Go Topless Coming To San Antonio, Compares Itself To Gun Rights

By William Teach August 23, 2014 – 9:22 am

And if you refuse to stand up for the right of women to go topless in public, you’re probably part of the patriarchy and a misogynist and hate womyn

(The Blaze) It seems some women are planning to let it all hang out in a couple of Texas towns on Sunday.

Their argument: Breasts are less dangerous than guns.

“The 2nd amendment is very popular in TX ‘the right to bear arms’ to protect one’s family is one argument but baring breasts is illegal also ‘to protect the children,’” the group, GoTopless, wrote in a Facebook post. “Texas women, affirm your right to bare your breasts!!! If breasts are more dangerous to children than weapons, then something is truly wrong with our society!”

One person at the Facebook post link notes “Go topless but with an AR”. Hey, sounds good!

(My San Antonio) GoTopless, a Las Vegas-based organization advocating for “women’s right to go topless in public,” is hosting the event, which is scheduled to take off at 1 p.m. on Sunday at Navarro and St. Mary’s. The group is hosting more than 50 similar rallies around the world on Sunday, including on 6th and Congress in Austin, according to its website.

A San Antonio ordinance that forbids exposure of “female breast(s)” may cause a problem for demonstrators.

So, mostly outside agitators. A few choice comments

  • Mommy, what are those two deflated balloons doing on the chest of that woman asks the little boy?
  • A lot of the breasts that will be exposed will be resting on some rather large and protruding stomachs.
  • It will be just like the nude beaches where only the people naked are the people you don’t want to see naked.

Hey, menfolk would love for women to go around topless all the time. Well, mostly. With more proof of Yikes!!!!! at the My San Antonio link.

Read: Go Topless Coming To San Antonio, Compares Itself To Gun Rights »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Semi-Retired President Uses Weekly Address To Deal With Ex-Im Bank

By William Teach August 23, 2014 – 8:50 am

Seriously, I just can’t understand why anyone would call him tone deaf (video here)

(White House) One place to start is by supporting something called the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Its sole mission is to create American jobs. That’s it. It helps many American entrepreneurs take that next step and take their small business global. But next month, its charter will expire — unless Members of Congress do their job and reauthorize it.

Now, past Congresses have done this 16 times, always with support from both parties. Republican and Democratic Presidents have supported the bank, too. This time around shouldn’t be any different. Because the bank works. It’s independent. It pays for itself. But if Congress fails to act, thousands of businesses, large and small, that sell their products abroad will take a completely unnecessary hit.

Huh. Now that’s interesting

(The Blaze) It’s a near-total reversal of what he said on the campaign trail six years ago.

As the Washington Free Beacon noted earlier this month, in 2008 then-Sen. Obama called Ex-Im “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”

Of course, now that many conservative groups and pundits and legislators are calling for the ending of the Ex-IM Bank, Obama is for it. He sees an opportunity to create more division. And, since nothing else of importance is happening in the world, hey, why not discuss this subject? I really just don’t get why anyone would call him tone deaf.

https://twitter.com/CuffyMeh/statuses/502817104085942273

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Semi-Retired President Uses Weekly Address To Deal With Ex-Im Bank »

Posted in Barry Obama | Comments Off on Semi-Retired President Uses Weekly Address To Deal With Ex-Im Bank | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 22, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is coffee that is under threat from too much dry and wet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post noting that laws and rules aren’t for the people who wrote them.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Crucial Lessons From Naomi Klein’s “Climate Change” Book For Warmists

By William Teach August 22, 2014 – 11:43 am

In These Times’ Ethan Corey and Jessica Corbett are really amped about Naomi Klein’s hyper-alarmist book on “climate change” and offer 5 crucial lessons. Let’s look at two which underscore what I and others have noticed about the Warmist movement (red bold by me)

1. Band-Aid solutions don’t work.

“Only mass social movements can save us now. Because we know where the current system, left unchecked, is headed.”

Much of the conversation surrounding climate change focuses on what Klein dismisses as “Band-Aid solutions”: profit-friendly fixes like whizz-bang technological innovations, cap-and-trade schemes and supposedly “clean” alternatives like natural gas. To Klein, such strategies are too little, too late. In her drawn-out critique of corporate involvement in climate change prevention, she demonstrates how profitable “solutions” put forward by many think-tanks (and their corporate backers) actually end up making the problem worse. For instance, Klein argues that carbon trading programs create perverse incentives, allowing manufacturers to produce more harmful greenhouse gases, just to be paid to reduce them. In the process, carbon trading schemes have helped corporations make billions—allowing them to directly profit off the degradation of the planet. Instead, Klein argues, we need to break free of market fundamentalism and implement long-term planning, strict regulation of business, more taxation, more government spending and reversals of privatization to return key infrastructure to public control.

5. Confronting climate change is an opportunity to address other social, economic and political issues.

“When climate change deniers claim that global warming is a plot to redistribute wealth, it’s not (only) because they are paranoid. It’s also because they are paying attention.” (WT-note: I have highlighted this passage from Klein’s book)

In The Shock Doctrine, Klein explained how corporations have exploited crises around the world for profit. In This Changes Everything, she argues that the climate change crisis can serve as a wake-up call for widespread democratic action. For instance, when a 2007 tornado destroyed most of Greensburg, Kansas, the town rejected top-down approaches to recovery in favor of community-based rebuilding efforts that increased democratic participation and created new, environmentally-friendly public buildings. Today, Greensburg is one of the greenest towns in the United States. To Klein, this example illustrates how people can use climate change to come together to build a greener society. It also can, and indeed must, spur a radical transformation of our economy: less consumption, less international trade (part of relocalizing our economies) and less private investment, and a lot more government spending to create the infrastructure we need for a green economy. “Implicit in all of this,” Klein writes, “is a great deal more redistribution, so that more of us can live comfortably within the planet’s capacity.”

This is exactly what we’ve been talking about: “climate change” is being used as a means to push far left Progressive (nice fascist) Big Government policies. Control of economies, control of people, restrictions on business, restrictions on private investment, government doing it all, taxing people out the ying yang, government owning businesses (particularly infrastructure and energy, which gives Government control over your life). Look back at that quote from Klein again

“When climate change deniers claim that global warming is a plot to redistribute wealth, it’s not (only) because they are paranoid. It’s also because they are paying attention.”

We are paying attention. To bad the average brain dead Liberal isn’t. They might see the reality, and understand that they will not be immune to the fascist tendencies of their Warmist leaders.

Read: Crucial Lessons From Naomi Klein’s “Climate Change” Book For Warmists »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Athiest Group Really Upset By Pizza Parlor’s Church Discount

By William Teach August 22, 2014 – 8:29 am

The owner of the pizza parlor wonders if they don’t have something better to do, like spending lawsuit money on the homeless. Here’s Todd Starnes

Steven Rose loves Jesus and pepperoni pizza.

But when the Searcy, Arkansas restaurateur decided to mix church and cheese it gave a group of out-of-town atheists a bad case of indigestion.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is threatening to sue Steven after he offered a discount to customers who bring in a church bulletin. They said Bailey’s Pizza is violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law denying the free practice of religion.

“The law requires places of public accommodation to offer their services to customers without regard to race, color, religion or national origin,” FFRF spokesperson Elizabeth Cavell told television station KTHV.

Steven, who opened the pizza parlor in July, told me there’s nothing nefarious about the church bulletin discount.

“It was a straight-up marketing tool to give a discount to people I love and care about – and have them come in and have lunch with me,” he said. “I thought it was a sweet idea. I didn’t say you had to go to church to get it. Go get a bulletin from your neighbor and come in and have a pizza.”

Of course, the hardcore atheists can’t just live and let live, they have to force their views on other people.

So is it really unconstitutional for restaurants to provide religious-themed discounts? Not at all, says Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Institute.

“In fact, if what FFRF is saying were true, restaurants and other businesses would be precluded from giving veterans and military members discounts because that would technically be discriminating based on veteran status,” Sasser tells me. “Is that what FFRF wants? Give me a break!”

This would mean that bars offering to let ladies in for free while charging men would be discrimination and against the Civil Rights Act. Senior citizen discounts. Businesses that cater only to women, such as gyms and hotels (in fact, while this incident may be in Copenhagen, a hotel there stopped it’s catering to women with a women only floor after being told that was discriminatory).

Steven tells me it’s really sad that the FFRF is spending their money attack his restaurant.

“The 75 cents that somebody saves when they bring in a church bulletin – is that really what they need to be spending their money on?” he asked. “How about spending that money helping the homeless?”

Good point.

Read: Athiest Group Really Upset By Pizza Parlor’s Church Discount »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

CNN Source Claims Officer Wilson Does Not Have Broken Eye Socket

By William Teach August 22, 2014 – 8:10 am

There are three interesting things in this

(The Blaze) CNN on Thursday, citing an anonymous source close to the investigation, reported that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson did not suffer a fractured eye socket prior to fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown earlier this month. The report directly contradicts a recent Fox News story, which also cites an anonymous source “close to the [police] department’s top brass.”

CNN anchor Don Lemon reported on Thursday that Wilson did go to the hospital with swelling around his face and eyes, but an X-ray came back negative for a fracture to his orbital bone.

“That source says it is not true, at all, he did not have a torn eye socket,” Lemon said. “Unequivocally.”

Not quite sure what a “torn eye socket” is

Responding to Lemon’s reporting, Nancy Grace said her sources have been telling her from the “get-go” that there was a scuffle between Wilson and Brown.

“I really don’t know if we’re going to know what any of this is, or the truth of it, until it comes out in court,” she added.

So, let’s see: first, Officer Wilson might not have broken eye socket, but he apparently had been hit in the face. Which would still give credence that the “gentle giant” assaulted an officer of the law. Second, CNN has apparently known that there was some sort of violence perpetrated against Officer Wilson. Why were they waiting so long to let us know about this? Did they not think it relevant to let the people know that Michael Brown wasn’t quite the gentle giant they and others portrayed him as?

Third, Grace makes a great point: what for the info to come out in court. Which would, I assume, be from the Grand Jury. Unless she’s calling for Officer Wilson to be prosecuted?

Smitty pulls an interesting comment from Instapundit

Larry2 at Instapundit
There seems to be a pattern:

  1. unarmed young black guy is shot,
  2. there is a vast media outcry over the young “honor student’s” death,
  3. family provides photos of the dead guy taken when he was 11 years old, well before he had opted for the ghetto thug look,
  4. it comes out that the “honor student” has been committing felonies,
  5. witnesses say the honor student was beating the hell out of the person who shot him,
  6. Democrat politicians call for the shooter’s conviction, and
  7. prosecutors, fearing rioting, black voters, or what have you, prosecute the shooter anyway.

Have I missed anything?

Yes, he has missed something, namely, the part where Leftists use the issue as a political football, much as they’ve used other incidents. From the get go, most Conservatives have said “wait for the details to come out”. We weren’t taking the side of Brown or Wilson (the police going overboard in respect to the protests is a separate issue), but we did know that whenever the Left goes nuts on an issue like this, they are often proven wrong once the full information comes out. And, then, when the information does come out, the Left will ignore the issue, and stick with irrational, fact-free talking points, much like they did in the Zimmerman/Trayvon incident. They will use the incident to complain about some “wider problem in America”.

If there is a “wider problem in America”, it should be noted that these problems are the direct result of 50+ years of Liberal/Progressive/Democrat policies, particularly as they apply to urbanized areas and Blacks.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: CNN Source Claims Officer Wilson Does Not Have Broken Eye Socket »

Posted in Current Affairs | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

New Republic: Officer Wilson Is Guilty Till Proven Innocent

By William Teach August 21, 2014 – 7:47 pm

This is Liberal World, per to Yishai Schwartz

Convicting Darren Wilson Will Be Basically Impossible

——

We may never know what actually happened during the violent encounter between teenager Michael Brown and policeman Darren Wilson. But legal judgments rarely happen with perfect knowledge and absolute certainty. In their place, we rely on presumptions and standards that guide our thinking and discipline our judgments. In general, we presume innocence. But when we know that a killing has occurred and can definitively identify who committed the act, traditional common law demanded that our presumptions shift. We are supposed to presume guilt, and it is the shooter who must prove that his actions were justified. Unless the shooter is a policeman. And unless the victim is a black male. And unless the shooting happens in a state with self-defense laws like Missouri.

As American Spectator’s Aaron Goldstein notes, this could have easily have the same affect regarding self defense in Massachusetts as Missouri.

Anyhow, Liberals immediately did presume guilt of Officer Wilson. They jumped to the conclusion, and as the days wear on, that kneejerk reaction is backfiring, as liberal kneejerks so often do. There are certain elements, groups, and people of which liberals will always think the worse. Why? Politics, pure and simple. Everything is viewed in the hardcore liberal/Progressive bubble. Imagine had Michael Brown been wearing a shirt with a Gadsden flag on it. Think there would be the same hullabaloo from liberals? Would they have immediately deemed the Black man at fault?

Justice is not blind with the Left.

Read: New Republic: Officer Wilson Is Guilty Till Proven Innocent »

Posted in Current Affairs | Comments Off on New Republic: Officer Wilson Is Guilty Till Proven Innocent | Trackback URL

Climate Change Brings Darkness And Doom Or Something

By William Teach August 21, 2014 – 4:51 pm

Funny thing is, the darkness and doom came from cooling, but, of course, this is meant to highlight the Coming Doom from a slight increase in global temperatures from Someone Else driving a fossil fueled vehicle

Lord Byron’s ‘Darkness’: A Post-Apocalyptic Tale of Climate Change

In 1815, Indonesia’s Mount Tambora experienced a super-eruption, triggering global climate shifts that produced famine, riots, disease outbreak, and mass death.

The great Romantic poet Lord Byron, holed up in Geneva at the time, responded with a post-apocalyptic poem called “Darkness,” which portrayed a vision of an “icy Earth” full of desolation, burning cities, and global warfare. Nearly two centuries on, it remains a poignant portrait of a future marred by climate disaster.

Mount Tambora’s volcanic ash, ejected into the upper atmosphere, eventually fell back to Earth, bringing stasis once again to the planet. But in Byron’s post-apocalyptic landscape, climate change and its effects are permanent. It’s a bleak, bleak world; a Romantic-era precursor to the monochromatic desolation of Cormac McCarthy’sThe Road.

Of course, the entire poem is about doom from an icy world post-Tambora. Somehow, this means, in the fevered mind of a Warmist, doom from warming

Perhaps Byron might have privately felt that technological advancement and byproducts of manufacture and consumption could create unintended ecological effects, though the modern concept of ecology itself was still being refined. Nothing we have in existing letters or anecdotes suggests he commented on it. Regardless, “Darkness” exists as a future vision of how humanity might devolve in the face of climate change.

The author, DJ Pangburn, doesn’t seem to see the insanity of using natural cooling from a massive volcanic event, which brought on the poem, to whine about warming, which, in his fevered Warmist mind, is caused by Mankind.

  And what did Byron see after all humans and other creatures vanish from the Earth?

…The world was void,
The populous and the powerful was a lump,
Seasonless, herbless, treeless, manless, lifeless—
A lump of death—a chaos of hard clay.
The rivers, lakes and ocean all stood still,
And nothing stirr’d within their silent depths;
Ships sailorless lay rotting on the sea,
And their masts fell down piecemeal: as they dropp’d
They slept on the abyss without a surge—
The waves were dead; the tides were in their grave,
The moon, their mistress, had expir’d before;
The winds were wither’d in the stagnant air,
And the clouds perish’d; Darkness had no need
Of aid from them—She was the Universe.

Now that is darkness. Think upon it the next time you read about fluctuations in global climate. The Byronic post-apocalyptic Earth is extreme, but so are we as a species, and in the way we interact with the planet. In “Darkness,” Byron just held up the mirror.

Seriously, these people live in a very strange world. The darkness came from natural cooling. Somehow, again, we’re to see similar doom from a slight increase in global temperatures over 160+ years.

Read: Climate Change Brings Darkness And Doom Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Climate Change Brings Darkness And Doom Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 21, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is coffee that will skyrocket so that only super rich people can afford it because of climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a post on President Vineyard’s Big Day.

Read: If All You See… »

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

People Who Work Less Hours Get Paid Less, So, Obviously, This Is Sexist

By William Teach August 21, 2014 – 8:54 am

Obviously

How a Part-Time Pay Penalty Hits Working Mothers

Women get paid less than men in almost all jobs, but when women in low-wage jobs need to take time off work to care for children, they are at an even greater disadvantage.

If all employees got paid the same hourly amount (assuming they’re equally productive on the job), it would go a long way toward closing the gender pay gap, according to Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist who has analyzed income data across occupations, including a new set of unpublished data on hourly workers that she prepared for the White House Summit on Working Families in June.

Instead, she has found, people in professions like law and finance get paid disproportionately more when they work extra-long hours. At the other end of the spectrum, people in low-wage jobs do not benefit much from working more, but get paid disproportionately less per hour when they work fewer than 40 hours a week. The penalty is similar for men and women — but ends up hurting women more, because they are far more likely to take breaks during their careers or need shorter or predictable hours to handle child care.

Well, that is simply shocking! Who would think that working longer hours would mean more pay? Who would think that people who work less than 40 hours a week get paid a whole lot less? This just boggles the mind

While the challenges are different at high-income and low-income jobs, the bottom line is the same: Employees, particularly parents, need some measure of predictability and control over the hours they work; the workplace could be much more equal if they weren’t penalized for not working a straight 40-hour workweek.

Who wants to bet that those who work at the NY Times get paid more for working longer hours, and less for less than 40 hours a week? But, if you don’t agree that people who work less should get paid the same as those who work more you are a sexist, hate women, and are probably part of the evil patriarchy.

It’s like Liberals do not understand how the Adult Working World works. Because they don’t.

Read: People Who Work Less Hours Get Paid Less, So, Obviously, This Is Sexist »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Economy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove