Report: Student Who Came To Blind Kids Defense Kicked Off Football Team

By William Teach September 25, 2015 – 7:06 am

Have you seen the video of a high school kid beating on another kid who is apparently blind in one eye? Well, you’ll have a tough time, because it keeps getting deleted at Youtube. There’s a good chance the one I’m embedding will get deleted by lunch

Lovely that so many students stood around and watched, and even took video. Sadly, nothing new in school or society.

The kid who came in to defend the blind student has been hailed by a hero. By the school? Not so much

(Inquisitr) Cody Pine didn’t hesitate to help when he saw a bully beating up a blind student at Huntington Beach High School, and now the internet is stepping up to help Cody in the aftermath of the viral incident.

Pine became famous this week when a short video showed him jumping in to stop a bully who was attacking a blind student in his high school. (snip)

But, apparently those in charge of the Huntington Beach High School saw it differently. After the fight, Cody Pine was reportedly kicked off the football team, the result of “zero tolerance” policies.

Students have stepped in with a petition.

Cody stepped in when he saw his friend and fellow classmate who is visually diabled being physically bullied. (Punched multiple times in face/head) Cody comes and steps in, punches the bully one time to get him away, guides his friend to a safe location and talks to the bully about how he was beating up a blind kid and how it was wrong. There is Youtube video of the main part of the confrontation.

We believe Cody should be back on his football team and back in school where he belongs. While violence is never the best option what Cody did to defend his friend and classmate was justified. And schools “zero-tolerance” policies out even the person saving disabled friends..

Again, where were so many of these kids when the bully was beating on the partially blind kid? The petition is almost up to 9,500 signatures. The New York Daily News featured this statement from the school, right before they started their investigation

“Huntington Beach High School firmly believes that all students are afforded an opportunity to learn in a safe and secure environment. Because of this, safety is the highest priority,” it said in a statement to the News. “Huntington Beach High School has a very strong anti-bullying code of conduct and will not condone this type of behavior from any student.”

Where were the adults? The teachers? Administrators? Security? You rather had the idea that the hero, the guy who came into protect the partially blind, and smaller, student, would get punished. Will he be suspended? Time will tell.

As for the guy punching the partially blind kid?

(KABC) The suspect was arrested for misdemeanor battery and released to his parents. Authorities said no other arrests were going to be made in this case.

Now we wait to see what happens to Cody Pine, and see if he is suspended or punished more by the school.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Report: Student Who Came To Blind Kids Defense Kicked Off Football Team »

Posted in Current Affairs | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

AP Style Book Comes Out With New Way To Define Warming And Skeptics

By William Teach September 24, 2015 – 1:42 pm

The AP Stylebook is the definitive guide for “reporters” in their writings, and they’ve come up with some changes to warming and Skeptics, as guided by hyper-warmist Seth Borenstein

(AP) global warming The terms global warming and climate change can be used interchangeably. Climate change is more accurate scientifically to describe the various effects of greenhouse gases on the world because it includes extreme weather, storms and changes in rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and sea level. But global warming as a term is more common and understandable to the public.

Cult member writers will continue to use “climate change” more than global warming, because it can be very confusing when the term “global warming” is used in an article about heavy snow and bitter cold events.

To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.

How cute. According to far left Talking Points Memo, which used vast amounts of carbon polluting energy to publish on the web, this is a stronger way to describe those who aren’t buying into the man-caused Hotcoldwetdry meme. Soros funded climate monkey Joe Romm is not enthused.

I’m fine with the rejecting mainstream climate science thing. Remember how it was mainstream to believe that the Sun went around the Earth? That the Earth was flat? That there we canals on Mars? That the Earth was expanding? Spontaneous generation? Phrenology?

I wonder when the AP Stylebook will come up with something for the Warmists? I’d go with “people who say they believe in anthropogenic climate change, telling us it’s a crisis but refuse to change their own lives to show us that it’s a crisis.” A little long, sure.

Read: AP Style Book Comes Out With New Way To Define Warming And Skeptics »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 24, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a marshland that will soon be swallowed by the sea, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post noting the 2007 Hillary campaign starting the Obama’s not an American meme.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Which Killed More, Sharks Or Selfies?

By William Teach September 24, 2015 – 10:04 am

It’s the age old canard…well, if you consider over 16 years “old”, since phones with cameras haven’t really been around that long. The first commercially available one hit the market in South Korea in 2000. It wasn’t till 2002 that a US carrier, Sprint, started selling one. They were all clunky with very low resolution, less than VGA. The ability to take a really decent photo on a phone wasn’t for several more years, and true selfies, where there are cameras on the front, is only the last 6 years or so. Anyhow

(NY Daily News) Snapping a selfie proved to be more lethal than getting mauled by a shark in 2015, according to a recent report.

There have been at least 12 selfie-related deaths around the world this year —and although Mashable reported that eight people were killed by shark attacks this year, George Burgess, director of shark research at the Florida Museum of Natural History, said the figure is actually six.

Lin Qiu — who conducted a study on selfies for Nanyang Technological University — said he was surprised by the alarming rates of people risking their lives to perform dangerous stunts like dangling from skyscrapers or posing with ammunition in order to get the perfect shot.

There have always been stunt seekers, and always will be. Same with sharks. Does the his whole selfie craze drive people to do a “hey, y’all, watch this” more than prior? It could certainly mean that a few more don’t have people around to stop them or help them if trouble occurs.

Really, though, I find this selfie craze to be overblown. Is there this deep abiding need to take a shot of yourself in a public restroom? While driving? Doing mundane things? A lot of it is simply inbred narcissism. Out somewhere cool? Great. Just took a dump and fixing your makeup? Come on, man.

Governments are actually having to take steps to protect people from themselves while taking selfies, with measures like awareness campaigns and fences. Let’s not forget that more people are actually bitten by sharks who don’t die, and that lots more people hurt themselves taking selfies than die. Is it worth it?

Read: Which Killed More, Sharks Or Selfies? »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Are Trees Revolting Over “Climate Change”, Or Just Confirming The Pause?

By William Teach September 24, 2015 – 7:43 am

The obvious answer seems to miss members of the Cult Of Climastrology

Global warming: are trees going on strike?

Trees, crucial absorbers of climate-harming carbon dioxide gas, may finally be balking at an ever-earlier spring season brought on by global warming, researchers said Wednesday.

Over the past several decades, trees across central Europe have been steadily sprouting their spring leaves earlier in response to warmer temperatures, they said.

As a result, forests absorbed more carbon dioxide in a longer growing season — a boon that has been worked into global warming projections.

But a study published in the science journal Nature said trees have slowed their pace of seasonal advance — raising fears it may stop altogether.

Oh, noes, doom!

Forests play an important role in stemming global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide — the most abundant greenhouse gas — from the atmosphere.

We could probably stop right there, after that massive whopper. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

In real life, they found, leaf-sprouting happened steadily earlier over two study periods: 1980-1994 and 1999-2013 — about 13 days overall over the past three decades.

But when the scientists compared the two terms, they noticed the advance of earlier sprouting had slowed by 40 percent in 1999-2013.

“We found the response (to earlier spring) has declined over the past three decades, and strong winter warming may further reduce it,” said Yongshuo.

Might there be another explanation? Could it be that the trees themselves are responding appropriately to the latest Pause? The time frames match almost perfectly, where there was a spike in temperatures from 1980-1996, then a pause since. Perhaps we should be listening to the trees when they tell us that members of the Cult of Climastrology are alarmist fools.

Read: Are Trees Revolting Over “Climate Change”, Or Just Confirming The Pause? »

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

Fish Wrap: Middle East Security Necessary Now That Iran’s Getting Hundreds Of Billions Of Dollars

By William Teach September 24, 2015 – 7:05 am

The New York Times Editorial Board publishes an editorial that is truly worthy of only wrapping stinky, dead fish. They’re super enthused by the Iran deal, thumbing their noses at Republicans and those few Democrats who wanted to kill it (and still could, if Mitch McConnell had a spine), but, still, inadverdently tell us a few reasons the deal should be killed

Israel and America After the Iran Deal

Now that congressional Democrats have blocked a Republican effort to kill the Iran nuclear deal, attention is shifting to what America must do to reassure Israel and its American supporters that the agreement will not harm Israel’s security.

Increased cooperation between America and its regional partners, including the Arab gulf states as well as Israel, is vital to ensuring that Iran sticks to the deal, which curbs its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. America and its partners need to find ways to keep Iran from using billions of dollars, which were frozen in overseas banks but are due to be released, to expand its use of proxies like Hezbollah to stir trouble abroad.

Huh. So, first, the NYTEB admits that the deal only curbs Iran’s nuclear weapons aspirations, not stops it. Big admission.

Second, they’re tacitly admitting that this deal makes the Middle East a more dangerous place with the deal, and puts Israel directly in the crosshairs of Iran’s support of terrorists. Hooray, #IranDeal!

Democrats and the White House are negotiating some sort of aid package to Israel and other ME nations. One would think that this would go nowhere, considering who controls Congress, but, hey, Mitch McConnell and other squishy Republicans.

Then a little Israel Derangement Syndrome

The focus on America’s obligations often ignores the responsibility Israel and the gulf states have for regional security. Saudi Arabia shares much blame for the rise of extremist groups, while Israel undermines stability by failing to negotiate peace with the Palestinians.

There’s the canard about Israel being to blame for the violence of Palestinians, helpfully forgetting the number of times Israel has made offers, only to have Palestinians blow them off, demand much more, and/or violate them with attacks on Israel’s civilian population.

In the end, what’s most important for Israel’s security is the relationship with the United States. Those ties were put at risk by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and congressional Republicans, who polarized the debate over the Iran deal. A crucial sense of trust needs to be rebuilt. It is unclear that this can happen soon, no matter how many promises of aid and cooperation America makes to Israel.

Au contraire, it’s Obama’s shabby treatment of Israel as an ally and Netanyahu personally that has put the ties at risk. But, none of this would matter all that much if the Iran deal didn’t enable Iran to ramp up its support of terrorism in the Middle East, and specifically against Israel, through removal of sanctions and a massive inflow of cash.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Fish Wrap: Middle East Security Necessary Now That Iran’s Getting Hundreds Of Billions Of Dollars »

Posted in Iran, Journalistic Malpractice | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

PETA Sues To Give Monkey Copyright To Selfies

By William Teach September 23, 2015 – 2:54 pm

I wish this was The Onion or some satire site. Alas, no

(AP) A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs should be declared the copyright owner of the photos, rather than the nature photographer who positioned the camera, animal-rights activists contend in a novel lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It seeks a court order allowing PETA to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey, which it identified as 6-year-old Naruto, and other crested macaques living in a reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.

The photos were taken during a 2011 trip to Sulawesi by British nature photographer David Slater. Through San Francisco-based self-publishing company Blurb, he has published a book called “Wildlife Personalities” that includes the “monkey selfie” photos.

In a sane world, the article would have ended with a fourth paragraph reading “The judge told PETA to STFU and GTFO, on pain of jail to for contempt and wasting the court’s time, at which point the judge directed the bailiff to escort the PETA representatives out of the building”. But, no, this story is actually 20 paragraphs long. For a monkey selfie.

Read: PETA Sues To Give Monkey Copyright To Selfies »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | Comments Off on PETA Sues To Give Monkey Copyright To Selfies | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 23, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful trees sucking in carbon pollution from Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bookworm Room, with a post on the enemy whose name we dare not speak.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Hotcoldwetdry Could Cost The World Trillions Or Something

By William Teach September 23, 2015 – 10:06 am

Unless we instituted massive government intervention and carbon trading schemes, of course

Climate Change Could Cost The World Trillions More Than We Thought
All is not lost, researchers warn, but we need to act swiftly.

The gross domestic product of the United States was nearly $17.5 trillion in 2014. That’s enough money to buy all the planet’s gold two times over.

Now consider this: If the world’s permafrost thaws, as a new study warns, humanity could be saddled with a bill that adds more than $43 trillion to the already massive climate-related debt the world will rack up in the next two centuries.

$43,000,000,000,000.

You can do the math yourself, but that’s more than two-and-a-half times America’s GDP and an economic death sentence “beyond conception,” says Kevin Schaefer, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and one of the authors of the report.

The report, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, looks at a previously underexamined contributor to global climate change: the permafrost, or the region of permanently frozen ground that occurs in the world’s coldest places.

This overwrought, hysterical, doomy prognostication is quickly being disseminated (just a few of the links) around the Lefty media with hyperventilating apoplexy. And what is the fix?

But all is not lost. Schaefer pointed to his co-author’s area of expertise, public policy, and said policy change could still spur humans to slow down climate change to the best of their ability.

In December, hundreds of foreign leaders and scientists will convene in Paris for the U.N. climate summit and attempt to hash out a global strategy to address rising seas, warming temperatures and the unchecked release of greenhouse gases around the globe. Many worry the talks may be the “last chance” for action if the planet is to remain below the agreed-upon warming ceiling of 2 degrees Celsius.

Is this the same summit for which 10000 or so will take long fossil fueled trips and live the high life? Anyhow, it’s interesting that every policy prescription amounts to the same thing, more government and taxation, all based on more “computer models”. It’s almost like this is all about a push for far left Progressive policies or something.

BTW, what’s the over/under on a good Gore Effect for the Paris Conference on the Parties?

 

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Could Cost The World Trillions Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | Comments Off on Hotcoldwetdry Could Cost The World Trillions Or Something | Trackback URL

Cult Of Climastrology Pinpoints Exactly When Global Warming Started Or Something

By William Teach September 23, 2015 – 8:39 am

No, really. Their models tell them so

(UK Daily Mail) This year is tipped to be the hottest on record as global temperatures continue to soar.

Now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where signs of this global warming first appeared in historical temperature records.

Using readings dating back as far as the 1870s, the researchers detected what they believe to be the first signs as early as the 1940s in parts of Australia, south east Asia and Africa.

What they are referring to is man-caused global warming, also known as AGW, anthropogenic global warming. Interestingly, the period of the 1940’s was part of a pause that lasted into the late 1970’s, which even featured cooling, which led to the freakout as to whether the world was moving towards a new ice age. Anyhow, if we saw the fingerprints of AGW then, what of the warming trend from the mid-1800’s to late 1800’s? And that of the around 1910-1940?

Rather inconvenient.

The study, by a team from Australia’s Arc Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and the University of Reading, gives an insight into the global impacts that have already been felt by global warming, even at an early stage and possible effects that will be seen in the future, such as extreme rainfall.

To work out when global warming started, the team analysed changes in average temperature.

They created 23 models based on temperature data to study past and future trends.

And they found exactly what they were looking for, and this must be Blamed On Mankind. According to their models.

What caused the early temperature spikes? What caused the pauses/cooling periods?

Anthony Watts notes

From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (via Eurekalert) and the “Where’s Waldo?” department comes this hilarious claim. Why hilarious? Because the headline says “global warming”, yet the research says that warming appeared in different decades in different parts of the world. So much for the “global” part. But, it gets better, the money quote says the USA isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal, but, “…according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”

True. How can it be “global” when they’re only seeing things locally? He also notes that the actual paper is based on a simulation, rather than real world, and that “Model output is not the actual temperature record.” If you hit the link, you’ll see that this simulation goes out to 2060. I may not be great at remembering specific dates, but, by my reckoning, we’re pretty far off from 2060, and we don’t actually have data from 2016 on.

That all said, even if the simulation is right, it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation, which is what the debate is about.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology Pinpoints Exactly When Global Warming Started Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove