NY Mayor DeBlasio Learns The Price Of Keeping Schools Open During School

By William Teach February 14, 2014 – 8:19 am

Perhaps keeping the schools open in Wisconsin during a massive snow storm would be OK (well, not really, not in today’s litigious and uber-safety conscious society. Perhaps 20-30 years ago), but NYC? Not so much. Hey, you voted for this hard-core Leftists, New Yorkers, so this is on you

(USA Today) As New Yorkers struggled to make their way around slushy streets, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to keep New York City’s schools open Thursday drew criticism and praise. Some said the conditions made it difficult for kids to travel while others backed his stance saying kids needed to be in be school.

“I think it’s kind of crazy,” said David Martino, 28, who was visiting New York from Oakland, Calif. “For those who have to find their own way to school, it’s really dangerous. You could walk to school today and show up from your waist down soaked. And then, you’re stuck in school for the rest of the day drenched. That’s uncomfortable and it’s not sanitary.”

De Blasio countered complaints during a news conference.

“So many families depend on their schools as a place for their kids to be during the day, a safe place — a place where they are not only are taught, they get nutrition and they are safe from the elements,” he said.

“So many families have to go to work, the members of these families have to go to work, they do not have a choice, and they need a safe option for their kids. So as long as we know our kids can get to school safely, and we know we can operate our schools effectively, we make that decision.”

Some note that the schools are not baby-sitter services. Most schools seemed to have low attendance, and there was very little in the way of reading, writing, test taking, nor education occurring.

Over at the NY Times, an interesting point is made

With six snowstorms in six weeks, Mr. de Blasio has been drawing short straws in an unforgiving city, and he pointed out on Thursday that city schools have been closed for snow only 11 times in nearly 40 years.

Then again, the city received 9.5 inches of snow in Central Park, which might not be heavy for North Dakota, but is for NYC. The forecast was exactly correct for the snow, sleet, and freezing rain. And schools across New York state, New Jersey, and Connecticut were, in fact, closed.

Why would DeBlasio do this? Many of his allies and supporters said the policy was “misguided”. We could probably guess. As a hardcore Leftist, he does see the school system as a babysitter service, one which can conveniently indoctrinate kids. We can also assume that he’s an idiot for going with this policy, which probably didn’t sit too well with teachers who would have loved a snow day themselves.

BTW, in the latter part of the NY Times article we learn

In his State of the City address, Mr. de Blasio announced a plan for municipal identification cards that was greeted warmly by (illegal) immigrant residents and their advocates, who thanked the mayor for bringing New York in line with other major cities, like Los Angeles and San Francisco, that use similar systems.

So, wait, I thought identification cards were Bad, at least when it comes to requiring ID to perform the Constitutionally sacred ideal of voting?

Read: NY Mayor DeBlasio Learns The Price Of Keeping Schools Open During School »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Uber-Liberal 9th Circuit Affirms Right To Carry

By William Teach February 14, 2014 – 7:54 am

A win for the good guys, the folks who could end up using their gun to defend themselves and others

(Reuters) A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a requirement by San Diego County that residents show “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm, a ruling that could force local governments across California to revisit the way they license handguns.

A three-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on a 2009 lawsuit, ruled in a 2-1 decision that San Diego County’s restrictions amounted to an unconstitutional infringement on citizens’ Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

Coupled with a California state law that largely bans the open carrying of firearms in public, San Diego County’s “good cause” rules on concealed weapons effectively bar residents from carrying a gun altogether, the panel said.

“In California, the only way that the typical, responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table,” Justice Thomas O’Scannlain wrote in the 77-page opinion for the majority.

To carry, one had to complete a training course (a good idea), show that they had good moral fiber, and show that they had “good cause” to carry. Those last two, especially the “good cause”, made it difficult to impossible for people to obtain the permit in California. San Diego County refused to accept self defense or personal safety as valid reasons. Which, of course, are the main two reasons. They had to demonstrate special need (like they were a big donor to Democrats) or special risk (like they’re a Hollywood actor) to obtain the permit. No more, thanks to the ruling.

“The 9th Circuit confirmed that the government no longer gets to pick and choose which law-abiding citizens may exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense,” said attorney Chuck Michel, who represented the plaintiffs challenging San Diego’s restrictions in the case.

“This is a landmark ruling for the state of California. No longer will criminals have the security of knowing that their victims are defenseless in public,” Michel said.

Eugene Volokh digs deep into the decisions, and notes that this also affects open-carry. Essentially, the California law banned both, especially the heavier restrictions in San Diego County.

I think the Ninth Circuit majority’s analysis is correct on this, and the dissent’s is mistaken. The dissent keeps stressing that the case should be about whether the California ban on concealed carry is constitutional, and that Heller says that the concealed carry ban is indeed constitutional. But the California ban on concealed carry is part of a general scheme that bans the great bulk of all carrying in public for self-defense (unless one has a permit that the police may choose not to grant). It is this general scheme that violates the Second Amendment, even if a ban on concealed carry that left people free to carry openly would not do so.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Elsewhere, we learn that an aide to NY Governor Cuomo, whose state restricts people from bringing guns to work, a law Cuomo pushed for and signed, was caught carrying a gun at work (and waiving it around irresponsibly), and *surprise!* received a waiver.

And in Connecticut, citizens are refusing to register their guns per the draconian law. Some estimates put registration as low as 15%.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Uber-Liberal 9th Circuit Affirms Right To Carry »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | Comments Off on Uber-Liberal 9th Circuit Affirms Right To Carry | Trackback URL

Raleigh Snow Meme

By William Teach February 13, 2014 – 7:56 pm

So, looks like the car fire on Glenwood Ave. here in Raleigh during the snow storm has created a little meme.

I’ve seen this at The Chive, Caveman Circus, and lots of other sites. But, if they’re going to do a fire meme, how could they forget this?

Seriously, how could everyone forget about House Fire Girl?

I actually didn’t take any photos. Kinda forgot as I was Living The Moment.

FYI, for those wondering where that is on a map, that is Hwy 70 just east of 540, looking west-bound. And a nasty hill to try and get up and down on a day like yesterday.

Read: Raleigh Snow Meme »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, How’s That Obamacare Consumer Choice Thing Working Out?

By William Teach February 13, 2014 – 3:11 pm

About as well as one would expect for legislation written by Democrats and pushed by a president with no experience running a business (via Hot Air)

(WSJ) Consumers in 515 counties, spread across 15 states, have only one insurer selling coverage through the online marketplaces, the Journal found. In more than 80% of those counties, the sole insurer is a local Blue Cross & Blue Shield plan. Residents of wealthier, more populated counties in the U.S. receive lower-priced choices than those living in counties with a single insurer.

The average price for a 50-year-old American to obtain the cheapest midlevel “silver plan” through HealthCare.gov—the marketplace operated by the federal government—was $406 in counties with one health insurer, the Journal found. In counties with four insurers, the average price of the cheapest comparable silver plan was $329.

The price differences reflect the strategy of insurers to pick markets where they believe they can turn a profit—and avoid areas of high unemployment and a concentration of unhealthy residents they deem more risky.

As Ed Morrisey points out

So, in many cases, the number of insurers competing in many states’ individual insurance markets via ObamaCare is actually less than the number of carriers that sold individual policies pre-ObamaCare. …Winning?

He also pulls this pithy Obama quote

“My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down.”

So, according to Obama, his signature legislation has failed in attempting to keep prices down and quality up.

Read: Say, How’s That Obamacare Consumer Choice Thing Working Out? »

Posted in Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 13, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a petroleum warmed world where the sea will rise up and kill all the butterflies, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on press freedom rankings.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Strange: Philly Is Setting Snow Records

By William Teach February 13, 2014 – 11:53 am

Back on the 21nd of January, Philadelphia set a record with 13.5 inches of snow, crushing the 1917 record by 3.4 inches.

The snow total (see chart) set a record for Jan. 21, crushing the previous mark of 3.4 inches, set in 1917. And, it set a record as the third snowfall of six inches or more before Feb. 1 – something that had never happened before, according to the National Weather Service. The total was the 10th-highest one-day snowfall ever in Philadelphia.

Well, here comes the current storm

(NBC Philly) At Philadelphia International Airport, the official reading location for Philadelphia, 8.8 inches of snow piled up in just a few hours. With that accumulation, the city shattered a 130-year-old record. More snowstorms have delivered 6 inches of snow or more this winter than ever before, Hurricane says. This is also the fifth snowiest winter of all time for the city.

While listening to the boob tube, I also heard that this is the first time in records history, and Philly’s records go back pretty far, where Philly has had 4 storms of 9+ inches in one winter. Let’s branch out, shall we?

(PIX11) Fybish, 77, wants Thursday’s storm to hit the New York area as hard as possible, because that would increase the season’s mounting snowfall totals.  In fact, average snowfall in New York during the entire winter season is 28.3 inches.  The average for this point in the season is about 20 inches.  So far this season, though, New York City is well above that, at 41.5 inches, and Thursday’s storm is sure to raise that amount noticeably.

The Tri-state area is closing in on the number of winter storms, though apparently still far from the actual snow total. Still, it’s strange that they’re seeing so much snow when snow is supposed to be a thing of the past.

Detroit shattered their January snowfall total. Seattle saw record snow on Saturday. Chicago is closing in on their record snowfall. New Jersey is closing in on snow records, and was extremely cold during January. Records abound.

What does this mean? Is this proof of the coming ice age? Not necessarily. It could happen. We could have another 40-late 1970’s type of cooling. It could be precursor to one of the cool periods that have occurred during the Holocene. The warmth switch could flip back on soon and we get another spike in global temperatures, as happens during a warm Holocene warm period. Regardless, this is more proof that the Warmist computer models and unhinged anti-science prognostications are garbage.

Read: Strange: Philly Is Setting Snow Records »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Church Of England Goes Medieval On Fight Climate Change Witchcraft

By William Teach February 13, 2014 – 10:08 am

Remember the time when people blew out of England to escape from the dominance of the Church of England? Remember how the Framers of the Constitution added a phrase to the Bill Of Rights to make sure no church would work hand in hand with The Government, because of how the Church Of England worked with the government? Well, that same church has chimed in on the issue of “climate change”. Which is not that strange, considering “climate change” is more of a religion than a science

(UK Guardian) The Church of England has said that it will, as a last resort, pull its investments from companies that fail to do enough to fight the “great demon” of climate change and ignore the church’s theological, moral and social priorities.

Demons. You darned witches driving fossil fueled vehicles. Tsk, tsk.

Although the church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) has resisted calls for the church to pull its money from fossil fuel companies, insisting that engagement is the best way to effect change, its deputy chairman told the General Synod that it was considering “all options” when it came to developing future investment policy.

“Make no mistake, we reserve the final option of disinvesting from those particular companies who resist change,” said the Rev Canon Professor Richard Burridge, adding that the church had sold its £3.8m stake in the controversial mining company Vedanta four years ago following concerns about its human rights record.

But he added that while the EIAG recognised that climate change was a huge ethical investment issue, swift disinvestment from fossil fuel companies was not the answer.

“Pointing the finger at the extractive industries gets us off the hook and avoids the fundamental problem which is our selfishness and our way of life, which has been fuelled by plentiful, cheap energy and more and more people around the world wanting that,” he said.

So, when will the Church of England disconnect their power from the grid and only use “alternatives” like solar and wind? When will the leaders give up their own fossil fueled travel? Canon Giles Goddard of Southwark diocese proposed the divestment, and stated

“Climate change is a moral issue because the rich world has disproportionately contributed to it and the poor world is disproportionately suffering. Poor communities are least equipped to deal with the impacts.”

When Warmists start yammering on about “moral issues”, they know they are losing the debate.

Steven Croft, the bishop of Sheffield, described the threat of climate change as “a giant evil; a great demon of our day”, adding: “Its power is fed by greed, blindness and complacency in the present generation, and we know that this giant wreaks havoc though the immense power of the weather systems, which are themselves unpredictable.”

Uh huh. The cult has been joined by a church to fight the demons.

He said the church had a “critical role” to play in lobbying politicians on climate change in order to bring about manifesto commitments to reach the target of an 80% reduction in UK greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

I suspect that the Church Of England will lose quite a few people once they start preaching in church about “climate change”. People do not want politics in church. Especially dubious ones based on junk science.

Read: Church Of England Goes Medieval On Fight Climate Change Witchcraft »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Part Of Kentucky Gay Marriage Law Struck Down Due To Reciprocity

By William Teach February 13, 2014 – 9:43 am

I don’t really care about this ruling vis a vis gay marriage as much as two other interesting points it brings up

(Courier-Journal) In a ruling that could open the door to gay marriage in Kentucky, a federal judge has struck down the state’s ban on recognizing same-sex unions performed in states where it is legal.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled Wednesday that Kentucky’s prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by treating gays and lesbians “differently in a way that demeans them.”

Ruling in a suit brought by four gay and lesbian couples and their children, Heyburn said that, while “religious beliefs … are vital to the fabric of society … assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons.”

Heyburn’s decision strikes down part of Kentucky’s marriage amendment, enacted in 2004 by 74 percent of the voters, which says “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.”

Now, we could probably continue on with a discussion on the merits of what Judge Heyburn declared, in effect flushing the votes of 74% of Kentucky residents down the toilet, dismissing the 1st Amendment along religious liberty lines, and other notions. But, let’s consider some other issue, first with the 14th Amendment, which is the “equal protection clause” (the 5th amendment is also an equal protections amendment, however, that deals more with criminal behavior) Heyburn cites

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

At the heart of the ruling, this is about affording gays who have been legally married in other states the same recognition if they move to Kentucky (an interesting thought is “why did the gay married couples move to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage in the first place?” ). Since they were afforded that right in another state, the judge says they should have the same right in Kentucky. Let’s consider, while this might be bad for gay marriage opponents, and even the judge notes that this opens the door to full gay marriage for all in Kentucky, it can also mean that other states MUST recognize …. gun rights. If you have obtained a concealed carry permit in Kentucky, if you move to, say, New York, they have to recognize that right. If Kentucky allows you to own a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine, California must allow you to own it if you move their. If you have a Walther P99 with a 15 round magazine, Washington D. C. must allow ownership.

This may also have implications for simply visiting or passing through a state. Traveling to New York for a fishing trip? They must allow you gun that doesn’t comply with their law, but complies with your own state laws. Driving through D.C.? Same thing.

Let’s also consider that this applies to Obamacare. Regardless of his add-ons, Obamacare is treating different entities/individuals differently under the law. Some groups and companies are given waivers, while others aren’t. The employer mandate for all is extended out to 2015, the individual mandate isn’t. Companies with 50-99 employees have the employer mandate extended to 2017, those with more are not getting the same benefit. Individuals/small businesses are treated differently in different areas of the country. Young people are penalized for being young. Healthy people are penalized for being healthy. People are charged different rates on the federally run exchange than those in other states and counties. Some people get subsidies, others don’t.

Furthermore, Obamacare was supposedly an attempt to help the minority of US citizens without health insurance, but, in passing the legislation, it created negative effects on those with insurance, essentially penalizing them, violating the 5th and 14th Amendments. For a more detailed, legalistic view of this, please read this post.

Many have wondered why Republicans haven’t gone after Obamacare due to its equal protection violations. Judge Heyburn just opened that door. We should use it.

And don’t forget about your gun rights.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Part Of Kentucky Gay Marriage Law Struck Down Due To Reciprocity »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Healthcare | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Welcome To Raleigh Snowmageddon

By William Teach February 12, 2014 – 6:19 pm

Yes, I’m usually kind of lame at responding to comments during the day. That whole work thing, and it being kind of a pain to type that much on an Android. I have a good excuse for today: I left work around 2pm, and walked in my door at 547pm.

It normally takes me around 25-30 minutes to get to and from work. Not today. One would have though all the folks who make the decisions to close shop would have noticed what happened in Atlanta. Alas, no.

I attempted to use some of the back roads to get home, because I knew the highways would be a mess. Alas, no. Shuffled from this one to that one, had to do a u-turn, and ended up at the intersection of 440 and Glenwood. Just like normal. And, morons still had to play games. Instead of getting in the correct turn lane, they would wait till the last minute. Then people had to attempt to play games by creating their own lanes. It’s not like there weren’t enough accidents and stalled vehicles or something.

Surprisingly only saw one accident occur. Minor fender bender, because a dumbass decided he wanted in a different lane.

Had to take an exit going the other way, then whip a u-turn, because the normal ramp was simply shut down with vehicles that couldn’t make it up. Unfortunately, the 2 other ways I would usually take were also blocked beyond belief.

Oh, and thank goodness I had an empty water bottle, if you get my meaning. Yeah, gross. Saw a few others who looked like they were doing the same, and someone threw a full bottle out of his passenger window.

Looking at the traffic cams, some look better, others looks still a freaking mess.

I’m actually a bit shaky and feel anxious after that white knuckle drive. Oh, and hungry. No lunch.

That sucked.

Read: Welcome To Raleigh Snowmageddon »

Posted in Musings | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: EPA Clean Coal Rule Could Skyrocket Energy Prices

By William Teach February 12, 2014 – 4:27 pm

Sounds like a great idea!

(Daily Caller) An Obama administration official has said that the new clean coal rules could increase electricity prices by as much as 80 percent.

Dr. Julio Friedmann, the deputy assistant secretary for clean coal at the Department of Energy, told House lawmakers that the first generation of carbon capture and storage technology would increase wholesale electricity prices by “70 or 80 percent.”

The Obama administration’s plan to fight global warming includes limiting carbon dioxide from new power plants. In order for new coal-fired power plants to be built, however, they would need to install costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

Excellent! Nothing like artificially raising the price of energy for an issue that is mostly fake

“In typical EPA fashion, they’re putting the cart before the horse to advance their environmental policy agenda,” said Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter. “They’re moving forward with a controversial rule to regulate carbon based on technology that isn’t commercially available. Not only is this wrongheaded, it’s beyond the scope of their legal authority.”

Now, why would legal authority stop them? It doesn’t stop Obama. The law is an inconvenience to be discarded for the sake of (insert pet liberal cause here).

Read: Good News: EPA Clean Coal Rule Could Skyrocket Energy Prices »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove