Hillary Campaign Excited To Take Money From Lobbyists And PACs

By William Teach April 17, 2015 – 7:02 am

Just 3 long, long days ago, when she met “voters” in Iowa

(UK Guardian) Clinton laid out four campaign planks: 1) revitalizing economy 2) supporting families 3) getting dirty $$ out of politics 4) defending against threats seen and unseen

Clinton said she would support a constitutional amendment to eliminate dark money from US politics.

Well, that’s for Other People, you know

(Huffington Post) Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign will accept donations from lobbyists and political action committees, a difference in policy from the man she’s hoping to replace, President Barack Obama.

Of course, putting the policy into practice was something completely different for Team Obama, which certainly took money from both, which even the Huff Post had to admit later in the article.

The Clinton campaign confirmed that there would be no prohibition on such donations, after The Huffington Post was tipped off by two lobbyists supportive of the former secretary of state’s run for the White House.

“Hillary Clinton has a long history of taking on tough fights against special interests, whether or not they’re donors to her campaigns,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the campaign. “She strongly supports campaign finance reform and has voted for tough lobbying reform, but as long as Republican groups and candidates are going to spend millions attacking Hillary, we need the resources to fight back.”

Will Hillary require every PAC and lobbyist to publish who the donations came from, in order to stop that “dark money”? Ha! Made myself laugh.

And we all know that most Democrats/Liberals/Progressives will excuse Hillary when she takes “dark money”, just like they’ll excuse her for using tons of fossil fuels even as she (supposedly) campaigns against “climate change”.

Read: Hillary Campaign Excited To Take Money From Lobbyists And PACs »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Colorado Climate Change Protest Hit With Cold, Snow

By William Teach April 17, 2015 – 6:40 am

Well, of course, as Cult of Climastrology tenets tell us, the cold and snow is caused by climate change. Or just weather. It depends on the agreed upon talking points. But, in Warmist World, it’s just a foretaste of the doom of the future, you guys

(Daily Caller) Global warming activists should probably start planning their protests for the summer because the second climate rally — within just days of a major one in Canada — has been buried in snow.

Student activists with Fossil Free CU have camped out the University of Colorado, staging a “sit in” meant to show the Board of Regents the group’s commitment to getting the school to divest its endowment of fossil fuel holdings.

The group’s Facebook page shows students braving the elements to convince the Board of Regents to ditch fossil fuels to fight global warming. Unfortunately for them, the “Gore effect” has kicked in and may blunt their arguments that the world is catastrophically warming.

They received about 3 inches of global warming snow on Thursday. And more on tap for Friday.

“We’ve been speaking with the regents, and they really haven’t been budging,” Austen Bernier, a student activist, told the Daily Camera. “They’ve failed to take bold action; they’ve failed to commit to creating a pathway to divestment even though they let us come talk at the last board meeting. With their failure to take action, our point here is to create a safe space where we can have the dialogue that they’re refusing to have.”

What is it with college students and “safe spaces”? Which are places the poor whittle snowflakes go to play with dolls and coloring books, and have themselves a good lie down, as they say in England. Well, they’ll need their “safe space” for that crying jag

(Washington Times) The board voted 7-2 against divesting its $2.7 billion endowment from fossil fuels, citing state law and university policy requiring prudent investment of public funds, then defeated a second proposal to launch a sustainable investment advisory committee.

Will the protesters pledge to eliminate fossil fuels from their own lives?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bummer: Colorado Climate Change Protest Hit With Cold, Snow »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Seven Totally Scary Facts About Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach April 16, 2015 – 3:19 pm

Of course, since this is on MSNBC, only about 5 people will see it

An Arctic without ice, no more koala bears, and extreme droughts? As Earth Day approaches, take a moment to learn how climate change threatens our country — and our planet.

What? No koala bears! Maybe they should be worried more about the chlamydia rampant in up to 90% of some koala bear populations.

1. FACT: If everyone in the world lived the way people do in the U.S., it would take five Earths to provide enough resources for everyone

Perhaps members of the Cult of Climastrology should cut back on their own use of resources. MSNBC probably uses more energy than quite a few “developing nations”.

2. FACT: 2014 was the world’s hottest year on record

Beyond the notion that it might not have been, and, even if it was, only by a few hundreds of a degree, it doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

3. FACT: Average global sea level is expected to rise 7 – 23 inches before the end of this century

That’s not a fact, it’s looking into a crystal ball. And, even if it did, it would be well within the natural variability for a Holocene warm period.

4. FACT: More than a million species face potential extinction as a result of disappearing habitats, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans

If you’re using the word “could”, it’s not science, it’s politics.

5. FACT: The Arctic region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040

LOL. Obviously, the previous prognostications of Arctic doom have failed, so let’s stretch to 2040, when everyone will have forgotten the prediction.

6. FACT: 99.84% of the land in the state of California is suffering from drought

Which also doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

7. FACT: From 1979 to 2003, excessive heat exposure contributed to more than 8,000 premature deaths in the United States

Yet, these same climamorons want to make energy much more costly. And it still doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. How did people survive during the previous Holocene warm periods, which were much warmer?

If MSNBC is so concerned, they should go carbon neutral. Which would, of course, mean shutting down their business. Would anyone even notice if they did?

Read: Seven Totally Scary Facts About Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 16, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a terrible gas fired grill cooking climate change obese meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on Hillary’s staged coffee shop meet and greet.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good News, Angry Birds Players: They Want You Angry About Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach April 16, 2015 – 10:03 am

If the non-stop advertisements aren’t annoying enough…

Angry Birds wants to get you mad about climate change

Turns out, though, there’s more to love about Angry Birds than just anatomically confusing cardinals with jumbo-eyebrows and bad attitudes! Bloomberg reports that the company that developed the game, Rovio Entertainment, will announce on Earth Day that it is assigning a new mission to Angry Birds: raising awareness about climate change.

The Finnish company is establishing a partnership with the Earth Day Network, following similar moves it made in the past. Rovio joined NASA in 2012 to promote Angry Birds Space, which offered insight into the weightlessness of space and planetary physics. It was unveiled on the International Space Station by astronaut Don Pettit, who used a stuffed version of the game’s character “Red” to demonstrate the science of trajectory.

Can’t we just play a game without have the Climate Justice Warriors ruin it?

Say, I wonder how much energy the use of all the Angry Birds games uses up?

One also has to wonder whether Rovio is just taking advantage of all the fools in the Cult Of Climastrology.

Read: Good News, Angry Birds Players: They Want You Angry About Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Good News, Angry Birds Players: They Want You Angry About Hotcoldwetdry | Trackback URL

NY Times: Shaming Delinquent Tax Payers Is An Awesome Idea

By William Teach April 16, 2015 – 8:25 am

Over the last few years, we’ve heard lots of talk about not shaming people, especially when it comes to “body shaming” and “slut shaming”. But, hey, what about when it comes to taxes? The NY Times publishes an op-ed by Ricardo Perez-Truglia and Ugo Troiano

Shaming Those Who Skip Out on Taxes

IN 2006, according to an estimate by the United States Treasury Department, Americans underpaid their taxes by about $450 billion. For that year, that’s roughly equal to Pentagon spending, and more than the gross domestic products of Sweden and Switzerland.

A good chunk of the missing tax revenues comes from underreporting income, or tax evasion. The rest, roughly 25 percent — about $110 billion — comes from failure to pay taxes, or tax delinquency. (snip)

But traditional collection methods don’t always work. In a recent study, we used another strategy that got results: publicly shaming tax delinquents. It should be a key part of government efforts to increase the collection of tax debts, and thanks to the Internet and social media, the government has the means to make it even more effective.

Public shaming is already used throughout the world to collect taxes. The city of Bangalore, India, hires drummers as tax collectors to visit the homes of tax evaders and to literally bang the drum if they don’t pay. In England, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs publishes details of deliberate tax defaulters. Argentine local governments are also adopting shaming lists.

They are also used to a limited extent in the United States. Nearly two dozen states — among them California, Massachusetts and New York — publish online lists on state websites revealing the identities of tax delinquents.

So, these two decided to run an experiment, where they sent letters to delinquents. They had two groups, and, for the second, they sent letters about the delinquency to not only the person, but their neighbors. It did work to increase payment. But, is this ethical?

Tax agencies could also make the delinquency records more conspicuous by advertising the existence of the lists on the Internet and television and even in tax forms.

Social media offers an even greater opportunity for shaming. Tax agencies could use targeted online advertisements on social networks to raise awareness among the social contacts of delinquents.

So, not only should people be liable for penalties from government, but they should be publicly shamed by every method possible.

That said, shaming penalties come at a cost: the violation of privacy.

Yeah, but….

This could change as open disclosure becomes more common. Indeed, government agencies are increasingly filling the Internet with detailed lists of Americans’ activities, from their political campaign contributions to their criminal records.

So, these two are advocating that the Government publicly shame citizens, and making it very normal.

We believe that shaming policies are an effective tool and should be part of the effort to make citizens pay their fair share. More effective and fair tax collection will fund the infrastructure, research and education that pave the way for economic growth and opportunity.

OK, fine. Since these two are obviously Big Government Liberals, how about we shame all those who advocate for higher taxation and people paying their “fair share” yet do all they can to minimize their own tax burden? Those who take advantage of tax deductions and “loopholes”, as Liberals term them, in order to pay a lower effective tax rate? How about all those who work for government who owe $3.5 billion in back taxes?

Anyhow, what happens when these shamed people commit suicide? Will the authors be held responsible? They are advocating publicly shaming people who owe as little as $2,500. What of those who hit hard times (often thanks to economic and other policies from the same type of liberals)? Should we shame them, and let the whole country know of their problems? Why is shaming bad for almost everything else, but not taxation?

Read: NY Times: Shaming Delinquent Tax Payers Is An Awesome Idea »

Posted in Taxation | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Can Hillary Win The Millenials?

By William Teach April 16, 2015 – 8:00 am

Obviously we are a long, long, long (long, long) way out from November 2016, and few will truly be paying attention to the presidential race on either side till, at best, early 2016, other than serious political wonks. Even then, it seems that few pay attention more than at the periphery, being interested more in the cult of personality rather than actual policy, experience, and capabilities. However, now is the time for candidates to start positioning themselves for certain groups. How about for #BoredGrandma? The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard discusses

Hillary Clinton may be one of the most famous people in the world, and most people have already decided whether her chance to become our first woman president tops everything else they know of her. But there is a pocket of the electorate left for her to penetrate. Millennials, particularly young women, don’t know Clinton — and they could make or break her.

Young voters, between the ages of 18 and 34, can be just as excited as older voters about finally turning the White House over to a female president. If they support her in strong numbers, they can help her make history. But if they sit out the 2016 election, they could instead help the GOP get the White House back.

On one hand, she wonders about the turnout by Blacks, who obviously turned out in huge numbers for Obama (btw, considering the unemployment rate for Blacks and supposed increase in racism, how’s that working out?). And the reachout to women will be there. But….

Reaching millennials will be no simple task. The young tend to be apathetic about politics and intentionally tune out the process. They watched their parents weather the recession, are drowning in student loan debt and lack social trust. And the faith they placed in Obama wasn’t answered — his approval numbers among them continue to deteriorate.

What poll after poll shows is that millennials are hard to pin down. Between their conflicting views — a small government but an active one, for example — and their distance from the process, they are no easy get.

So while debates over equal pay, student loan debt and income inequality are likely to interest them, policy proposals might not be enough. Capturing the attention of millennials was easier for the Obama campaign in 2008 and again in 2012. Clinton will undoubtedly have just as formidable a presence on the most updated social media platforms, but style often trumps substance. Obama wasn’t just historic, he was new and culturally literate and hip. He oozed confidence and calm. He could not only make a joke, the kids knew he got the joke. Clinton is often wooden and nice, as grandmothers are — grandmothers aren’t exciting or cool.

#BoredGrandma will also have to deal with the notion that Obama and the Democrats failed the millennials. Obama and theDems pandered to them, and what, exactly, did they get? High unemployment, low opportunities for good paying jobs, a massive increase in the low paying jobs market, massive student loan debt, record numbers back home living with their parents, etc and so on.

Voters under 35 are also digital natives who are globally connected and community oriented, and who expect a transparent government. An undecided millennial voter is likely more persuaded by Clinton’s removal and destruction of government property through her private email server than a 50-year-old voter who has grown up watching the Clintons. Brianna Langdon, a 20-year-old from Iowa, told The New York Times she only really knew about Clinton from watching “Saturday Night Live” and that “they portray her as all about herself.” Landon hoped Clinton would prove that wrong.

I think we can say with confidence that Hillary, if she ends up being the Democratic candidate, and whoever wins the GOP primary will easily both get about 40 to 45% of the vote, leaving that 10-20% up for grabs. Both sides will have their interest groups out in force. What will make or break the candidates will be over who doesn’t show up. In Hillary’s case, she might lose some women over the serial misogyny by Bill Clinton, as well as the sexual assault and rape claims, all of which Hillary defended. If she plays the #LadyParts gag, that might not work out too well (see Mark “Uterus” Udall), especially being a #BoredGrandma.

The biggest question will be the Millenials. Getting those Millenials will be important; getting them out to actually vote will be a nightmare. Especially if a young, dynamic Republican, like Cruz, Rubio, or Paul can capture a big segment. Time will tell.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Can Hillary Win The Millenials? »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Can Hillary Win The Millenials? | Trackback URL

Warmist: What Will It Take To Convince Righties That Hotcoldwetdry Is Serious?

By William Teach April 15, 2015 – 3:41 pm

Well, you know my answer about practicing what you preach, and, oh, yeah, hard evidence rather than computer models. At Eugene Volokh’s spot, Jonathan Adler asks what it will take to convince Republicans and Libertarians (btw, you’ll need hit the story to see all the embedded links. Doing this on Droid)

(Washington Post) When it comes to climate change, there is an amazing confluence of policy preferences and scientific assessments.  Those who generally favor aggressive regulatory interventions to address environmental concerns are convinced global warming is a serious (if not catastrophic) environmental concern, while those who generally oppose governmental interventions in the marketplace are skeptical of mainstream climate science.  Each side of the policy debate has adopted a view of the science that confirms — or at least conforms with — its policy preferences.

Of course, Adler is coming down on the side of the Cult of Climastrology, and has since 2008

As I’ve written elsewhere, it’s long past time that self-professed libertarians and others on the political right consider climate change to be a serious problem. (See also here.) The Niskanen Center’s Jerry Taylor makes a similar point here.  Alas, many libertarians and conservatives reject evidence of humanity’ effect on the global climate system for fear such evidence will be used to justify climate policies libertarians and conservatives rightly dislike.

Well, yeah. Most of us understand that the preferred policies of Warmists are based on junk science, would not solve the issue if it was real, and simply institute bigger and bigger government control with more taxation, higher cost of living, and redistribution.

What Adler is looking at is an article at Reason which asked the same question, which I covered 10 days ago. He ends his missive thusly, with an excerpt from the article

To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. So back to the headline question: If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?

It is a question worth answering.

As to the excerpt from Reason in italic, I already did. To reiterate, none of those occurrences are outside the bounds of natural Holocene variability, and do not prove anthropogenic causation. As for Adler, he kinda forgets to actually answer it, nor does he provide a rational as to why we should implement the hard left policies recommended to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry.

Read: Warmist: What Will It Take To Convince Righties That Hotcoldwetdry Is Serious? »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 15, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil gas grill with evil meat cooking, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The People’s Cube, with a post on urinals, a symbol of the patriarchy.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, Will Hotcoldwetdry Give Us The Blues?

By William Teach April 15, 2015 – 10:25 am

The Cult of Climastrology has now linked music with their cultish beliefs, attempting to ruin it

(The Local) Climate change is predicted to intrude into almost every area of life – from where we live, to what we eat and whom we war with. Now music can be added to the list.

That’s the unusual idea put forward by British researchers at a conference in Vienna, who say the weather has powerfully but discreetly influenced the soundtrack to our lives.

And tastes in songs are likely to change as the climate shifts.

Fancy listening to the Beatles’ “Here Comes The Sun” when you are grinding out yet another long, sweaty heat wave?

“These assumptions we have about certain weather being good and certain weather being bad, like sun being good — that might change,” researcher Karen Aplin of the University of Oxford told AFP at a European Geosciences Union meeting in Vienna. (snip)

Aplin and five other scientists combed through databases of more than 15,000 pop songs, finding statistical backing for the assumption that our moods are strongly swayed by the weather. (snip)

“What we found about pop music was that the lyrics can be used very clearly to link the weather to a particular emotion, and usually the sun is positive and rain is negative,” said Aplin.

Interestingly, so many of the songs occurred during a time (40’s-70’s) when there was a concern of a coming ice age. Weird, eh? Anyhow, they can’t just be songs about stuff, where even songs about love are kinda like the weather, they are like totally linked to “climate change”

Based on present carbon emission trends, say climate scientists, worsening droughts, floods and storms as well as rising seas are waiting for us a few decades from now.

“Under climate change, the type of weather people are influenced by to write might change,” said Aplin.

“You might find more songs about severe weather because that is more part of people’s live, or a backdrop to their lives, than the weather we have now.”

Read: Say, Will Hotcoldwetdry Give Us The Blues? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove