Literature Needs To Encompass ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach August 24, 2016 – 11:15 am

Essentially, what we have here is a professor calling for all books to include Hotcoldwetdry, as brought to us by Dan Bloom, who I assume is the same one who follows me and I follow him on Twitter, and he’s a big proponent of climate fiction, otherwise known as CliFi. Seems to be a nice guy, had convos with him

(Global Issues) A literature professor at Cornell University in upstate New York, Nick Admussen, has recently published an online literary essay about writing novels in the Anthropocene Age.

Titled “Six proposals for the reform of literature in the age of climate change,” the 1500-word essay will change the way you think about how modern novelists need to change they ways they try to tackle climate change themes.

Admussen is an assistant professor of Chinese literature and culture at Cornell and has an MFA degree in poetry. In the essay, which has reached a larger audience of literary critics and writers worldwide via social media, Admussen uses the negative poetics of an an early 20th century Chinese writer to outline some habits he feels that fiction writers need to break in order to make culture more responsive to climate change. It might be one of the most important literary essays of the 21st century, and whether you agree with all his six proposals or not, Admussen’s piece deserves an international readership.

Basically, he wants all novels to discuss ‘climate change’, and further position it as doomworthy.

Oh, and unsurprisingly, he rails against corporations and powerful people. He loves the idea of redistributing Other People’s money. Giving those who had no involvement with developing industry and such a full share in it. And, of course, demands that others do as they are told.

Read: Literature Needs To Encompass ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Should Questions About Hillary Clinton’s Health Be Off Limits?

By William Teach August 24, 2016 – 8:52 am

Should we not have questions about the health of a presidential candidate along with their fitness to serve? Liberals were very concerned about George Bush’s past alcoholism. With whether John McCain being born in the Panama Canal zone made him ineligible (and don’t forget the false story about him having an affair). With Mitt Romney’s school prank with a haircut, putting a dog on the car room, and “magic underwear.” Oh, and let’s not forget about Bob Doles infirmities. They were all very concerned with McCain’s age. And infirmity from being a POW.

But, now, any legitimate concern over Hillary’s health is Out Of Bounds! It’s also considered sexist. At The Hill, Joe Concha delves into this

Clinton health questions: Off limits or legitimate issue?

Hillary Clinton is 68 years old. She’s been diagnosed with cerebral venous thrombosis; head trauma, pregnancy, cancer, brain infection, autoimmune diseases and inborn clotting abnormalities are all predisposing factors, per The Washington Post. She’s currently taking blood thinners. Four years ago, Clinton fainted, hit her head and suffered a concussion.

She’s also the odds-on favorite to assume one of the most strenuous jobs on the planet as president of the United States.

But lately many in the media have become outraged that Clinton’s health is being broached at all. And what are the primary two words associated when Donald Trump, a Trump surrogate or conservative media bring up Clinton’s medical condition?

“Conspiracy theories.”

While, for the most part, these kinds of attacks are more of a low hanging fruit, the types of attacks that occur during political season – how many times has Team Hillary, Democrats in general, and the media speculated about the mental condition of Donald Trump? – and should not get in the way of actual policy discussions, it is legitimate to wonder whether a candidate could have severe health problems that interfere with their ability to do the job of POTUS. Much like questions on her use of an unsanctioned email server which featured national security violations, along with her pay-for-play schemes via the Clinton Foundation, are legitimate. Who is she serving? Herself? Or We The People?

Concha continues on for quite some time, and even provides links to stories from the Credentialed Media which were concerned with McCain’s age and past health problems. This same media demanded more and more of his health records, and even after he released over 1,100 pages, they wanted more. But, they were good with a 1 pager from Obama.

Her own staff has even said she is “easily confused.” She has had some serious health problems. She might have problems on stairs. She has a persistent cough. She seems to disappear from the campaign trail, and her staff has said she has problems with sleeping in. It’s altogether legitimate to wonder if she’s physically capable of doing the job.

Let’s also not forget that Hillary, her surrogates, and her PACs attacked Bernie Sanders on his age, and wanted all of his health records released.

Read: Should Questions About Hillary Clinton’s Health Be Off Limits? »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 95 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Seems Rather Upset By Judges TG School Ruling

By William Teach August 24, 2016 – 8:25 am

If you’ll remember back a few days, a federal judge has placed a block on Obama’s directive that schools allow little boys and girls who feel that they are the opposite sex to use whatever bathroom and locker room they want. The NY Times Editorial Board finally gets around to tell us they are Very Upset

More Attacks On Transgender Rights

Judge O’Connor on Sunday issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits the Education Department from enforcing its guidelines nationwide. In a 38-page order, he barred the federal government from taking enforcement action against discriminatory policies or practices.

The ruling, which the Justice Department is expected to appeal, may lead educators around the country to question whether they need to follow the Education Department’s transgender guidelines as the new school year starts. They would be wrong not to; the rules provide a common-sense approach that makes harassment and stigmatization of transgender students less likely.

These legal assaults on equal protection for transgender Americans are based on bigotry and the specious claim that they pose a threat to the safety of others. The toll exacted on this vulnerable population is heavy and will remain so as these cases and other litigation involving transgender laws move through the courts.

In Liberal World, wanting privacy from being forced to expose your body to people of the opposite biological sex is now considered bigotry. Little girls not wanting to be naked or near naked around biological boys and men is considered bigotry. Funny how Liberals scream about “my body my choice” when it comes to abortion on demand, then turn around and demand that females of all ages be exposed to penis in their bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms with no say in the matter.

See, though, it doesn’t stop there. They demand that the gender confused be allowed to use a chosen pronoun. It’s not just calling boys “her” and girls “him”. Or even “they”. Oh, no, these raving wackjobs have come up with a wide range of terms, like ze, zir, Xe, Xem, hir, and so many more

Seriously, it gets even wackier. I wonder what the policies are at the NY Times building. Do the ladies get very upset when an obvious biological male uses the lady’s room? Is this allowed?

Of course, being Liberal World, the gender confusion doesn’t stop with this stuff

https://twitter.com/APDillon_/status/768411760676118528

This applies to locker rooms, showers, playing on the opposite biological sex sports team, housing, and “other sex-specific activities”. So, anyone can declare they’re gender confused and just head into the showers, etc. of the opposite biological sex for a quick peek and such whenever they want.

We joke about liberalism being a mental disease. That’s coming true, and they’re spreading their insanity and deviancy to everyone, and often by government mandate.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Seems Rather Upset By Judges TG School Ruling »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 23, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that is angry due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on gun control cultists being knuckle dragging morons.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Snap! Single Payer Is Totally Inevitable, You Guys!

By William Teach August 23, 2016 – 10:24 am

As the major structural issues of Obamacare continue to crop up, issues that were exposed even before the law was passed, issues that were said were features, not bugs, ones that would lead to a leftist call for single payer, and we were told “oh, come on, stop with the conspiracies!”, well, the calls for a public option and single payer keep growing. Guess this isn’t so much of a conspiracy

Why A Single-Payer Healthcare System Is Inevitable

The best argument for a single-payer health plan is the recent decision by giant health insurer Aetna to bail out next year from 11 of the 15 states where it sells Obamacare plans.Aetna’s decision follows similar moves by UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health insurer, and by Humana, another one of the giants.

All claim they’re not making enough money because too many people with serious health problems are using the Obamacare exchanges, and not enough healthy people are signing up.

The problem isn’t Obamacare per se. It lies in the structure of private markets for health insurance – which creates powerful incentives to avoid sick people and attract healthy ones. Obamacare is just making this structural problem more obvious.

In a nutshell, the more sick people and the fewer healthy people a private for-profit insurer attracts, the less competitive that insurer becomes relative to other insurers that don’t attract as high a percentage of the sick but a higher percentage of the healthy.

Eventually, insurers that take in too many sick and too few healthy people are driven out of business.

Obamacare created a situation where there were more sick people than healthy joining the exchanges, yet, this was all turned around into blame on the insurance providers in order to say “see? We need single payer.” The structure of Ocare was designed to eventually collapse to pave the way to say “see? We need single payer.”

The real choice in the future is either a hugely expensive for-profit oligopoly with the market power to charge high prices even to healthy people and stop insuring sick people.

Or else a government-run single payer system – such as is in place in almost every other advanced economy – dedicated to lower premiums and better care for everyone.

We’re going to have to choose eventually.

Lest you think this is just some barely known or totally unknown crank yammering on at the Huffington Post, alas, no, the writer is Robert Reich, a big time lefty who served under Bill Clinton, and is a major supporter of single payer (for Other People). And he’s been saying virtually the same thing for years, such as in July, 2015.

As the structure of Ocare continues to degrade (in a manner exactly as opponents predicted), Leftists will increase their calls for single payer, putting the health care of over 300 million under the fingers of a tiny number of politicians and unelected bureaucrats.

Read: Snap! Single Payer Is Totally Inevitable, You Guys! »

Posted in Healthcare, Liberal World | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Will ‘Climate Change’ Policy Hurt Hillary And Democrats In 2016?

By William Teach August 23, 2016 – 7:58 am

Hillary Clinton doesn’t seem to have the same passion for the Cult of Climastrology as Barack Obama, but, she certainly wouldn’t do away with his job killing, cost of living increasing regulations, and would most likely expand on them in a way that would benefit her and her donors. In the pages of the Washington Post, Ed Rogers argues that this will hurt her this election cycle

…the president’s insistence on continuing to make climate change a central part of the past few months of his presidency is having an impact on the 2016 presidential election. (Disclosure: My firm represents interests in the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries.) Hillary Clinton has already repeatedly promised to expand on President Obama’s executive actions on climate-change-related regulations and policies. Her campaign website explicitly states, “Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference — without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation” — and that’s just one small part of her frightening plan. The Democrats like to pretend that global warming is an environmental issue, but in fact, they make it an economic issue and do so at their own peril. If the Democrats are going to make climate change a campaign issue, Republicans have an opportunity to call Clinton out when she is unable to reconcile her calls for more regulation and more spending on global warming measures with the more urgent need to revive economic growth and foster a friendlier business environment for job creation.

Here’s the problem: Republican candidates and campaign managers aren’t very good at getting on message and shifting the topic. Most people do not care about ‘climate change’. As has been noted time and time again, it comes in last or next to last when stacked up against most other issues on what Americans care about. The Republican political class therefore ignores the subject, rather than using it to attack Democrats. It’d be a huge benefit to Trump and down ballot Republicans to start attack Dems for their so-called belief in AGW, which results in more governmental control of people, private entities, and the economy, all while harming citizen’s cost of living.

What do Clinton’s global warming plans mean for the U.S. economy? They mean more of the same: more of the malaise that produced Donald Trump, stalled GDP growth, deprived the U.S. economy of trillions of dollars and kept it from being the spark that could have helped bolster economies around the world.

What have Obama’s ‘climate change’ policies done? They sure haven’t grown the economy, except for some of his donors, who received lots of money from the taxpayers to create failing “green energy” projects.

The Democrats can’t have it both ways when they talk about expanding costly programs to combat climate change and the need to create jobs. Republican candidates need to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire and force them to be more precise. Exactly how much do Obama and Clinton want a gallon of gasoline to cost? Exactly how much do they want your electricity bill to go up? What else do they want you to pay for, and what else about your behavior do they demand you change in the name of saving the world? They should be specific. Does Clinton agree with Obama that global warming is one of America’s biggest national security threats? If so, she should say so. And, if it is so important, she should talk in more detail on the campaign trail about the legislation, regulations, agreements and treaties related to climate change policies that she would pursue as president. The Trump campaign doesn’t appear to have the wherewithal to delve deep on this issue or others, so it will be up to GOP congressional campaigns to reveal the Democrats’ hypocrisy.

Instead of avoiding the debate because Republicans, and most Americans, really do not care about the issue, they should embrace it and attack Democrats, much as the few, such as Senator Jim Inhofe, does. Stop thinking that this is any way a science issue. It’s politics and power. Get Hillary and Democrats to attempt to defend the hard numbers and policies, exposing exactly what is going on, which ain’t science, folks.

And oh, by the way, the fact that the costs of these measures won’t ever personally impact Obama or Clinton makes for good campaign rhetoric. Obama and Clinton will travel with cars and drivers supplied by American taxpayers for the rest of their lives. They will never fly on anything but a private airplane unless they want to. They will probably never have another mortgage, and their kids will always have plush jobs. It’s hypocritical for them to continue to push for punitive measures that will negatively impact American families while having no discernible positive impact on the climate.

Get Hillary and the Dems who push this claptrap to attempt to defend their own giant carbon footprints while pushing for Everyone Else to be forced to comply with the policies they’re pushing. Force them to defend their hypocrisy. As the saying goes, “if you’re defending, you’re losing.”

Read: Will ‘Climate Change’ Policy Hurt Hillary And Democrats In 2016? »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Calls For Special Prosecutor To Look At Clinton Foundation

By William Teach August 23, 2016 – 7:33 am

There’s a couple maxims in politics. One is that an honest politician is one who stays bought. Another is that if it looks like corruption, feels like corruption, it’s probably corruption. Most realize there was something very shady about the Clinton Foundation, and how those how there was a pretty big link between people, entities, and governments making donations then suddenly getting access to the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and a new released giant batch of emails makes the case that there was pay for play going on.

(Fox News) Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called for an “expedited investigation” by a special prosecutor into “pay-to-play” accusations involving the Clinton Foundation while reiterating on Monday he plans to have a “firm, but fair” stance on illegal immigration.

“The Clintons’ made the State Department into the same kind of Pay-to-Play operations as the Arkansas Government was: pay the Clinton Foundation huge sums of money and throw in some big speaking fees for Bill Clinton and you got to play with the State Department,” Trump said at a campaign rally Monday night in Akron, Ohio.

“The amounts involved, the favors done, the significant amount of time, require an expedited investigation by a special prosecutor immediately, immediately,” he added.

Would a special prosecutor find evidence of criminal wrong-doing? Maybe, maybe not. The Clinton’s are very, very good at hiding their shading activities. She also thought she was very good at hiding her emails, but, the FBI found these almost 15,000 emails, and Hillary has stated that she turned over all her emails. That could be, what’s that word, oh, year, perjury. Even the Washington Post noted that how foundation donors got easy access to Hillary and her aides at the State dept.

(Politico) Donald Trump intensified his effort Monday to shift the focus of the campaign to Hillary Clinton and the huge donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign benefactors, calling for a special prosecutor to “investigate Hillary Clinton’s crimes.”

Trump argued during a campaign rally in Akron, Ohio, that the federal government could not be trusted to impartially probe Clinton’s relationship to the foundation and its donors.

“The Justice Department is required to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor because it has proven itself to be a political arm of the White House,” he said.

Trump has a point: the DOJ seems to very much look at things in a partisan manner under this president. You can bet the farm that if Hillary had an R after her name, they’d be doing massive investigations.

At a minimum, there was a massive conflict of interest. Remember the whines from liberals about Halliburton and Dick Cheney? Cheney had no financial stake or control of the company while serving as Vice President. Hillary was closely involved with her so-called-charity which provided little charity and there is an odor of corruption involving pay for play.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Calls For Special Prosecutor To Look At Clinton Foundation »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Man With Giant Carbon Footprint Blows Out Europa Project To Fund Hotcoldwetdry Research

By William Teach August 22, 2016 – 6:52 pm

Replacing actual science with political cultism

(Daily Caller)  The Obama administration announced plans to scale down NASA’s proposed mission to Jupiter’s icy moon Europa to pay for more global warming research, according to Universe Today.

President Barack Obama requested NASA’s mission to Europa receive only $49.6 million in 2017, far less than the $175 million the mission got from Congress in 2016. Much of the money not spent on the probe would go to global warming research. A rival proposal from the House of Representatives would allocate $260 million to fully fund the mission for the next year.

NASA’s budget for this kind of stuff is already over $2 billion dollar, and they still need to create bad models that do not work and modify data to fit their preconceived notions.

Spending on NASA’s Earth Science Mission Directorate has increased by 63 percent over the last eight years, making it the largest and fastest growing budget of any NASA science program. In comparison, NASA’s other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively, in the budget proposal. Over the same time period, the general NASA budget grew only by 10.6 percent — just enough to account for inflation.

It’d be nice if NASA spent money on real science, rather than voodoo.

Read: Man With Giant Carbon Footprint Blows Out Europa Project To Fund Hotcoldwetdry Research »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach August 22, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise up and cause islands to tip over, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on Trump, lemons, and lemonade.

Read: If All You See… »

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

We Totally Need To “Enlist” The Market In The Climate Change Fight Or Something

By William Teach August 22, 2016 – 10:34 am

You rarely see the Wall Street Journal engaging in Warmism, but, they do often allow opposing voices, in this case Brian Deese and Jeff Zients, both of who work for the Obama admin, who confuse the word “enlist” with “forced by government”

Enlist the Market in the Climate-Change Fight
Standardized disclosure of climate risk will help secure long-term value for investors and taxpayers.

…

This year’s World Economic Forum Global Risks Report declared the “failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation” the “risk with the greatest potential impact in 2016.” Yet financial markets suffer from an alarming lack of standardized and comparable climate-risk information, which keeps investors and policy makers from accurately incorporating these risks into their decisions. Combating climate change requires not only leveraging bold action by governments to cut carbon pollution, but also harnessing the power of market forces with clear, uniformly disclosed assessments of climate-related economic risks.

Enlisting is voluntary. This is more along the lines of being drafted

Likewise, the administration recently proposed requiring that all companies doing business with the federal government publicly disclose what they know about their climate-risk exposure. This information will be a factor in taxpayer-funded contracting decisions. The administration is also working to increase disclosure of climate risks that America’s more than 140 million pension beneficiaries face in their investments. And we now require that our agencies consider and publicly disclose climate risk when undertaking other major federal actions, like leases of public resources, issuance of permits, and investment in infrastructure.

Funny how members of the Cult of Climatrology always want Other People to be forced into Compliance and bear the burden for the beliefs of Warmists via Government.

This Big Government movement goes on for a while, finally ending with

The stakes for our economy are too high to stand still or move backward. This is the moment to accelerate efforts to understand, measure and standardize disclosure of climate risk and put that understanding to use. Doing so will help to secure long-term value for investors and taxpayers; improve market efficiency and stability; strengthen the resilience of our communities; and help the world combat climate change.

Other than confusing enlist with conscript, there’s another word missing, which you can easily see when reading the headline: “free”. As in “free market”. Because anthropogenic climate change has little to do with science and almost everything to do with increased government dominance. In this case, ncreased regulation, increased economic control of the markets, dictating how they act.

Read: We Totally Need To “Enlist” The Market In The Climate Change Fight Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming | Comments Off on We Totally Need To “Enlist” The Market In The Climate Change Fight Or Something | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove