Going Green Totally Needs A Completely New (Government Controlled) Economy

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 6:01 pm

Gee, who would have thought that to solve Hotcoldwetdry we’d need a totally new type of economic model? Well, if you’ve been paying attention, you. Because Warmists tell us their intentions, couched in cute language. This article initially seems as if it is Excuse-making for people not going fully climate change compliant, but…

Going green a drop in the ocean of change needed to fix climate crisis

So, you drive a Toyota Prius, you don’t eat red meat, you only buy organic food, you’ve started buying clothes made from organic bamboo, your household-cleaning products contain no nasty chemicals, you’ve got LED lightbulbs throughout your home and you’ve reluctantly decided to have only one child, despite really wanting more.

Are you now assured your place in a green heaven? Are you now confident your child will not turn to you in your dotage and blame you for the climate spiralling out of control? Can you have your cake and eat it too?

There is an argument that we cannot buy our way out of the climate crisis — that green consumerism is an oxymoron.

Well, if all Warmists practiced what they preach…

Environmental activist Derrick Jensen says green consumerism (now worth about $5-trillion globally) and other acts of “green thrift”, such as having shorter showers, is a “campaign of systematic misdirection” because it assigns blame to the individual instead of those who actually create the problems and wield real power within the economic system.

He argues that it is not individuals who create climate crises but corporations, international financial institutions such as the World Bank and compliant governments.

Blame-shifting. There’s lots more to that, but, let’s skip to the big notions

All of these problems speak to the lie at the heart of green consumerism.

The prevailing economic orthodoxy is wedded to the idea of perpetual growth, which is premised on the continual need to increase production and consumption.

This means hypercapitalism will never voluntarily accept reductions in production and consumption. To do so would be to accept a reduction in profits in a culture where profit is the only objective.

The only thing that will lead to a reduction in production and consumption is organised political resistance. But as Jensen notes, green consumerism has cleverly “redefined us from citizens to consumers, reducing our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming”. Therefore we must reject green consumerism as a solution, for it is only through large-scale collective public resistance against corporate interests, international financial institutions and compliant governments that we can hope to manage the climate crisis.

Is this starting to sound more like a political movement towards Progressive (nice fascism) goals?

Therefore, we must organise, lobby, boycott, vote and vociferously protest. We must campaign for the tighter regulation of corporate power, for environmentally sustainable and equitable transport and housing systems, for higher taxes on the rich and corporates (reversing decades of tax cuts) to enable massive investment in renewable energy and climate-change mitigation and adaptation, for economic equity, and for a socially conscious instrumentalist state that is interested in equity and our long-term survival, not just short-term gain at any expense.

This is a monumental task given the hollowing out of the state via privatisation and deregulation and the hyperindividualism (to reject consumption we have to reject established social norms) that characterises the hypercapitalism of the neoliberal project.

In essence, bigger and bigger government with more and more control. Yet, these same idiots who follow along with these proposals never seem to see the downside in giving over their freedom to government. Because that’s what they’ve been brainwashed to believe. And, if it comes to fruition, they suddenly realize that this isn’t what they wanted. In a similar vein, this is why so many Democrats have abandoned the Democrat led states to head to Southern states. They don’t like the way the policies they supported were harming their own lives.

If you advocate for authoritarian government, don’t be surprised when you get it and it hurts.

Read: Going Green Totally Needs A Completely New (Government Controlled) Economy »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | Comments Off on Going Green Totally Needs A Completely New (Government Controlled) Economy | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible cheese from evil carbon polluting cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on an ascendant nightmare.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Manure Management Is Next Battle For Cult Of Climastrology Or Something

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 10:52 am

Is this one the most perfect headlines you’ve ever seen in regard to ‘climate change’?

Conference to focus on manure management in battle against climate change

Just let that resonate for a few.

  • A big conference with people coming in using fossil fueled vehicles and airplanes? Check
  • Positioning it as a “war”? Check
  • Big-wigs looking for some sort of solutions (which will involve government force)? Check
  • Talking about manure, which is what this issue is? Check

On to the article

More than 250 delegates from across Europe and around the world will gather in Wexford next month to discuss a range of scientific research topics with potentially profound importance for the future environmental performance of Irish agriculture.

The biennial Ramiran (Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial Residues in Agriculture Network) conference is being hosted by Teagasc and will focus on new cutting-edge strategies and technologies to improve the efficiency of manure and residue management on farms.

This has implications far beyond the farm gate, according to Teagasc research officer and conference co-host Dr Karl Richards. “Agriculture accounts for one third of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions,” he says. “By tackling manure management as much as 3-4 per cent of national emissions can be addressed and that could make a significant contribution to meeting our targets for greenhouse gas reductions.”

Four checks. And nothing is better than talking about manure than when talking about anthropogenic climate change.

Read: Manure Management Is Next Battle For Cult Of Climastrology Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bummer: Immigration Raids Sweeping Up Other Illegals Who Weren’t Targets

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 8:30 am

Heartache in Illegal Immigration World as Immigration and Customs Enforcement is allowed to do the job they were tasked to do by Congressional legislation

Immigration Raids Are Sweeping Up More People Who Weren’t Targets

More undocumented immigrants are being swept up in immigration raids targeting their friends, neighbors and coworkers.

Under the Trump Administration’s new enforcement priorities, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are instructed to detain and deport anyone who is in the country illegally, which means even so-called “non-targets” may end up in custody after a raid.

“The biggest change is under the previous Administration, there were a lot of individuals that were not considered amenable to arrest that now, since the change in Administration, our director has said there are not going to be any classes or categories of removable aliens that are exempt,” says ICE spokeswoman Danielle Bennett.

In a four-day operation at the end of July, ICE arrested 650 people. Of those, 457 weren’t targets of the raid. In other words, a full 70% of the immigrants swept up in this operation were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, if law enforcement was engaged in an operation to get drunk drivers, should they let the ones who are speeding, running red lights, and driving like morons because they’re looking at their smartphones go? Just ignore them? At the base level, they are all unlawfully present in the United States. They’re trespassing. The same liberals, like Time writer Tessa Berenson, would call the police if people were squatting in their backyard.

Andrew Nietor, an immigration lawyer based in San Diego, said that under the Obama Administration, many of these people would have never ended up in deportation proceedings, because they weren’t seen as a priority. The focus then was on people who had aggravated felony convictions or who were recidivists. That’s changed.

Interestingly, these same criminals are protected by sanctuary jurisdictions in practice, in contradiction to the talking points. Regardless, if an illegal alien is caught in sweeps, so be it. They should have thought about the consequences of their actions.

You look at the freakout over a mom deported for changing lanes. Well, get this: she had already been deported once, and came back. Thats’ a felony. Recidivism.

So far, the get tough approach is working

(Fox News) Deportation orders have jumped 31 percent this year compared to last year, according to numbers released by the Justice Department.

The numbers, released Tuesday, are an indication President Trump is carrying out his pledge to get tough on illegal immigrants.

From February 1 to the end of July, there were 57,069 illegal immigrants who were either deported or left voluntarily. That’s a 31 percent increase from the same time period last year, when there were 43,595 deportations or self-deportations.

Couple this with the reduction in border crossings, and things are working quite well. It would be interesting to know the numbers when it comes to people overstaying visas.

Read: Bummer: Immigration Raids Sweeping Up Other Illegals Who Weren’t Targets »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Bummer: Immigration Raids Sweeping Up Other Illegals Who Weren’t Targets | Trackback URL

On North Korea, NY Times Is Suddenly Concerned That Trump Made It About Himself

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 8:07 am

We shouldn’t be surprised that the Editorial Board of the NY Times has chimed in on President Trump’s bellicose comments on North Korea threats, and come down on the side of finding fault. They were very enthused by many of Obama’s bellicose statements, such as against Osama bib Laden, al Qaeda, and setting the “red line” for Syria (they were much less enthused when Obama failed to uphold said red line). They also had zero problem with Obama making pretty much everything about himself. But, hey, they have to #Resist Trump

Fears of Missiles, and Words

On some emotional level, one might be able to see why Donald Trump threatened to unleash “fire and fury” against North Korea if it endangered the United States. The North’s nuclear program is a growing menace, its warmongering tirades are unquestionably unnerving, and peaceful solutions to the threat it poses have been maddeningly elusive over many years and many American administrations.

But Mr. Trump is president of the United States, and if prudent, disciplined leadership was ever required, it is now. Rhetorically stomping his feet, as he did on Tuesday, is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous. He is no longer a businessman trying to browbeat someone into a deal. He commands the most powerful nuclear and conventional arsenal in the world, and any miscalculation could be catastrophic.

You can see where this is going: all blame. God forbid the NY Times stand behind the president, as you know they would had it been Hillary or Obama making the statement.

Mr. Trump and his aides must have anticipated that he would be asked by reporters about North Korea after the United Nations Security Council tightened sanctions on Saturday after the North’s latest missile tests. Why, then, didn’t his team of generals — John Kelly, the new chief of staff; Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser; and Jim Mattis, the defense secretary, who know well the perils of war — caution him about the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategy, about better ways to signal toughness and about the dangers of idle threats?

Except, Mr. Trump made no mention of using nuclear weapons. It might be implied, but, the U.S. is quite able to reign “fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before” with conventional weapons.

Since Truman, presidents have largely avoided the kind of militaristic threats issued by Mr. Trump because they feared such language could escalate a crisis.

It worked well in Reagan’s case, where the Soviet Union started disintegrating under his watch. How’s it worked out in North Korea’s case? How have those sanctions worked? Anyhow, here’s where it gets funny

Mr. Trump has again made himself the focus of attention, when it should be Kim Jong-un, the ruthless North Korean leader, and his accelerating nuclear program that, The Washington Post reported, may have succeeded in miniaturizing a warhead to fit on a missile and may have accumulated as many as 60 nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump’s threats have also diverted attention from a genuine accomplishment, the new Security Council sanctions.

There was never this concern when Obama made everything about himself. Always talking about “I”, including himself in photos of things. And Democrats, including the editorial board of the NY Times, screamed like girls at a Beatles concert. Of course, the “making it about himself” thing is only a thought in the martini sipping boardrooms of Liberal Land, while the rest are saying “good job, Mr. President, stand tough for the United States.” The NYTEB would have surely said the same thing if it was President Trump threatening Adolph Hitler in this manner pre-WWII.

Tougher sanctions, coupled with Mr. Tillerson’s continued efforts at a diplomatic solution, are the best path to a peaceful end to this conflict. That is what Mr. Trump should also be focused on. Engaging in a war of words with North Korea only makes it harder for both sides to de-escalate.

Again, how have those calm words coupled with sanctions worked out? No one wants war. It would be devastating. The U.S. would be pretty much fine, but, millions to tens of millions could be killed, what with Seoul, South Korea, being 30 miles south of the DMZ, with over 25 million in range of regular, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Perhaps it’s time to try the forceful tact.

Of course, this is the same paper that allowed Susan Rice, who lied repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi, and failed spectacularly when it comes to North Korea, to write an op-ed on North Korea.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: On North Korea, NY Times Is Suddenly Concerned That Trump Made It About Himself »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | Comments Off on On North Korea, NY Times Is Suddenly Concerned That Trump Made It About Himself | Trackback URL

Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Causes Little Known Tribe To Give Up Being Vegan

By William Teach August 9, 2017 – 3:49 pm

Is there anything that Hotcoldwetdry can’t do?

Climate change effect: Ladakhi tribe no longer vegan

The little-known Brokpa tribals of Ladakh, who claim to have been vegans for some 2,200 years of their existence, are slowly opting for an alternative diet including dairy products, eggs and meat — thanks to climate change.

Climate change has made summer and winter warmer and seen the advent of pests, leading to a significant drop in their traditional crops, forcing the Brokpa to change their lifestyle.

“We have had to shift to an alternative lifestyle, not exactly what the Brokpa once used to be. People also consume meat. Some old folks still avoid this, but eggs, meat and milk are on the menu,” Tsering Namjial, the Nambardar or head of Dha village, told this visiting IANS correspondent.

This is all Al Gore’s fault your fault for refusing to give up your fossil fueled vehicle, refusing to move to a tiny home, and refusing to live like it’s 1499.

Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Causes Little Known Tribe To Give Up Being Vegan »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 9, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is evil carbon polluting (and sexist) cheese that comes from evil carbon polluting, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on a USC cleared of rape charges who could still be expelled.

Read: If All You See… »

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

New Republic: Al Gore’s Massive Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter Or Something

By William Teach August 9, 2017 – 10:33 am

In case you hadn’t noticed, I’ve mentioned the whole “practice what you preach” thing when it comes to Warmists and their pet cult for over a decade of blogging now, because few actually do more than make a few token changes in their own lives, yet, they want to force Everyone Else to make changes in their lives at the end of the government sword. And here we have something fun, via Just One Minute, where Tom Maguire notes that “words speak louder than actions so stop hating you haters”, as the New Republic’s Emily Atkin takes a shot at defending climahypocrisy

Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter
Conservatives say environmentalists are hypocrites if they consume more energy than the average American. It’s a deceitful, disingenuous argument.

Al Gore is back in the spotlight with his new documentary, An Inconvenient Sequel, making him a top target again of the right-wing counter-intel complex. On Thursday, the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research released a report, “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Reality,” that paints the former vice president as a hypocritical climate advocate. In near-creepy detail, NCPPR author Drew Johnson maps Gore’s home in Nashville, Tennessee, down to the number of windows, and concludes that “Gore’s own home electricity use has hypocritically increased to more than 21 times the national average this past year with no sign of slowing down.” Johnson also slams Gore’s numerous attempts to modernize his home through energy efficiency, solar panels, and geothermal heating, saying they have been inadequate in offsetting his energy use.

Emily later notes that Gore isn’t the only Warmist who’s taken shots for being a climahypocrite. Interestingly, she inadvertently lays out the case that all these folks pushing anthropogenic climate change, are, in fact, hypocrites, before finally arriving at her actual argument

The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change) and of poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier, and perhaps more rhetorically effective, than debunking climate science itself. That’s why you only see groups like the National Center for Public Policy Research releasing “studies” on Gore’s energy use. NCPPR, which has been funded by oil interests,

Isn’t that schtick about oil interests exactly what Emily just railed against, a redirection? Anyhow, it’s not up to Skeptics to debunk AGW (though that has been done many, many times, including by Warmists themselves, who trot out false studies, models that fail, etc), it’s up to Warmists to prove their hypothesis using the Scientific Method.

advocates against policies to fight global warming because it denies that global warming exists. “The world isn’t warming,” the group falsely claimed in a 2014 paper arguing against climate regulations. Thus, it’s in their interest to try to undermine one of the most effective advocates of aggressive climate action.

We don’t deny warming, we deny that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. But, this is all a deflectionary argument, moving on to

But the hypocrisy charge simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. An anti-abortion advocate who believes abortion is immoral and should be illegal, but gets one herself, is a hypocrite. But climate change advocates who don’t live a carbon-neutral lifestyle aren’t hypocrites because, for the most part, they’re not asking you to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. They’re asking governments, utilities, energy companies, and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please, without contributing to global warming.

Um, if they’re asking others to practice what they preach while refusing to do the same, that would make them…..hypocrites! And, as Tom Maguire points out, they aren’t asking: they’re demanding that Government pass laws that force compliance.

But the most unfortunate aspect of this argument is how it misleads vulnerable populations. Rich people like Gore and DiCaprio and Obama won’t be affected by climate change.

Nor will they be affected by ‘climate change’ policies. They have enough money to avoid all the negatives of rising taxes, fees, energy and food costs, a general cost of living increase, and restrictive government policies. The middle and lower classes will, though.

Read: New Republic: Al Gore’s Massive Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter Or Something »

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

Heartache: Majority Support Trump’s Legal Immigration Plan

By William Teach August 9, 2017 – 8:40 am

Once again, Democrats are on the wrong side of history. On the bright side, this means some great business for the makers of Rolaids, Pepto Bismal, and other medicines for gastric issues. And aspirin and aspirin substitutes. And Prozac. Valium. Etc

Poll: Voters support Trump-backed immigration bill

Voters support most elements of President Donald Trump’s proposal to scale back legal immigration to the United States and change the criteria by which the U.S. admits immigrants, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

Trump last week announced support for a bill introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) that would favor worker skills over family connections and reduce legal immigration by half.

In defending the bill, White House adviser Stephen Miller cited the popularity of provisions of the bill in public opinion polling and predicted a wave of popular support for a bill that’s been long stalled in the Senate.

And, how’d that turn out?

Majorities back limiting the number of refugees offered permanent residency (58 percent) and establishing a “points system” that would award points based on criteria such as education, English proficiency and prospective salary in the U.S. (60 percent).

Support for some of the other provisions in the bill isn’t as strong but still exceeds opposition. Forty-eight percent of voters support reducing the number of legal immigrants by half over the next decade, compared to 39 percent who oppose that. On what Miller called “unlimited family chain migration,” 45 percent support ending the ability for U.S. citizens and permanent residents to petition to get extended family members green cards, while 39 percent oppose ending that.

Furthermore, we see in the poll (legal immigration questions start on page 4, these next are on 6), 54% believe that professional or academic achievement should be a major factor. 57% say education should be a factor. 54% say need for government assistance should be a factor, meaning, we do not need to be bringing in people who immediately go on the public dole.

35% strongly support limiting the number of refugees offered permanent residency. Only 15% strongly oppose. 24% somewhat support, 16% somewhat oppose. And

As for English-language proficiency, 62 percent say it should be a factor in determining who should be allowed to immigrate legally.

That’s a dagger to the liberal heart, as they prefer bringing in people who aren’t able to communicate with the majority of people in the United States, but do understand general yard maintenance at liberal big-wig McMansions.

Interestingly, the poll samples women 53% to 47% (wait, did Politico assume gender?). And oversamples Democrats 36%, to 32% Independent and 32% Republican.

#Winning.

Read: Heartache: Majority Support Trump’s Legal Immigration Plan »

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Heartache: Majority Support Trump’s Legal Immigration Plan | Trackback URL

Washington Post Has Category 5 Meltdown Over Trump Staying Strong On North Korea

By William Teach August 9, 2017 – 8:12 am

Perhaps they’d prefer the pajama boy, mom jeans, coddling and bowing version one typically saw from Barack Obama when it came to threats from foreign nations. Or, perhaps they’d approve of signing a deal that would simply push North Korea’s nuclear ambitions off for 10 years while giving them oodles of cash and access to more by removing sanctions

Trump’s ‘fire and fury’ threat is a rhetorical grenade

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S unsettling threat Tuesday aimed at North Korea was reckless and unnecessary. In its bombast, it resembled nothing so much as Kim Jong Un’s regular denunciations of the United States, frantic and hyperbolic. Why would the president of the world’s most powerful nation want to descend to that level?

At an event at his New Jersey golf club, Mr. Trump declared, “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” To raise the specter of nuclear war — and to do so to ward off mere threats, at that — is to draw a red line in the most foolish and destabilizing manner.

Au contraire, drawing a red line against a nation using chemical weapons against its citizens, then backing off that red line while saying “I didn’t set the red line, the international community did”, then ignoring more uses of chemical weapons, and watching a nation turn into a hell hole, well, now, that seems to be “in the most foolish and destabilizing manner.” Good thing no one did that, eh?

Since nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki seven decades ago, they have not been used in combat. Still, the danger that they will be used again has never disappeared; the years since the end of World War II have been filled with false alarms and close calls, which could easily recur. The United States and Russia keep thousands of nuclear missiles on launch-ready alert, meaning they are ready to launch within minutes of a president giving the order. Adversaries know this. Mr. Trump’s threat of “fire and fury” may sound like hype to American ears, but the words could be heard quite differently by others, such as Mr. Kim, the belligerent leader of a nuclear North Korea. Mr. Trump’s language could easily be misunderstood — he didn’t say precisely what would lead to “fire and fury” except for North Korea’s “threats”— and the upshot could be miscalculation or, heaven forbid, the kind of accidental entry into conflict that has haunted the globe since the dawn of the atomic age.

So, instead of taking Nutjob Kim to task, the Washington Post Editorial Board…..Blaming Trump. Who’s surprised?

The U.S. nuclear arsenal is kept in harness for one purpose only: deterrence. The definition of deterrence is a credible threat of retaliation that would prevent an adversary from attacking. Credibility, the essence of deterrence, means the other side has to believe the threat is real.

I’m pretty sure Trump has put North Korea on notice that the threat is real when he talks about “fire and fury”. He won’t be responding to North Korean provocations by giving them a nuclear reactor.

North Korea’s steadily advancing nuclear weapons and missile programs are serious; The Post reported Tuesday that intelligence officials believe the Pyongyang regime has successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead to fit on a missile, the next step in a weapons system that could hit the United States. Dealing with that will require patient pressure and skilled diplomacy, perhaps for years. Instead, Mr. Trump has strut into the arena with a jarring rhetorical grenade.

That’s what we’ve been doing for decades. Clinton tried his thing, and that didn’t work. Bush 43 tried engagement and sanctions. Nope. Obama tried to simply ignore the nutters along with sanctions, till that reared up even worse.

And, of course, the WP had to use a nasty looking photo of Trump. Because #Resist.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Has Category 5 Meltdown Over Trump Staying Strong On North Korea »

Posted in Journalistic Malpractice, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove