temperatures and that this is super bad, and they can’t even convince most Warmists to practice what they preach, so, lies to force compliance.

Read: It’s Politics, Not Science, Which Can Solve Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Peak 2018? Women Won’t Date Men Who Yell At Alexa

By William Teach May 2, 2018 – 8:45 am

The thing about Peak 2018 is that there is no longer a peak: it’s just one short jump from one Everest sized peak to the next by the SJWs/virtue signalers. Everything is The Worst in their world, and they have to let everyone know that they’re Offended and Outraged, and they expect you to jump on the bandwagon and be Offended and Outraged

I Don’t Date Men Who Yell at Alexa

When Jeremy barked orders at his personal assistant, she didn’t flinch, but I did. Something about the sound of his sharp, commanding tone—directed not at me, but still, at a woman—repulsed me. In the few weeks we had been dating, he had never spoken to me this way. But could he? Hearing Jeremy make ungrateful demands didn’t make him seem powerful or important. He sounded entitled and difficult, like someone who enjoyed commanding for the sake of commanding. He would ask her to do things he could easily do himself, almost as if to prove that he could. Surely, it would take less time to reach out and hit the light switch by the door than to bark “ALEXA. LIGHTS ON” every time he entered the apartment.

So began my habit of noting how men speak to their devices. Not all men are as bad as Jeremy, of course. There was also the sensitive Southern gentleman who tenderly asked Google to play him a thunderstorm (the “hey” added a welcome salutation, lessening the abruptness), and the workaholic surgeon who courteously entreated Alexa to order more paper towels. (His lilting tone turned “Alexa?” into a request rather than a command.) Smart speakers have only been around a few years, but they are rapidly becoming pervasive—with 1 in 6 Americans now owning one, up 128 percent from January 2017, it’s clear my smart home etiquette pet peeve is something I’ll continue to grapple with.

Anyone who tends to speak loud to their home assistant, raise your hand. My hand is up. And, regardless of pitch, yeah, you are ordering it to do something. Because it’s a freaking machine. It’s not a real person. Why do I have to explain this? Because it’s 2018, and some people are bat guano insane.

With the newly announced Echo Dot Kids Edition, Amazon seems to be recognizing similar concerns—but in children, not dates. The kid-friendly Alexa will include a “Magic Word” feature, which will offer “positive reinforcement for using the word ‘please’ while asking questions.” It’s not a moment too soon, with parents deeply worried about the effects of smart speakers on children’s social development. How does having an in-home helper who doesn’t expect a “please” or a “thank you” affect their manners? Will interacting with something—or someone, as it might feel to a child—so compliant make them excessively bossy? Are smart homes turning kids into “raging assholes,” as this 2016 blog post contends? The long-term implications of growing up in a smart home are untested and hard to predict.

Oh deal Lord, these people are nuts. Next up, they’ll probably complain about people speaking loud at their in-car voice system (I always tell people to speak in a regular voice, don’t yell at it).

One thing that is already clear: The way people speak to Alexa, Cortana, and Siri already changes the way I see them. It matters how you interact with your virtual assistant, not because it has feelings or will one day murder you in your sleep for disrespecting it, but because of how it reflects on you. Alexa is not human, but we engage with her like one. We judge people by how they interact with retail and hospitality workers—it supposedly says a lot about a person that they are rude to wait staff. Of course, waiters are more deserving of respect than robots—you could make or break a worker’s mood with your thoughtlessness, while Alexa doesn’t have moods (she only cares about yours). But the underlying revelation is the same: Who are you when in a position of power, and how do you treat those beneath you?

Just stop, please. Stop.

Perhaps if Alexa were Alex (and Siri, Sir) this wouldn’t be so unsettling. It’s hard to listen to a man call out a woman’s name followed by a command—it’s even harder not to wonder if the tone of the command was in any way influenced by the gendered word preceding it, with gender shown to have a big role in how people perceive bots. Maybe if we stop giving robots default female names and voices, as many have argued, I would feel less irked by men’s tone toward them. But perhaps, most disconcerting of all, men would be less rude to them if they sounded like dudes.

It’s a machine. And, men, and women, would speak to them in the same manner if they had a male voice. Because the vast majority of us understand it’s a machine with no feelings. And aren’t looking for something to be Offended and Outraged over. If only these same O&O people would put their energies into dealing with real things, like, say, bad/uncaring drivers. I’m outraged by the ever growing thing of blowing off stop signs. People not even doing slow and goes. When doing that, they aren’t even really taking the time to truly look both ways. I’m not going to dwell on this, done it enough in Real Life, but, one would think that if these people do not care about other people, they’d at least care about themselves and the tens of thousands of dollars they spent on an automobile.

Read: Peak 2018? Women Won’t Date Men Who Yell At Alexa »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

USA Today: Big Panel Of Trump Supporters Think Trump’s Lying About Stormy Daniels, And Don’t Care

By William Teach May 2, 2018 – 8:22 am

This is what passes for “journalism”: asking some Trump supporters about Stormy Daniels

Trump voters think he’s lying about Stormy Daniels. And no, they don’t really care.

Yes, they think President Trump’s lying about Stormy Daniels. And no, they really do not care.

Americans who voted for the president say they don’t believe his denial of the adult film star’s claim that she had a 2006 affair with Trump, the same year that Melania Trump gave birth to their son Barron. But that hasn’t tempered their sky-high support for the president. Neither has the Russia investigation into possible collusion tied to Trump, which they see as an increasingly transparent charade that’s wasting tax dollars and distracting from his agenda.

That’s according to the USA TODAY Trump Voter Panel, a free-floating focus group of 25 people nationwide who cast ballots for the president and now weigh in on the his performance every few months.

An entire story positioned as being all Trump voters based on a group of 25 people. Over 61 million voted for Trump.

“I’m not in the man’s pants. I don’t know what he did when he pulled them down,” Monty Chandler, a disabled veteran from Church Point, La., says of Daniel’s claims. “The only evidence is her, the hush money. We’re human. We all sin. And he tried to cover it up.”

He’s equally dismissive of the Russia-related allegations, echoing Trump’s descriptor of the investigation as a “witch hunt.” (snip)

“Once you’re a believer and supporter, you stay with who you believe is going to do everything correct,” says JoAnne Musial of Canadensis, Penn. “He’s going through hell, I’ll tell you that: I know of no other human in office who could go through what he’s going through.”

Fifteen of the respondents say they think Trump had a tryst with Daniels, with three saying he did not and three still unsure. Four did not respond. Of the panel’s seven women, six belive Trump stepped out on his wife, with several chalking it up to “boys will be boys” behavior.

“I hate to say this, but it’s a male thing,” laments Patricia Shomion of Mount Gilead, Ohio. “I think he’s mostly lying to himself, that he can’t bring himself out to say, ‘Well, I did, but it’s gone.’”

And while most believe Trump had an affair over 10 years ago, virtually none find that relevant to his presidency: Just one claimed the scandal had put a dent in their support.

That’s because no one really cares, except in the Leftist media. It’s immaterial. If it happened, it happened well before Trump became president. Consider that no one in the media was really caring to delve into Obama’s use of drugs, including cocaine and marijuana (illegal under federal law), prior to entering politics. They didn’t care to delve into his time at Columbia. They cared very little to delve into his relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrne, both unrepentant terrorist bombers.

These same people had little interest in investigating Fast and Furious, whereby the administration allowed guns to be purchased and then run across the border into Mexico and losing track of them. Said guns were used to kill to federal border agents, lots of Mexicans (and harming lots of Mexicans), and were even linked to a jihadi attack in Paris. They weren’t interested in most things Obama. They truly were lapdogs. Imagine Trump doing the same things Obama did: how would the media react? How would they react if Trump tried a gun running program like F&F and have it go wrong the same way? Yeah, there’s your answer.

If Trump had a tryst with Daniels, who does care? Daniels never claims it was anything but consensual. Just like the so-called collusion, there’s nothing there there.

And the media wonder’s why their credibility is shot.

Read: USA Today: Big Panel Of Trump Supporters Think Trump’s Lying About Stormy Daniels, And Don’t Care »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise: New Study Makes Case For Governmental Control Of Fossil Fuels Usage

By William Teach May 1, 2018 – 2:59 pm

Funny how this all boils down to ever increasing Big Government, eh?

New study makes the case for supply-side climate change policies

A pair of economists, Fergus Green of the London School of Economics, and Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute have published an interesting paper that attempts to integrate and synthesize the economic and political attributes of restrictive supply-side climate policies.

The paper, “Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies,” is a long read and at the same time, advocates the need for a universal climate policy “toolkit,” one that goes beyond focusing on restricting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

And according to David Roberts, writing for Vox, the two economists may be onto something that climate activists have long been campaigning for – shutting down mines and wells; banning new ones; opting against new pipelines, refineries, and export terminals. (snip)

The economists argue that restrictive supply-side (RSS) climate policies have unique economic and political benefits and deserve a place alongside carbon prices and renewable energy supports in the climate policy toolkit.

“In our experience,” the authors write, “the climate policy community has for too long been excessively narrow in its preference for certain kinds of policy instruments (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade), largely ignoring the characteristics of such instruments that affect their political feasibility and feedback effects.”

I think we should start by banning all city, county, and state governments from using fossil fuels for their operations that have voted for ‘climate change’ policies, even if just a resolution in support of something like the Paris Climate Agreement.

Read: Surprise: New Study Makes Case For Governmental Control Of Fossil Fuels Usage »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 1, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful trees soon to die off from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Geller Report, with a post on Berkeley considering stripping funds from College Republicans.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Cult of Climastrology Is Powered By Child Labor In Africa

By William Teach May 1, 2018 – 10:48 am

The Cult of Climastrology keeps saying that ‘climate change’ harms women, children, the poor, and minorities the most

They also tell us that “developing nations” are hurt the most and will bear the brunt and stuff. So, 4 out of 5 (via Twitchy)

Carmakers and big tech struggle to keep batteries free from child labor

Car and tech companies are scrambling for supplies of cobalt, a mineral they need to power electric vehicles and smartphones. But they have a problem: Much of the cobalt used in lithium-ion batteries comes from a country where children work in mines.

A CNN investigation has found that child labor is still being used to mine the valuable mineral at some operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This country produces about two-thirds of the world’s cobalt and is estimated to sit atop half of the globe’s reserves.

There have been warnings about child labor before – Amnesty International highlighted the problem in 2016 and Glencore (GLNCY), a leading cobalt producer, said last month that some small mines in the DRC are using children.

The problem may be getting worse. Rising demand has led cobalt prices to quadruple in the past two years, and that helped boost production at so-called artisanal miners in the DRC by 18% in 2017, according to Andries Gerbens at Darton Commodities.

Of course, black kids in Africa aren’t minorities, but, the 1st World Warmists who drive this whole thing think of all who aren’t white liberals/progressives/Marxists/Socialists as minorities. And all sorts of car manufacturers, and Apple, give some sketchy platitudes about attempting to maybe possibly Do Something, but, really, it doesn’t seem that many of the greenie-weenies buying electric cars and such care beyond platitudes and talking points.

Ethics schmethics, the Warmists would be very upset if they actually had to pay a whole lot more for their beliefs. What’s a little child labor to keep their costs for Virtue Signaling down?

So, yeah, the climate change scam is hurting the poor, minorities, and kids. Manufacture one crisis, and it creates another.

BTW, despite the graphic, give it up to Tesla, which gets its cobalt from the Philippines and Canada. Of course, we may still find that Panasonic, the supplier for the Philippines batteries, uses child labor.

Read: Cult of Climastrology Is Powered By Child Labor In Africa »

Posted in Climate Ghouls, Global Warming | Comments Off on Cult of Climastrology Is Powered By Child Labor In Africa | Trackback URL

NJ Considers Raising Age To Buy Rifles And Shotguns

By William Teach May 1, 2018 – 8:04 am

Repeat after me: “Democrats are totally not looking to take away people’s Rights to purchase firearms, we just want to make it more difficult for Bad people to get firearms”

Lawmakers want to raise age to buy rifles, shotguns in N.J.

You may soon be barred from legally buying a rifle or shotgun in New Jersey until you turn 21.

The latest gun-control bill introduced by Democratic lawmakers in the New Jersey Legislature would raise the minimum age to obtain a permit to purchase either weapon in the Garden State from 18 to 21.

That would match up with current state law that requires people to be 21 to buy handguns from licensed dealers.

It’s the latest in a string of bills sponsored by Democrats make New Jersey’s already tough gun laws even tougher — an effort that has increased in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting and other massacres.

The sponsors of this measure — state Assemblymen Roy Freeman, and Andrew Zwicker, both D-Somerset — said the goal is to prevent gun violence.

“There is no easy solution to the proliferation of gun violence in this country, but there are measures we can take to help keep people safe,” Freiman said in a statement. “Bringing the rules on rifles and shotguns in line with the rules on handguns can help. If you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, the same standard should apply to rifles and shotguns.”

There’s no evidence offered that this type of restriction in any way causes issues to the criminals that use firearms in the vast majority of shootings. They try and make a link with

The lawmakers cited data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, which show 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides four times more than those who are 21 or older.

“Research shows that the adolescent brain is still maturing in the teenage years, which is why teens often make decisions instinctively and without weighing the consequences,” Freiman said.

But, where’s the proof that the firearms had been purchased legally? How many of the shooters are gang bangers and/or just scumbags, mostly residing in Democrat run cities, who stole the firearms or procured them illegally in another manner? As someone in the comments notes “Is that all 18 to 20 year olds or is that 18 to 20 year old legal gun owners? Because if it’s the former and not the latter, it’s a pretty meaningless statistic.” That would be nice to know.

But, what this is is an attempt from Democrats to Do Something, regardless of whether it will create the desired outcome. When 18-20 year olds continue shooting others willy nilly, despite being banned from buying firearms, will the NJ lawmakers then….raise the purchase age to 25? And this all just shows that Democrats will institute gun bans in dinks and dunks.

Women aged 18-20 living alone/scared about being assaulted should take comfort that their ability to defend themselves is being taken away in the interest of something or other.

Read: NJ Considers Raising Age To Buy Rifles And Shotguns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove