Delicious Irony: Fast Food Union Disallows Any Form Of Protest Against Union

Hypocrisy in Liberal World? Who woulda thunk it?

(FloridaWatchdog.org) Workers and organized labor groups took to protesting fast food companies last week in a multi-state effort to build public support for a $15 an hour minimum wage hike.

But a peek into one group’s own labor contract reveals a delicious irony.

They’ve been protesting for months, backing the destruction of their own jobs.

The Restaurant Opportunities Center United, which claims the support of 13,000 restaurant workers and with at least 11 affiliates across the country, forbids its own workers from protesting against management.

“It is mutually agreed that there shall be no strikes, lock-outs, sit downs, sit ins, slowdowns, sympathy strikes,­ picketing, stoppage or interruption of work, or direct or indirect interference or interruption of the operations of the Employer during the term of this Agreement,” states a two-year collective-bargaining agreement dated Jan. 4, 2013.

Well, well, well, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. Furthermore, the ROC is affiliated with, at least, the Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, linked to the AFL-CIO, which represents employees of 7 area news organizations, so you have collusion in coverage of the protests.

Furthermore, the ROC is a typical hardcore liberal union group. One of the points against it

ROC was sued by its own members for, among other things: expelling members who voiced views that “differed from those of the leadership and staff of ROC-NY,” “engaging in a campaign of intimidation and expulsion of members,” and “intentionally failing to pay plaintiffs a minimum wage”;

ROC Exposed goes on to note

The Restaurant Opportunities Center is a labor union front group disguised as a restaurant industry employment center and watchdog. ROC regularly issues factually flawed reports, files ridiculous lawsuits, and leads protests that harm many of the restaurant employees they claim to represent, all in an effort to attack and harass non-unionized restaurants. ROC’s tactics have been compared to mob-style shakedowns, often employing intimidation and outright extortion in an effort to force restaurants into submission.

And the will not allow any sort of protests against itself. Surprise?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Delicious Irony: Fast Food Union Disallows Any Form Of Protest Against Union »

Poll: Public Support For State “Climate Change” Policies Declines

This comes from the University Of Michigan’s Center For Local, State, and Urban Policy

The first decade of the 2000s was a period of active and largely unanticipated state engagement in the development of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This triggered substantial social science literature that explored the drivers behind climate policy adoption. These included state reactions to more localized early effects of a changing climate, anticipated co-benefits from either improving energy efficiency or developing locally-generated renewable sources, and positioning themselves for favored status in any subsequent federal policy regime. But this pattern of policy adoption and diffusion has slowed and, in some respects, reversed in recent years. Despite the absence of far-reaching federal legislation, a number of federal initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in recent years have tended to marginalize state policy initiative and expansion.

This report tracks the evolution of public opinion on the question of state government involvement in climate change over a five-year period, from Fall 2008 to Fall 2013. It concludes that there has been some significant decline in public support for at least some of the policies that have been asked about by National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE) during this period. The drop-off has been most noticeable since the Fall 2008 survey, which has also surfaced as a high-water mark for public concern about climate change. Our findings note a significant drop in public concern right after that period, at least in cases where we asked the identical question in subsequent surveys, including a further trend downward in surveys conducted during the spring and fall of 2013. Declining public concern may be a contributing factor to the stalled pace of policy development at the state level, though it also indicates variation depending upon question wording and the policy instrument under consideration. Subsequent reports will examine these issues in greater detail and will also provide insight into whether geographic regions differ from one another, or whether citizens differ on the basis of whether they live in states that have (or have not) adopted particular policies.

When we look move past the abstract and into the poll itself, there are 7 key findings

  1. Americans have generally become more divided in their views on the proper role of state governments in addressing global warming during the past five years.
  2. One-half (50%) of Americans now believe that it is their state’s job to address global warming if the federal government fails to do so, down from 70% maintaining this view in 2008. Strong agreement with this proposition declined to 19% in Fall 2013 from 41% in Fall 2008.
  3. Opinion has moderated on whether Americans believe that their respective states should not adopt climate mitigation policies unless neighboring states adopt similar policies. Strong expressions of agreement and disagreement have both declined significantly since Fall 2008, alongside growth in more moderate positions.
  4. Opposition to states increasing fossil fuel taxes as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions increased by 14 percentage points between Fall 2008 and Fall 2013. Seventy-one percent of Americans oppose this option overall in Fall 2013, with 55% of these respondents strongly opposing it, and only 5% of overall respondents strongly supporting it.
  5. Overall support for states increasing gasoline taxes as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions has dropped from an already low level of 23% in 2008 to 17% in 2013, with only 6% expressing strong support for this approach in Fall 2013.
  6. Only one-third (32%) of Americans support state development of a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases in Fall 2013, down from 55% five years earlier. This approach is now opposed at the state level by a 45-to-32% margin.
  7. A large majority of Americans continue to support requirements for a portion of electricity in a state to be produced by renewable energy sources, with 79% overall in favor of this option in Fall 2013. However, there has been some decline in the strength of this support from Fall 2008, when 59% of respondents expressed strong support, compared to 46% in Fall 2013

Overall, most support is down, particularly when it comes to “carbon” permits and gas taxes. The only bright spot is support for “renewables”, but even that is down when it comes to strength of support.

Read: Poll: Public Support For State “Climate Change” Policies Declines »

If All You See…

…is an evil baby sucking up Gaia’s resources, causing the oceans to boil, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is All American Blogger, with a post on another very civil Democrat.

Read: If All You See… »

“Climate Change” Will Make UK Dryer. And Wetter. And Hot. And Cold

In other words, it’s an un-science cult

(Guardian) The UK’s weather will become both too wet and too dry – and also too cold and too hot – as climate change increases the frequency of extreme events, the Met Office has warned in a new report.

Its scientists concluded that on average the UK will see wetter, milder winters and hotter, drier summers in the long term due to global warming. But the natural year-to-year variability of weather will also mean occasional very cold winters, like that of 2010-11, and very wet summers, like that of 2012.

The article goes on for a long time in a hysterical manner (and I mean both types), but that is really all you need to know. Here’s how someone in the comments puts it

That’s all bases covered?

And

Hedging the old bets I see.

Lots of splinters in the bumbum.

Yup. Cult.

waginn: And its going to be darker at night and lighter in the daytime.

RobKindon: But will it be more frequently extremely dark and more frequently extremely light?

JackSavage: It may be darkly extreme and lightly frequent.

It might be darker at night, because Warmists policies not only make energy more expensive, but decrease the availability of energy.

Read: “Climate Change” Will Make UK Dryer. And Wetter. And Hot. And Cold »

Study: No Increase In Southern Indian Ocean Tropical Storms

One of the big talking points from Warmists, including the IPCC, was that “climate change” would cause more tropical storms, especially landfalling ones, and that they would also be stronger. So far, none of that has come to fruition, especially in the Northern Atlantic. Especially since much of the notion of more storms comes simply from better ways to see them. Prior to the satellite era, and, really, only in the last 20-30 years, the way people knew a tropical storm had formed was because it was approaching/hitting land, or a ship saw it out at sea. A notion mentioned in this study

(Red Orbit) A new study from South African researchers has debunked the notion that there are more tropical cyclones taking place due to global warming – at least in the Southern Indian Ocean.

Jennifer Fitchett, a PhD student at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, said better meteorology has probably fueled the idea of climate change developing more and more storms.

“From 1940, there was a huge increase in observations because of aerial reconnaissance and satellite imagery,” she said.

According to the report, co-authored by Fitchett and published in the International Journal of Climatology, tropical storms hitting the southeastern coast of Africa may not be increasing in number – but they are shifting south due to increasingly warmer temperatures on the surface of the sea.

For the study, the researchers used data from three storm track records that spanned periods between 66 and 161 years and discovered that there has been no rise in the amount of tropical cyclones. However, when the study team looked at where storms have been taking place, they found that the 80-degree surface temperatures needed for a cyclone to occur have been moving southward toward the pole. This phenomenon has coincided with storms shifting farther to the south.

OK, so no increase in tropical storms. As far as the shifting goes, it’s been happening at the rate of .6 degrees per decade since 1850, per the study. Which, as Ms. Fitchett stated, neither was expected. Of course, the shifting cannot be proven to be due to man-induced “climate change”, simply something that would happen during a typical Holocene warm period. Another nail in the coffin of AGW/”climate change”.

Read: Study: No Increase In Southern Indian Ocean Tropical Storms »

Progressives Really Worried About “Slippery Slopes” For Contraception Case

Even a few Leftist Supreme Court justices were worried about “slippery slopes” during the oral arguments Tuesday at the Court. The lawyers should have told them “hey, that’s an interesting point, however, we are concerned with the government forcing our client to provide free abortifacients in the insurance they partially pay for, not some nebulous hypothetical”. Chiding a judge who has certainly made up her mind prior to oral arguments isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Here’s the latest from Ruth Marcus

Slippery Slopes Before The Court

In the context of talking about limits on free speech, it’s common to say that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. That seems like a sensible way to think about the freedom of religion case just argued before the Supreme Court: whether employers can be required to pay for contraceptive methods that would violate their religious convictions.

Most disputes about religious freedom are bilateral — with the government on one side and the individual claiming infringement of religious liberty on the other.

But Tuesday’s cases, involving Oklahoma crafts store Hobby Lobby and Pennsylvania cabinetmaker Conestoga Wood, implicate a third party — the companies’ employees, and their rights under the Affordable Care Act to no-added-cost contraception. Respecting the religious claims of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood threatens to diminish the rights of their workers.

Ruth goes on to whine about Citizens United, as a Good Progressive should, whining about companies not being people. But, companies are made up of people, and those companies have certain beliefs. Consider Chik-fil-A: they are closed on Sunday’s, even in malls. Not every employee cares, some are probably not even Christians. In Liberal World, they are being punished for the beliefs of the company. They don’t get to work on Sundays.

Ruth’s central point is that denying abortifacients, which is the primary cause of the Hobby Lobby case, to employees diminishes their rights. Well, no one is stopping the employees to express their right to work somewhere else.

But where to draw the line on corporate personhood is just one of the slippery slopes these cases pose. The other involves what religious claims to respect and how to balance competing needs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed this issue a mere 42 words into Clement’s argument: What about employers religiously opposed to vaccines? Or blood transfusions?

What about them? Here’s an interesting point: they can bring up their own lawsuits. Furthermore, those are a wee bit more important than whether someone can get free condoms and birth control pills, as well as sterilization and abortifacients. Especially free. Especially when the PPACA does not actually include a mandate for to provide those, nor provide any of those for free. The entire “mandate” was created by Team Obama. Are there any employers actually trying to deny those? Any examples? There does come a point where there is a “compelling case” for the government to mandate coverage. And, are they free? In most cases, no.

If things like these are so darned important, why are all life saving drugs and procedures not free? In fact, most drugs are not free under Ocare. People must first meet the deductible, of which the average Ocare deductible is a shade over $5,000. At that point, people will then pay copays to get the drugs. You can get all sorts of free preventative screenings per Ocare (which simply raises the price of insurance), along with a few drugs. What about cancer drugs? HIV drugs? Insulin? How about smoking cessation drugs? I take OTC allergy pills, and, since one of those allergies is dust mites, I take one at least 4 days a week. Why are they not free? I need them for quality of life, certainly more than someone needs a $2 condom.

Progressives proclaim that this is all anti-woman Yet, they did not include free mastectomies or other things necessary for women. How about free mini-pads and tampons? Pills to help with heavy flow days and water retention? Hysterectomies?

Why contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients? Because this was a political decision designed to patronize the Democrat voter base. Period. Barbara Boxer complains that this is a slippery slope to denying AIDS medicine. Yet, those medicines aren’t provided free per either the ACA nor an HHS rule. Strange. HIV/AIDS patients have to first meet their deductibles, then have copays.

Not offering contraceptives, sterilization procedures, nor abortifactients, whether free or at all, has no bearing on the “rights of workers”. Those workers can pay for them themselves. Or find another job. It really is that simple, once you get beyond the unhinged rhetoric of Democrats.

Read: Progressives Really Worried About “Slippery Slopes” For Contraception Case »

Surprise: Obama To Allow Delay In Signing Up For Ocare

It’s a small change, but another change to It’s. The. Law.

(Washington Post) The Obama administration has decided to give extra time to Americans who say that they are unable to enroll in health plans through the federal insurance marketplace by the March 31 deadline.

Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension.

Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

Interesting: if it’s so difficult to enroll through healthcare.gov that one cannot get it done in six months (remember, it was launched October 1st), and need another half month or so, perhaps the website was a disaster and people should be fired, like, say, HHS head Kathleen Sebelius.

The rules, which will apply to the federal exchanges operating in three dozen states, will essentially create a large loophole even as White House officials have repeatedly said that the March 31 deadline was firm. The extra time will not technically alter the deadline but will create a broad new category of people eligible for what’s known as a special enrollment period.

Semantics. It’s yet another lawless change to the ACA. Team Obama states that this is needed to deal with the “surge” of people flocking to the website at the last minute. Sure thing, Sparky, sure thing. Didn’t Kathleen Sebelius testify to Congress that there would be no more delays to the law? Yes, she did. This was just two weeks ago.

I’m not sure why Obama was so upset about the government shutdown over Ocare: he’s delaying everything himself.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: Obama To Allow Delay In Signing Up For Ocare »

Here We Go: NY Times Editorial Board Wants Massive Regulation On E-Cigs

When we refer to the left as Progressives, what we are talking about, as Jonah Golberg wrote in his book Liberal Fascism, is that they are nice fascists. They’re just here to help. With massive government control. This is why Jonah put a smiley face on the cover. Transfats are bad for you, so they must be controlled and/or banned. Salt? Same. School lunches. You name it, they have their hands in it, because You Don’t Know Better. Except abortion. Then they want zero regulations or restrictions. Anyhow, I mentioned yesterday an opinion piece masquerading as an article about how nicotine is “poison by the barrel”, which followed an editorial about e-cigs, both at the NY Times. Now the EB steps in again

Lethal Liquid Nicotine

As little as a teaspoon of liquid nicotine — the key ingredient in electronic cigarettes — can kill a small child and less than a tablespoon, at high concentrations, can kill an adult. Yet some vendors are offering to sell the lethal product over the Internet by the gallon or barrel, with little control over how it is handled, as reported by Matt Richtel in The Times on Monday.

Nice coordination. Nice hysteria. I wonder how many products are sold over the Internet that could be considered “lethal”? Maybe we should just shut all commerce on the web down. Anyhow, if companies are selling crappy product, people will buy elsewhere. That’s the way it works.

Regulation is much tighter in Europe and other advanced countries. The European Parliament limits the amount of nicotine in e-cigarettes to 20 milligrams per milliliter, or a 2 percent concentration, which can cause sickness but is rarely fatal in children. It also requires childproof and tamper-proof packaging and graphic health warnings. Canada goes even further and regulates liquid nicotine and e-cigarettes under the strict rules that govern the safety of drugs; the manufacturers must submit scientific evidence demonstrating safety, quality and efficacy.

By all means, let’s replicate the notions of countries that have crummy economies, that do all they can to stifle commerce, all for “your own good”, before the facts are in. This is the default position of Progressives: if it moves, regulate it. And tax it. And cause its price to artificially increase.

Now, the Times does browbeat Obama for failing to move regulations forward via executive action and agency rule making quite a bit in the article. Moving on

The use of electronic cigarettes has soared in recent years because of the claim that they allow smokers to satisfy their nicotine addictions without inhaling the tars and other toxins found in tobacco smoke. But the devices carry some risks, like extreme addictiveness for young people just starting to smoke, harmful side effects at high doses and toxic ingredients caused by quality control problems in some factories. And now the potential dangers seem to be growing. An Israeli toddler died last year after drinking from a small bottle of liquid nicotine that her grandfather used to refill his e-cigarette.

I’m sorry a child died, and some have been harmed, but life is inherently risky. People, including kids, are harmed and killed every day from all sorts of products, even ones that are heavily regulated. How many die from cars? Wind turbines killed 14 people in England alone in 2011. There have been other deaths and injuries from wind turbines. A turbine just killed two people in the Netherlands in October 2013. Wind turbines are known to cause “headaches, ringing in her ears, insomnia and dizziness” (though more research needs to be done to establish this as more than a casual health issue). By Progressive, and NY Times, standards, they should be heavily regulated and even banned.

It’s time that the Obama administration allowed the F.D.A. to propose rules and begin taking public comment. The F.D.A. should limit the amount of liquid nicotine in any container sold to consumers, stop sales on the Internet, require childproof packaging and ban labels and flavorings that appeal to children. It will be crucial to prohibit the sale of liquid nicotine in very high concentrations; 10 percent and 7.2 percent solutions are widely available on the Internet and are lethal even in small quantities.

This is what Conservatives refer to when they talk about Big Government, and Progressive love of Big Government. American Conservative doctrine, which is more like Classical Liberal theory, discusses that the government that governs least governs best, and understands that there are times when the government should become involved, but they should use a light touch. Don’t go overboard. That’s not what the Times’ EB is proposing, as you read. Stop sales on the Internet? That’s insane. Ban all fun flavors? Those flavors make vaping fun, which helps people quite real cigarettes. And are individual choice. Limit concentrations? Limit size? This is the heavy hand of Progressivism.

Read: Here We Go: NY Times Editorial Board Wants Massive Regulation On E-Cigs »

If All You See…

…is extreme snow caused by the oceans boiling due to use of DVRs, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on more feminist nonsense.

Read: If All You See… »

Surprise: Warmists Blame Washington Landslide On “Climate Change”

Nobody should be surprised, except that it took them till Monday to write up the blame

Landslide Kills 8 People In Washington As Climate Change Makes Them More Likely In The Future

A fatal landslide on Saturday morning tore down a small community in northwest Washington state, killing at least eight people. Officials said the cause of the landslide was ground saturation resulting from recent heavy rainfall. This March was the sixth-wettest since 1922, according to Johnny Burg, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Seattle who spoke with the New York Times, who also said the rains followed a drier-than-normal spell from October to January. (big snip)

“More extreme rain events –- the sudden and intense rain that we’ve been experiencing more frequently so a lot of the state routes are vulnerable to landslides today and the projections are that those will be worse,” Carol Lee Roalkvam, an environmental policy analyst with the Washington State Department of Transportation, told Oregon Public Broadcasting last year.

According to the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, in the near future climate change will cause the region to see less snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and more winter rainfall, leading to more landslides.

Nice. Using tragedy for political benefit. Do you know what this doesn’t prove? Anthropogenic causation. Slate is not to be outdone

Climate Change May Make Terrible Mudslides More Common

One of the most well-forecast and consequential components of human-caused climate change is the tendency for rainstorms to become more intense as the planet warms. As the effect becomes more pronounced, that will make follow-on events like flooding and landslides more common.

Again, they can say it is human-caused, but they can’t prove it. And, again, this is a bunch of wackjobs taking advantage of a tragedy for political purposes.

Read: Surprise: Warmists Blame Washington Landslide On “Climate Change” »

Pirate's Cove