Fake But Accurate: UVA To Require Sober Monitors For Fraternity Parties

By William Teach January 7, 2015 – 4:14 pm

It’s not necessarily a bad idea for there to be people at all college parties who are sober and responsible (these are mostly called “buzzkills”. Not all. I had a friend who rarely drank, was willing to drive, and was amused by drunk people) to make sure that Bad Things do not happen. That said, the idea of requiring monitors due to a manufactured rape story is ludicrous

(Raw Story) Fraternities wanting to throw parties at the University of Virginia will have to get three members to stay “sober and lucid” to monitor behavior and bedrooms, under new rules imposed after a media report of a gang rape at one of the gatherings.

UVA banned all social events at fraternities and sororities after Rolling Stone magazine published an article in November detailing an alleged rape at a party in September 2012, and accusations that the university failed to respond.

UVA President Teresa Sullivan said the ban would be lifted, as long as the organizations signed onto the new regulations meant to guard against excessive drinking and the risk of sexual violence.

There’s barely a nod at Raw Story that the Rolling Stone story became a fable, being mostly found to be false. Anyhow, via the Washington Post, the new rules are aimed only at fraternities. Seems rather biased, punishing people who did not break any laws or were involved in any wrongdoing.

We also find that kegs are not allowed. Wine may only be poured by a sober monitor. No pre-mixed drinks or punches. No unauthorized and pre-registered parties. Hard liquor can only be served by a hired bartender at Tier 1 events (doesn’t say what one is). Food and water must be provided. Security guards and guest lists are required for Tier 1 events.

But, hey, if the fraternity members are OK with this, that’s their business. It is interesting that they need these rules to protect women from sexual assault on college campuses, being that they are super left leaning.

Read: Fake But Accurate: UVA To Require Sober Monitors For Fraternity Parties »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 7, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful jungle being destroyed by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a post on Sharyl Attkisson.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Blue State Fail: Mercedes Benz To Leave NJ For Georgia

By William Teach January 7, 2015 – 10:40 am

Regardless of Chris Christie being a Republican (and a seriously squishy one at that), New Jersey is primarily run by Democrats at the state level, and has been for quite some time. How’s that working out?

(NJ.com) The lure of lower taxes, a cheaper cost of living, more access to critical transportation networks, key manufacturing plants and about $50 million in incentives has sealed it –– German automaker Mercedes-Benz is departing Bergen County for Atlanta. And with it, potentially close to 1,000 jobs.

By the numbers, the article notes that MB will save 20% in operating costs, and will certainly save quite a bundle in property taxes over the $916k they pay in NJ.

3. Mercedes-Benz’s pending departure represents the third major relocation from Bergen County in the last few years. Hertz announced in 2013 would be shipping off 550 jobs from Park Ridge to sunny Florida. Then, last year, Sealed Air said it would be relocating 200 jobs from Elmwood Park to Charlotte, N.C. Mercedes had also been courted by two cities in North Carolina before ultimately selecting Atlanta, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

There is also a concern that BMW will move their corporate office out of NJ, seeing as how they have a major manufacturing plant in South Carolina.

High taxation, high cost of living, government interference, etc, the Blue State Model, all create business issues which cause relocation.

Read: Blue State Fail: Mercedes Benz To Leave NJ For Georgia »

Posted in Economy | Comments Off on Blue State Fail: Mercedes Benz To Leave NJ For Georgia | Trackback URL

Obama Threatens Veto Of Keystone XL, Going Against The American People

By William Teach January 7, 2015 – 7:54 am

Without even seeing the legislation, Obama has made his position clear

(The Hill) The White House said on Tuesday that President Obama would veto legislation that approves construction of the Keystone XL pipeline if it passes Congress.

“If this bill passes this Congress the president wouldn’t sign it either,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest vowed Tuesday of the pending Keystone legislation.

There are 60 cosponsors of legislation in the Senate, meaning many Democrats are planning to vote for it. It will certainly pass in the House.

Earnest, though, said the president will not stray from the ongoing review process. He cited litigation in Nebraska over the pipeline’s route as the key reason behind Obama’s decision to not sign Keystone legislation.

He’s been putting this off for years, despite multiple approvals by his own State Department. He’s been delaying it for over 5 years, giving one excuse or another, along with other periods where he just ignores the issue. This goes against the will of the American public, who have said again and again that the pipeline should be built. The most recent poll was back in November, where a USA Today poll found that 60% said Congress and Obama should approve Keystone XL.

Keystone XL has become a cause celebre amongst Progressives, who despise the pipeline. Yet, they ignore the many other pipelines that are being and have been built during the same time period. Most needed approval by the Obama administration, and received it. The Winnipeg Sun has called Obama a hypocrite. This is all about Progressive political optics, not reality.

Read: Obama Threatens Veto Of Keystone XL, Going Against The American People »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

12 Dead In Terrorist Attack In Paris

By William Teach January 7, 2015 – 7:28 am

France has been termed the terror capital of Europe, with multiple attacks occurring, as well as others being thwarted, over the last few years. A big plot to blow up the Eiffel Tower, Louvre, and a nuclear power plant was foiled in July 2014. Even more plots were foiled in France. There was an attack where an Islamist hit 11 people with a car while yelling “Allahu Ackbar”, which came shortly after another attack by an Islamist on French police in December. Now we have this

(BBC) Gunmen have attacked the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12  people and injuring 10, French officials say.

Witnesses spoke of sustained gunfire at the office as the attackers opened fire with assault rifles before escaping.

Police have launched a major operation in the Paris area in their hunt for the attackers.

Charlie’s latest tweet was a cartoon of the Islamic State militant group leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Two black hooded men walked in and opened fire, then escaped, and are still on the loose. Anyone think this has anything to do with the so-called religion of peace?

(UK Telegraph) “Several men in black cagoules were heard to shout ‘the Prophet has been avenged'”, wrote Pierre de Cossette, a broadcast journalist with Europe1 News.

Charlie Hedbo has published numerous satirical pieces and cartoons regarding Islam and Mohammed. They’ve made fun of Christians, Jews, and many, many more. But it is only one that turns violent.

The Guardian reports that 10 reporters and 2 police officers are among the murdered. Also

The journalist Martin Boudot, from the Premières Lignes agency, has posted this video from the roof of a building situated close to the Charlie Hebdo building. we can hear gunshots and voices who cry ‘Allahu akbar’.

Huh. How about that. I’m sure we’ll soon hear about “lone wolfs” and how this has nothing to do with the radical, hardcore beliefs of a chunk of Muslims, unlike when the entire Republican party, all conservatives, all Christians, are blamed for the actions of 1 person.

Francois Hollande has been speaking to the media. He said that 11 people had been killed and four people seriously injured but 40 people had been rescued.

Hollande said that the security level had been increased in Paris and a number of terrorist plots had been foiled in recent weeks. 
An emergency meeting will be held at the Elysees Palace in the next hour.

Hollande said France had experienced “an exceptional act of barbarism committed against a newspaper”.

Perhaps France should reconsider their policies which have let vast amounts of illegal aliens from Muslim countries in.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: 12 Dead In Terrorist Attack In Paris »

Posted in War On Terrorism | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: 2014 Hottest For Britain!!!!!!!!!

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 2:46 pm

Obviously, this means we’re doomed

(Raw Story) Last year was Britain’s warmest since records began in 1910, the Met Office weather agency said.

Sooooooo, we have a record that only goes back to 1910, 60 years into a typical Holocene warm period? Seriously? No one in England has records before than? Actually, there are, if we look at the Central England Temperature (CET) record, but that is only constructed back to 1659, so we do not have precise data for the Medieval Warm Period for comparison. Which, interestingly, shows big high temperature spikes in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

Provisional full year figures put the mean temperature in 2014 at 9.9 degrees Celsius (49.82 degrees Fahrenheit), 0.2 degrees higher than the previous record set in 2006.

Turn your heat up 0.2 degrees C and see if you can feel it.

Know what this all means? Nothing. There’s nothing abnormal about a Holocene Warm Period, and without actual data from previous warm periods, Warmists can only bloviate and assume that Mankind is causing this one.

Read: Bummer: 2014 Hottest For Britain!!!!!!!!! »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a tent that would be a perfect home for Everyone Else to live in to commune with the climate, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on left wing loons protesting the teaching of economics.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Five Warning Signs You’ve Joined A Cult

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 11:05 am

I ran across this one at College Humor, which almost perfectly describes the “climate change” cult

5 Warning Signs You’ve Joined A Cult

Thanks to some recent events, I’ve come to recognize that much of my life has been spent brainwashed by a cult. In an effort to save others from suffering the same fate as me, I have decided to share with you today some telltale warning signs I noticed during my time on the inside. If you recognize any of these in your own life, please seek help.

What are they?

1. You’re Expected To Follow Blindly

Faith and trust are paramount precepts of any cult. The group practices the same habits, reads the same literature, and studies the same canon. Objectors are shunned as outcasts. Even when all logic suggests that something will not live up to the divine expectations set forth by the cause, you’re still expected to treat it like it will be something worthy of worship. It’s a dangerous cycle that leads to huge amounts of disappointment and heartache.

Sounds perfectly like the Warmist cult. And all Progressives.

2. You’re Required To Recruit Others To Your Cause

Well, Warmists are necessarily required, but they sure try. Though, being obnoxious, demeaning, and abusive is a strange way to do it.

3. You Follow A Clearly Insane Leader

Are Warmist leaders insane? They’re certainly hypocritical. Of course, if you’re constantly talking about doom and gloom and predicting doom and gloom and things like the 6th great extinction from a tiny rise in CO2 and temperatures, well, you might just be insane. And, one of the definitions is extreme folly or unreasonableness. Another is something utterly foolish or unreasonable.

4. The Other Members’ Devotion Leads To Violent Behaviors

Most Warmists aren’t necessarily violent, yet, they often threaten violence against those who do not believe, as well as advocating violence, jailing, and re-education camps for those who do not Believe. They even advocate killing those who do not Believe. The post violent video’s like 10:10’s No Pressure. Some advocate population reduction, particularly in Africa and other 3rd World areas. Let’s also not forget the attack by crazed eco-terrorist James Jay Lee on the Discovery Channel headquarters.

By their own standards, they are violent against Mother Earth, as they drive around in fossil fueled vehicles, take fossil fueled flights, waste energy and water, and leave litter everywhere.

5. You Invest Large Sums Of Money Into These Beliefs

Well, really, in the case of Warmists, they mostly invest large sums of other people’s money into these beliefs, though a few, such as Tom Steyer, waste huge sums of their own money.

Read: Five Warning Signs You’ve Joined A Cult »

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

Warmist Lawrence Summers: With Gas Prices Low, Now Is Totally Time For A Carbon Tax

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 7:47 am

Of course, every time is time for a carbon tax in Warmist World. And, yes, this is the same Lawrence Summers who advised Obama from 2009-2010 as the economy cratered and Democrats authorized their trillion dollars in stimulus that failed

(Washington Post) The case for carbon taxes has long been compelling. With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices, it has become overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of the tax and about how the proceeds should be deployed. But there should be no doubt that, given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable.

This is one of those “the debate is over” moments. So, if the only debate that’s allowed is how big the tax on “carbon” will be, I recommend we hold a national vote on it, and that the tax is $5 per gallon for anyone who votes in the affirmative for a carbon tax. Everyone else will be given the option to pay whatever they’d like.

The core of the case for taxation is the recognition that those who use carbon-based fuels or products do not bear all the costs of their actions. Carbon emissions exacerbate global climate change. In many cases, they contribute to local pollution problems that harm human health. Getting fossil fuels out of the ground involves both accident risks and environmental challenges. And even with the substantial recent increases in U.S. oil production, we remain a net importer. Any increase in our consumption raises our dependence on Middle East producers.

So, Warmists like Summers should be thrilled to pay a tax themselves. Why aren’t they doing that now? Better (and rather inconvenient for Warmists) question, why haven’t they given up fossil fuels and gone “carbon neutral” themselves?

All of us, when we drive our cars, heat our homes or use fossil fuels in more indirect ways, create these costs without paying for them. It follows that we overuse these fuels. Advocating a carbon tax is not some kind of argument for government planning; it is the logic of the market: That which is not paid for is overused. Even if the government had no need or use for revenue, it could make the economy function better by levying carbon taxes and rebating the money to taxpayers.

Did he just inadvertently call Warmists like himself hypocrites? Good luck getting that money back from the government.

While the recent decline in energy prices is a good thing in that it has, on balance, raised the incomes of Americans, it has also exacerbated the problem of energy overuse. The benefit of imposing carbon taxes is therefore enhanced.

I have to wonder if he simply wrote the piece and forgot to read before publishing. If falling energy prices is good for the incomes of Americans, exactly why would adding a tax, artificially raising the cost of living to Americans, be a good thing?

Progressives who are most concerned about climate change should rally to a carbon tax. Conservatives who believe in the power of markets should favor carbon taxes on market principles. And Americans who want to see their country lead on the energy and climate issues that are crucial to the world this century should want to be in the vanguard on carbon taxes. Now is the time.

Notice he fails to say that Progressives should actually pay carbon taxes themselves. As for Conservatives, how is a forced tax. implemented by government, again, artificially raising the cost of living, be anything resembling the power of the market? At the end of the day, when climate change is compared to other issues, it tends to come in next to last, last, or not even appear.

Read: Warmist Lawrence Summers: With Gas Prices Low, Now Is Totally Time For A Carbon Tax »

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

Harvard Employees Who Pushed Ocare Appalled At Notion Of Using Ocare For Themselves

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 7:26 am

Obamacare, ie, The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, is one of those notions that Liberals will defend to the death. Well, someone else’s death. Because they think Ocare is great for Other People, not themselves

(NY Times) For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.

Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.

The faculty vote came too late to stop the cost increases from taking effect this month, and the anger on campus remains focused on questions that are agitating many workplaces: How should the burden of health costs be shared by employers and employees? If employees have to bear more of the cost, will they skimp on medically necessary care, curtail the use of less valuable services, or both?

“Harvard is a microcosm of what’s happening in health care in the country,” said David M. Cutler, a health economist at the university who was an adviser to President Obama’s 2008 campaign. But only up to a point: Professors at Harvard have until now generally avoided the higher expenses that other employers have been passing on to employees. That makes the outrage among the faculty remarkable, Mr. Cutler said, because “Harvard was and remains a very generous employer.”

One professor calls this tantamount to a pay cut. Welcome to the real world, Harvard employees, where the policies you pushed and supported for That Guy have come back to bite you in sensitive areas. There are quite a few quotes from Harvard employees, making me wonder how it was possible for this article to get published in the Times. I’d expect this more at the Daily Caller, Breitbart, Wall Street Journal, or some right leaning source.

Meredith B. Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, said she was puzzled by the outcry. “The changes in Harvard faculty benefits are parallel to changes that all Americans are seeing,” she said. “Indeed, they have come to our front door much later than to others.”

But in her view, there are drawbacks to the Harvard plan and others like it that require consumers to pay a share of health care costs at the time of service. “Consumer cost-sharing is a blunt instrument,” Professor Rosenthal said. “It will save money, but we have strong evidence that when faced with high out-of-pocket costs, consumers make choices that do not appear to be in their best interests in terms of health.”

So, they understand, but they shouldn’t be punished with the same type of insurance forced on everyone else.

“None of us who protested was motivated by our own bottom line so much as by the principle,” Ms. Lewis said, expressing concern about the impact of the changes on lower-paid employees.

This is a good time for the quote of 2013, and one of the best regarding Ocare: “Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Harvard Employees Who Pushed Ocare Appalled At Notion Of Using Ocare For Themselves »

Posted in Healthcare, Liberal World | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove