If All You See…

By William Teach April 26, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise up and swallow the Statue Of Liberty, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Not A Lot Of People Know That, with a post on countering the 97% consensus meme.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Wisconsin Sheriff Would Add 7 Words To 2nd Amendment

By William Teach April 26, 2014 – 10:29 am

What are they?

(The Blaze) Sheriff David Clarke Jr. may not be a household name…yet. But he’s well on his way after his rousing speech at the 2014 NRA convention. Consider the standing ovation he received after revealing the seven words he would add to the Second Amendment: “Keep your hands off our guns, dammit.”

Clarke, the outspoken gun proponent who heads the sheriff’s office in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was easily one of the most popular speakers during the convention’s leadership forum. His comments about amending the Constitution were aimed at former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who said in his recent book that he would change the Second Amendment by adding five words in the middle: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

“My reaction was, ‘What!’” Clarke said, adding, ”Just what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ does Justice Stevens not understand?”

Full video, via The Right Scoop

Read: Wisconsin Sheriff Would Add 7 Words To 2nd Amendment »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | Comments Off on Wisconsin Sheriff Would Add 7 Words To 2nd Amendment | Trackback URL

NY Times: We Don’t Really Know About E-Cigs, So Let’s Regulate Them

By William Teach April 26, 2014 – 8:43 am

Progressives at their best. It’s for your own good. We’re just trying to help your, to protect you from yourself. Hence the reason Progressivism is called “nice fascism”. Here’s the NY Times Editorial Board

The rapidly growing electronic-cigarette business would finally be brought under regulatory supervision under long-delayed rules proposed by the Food and Drug Administration on Thursday. If the rules go into effect substantially as written, they will lay the foundation to protect the public from devices whose risks and benefits are largely unknown.

So, the risks are largely unknown, but we’re going to regulate them anyhow? Might it not make sense to learn what the risks are, and then initiate some wise regulations? Not just slap on some regulations and hope for the best? I also wonder if the NY Times missed that part of the FDA proposal is to require photo ID for purchase. Isn’t requiring photo ID racist?

Sales of the devices have risen sharply and are poised to skyrocket now that big tobacco companies are entering the market once dominated by small firms. Use of e-cigarettes among middle and high school students doubled from 2011 to 2012, calls to poison control centers linked to e-cigarettes have increased sharply, and the number of victims referred to hospitals tripled from 2012 to 2013.

These battery-powered devices turn liquid nicotine into a vapor that the smoker inhales. Proponents say they are much safer than ordinary cigarettes because they don’t contain the tars and toxic chemicals generated by burning tobacco. But regulators say so little is known about e-cigarette use that, as a public health matter, they can’t definitively say the product is safer.

First, I’m not adverse to requiring that purchasers be 18 or older. But, does the FDA have the statutory authority to do that? Nor am I adverse to requiring ID to purchase, much like alcohol. The second part is silly: do the research first, find out the risks, then deal with those risks. Unfortunately, Progressives have this kneejerk reaction to movement in the economy, and feel it is incumbent upon government to regulate. And protect people. Because the government is just here to help.

Some heavy smokers, for example, could actually be deterred from quitting if they used e-cigarettes to satisfy their nicotine craving where smoking was prohibited and then returned to their tobacco habit. Some nonsmokers might become addicted to nicotine after smoking e-cigarettes and move on to regular cigarettes. And young people who smoke only e-cigarettes can still suffer damage to the developing brain. Nobody knows what the net impact of all this would be on the nation’s health. Dozens of studies are underway to find out.

Again, they have no idea, no scientific evidence, studies, just feelings, so, let’s regulate!

The proposed rule is a good, if incomplete, first step. It prohibits sales to children under 18, requires retailers to verify age by photo identification and penalizes those who sell to minors. It restricts vending machine sales to adult-only facilities, and it prohibits free samples.

Hey, they did pay attention. Why is it OK to require photo ID to purchase a product and not to vote?

Some desirable restrictions were not included in the new rule, but they could be added in separate rule-making later. The agency should surely ban flavors and colorful packaging that appeal to youngsters. It should also move judiciously to restrict television marketing on shows watched by young people. And it ought to limit the concentration of nicotine in vapors generated by e-cigarettes.

As I wrote when the FDA announced the proposed regs, they were basic, and I had no problem with them. My view has always been that the government that governs least governs best. There is a need for government, and there are times when they should be involved. Some basic regs are not a bad thing. Of course, the FDA said it was just the start. And the NY Times proves that they want to regulate the industry to death. What’s it to them if people want the fun flavors? That’s part of what makes e-cigs fun, and helps reduce/stop cigarette usage. I love my strawberry/chocolate flavor. And mocha coffee.

It’s not Government’s role to ban flavors. This smacks of the Nanny State. And when Progressives start throwing out “it’s for the kids”, watch out. Finally, it’s interesting that the same NY Times hasn’t taken a stance against the ever expanding “legal” use of marijuana, which, last time I checked, is considered illegal by the federal government. Joseph in the comments

But is it OK for Colorado to allow the sale of marijuana infused cookies, candies and other treats that will be purchased by 21-year-olds, and passed down to much younger kids?

How in the world can you be more concerned about e-cigarettes, which literally are life-savers for so many addicted smokers, than kids eating pot brownies?

Good point. NY Times?

Read: NY Times: We Don’t Really Know About E-Cigs, So Let’s Regulate Them »

Posted in Wonky Media | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Weekly Address Pushes Raising The Minimum Wage, Regardless Of Value

By William Teach April 26, 2014 – 8:19 am

I would have guessed that it would have been about something like the pressing issues in the Eastern Pacific, seeing as how Obama is on a trip to visit our allies in the region. Or, perhaps, the issue of Ukraine, of which there is a worry about open warfare. Nope (video here)

Hi, everybody. In my State of the Union Address, I talked about pizza. More specifically, I talked about a pizza chain in Minneapolis – Punch Pizza – whose owner, John Soranno, made the business decision to give his employees a raise to ten bucks an hour.

A couple weeks ago, I got a letter from a small business owner who watched that night. Yasmin Ibrahim is an immigrant who owns her own restaurant – Desi Shack – and plans to open another this summer.

Here’s what she wrote. “I was moved by John Soranno’s story. It got me thinking about my … full-time employees and their ability to survive on $8 an hour in New York City.” So a few weeks ago, Yasmin put in place a plan to lift wages for her employees at both her restaurants to at least $10 an hour by the end of this year.

But here’s the thing – Yasmin isn’t just raising her employees’ wages because it’s the right thing to do. She’s doing it for the same reason John Soranno did. It makes good business sense.

Yasmin wrote, “It will allow us to attract and retain better talent – improving customer experience, reducing employee churn and training costs. We believe doing so makes good business sense while at the same time having a positive impact on the community.”

Yasmin’s right. That’s why, two months ago, I issued an Executive Order requiring workers on new federal contracts to be paid a fair wage of at least ten dollars and ten cents an hour.

And, of course, Obama whines about Congress not raising the minimum wage to $10.10. More specifically, he whines at Republicans. Because the best way to get someone to do something politically is to whine in a video. Where is the phone in Obama’s “pen and phone”? Why not pick it up and call some Congress critters? Why not invite some folks to the White House or to that burger place around the corner he goes to? Or head to Capitol Hill? Because there is no plan beyond yapping from the podium, in videos, etc, which is much like his foreign policy.

Anyhow, it’s not unsurprising that Obama fails to understand how the free market works. The two examples he mentioned decided on their own to raise wages for the betterment of their businesses. They felt that an increase in the wage would bring value. No one coerced them. No one forced them. Government did not say “do this!” What Obama wants to do is artificially raise the minimum wage regardless of value through Government force.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Weekly Address Pushes Raising The Minimum Wage, Regardless Of Value »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

GE: Obamacare Is Harming Our Medical Division

By William Teach April 25, 2014 – 3:26 pm

Well, um, surprise?

(Daily Caller) General Electric is telling its investors that Obamacare is to blame for recent losses in the company’s health care division, The Daily Caller has learned.

“Hospitals and clinics appear to be delaying purchases and responses to the ACA [Affordable Care Act],” stated GE senior vice president and CFO Jeffrey S. Bornstein in the company’s first-quarter earnings call.

General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, an outside economic adviser to President Obama, confirmed at a shareholder meeting Wednesday that the health sector is experiencing uncertainty.

Asked at the meeting about Obamacare’s impact on the company’s earnings, Immelt responded, “I think there’s still a lot of uncertainty in health care and we’ll just have to see that over time.”

Uncertainty is a part of business. When Government steps in and makes the uncertainty artificially worse, especially in a huge sector of the economy, that’s a major problem. Government should take a light touch, should certainly only implement rules that are very specific, and should act mostly like refs, keeping things honest with agreed upon rules. Not causing problems and economic hardship.

Read: GE: Obamacare Is Harming Our Medical Division »

Posted in Healthcare | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 25, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrid plastic water bottle causing droughtflood, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with post on a guy freaked out be an Obamacare letter.

Read: If All You See… »

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

NC GOP Senatorial Candidates Laugh About “Climate Change”

By William Teach April 25, 2014 – 12:57 pm

I actually caught this the other day in the local media, but no one had embedable video. Now we do, via Eco Watch and Buzzfeed, which are having free range kittens (remember, cats are bad for “climate change”) over this

In fact, a warming planet, extreme weather, droughts and potential resource battles are all pretty funny concepts to candidates Thom Tillis, Greg Brannon, Mark Harris and Heather Grant.

They’re so funny that a primary debate moderator could barely get those two words out of his mouth before the candidates begin chuckling.

Read: NC GOP Senatorial Candidates Laugh About “Climate Change” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmist Joe Barry: Over-Population Is The Real Cause Of Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach April 25, 2014 – 10:47 am

Wanting to reduce population is not necessarily a mainstream Warmist tenant, but it does dovetail into the greater enviroweenie notion of a “population bomb” and the top end Progressive notion of eugenics, abortion, and limiting population. The extremists, well, the extreme extremists (kinda like the difference between a Nazi party member and a member of the SS. Or, your average Bin Laden supporter and a member of the Taliban), actually discuss it in terms of killing off humans

(Independent.ie) The remarkable thing is that the real cause of global warming is rarely mentioned. It is the elephant in the room. Everyone can see it but no one wants to speak about it, presumably because this subject is a contentious one and challenges the core beliefs of many religions.

The undeniable fact is that we, the human race, are the cause of our own difficulties and unless we reduce our numbers, we will self-destruct.

But, of course, even the extreme extremist Warmists usually couch who they want to kill off subtly

The highest population growth currently occurs in nations with the greatest poverty. In peasant societies, large families are seen as a form of wealth and an insurance against poverty and starvation in old age.

Interestingly, the nations with high standards of living have in general, low or zero rates of population growth.

We send money to poor nations to help sink wells and buy livestock but do little or nothing about helping them control their rate of reproduction, which in turn creates further famines.

Assistance and education in introducing birth control would surely provide a more lasting solution.

Again, this dovetails nicely into the Progressive notion of eugenics, wanting to limit the number of “minorities”. It is a tenant based on racism and bigotry, on hatred for others.

Read: Warmist Joe Barry: Over-Population Is The Real Cause Of Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Treacher: Is It OK To Not Give A Hoot About Cliven Bundy?

By William Teach April 25, 2014 – 7:22 am

Good question

(Daily Caller) I haven’t been following the Cliven Bundy case because, believe it or not, southwestern grazing disputes have never been among my interests. I know the Daily Caller has done stories about him because I’ve seen the headlines, but I haven’t followed the whole thing. I haven’t written a word about him before today. I don’t care.

Notice: I haven’t written anything about him or the situation, either. The only references are in link posts.

But now that this Bundy fellow has publicly said things that have offended a lot of black people, suddenly, he represents everybody to the right of Karl Marx. Suddenly I’m obliged to have an opinion about him.

If you want to know what I think about some rancher in Nevada, I tend to agree with the always delightful and perceptive Kira Davis. Be warned: I’m told she isn’t a proper African-American because she’s a conservative. Be that as it may, here she’s 100% correct.

That’s a hell of a good point. Jim goes on to note

Like Kira said, it’s not about one guy. It’s about the media abusing their power to stifle dissent against government control. Just ask anybody who’s been raked over the coals for daring to complain about their health insurance. Ask Joe the Plumber. Ask Ben Carson. Ask Carrie Prejean. Ask anybody who inconveniences the left.

It’s also about The Government sending tons of agents, armed with automatic weapons and sniper rifles, dressed like storm troopers, to a ranch, taking his cattle, and even killing his cattle.

Bundy doesn’t represent me. He doesn’t represent most of us. Why did he say what he said? I don’t know. Is he a racist? I don’t know. I don’t know him. I’ve ignored most of the news on this issue. The only article I read was this one from Powerline. Of course, every lefty is attempting to say that Bundy is the ultimate representative of Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Party members, etc.

Does Bundy have hate in his heart, hating Black people? I don’t know. Has anyone asked him? Or is he just a normal guy who speaks his mind in an inarticulate manner? I do not know. Not everyone speaks politispeak. What Bundy said was idiotic, foolish, and perhaps bigoted. He did have a point, though: how are Blacks doing? Many of them are stuck in poverty, living in government housing, with little in the way of job prospects (Blacks have a higher than average unemployment rate, especially amongst Black youths). So many are reliant on government, while being surrounded by crime, violence, gangs, sexual assault. Are they better off than under slavery? Of course! No one can sell them, or beat them legally, or split them up. Now the families are split up by gangs and prison and violence. Does it make Bundy a racist for saying what he said? We’d have to look into his heart to see if he hates Blacks, or just said something incredible stupid.

Anyhow, this will surely be my one and only post on the subject. Because this is not something I care enough to write about. RS McCain wrote

One of the joys of being an independent blogger is that you don’t have to pay attention to anything that doesn’t interest you, or about which you have nothing helpful to say. At least 90% of what Fox News and talk radio spend their time blabbering about falls into that category for me. It’s not that those stories aren’t important. Rather the question is, what’s the point in me becoming the 143rd blogger to add my two cents on a particular story, unless I have something to say that hasn’t already been said better by someone else?

This “value-added” approach to blogging explains why I haven’t had anything to say about the Cliven Bundy BLM confrontation. There were a couple of times in recent days when I almost blogged about it, but then something else would catch my eye  – who can resist a LESBIAN POLYGAMY headline? — and I’d forget about it. But so what? Everybody was blogging about the Bundy story, and the value of my two cents would have been negligible anyway.

Boom. Bundy doesn’t represent me. But, when The Government comes for you, maybe because you changed the pond out back, or bought a house in the wilderness and The Government doesn’t like you using ATVs to get there, you’ll remember the bigger point.

More: The Lonely Conservative notes, regarding Bundy being the top story on Memeorandum (and everywhere else)

The current governor of Illinois tweeted a link to an article comparing black Republicans to Jewish Nazis and not much was made of his endorsement of such sentiments. Despite some outrage in the Jewish community, Governor Quinn is still the guest of honor at an event honoring victims of the holocaust and the last time I checked he still hasn’t apologized.

Strange how little news coverage that’s getting. Make sure to read the rest.

Read: Treacher: Is It OK To Not Give A Hoot About Cliven Bundy? »

Posted in Government, Musings | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Phew! Congress Looks To Regulate Photoshopped Ads

By William Teach April 25, 2014 – 6:54 am

Having solved all of America’s problems, it’s easy to do things like this. It’s for the kids, ya know

(Yahoo) Could the beautiful and perfect airbrushed images we often see in advertisements become a thing of the past? Yes — if a bill proposed by Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and California Congresswoman Lois Capps becomes law, that is.

The federal bill, dubbed the “Truth in Advertising Act of 2014,” was introduced by Ros-Lehtinen on March 27. But it’s the brainchild of Los Angeles father-of-two Seth Matlins, founder of Feel More Better, a female-empowerment website, who was inspired to move into the political realm by British Parliament member Jo Swinson’s successful 2011 push to remove unrealistic ads in the UK. He authored the proposed legislation with the following goals: to convince the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the impact such images have on culture, particularly young girls, and to provide recommendations for how advertisers can operate with a social conscious — just as it does with cigarette and alcohol ads. Matlins has also created a Change.org petition in support of the bill, which as of Wednesday, had more than 16,000 signatures and many passionate comments, including, “My daughter has a eating disorder that we have been fighting for a few years. She has almost taken her life several times. This is a real and very deadly problem!”

See? It’s for the kids. But, don’t worry, it’s totally not censorship

Are You Trying to Censor Advertising?
No. We are trying to stop the deception and public health damages linked to ads that materially change the appearance of the people in them.

Because Government knows better.

Is the TIAA trying to Stop All Use of Photoshop in All Ads?
No. The bill does not ask for specific solutions. It simply asks the FTC to take 18 months, bring together all the stakeholders (consumer groups, health groups, women’s, girls and media activists, eating disorders groups and the advertising community) to figure out how it can protect consumers from this type of advertising moving forward. Then, the FTC will report back to Congress with their recommendations, remedies, and regulatory framework.

So, the Bill doesn’t actually do anything? Just a time and money waster to spread awareness and bully advertisers?

Here’s the problem: using the power of The Federal Government to enforce a set of complaints against private entities. The Constitution certainly provides a means to petition for redress of grievance. That said, the grievance is supposed to be against Government, not other private entities.

Fortunately, there are only three Representatives pushing this. Two Dems, one Republican. Seriously, they’re worried about photoshopped images that create unrealistic body standards. Well, there are tons of non-shopped images that do the same. This is just Big Government for Big Government’s sake. If the group pushing this, The Brave Girls Alliance, was really brave, they’d go to the companies themselves, rather than just using Government Force.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Phew! Congress Looks To Regulate Photoshopped Ads »

Posted in Government | Comments Off on Phew! Congress Looks To Regulate Photoshopped Ads | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove