Danish Could Face “Red Meat” Tax

By William Teach April 26, 2016 – 11:56 am

Isn’t it interesting that virtually every proposal from the Cult of Climastrology ends in either a tax or a Government imposed restriction? Or both? Yet rarely do they propose that Warmists practice what they preach

(The Local DK) Saying that “climate change is an ethical problem”, the Danish Council on Ethics (Det Etiske Råd) has called for a climate tax on red meat.

The council said that Danes have an ethical obligation to minimize their climate impact and that a natural place to start would be lowering their red meat consumption. (snip about UN whining about agriculture and GHG output)

The Council on Ethics said that in order to live up to global environmental standards, Denmark should use a ‘climate tax’ to bring down the nation’s meat consumption. The Council said it debated the issue for six months, focusing on whether it should be left up to consumers to make more climate-friendly choices or if government should push them in the right direction by taxing the food products that have the greatest negative impact.

While the council said that “Danes are ethically obligated to change their eating habits” it ultimately decided that simply leaving it up to consumers to lower their meat consumption “will not be effective”.

So, taxation and governmental control

“An effective response to climate-damaging foods that will also contribute to raising awareness of climate change must be united, which requires that society sends a clear signal through regulation,” council spokesman Mickey Gjerris said in a press release.

And Warmists get upset when they are called fascists and authoritarians. I can’t imagine why!

Read: Danish Could Face “Red Meat” Tax »

Posted in Global Warming | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

Woman Fails To Follow The Rules On Breast Milk At Airport, Posts “Open Letter”

By William Teach April 26, 2016 – 7:15 am

Normally, things like this do not interest me enough to write a post, but, this one has three things: an open letter, stated rules, and people in High Outrage

(UK Daily Mail) A nursing mother was forced to dump nearly four gallons of breast milk after trying to take it through security at an airport.

Security staff allegedly made Jessica Coakley Martinez discard the liquid form of the milk and a two gallon frozen block intended for her eight-month-old son at Heathrow Airport’s terminal five.

The upset mother-of-two from California took to Facebook to rant in a open letter: ‘You humiliated me and made me feel completely defeated as a professional and a mother.’

The angry message, which began ‘I normally would not post something this personal, but I do not remember the last time I felt so justly upset,’ was shared nearly four thousand times after it was posted on Thursday.

She added: ‘You made me dump out nearly two weeks worth of food for my son.’

The whole concept of the “open letter” has reached idiotic proportions. It seems that everyone who has had some sort of experience has to post an open letter for everyone to see, and, really, this is more about themselves rather than attempting to right a wrong. Perhaps it’s not fair to pick on Ms. Martinez, but then there’s this

The limit for liquids in carry-on luggage is 100 millilitres according to regulations posted on Heathrow’s site, which states that larger amounts must go in checked luggage.

That’s right, the rules for baby milk are printed, and it took me all of 5 seconds to google them and look them up. The rules also state you can carry a reasonable amount in the cabin. Is almost 4 gallons reasonable, even if most is frozen? If it’s frozen, why not just place it in the checked baggage? Oh, and then there’s something else interesting, but, I’ll get to that in a minute.

Of course, she wanted Heathrow to blow off The Published Rules for her. This sounds like so many other Special Snowflakes, who want their own set of rules just because. Airport security said they had to comply with the rules, probably because they don’t want to be sacked for failing to do their jobs. So, she apparently become irate and threw a fit in the airport. She’s lucky they let her board the plane.

The BBC, typically a very left leaning news org, also highlight those pesky things called The Rules.

And that other thing? Martinez was not traveling with her child. That’s right. She blew a gasket, then posted the open letter, when she did not even have the nursing child with her. Why not simply put it all in the checked luggage in the first place? I almost get the feeling that this whole thing was set up. And, of course, people in her Facebook are in high dudgeon, and are all Very Upset And Outraged over something minor that happened to someone else. Go figure.

Read: Woman Fails To Follow The Rules On Breast Milk At Airport, Posts “Open Letter” »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Judge Upholds North Carolina Photo ID Law

By William Teach April 26, 2016 – 6:50 am

Why? Well, for one thing, no one could show they were actually harmed or unduly stopped from voting due to the law

(AP) Lawsuits challenging changes to North Carolina’s election law failed to show it hampered the ability of minority voters to exercise political power, a federal judge ruled Monday in dismissing the cases.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder ruled against the U.S. Justice Department, the North Carolina NAACP chapter and named voters. They sued alleging the law was passed to discriminate against poor and minority voters in violation of the Constitution and U.S. Voting Rights Act.

Of course, it wasn’t, but facts and reality aren’t typically present in Barking Moonbats

While North Carolina had a sordid history of freezing black voters out of the political process, the plaintiffs didn’t show that the law hampered the ability of minority voters to exercise electoral politics, Schroeder said.

Nice bit of editorializing, based on a short part of what the judge said, failing to mention that this occurred well over 50 years ago, and that the Democratic Party was in control during that time and implemented those policies. Rather like how the media, and Democrats, always forget to mention that it was the Democrats who implemented the sterilization of Blacks and the disabled

The plaintiffs “failed to show that such disparities will have materially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercise the electoral franchise” as a result of the 2013 state law, Schroeder wrote. That argument was made more difficult after black voter turnout increased in 2014, he wrote.

Of course, the liberals bringing the suits state that they are not giving up, and that the suits will continue, because Liberals/Democrats apparently believe that Blacks and minorities are too stupid, incompetent, and poor to be able to obtain a proper photo ID, a photo ID that is needed for just about everything these days, it seems.

The NY Times is likewise vexed, noting all the talk from opponents of the law who think Blacks are too dumb, incompetent, or poor (they can get ID for free, BTW) to obtain the type of ID they need for so many other things, like driving, buying certain medicines, going to the doctor, taking a flight, etc.

(ABC11) “This ruling is a decisive victory for North Carolina over George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the Roy Cooper-backed out-of-state special interests who tried to overturn the state’s common sense voter ID law, in order to make it easier to cheat in our elections,” said NCGOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse. “Despite the scare tactics, misinformation and constant attacks from the radical left, the court threw out their false arguments and ruled that this common sense law is constitutional.”

One of the things the judge found is that the NC law comported with voting laws from all over the country. Perhaps Democrats could simply spend their time making sure that the few who do not have proper ID obtain one. They like sticking people on buses and bringing them to vote. Bring them to get their free ID.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Judge Upholds North Carolina Photo ID Law »

Posted in Election Fraud, NC News | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Sea Rise Could Totally Doom Facebook’s Shiny New HQ

By William Teach April 25, 2016 – 5:20 pm

Dooooooom!

From the link

According to a group of scientists collectively known as Our Coast, Our Future, they have mapped what a rise in sea levels would do to the Bay area and it appears the locations of several of the world’s biggest tech companies are in the firing line.

“Facebook is very vulnerable,” Lindy Lowe, a senior planner at California’s Bay Conservation and Development Commission said to AP. “They built on a very low site – I don’t know why they chose to build there. Facebook thinks they can pay enough to protect themselves.”

At current projections, a 1.6-foot rise in sea levels by the end of the century – which is at the lower end scientists estimates – would envelop the campus.

Of course, the reality of actual data versus computer models says something different. The sea level trend for the San Francisco observation station has the rise being at 1.94mm per year, equivalent to .64 feet of sea rise in 100 years. The data goes back to 1894. Redwood City has the same trend, but, it’s virtually worthless for its short measuring period. Alameda shows just .24 feet over 100 years, with data going back to 1939. In fact, the majority of California measuring stations show similar data, with only two, which have very short term data, showing over 1 foot of sea rise over 100 years. One station is even negative. We see these same trends in Washington and Oregon.

It’s a real shame when actual physical data knocks out hysterical prognostications.

 

Read: Bummer: Sea Rise Could Totally Doom Facebook’s Shiny New HQ »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 25, 2016 – 5:00 pm

…is a rough ocean that never happened before carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Shot In the Dark, with a post on how many trust the media.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Target Boycott Pledge Closing In On Half A Million Signatures

By William Teach April 25, 2016 – 10:15 am

Sunday, the Charlotte Observer reported in the afternoon

On Tuesday, Target announced that transgender people would be able to use the bathroom and fitting room that aligns with their gender identity in Target stores. By Sunday, more than 400,000 pledges to boycott the big-box retailer had been collected.

The American Family Association is calling for the boycott, echoing arguments used to support controversial North Carolina legislation requiring transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their sex at birth.

“Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims,” AFA President Tim Wildmon said Thursday in a statement on the group’s website. “And with Target publicly boasting that men can enter women’s bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go? Clearly, Target’s new policy poses a danger to wives and daughters.”

Wildmon went on to suggest Target provide unisex bathrooms, “for the trans community, and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone.”

As of 8:15am, the pledge count stood at 486,557. And no, it does not include mine. I generally do not do boycotts. Besides, I’ve mostly had an unintentional boycott for years. Target rarely has anything I want, and it’s easier and closer to go to Walmart. I might hit up the one near Triangle Town Center here in Raleigh now and then for the ready made foods (good salads and sandwiches, but they rarely have the chicken salad bundle with crackers and grapes ready to go. Sigh). I’m just not real big on organized boycotts.

The interesting thing here is that Target is choosing the policy on their own. Such is their choice. Government is not forcing it on them.

The even more interesting thing is that this is simply a stated policy per press release, but will not be highlighted in stores. Are they afraid of driving away business from those who aren’t hip to the news? Might a parent with young girls decide that Target is not the best place to shop? Again, this isn’t really about transgenders so much as men taking advantage of the policies. A company with a stated policy is not going to question a man going into the women’s room for fear of that person going to an LBGT interest group, the media, the ACLU, etc, and creating a big stink which will lead to verbal assaults, boycotts, protests, and, in some areas, government action.

In the comments at the article, someone makes a good point

Target could build a 3rd family bathroom that would do the same thing except for two parts – 1) it would cost a lot of money (the reason that businesses would prefer to just allow an intermingling of the gender and confused) and 2) transgenders don’t want a separate bathroom (which seems silly to me).

The second part is the most important. The TG community and their supporters/enablers refuse to compromise. They demand that Everyone Else accommodate them.

Read: Target Boycott Pledge Closing In On Half A Million Signatures »

Posted in Current Affairs | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Study Shows Obama’s ‘Climate Change’ Plan To Hurt The Poor And Middle Class

By William Teach April 25, 2016 – 7:36 am

This study puts into numbers what Skeptics have been saying for a long time

(Daily Caller) President Obama’s global warming plan would cost America’s poorest families billions annually, according to a report published Thursday by the Manhattan Institute.

The study estimates that Obama’s global warming plan would increase the costs of living for the poorest American families an additional $19 billion per year, equivalent to increasing their taxes by 166 percent. The tax increase would also raise taxes on other poor families by an extra $25 billion, equal to a 33 percent tax increase. Living costs for the richest households would only increase by 4 percent.

Democrats have yammered for years about the Bush tax cuts being solely “tax cuts for the rich” for over a decade. They complain that all tax cuts benefit the rich, and harm the poor and middle class, even when there are actual tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Yet, here we have an Executive Office initiative (not a law, mind you, because Obama won’t even bother to submit any legislation to Congress, and the “historic” and “landmark” Paris climate accord is structured to avoid the blessing of the duly elected Legislative branch) that will specifically cause way more economic harm to the poor and middle classes while sparing the rich from that pain.

Obama wants to implement the Enviromental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which would effectively tax four-fifths of American carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and be similar in scope to an economy-wide carbon tax. In addition, Obama has proposed a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax.

Neither plan would have a large impact on global warming. Data modeling created by the EPA and run by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that the Clean Power Plan would only have adverted 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small it couldn’t be detected.

One of the best ways to get people out of poverty is inexpensive, reliable energy. Obama’s plan will artificially increase the cost of energy while also increasing the cost of living.

Of course, you do know what the next step would be, right? Increased government payments to the poor, making them even more reliant on Government, in order to cover the mess government created in the first place. Funny how that works.

Let’s not forget that this study covers just two Obama proposals, as mentioned. What will all the other proposals do to the cost of living?

Read: Study Shows Obama’s ‘Climate Change’ Plan To Hurt The Poor And Middle Class »

Posted in Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Once Again, Obamacare Premiums Expected To Rise Sharply

By William Teach April 25, 2016 – 7:01 am

What happens when you create a law that artificially attempts to control up front costs, which sees people who are mostly sicker and older enroll rather than the young and healthy?

(The Hill) Health insurance companies are laying the groundwork for substantial increases in ObamaCare premiums, opening up a line of attack for Republicans in a presidential election year.

Many insurers have been losing money on the ObamaCare marketplaces, in part because they set their premiums too low when the plans started in 2014. The companies are now expected to seek substantial price increases.

Not mentioned is that the Government, at both the state and federal levels, helped set and enforce those rates in order to make Ocare look super awesome.

Insurers are already making the case for premium increases, pointing to a pool of enrollees that is smaller, sicker and costlier than they expected.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association released a widely publicized report last month that said new enrollees under ObamaCare had 22 percent higher medical costs than people who received coverage through their employers.

It’s great that these folks have access to medical care. Of course, they also have high deductibles to be met, and there are certainly better ways to structure the coverage to reduce both up-front and back end costs.

The proposals for premium increases, which will be rolled out over the next couple of months, still have to be approved by state insurance commissioners. The ultimate impact on consumers will be hard to determine, as ObamaCare’s tax credits often soften the blow.

In other words, other people are paying for it.

“Companies are either going to have to raise their prices significantly or drop out,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), pointing to a poll from NPR that found a quarter of the public says the health law has personally hurt them.

“When 25 percent of the American people say that something that the government has done has hurt them, personally hurt them, it’s going to absolutely be an issue in the campaign,” Barrasso, the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, said.

Let’s also note that the deductibles went up an average of 8.4%, equating to $265 a month, across all plans and all states. In some cases they went down a bit, usually on the gold plans, in some cases way up.

Oh, and that Obama promise that he would cut health care premiums by $2,500 a year? They’ve actually increased by $4,865. You know what this all means? That we need to move to a single payer system, so Liberals state. Funny how everything liberals propose requires more and more central government control of our lives.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Once Again, Obamacare Premiums Expected To Rise Sharply »

Posted in Healthcare | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s A New Era! Solar Plane Lands In California

By William Teach April 24, 2016 – 4:13 pm

Let’s consider: it took Lewis and Clark 2 years, mostly on foot and canoe, to travel from the St. Louis area to what is now Washington state. It took the Christopher Columbus expedition around 5 months to make the perilous and unknown journey from Europe to the New World. The first airplane flight around the world started on April 6th and ended 175 days later. In all fairness, they did use 4 planes. That was 1924. Zoom to almost a century later

(CNN) An experimental plane flying around the world without a single drop of fuel landed in California after a two-and-a-half day flight across the Pacific.

Piloted by Swiss explorer and psychiatrist Bertrand Piccard, Solar Impulse 2 touched down in Mountain View just before midnight (3 a.m. ET).

“It’s a new era. It’s not science fiction. It’s today,” Piccard told CNN from California after his successful voyage. “It exists and clean technologies can do the impossible.”

In 2010, a plane flew around the world in 57 hours and 54 minutes. This solar plane trip started in Abu Dhabi in March 2015, and just landed in California in April, 2016.

“It’s a demonstration that the tech is reliable.”

The plane was stuck in Hawaii for 10 months, beset by mechanical problems, problems that plagued the entire venture. Oh, and then all the weather. Like rain. Slight wind. Too overcast to obtain solar energy. All this to fly one person. If this is the new era, maybe we should ditch it.

An interesting list of traveling the world here.

Read: It’s A New Era! Solar Plane Lands In California »

Posted in Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 24, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a kayak need to navigate once sea rise hits, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Michelle Obama’s Mirror, with a post on the smug burning.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove