Fossil Fuels Using House Dems Introduce “Keep It In The Ground”

By William Teach February 13, 2016 – 7:54 am

I wonder how many of these Democrats have taken contributions from fossil fuels companies, to go along with their own use of fossil fuels? These are questions not asked by Samantha Page at Joe Romm’s George Soros funded Climate Progress

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced the Keep It in the Ground Act on Thursday. Under the bill, there would be no new leases for extraction of fossil fuels — such as coal, oil, and gas — on all federal lands. It would also stop new leases for offshore drilling in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico and prohibit offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.

“This is a response to a real outpouring of support for this cause that I have seen, not just from my constituents on the north coast of California, but really from all over the country,” Huffman told reporters during a call Thursday. “We’ve got to get much more aggressive in this fight against climate change, because we know what we put off today will only make the cost and the damage greater for our children tomorrow.”

The bill has 17 Democratic cosponsors in the House and is a companion bill to one introduced in the fall in the Senate. “I think the only remaining climate deniers in America are my Republican colleagues in the United States Congress,” Huffman quipped.

A goodly chunk of Huffman’s major contributors are in businesses that require lots of fossil fuels to operate, such as the Teamsters and Airline Pilots Association. His #1 donor for 2014 was PG&E Corp, a big user of fossil fuels.

During the call Thursday, Huffman also mentioned the recent Supreme Court decision to stay the Administration’s Clean Power Plan rule, saying that despite the court’s action, more and more people are advocating for action on climate and catalyzing change.

“I hope [the stay] will only be a speed bump,” Huffman said. “I think it will underscore the importance of all of our other efforts.”

More and more people? The issue is typically down at the bottom of what Americans are concerned over, and attempting to reduce the availability of inexpensive power sources will only serve to raise the cost of living for Americans, seriously damaging the lives of the middle and lower classes.

And, if so many are concerned, why only 17 cosponsors? Anyhow, in the press release cited in the first excerpt we read

“Our nation’s capacity to transition towards clean energy sources is expanding at a record pace,” said Huffman. “However, there is still much to be done to break our unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels. Our oceans and our public lands-including the fossil fuel deposits beneath them- belong to the American people, not to the oil and gas industry, and it’s time that the law reflects that fact. There is an urgent need to keep fossil fuels in the ground if we want to protect the planet for future generations. The ‘Keep It in the Ground Act’ represents a crucial step that the federal government can take to protect the public, prevent carbon emissions, and fight climate change.”

When will he give up his own dependence on fossil fuels? You can bet he’s not riding a bike or driving a non-fossil fueled vehicle across the country from California to Washington, D.C.

Read: Fossil Fuels Using House Dems Introduce “Keep It In The Ground” »

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

Uber-divisive President Calls For Civility In Politics

By William Teach February 13, 2016 – 7:38 am

This is not a repeat of a post from the other day. This is Obama’s weekly address

(The Hill) President Obama is pushing for greater civility in politics while acknowledging the harsh rhetoric that has so far dominated political discourse in the final year of his presidency.

“My faith in the generosity and fundamental goodness of the American people is rewarded every day. But I’ll be the first to admit that the tone of our politics hasn’t gotten better, but worse,” Obama said in his weekly address taped during a visit to the Illinois State Senate and released Saturday.

Nowhere within his pity party does he admit that he is very much to blame for quite a bit of the escalating nasty discourse. Remember, this is a man who insulted Americans as “bitter clingers”. Called American businesses soft and lazy. Attacked the religious leanings of people who were against his contraception mandate. Insulted the Supreme Court multiple times, including to their faces during a State Of The Union. Who has consistently insulted Republican voters as he attacked Republicans in the House and Senate. Who said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Who yammered on about using his pen and phone, despite rarely reaching out to Congress, including people in his own party. His refusal to negotiate on almost everything. “You didn’t build that.” Calling serious issues, such as Fast and Furious, the VA scandal, and Benghazi “phony scandals.” The list could continue on and on. The man is utterly divisive. When George Bush said “your either with them, or your with us”, he was talking about the fight against Islamic terrorists. When Obama says it, the “them” means Americans who have different political beliefs.

How does he intend to fix this problem that, in his mind, is only caused by Other People?

“The good news is there’s also a lot we can do about this, from reducing the influence of money in our politics, to changing the way we draw congressional districts, to simply changing the way we treat each other,” the president added.

Self awareness of his own roll in incivility is certainly not something he suffers from.

Nine years after I first announced for this office, I still believe in a politics of hope. And for all the challenges of a changing world; for all the imperfections of our democracy; choosing a politics of hope is something that’s entirely up to each of us.

So, why did he not choose to engage in the politics of hope himself?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Uber-divisive President Calls For Civility In Politics »

Posted in Barry Obama, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Oops: NC BCBS Considers Dropping Out Of Obamacare

By William Teach February 12, 2016 – 3:29 pm

Well, color me shocked

(Winston Salem Journal) North Carolina’s largest health insurer is considering dropping coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The News & Observer of Raleigh reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield expects to report its second consecutive financial loss as it deals with cost overruns.

CEO Brad Wilson said Wednesday the company cannot continue to suffer losses indefinitely in North Carolina. Wilson said the company may have to decide later this year whether to stop offering coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The company raised rates by nearly one third this year but says it was not enough to cover losses.

This is on top of United Healthcare announcing in November 2015 that they were considering the same, and would pretty much leave Aetna as the only ACA provider left.

I was listening to local talk radio this morning on this, and the doctor they had on said this was caused by a flaw in Ocare. I disagree: it’s a feature. We had this discussion as Ocare was being considered, and right after it was passed and we could see the whole thing, and driving insurance companies out of business, as well as out of the Exchanges, is purposeful, as the government could now say ” well, listen, we tried it the free market way, look what happens, we need government to directly provide the insurance.” This is all a step towards single payer.

Read: Oops: NC BCBS Considers Dropping Out Of Obamacare »

Posted in Healthcare | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 12, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible central climate system, wasting massive amounts of energy causing it to get hot and snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on what Pakistan thinks of Valentine’s Day.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Outrage: One-third Of Teachers Bring “Climate Denial” To The Class

By William Teach February 12, 2016 – 12:25 pm

Because education is bad, and only certain viewpoints are allowed. Can’t have Wrongthink, you know (via Jo Nova)

(Science Daily) “At least one in three teachers bring climate change denial into the classroom, claiming that many scientists believe climate change is not caused by humans” says NCSE programs and policy director Josh Rosenau.

As Jo notes, how is this possible after all these decades of spreading awareness and stuff? But, wait, it gets worse!

Worse, half of the surveyed teachers have allowed students to discuss the supposed ‘controversy’ over climate change without guiding students to the scientifically supported conclusion.” Scarier still: three out of five teachers were unaware of, or actively misinformed about, the near total scientific consensus on climate change.

God no! Allowing discussion in an institution of learning? How dare they! Jo goes on to note

Repeat after me: Science is the study of opinion polls.

In the world of the Cult of Climastrology, it is all based on opinions, manufactured consensus, and manufactured data and computer models. It has almost nothing to do with science. If it did, the people who tell us it’s a crisis would act like it’s a crisis in their own lives.

Read: Outrage: One-third Of Teachers Bring “Climate Denial” To The Class »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Did Donald Trump Admit He’s Not Conservative?

By William Teach February 12, 2016 – 7:14 am

Ben Shapiro of Breitbart sure thinks so

Donald Trump has now made clear that the thrust of his campaign will not be conservatism. It will instead be populism and nationalism.

For those looking for a governing philosophy of The Donald, his checkered political history has provided little guidance. He’s seemingly endorsed single-payer healthcare; he’s said he rejects Obamacare. He’s blasted money in politics; he’s talked about the necessity for government use of eminent domain to help private parties. He’s ripped overregulation of capitalistic enterprises; he’s talked about tariffs on foreign goods. Trump isn’t conservative, and he never was.

I’ve written before that American conservatism is more about beliefs in government, using the maxim “the government that governs least governs best” as a foundation rock, along with “government only governs when in need”. Government should only apply the minimum/appropriate force necessary to deal with an issue. It should stay out of our private lives as much as possible. The same applies to the economy, where government should act more like a referee on commonly approved laws. There should be minimal restrictions on voting. This is all known as classical liberalism. When you start getting into issues, such as abortion and tariffs, those are not necessarily core CL issues. But, taking private property for private use is. So is wanting single-payer.

Trump’s move here is calculated. He’s going to campaign as a post-ideological candidate. All he wants, as he said in his next tweet, is to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” If that means bigger government, that means bigger government. If that means more interventionism in the economy, that means more interventionism in the economy. Trump believes he can restore American greatness in his personage – he can make terrific deals, he can “win” on behalf of America. (snip)

Trump stands up for America; Trump Hulk Smashes for you. He cares about America, and that’s enough – he wants to restore American greatness, and that’s enough. How will he do it? He just will. And he won’t be held back by any conservative vision of a small government nation founded on individual liberty. Sometimes he’ll do conservative things. Sometimes he won’t. But he’ll act with “common sense” and “do what needs to be done.”

At the end of the day, Trump appears to be better than any Democrat, but, many of his leanings are decidedly in favor of increasing the size and scope of government, particularly the federal government. Shapiro also mentions how rabid many Trump supporters are, and how these supposed conservatives no longer seem to care about limited government. I ran into this yesterday, when I tweeted

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/697869496690810880

Trumpbots came at me hard, telling he has lots of plans, to go to his website. OK. I see a total of 5 positions. Some are detailed, such as immigration, though we still don’t know how he will make Mexico pay for the wall. Then we have issues, which are simply just a bunch of videos. At the end of the day, though, Trump has been more in attack mode than in “here’s a good idea” mode. In all fairness, this is a race to be the next GOP presidential candidate, and politics is a nasty affair. But, how about more attacks on Democrats, which we rarely ever see, and policy?

Read: Did Donald Trump Admit He’s Not Conservative? »

Posted in GOP | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Recommends Dems Support GOP “Guilty Mind” Proposal

By William Teach February 12, 2016 – 6:45 am

Well, here’s something one doesn’t see in the Leftist opinion pages of the NY Times: support for a Republican proposal. Granted, it’s written by Gideon Yaffe, a professor of law at Yale, not the hoity toity Editors, but, it is unusual

(NY Times) THESE days, it’s practically unheard-of for those on the left to embrace ideas promoted by the likes of the Koch brothers and the conservative Heritage Foundation. But it would be a shame if partisan distrust kept Democrats from supporting a proposalfavored by the right: a measure that would bolster the idea that a criminal conviction should require proof of what lawyers call “mens rea” — literally, a guilty mind. That’s because it can be harnessed to aid some of those who are especially ill treated by the criminal justice system: the poor and racial minorities.

As a legal principle, mens rea means that causing harm should not be enough to constitute a crime; knowingly causing harm should be. Walking away from the baggage carousel with a suitcase you mistook for your own isn’t theft; it’s theft only if you knew you didn’t own it. Ordinary citizens may assume that this common-sense requirement is already the law of the land. And indeed law students are taught that prosecutors must prove not just that a defendant did something bad, but also that his frame of mind made him culpable when he did it.

That is a very interesting proposal, which goes along with many other justice system reforms offered by the GOP in Congress. This particular idea comes from James Sensenbrenner, and would apply to many, many more laws. The article notes many convictions where this would come into play, such as

…the president of a company that mistakenly shipped mislabeled drugs was convicted of a crime even though he had no way of knowing that the labels were incorrect. In another, a truck driver crossing the Canadian border into Washington to deliver cases of beer was convicted of drug trafficking even though prosecutors produced no evidence that he knew or should have known that the truck had a secret compartment filled with drugs.

Democrats are whining that this would make it harder to go after corporate executives whose companies cause harm, but, that’s what we have jury trials for, and, the proposal would not apply to all. Certainly, if someone murders another person, the murderer would not be let off because he/she didn’t have a “guilty mind”. Here’s where the article breaks down a bit

Consider a New York law banning “gravity knives” — folding knives that open with a flick of the wrist — that lacks mens rea protections. The statute does not require proof that a defendant knew her knife was a gravity knife, much less that gravity knives are banned in the state. As a result, the law has been used by the police in New York City to pick up thousands of people, most of them minorities, even if they had the knives for innocent purposes. And in Baltimore, Freddie Gray died in a police van after being arrested for violating a very similar statute that also lacked a mens rea requirement.

There is still the notion that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. And picking people up is different from prosecuting them, which is where mens rea is aimed. It’s not really up to the police to determine mens rea, though, of course, there are times they have discretion. Making police determine will gum up the legal system. Freddie Gray supposedly had an illegal knife on him. He was a habitual offender. It was the officer’s job to pick him up and take him to be charged. It was the government legal system’s job to determine whether it should be taken to court.

Is this a good idea or bad idea? Sensenbrenner’s amendment only applies to federal criminal cases. We see this in subchapter B

“(2) if the offense consists of conduct that a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not know, or would not have reason to believe, was unlawful, the Government must prove that the defendant knew, or had reason to believe, the conduct was unlawful.

I get the sense that this is aimed more at the myriad amount of laws passed by Government that people really do no know, because they pass quite a few. Think of all the people prosecuted by the IRS for failing to follow some law, one which the IRS agents probably didn’t know.

Anyhow, what do you think: good idea or bad idea?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Recommends Dems Support GOP “Guilty Mind” Proposal »

Posted in Current Affairs | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

EPA Looks To Regulate Away Race Cars

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 3:52 pm

This comes via A View From The Beach, which notes “The EPA seeks to regulate everything by redefining everything into something they can regulate”

(SEMA) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.”

The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track. While the Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to motor vehicles, it is clear that vehicles built or modified for racing, and not used on the streets, are not the “motor vehicles” that Congress intended to regulate.

“This proposed regulation represents overreaching by the agency, runs contrary to the law and defies decades of racing activity where EPA has acknowledged and allowed conversion of vehicles,” said SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting. “Congress did not intend the original Clean Air Act to extend to vehicles modified for racing and has re-enforced that intent on more than one occasion.”

The final rule is expected in July 2016, and we can be utterly sure that the EPA will listen to public comments on the subject, eh? This is exactly one of those issues which Conservatives complain about, namely, government over-reach and mission creep, expanding the core mission of a governmental agency, digging their tentacles into every part of our lives. And, liberals who support this should remember the old adage “be careful what you wish for, you may get it.” These same regulations can expand, and certainly come back and negatively effect their own lives.

Read: EPA Looks To Regulate Away Race Cars »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise hundreds of feet because you won’t buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on more Hillary server issues.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Surprise: Solar Can Barely Survive Without Massive Subsidies

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 10:22 am

Sure, sure, rich folks and people willing to spend tens of thousands can gain access to solar power, and, it would be great if companies could develop cost effective solar for home use. I’ve long advocated for this exact thing. But, it is nowhere near as of yet, and can barely survive without subsidies

Rooftop Solar Providers Face a Cloudier Future

Just two years ago, SolarCity and other rooftop solar providers were Wall Street darlings, and prospects for growth were flying high, as enthusiasm for solar power was seemingly boundless.

After all, they had built a better mousetrap, allowing the masses to install environmentally minded solar power systems at little or no cost to them and to reduce their electricity bills at the same time.

But in two years, the landscape has drastically shifted.

Nevada recently rolled back the generous support it gave rooftop solar systems; 20 other states are rethinking their policies, as well. And despite the extension of an important federal tax credit last year, losses by rooftop solar companies have accelerated.

SolarCity, the nation’s largest provider of rooftop systems, is but the most visible of a cluster of companies, built with the aid of government subsidies and utility incentives, now facing deep uncertainties, despite unflagging consumer interest and surging growth in renewable energy.

And right there, in black and white, is the problem: to repeat, without subsidies, it can barely survive. The current model is based on these subsidies, mostly originating from taxpayer funds. Take them away, and the system collapses. They are too reliant on government rules, regulations, and whims. It’s all based on a crony/government capitalism system, rather than a system based on consumer demand.

One day solar will get there. That day is not now.

Read: Surprise: Solar Can Barely Survive Without Massive Subsidies »

Posted in Energy | 11 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove