NY Times Says Surveillance Is A Threat To Democracy

By William Teach June 12, 2013 – 8:23 am

OK, OK, we know that this is a Republic, but it is a democratic Republic, part of the Democracy political model. And we do have to give them style points for going against Obama and other Democrats on this issue

(NY Times) A new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll found that a majority of Americans are untroubled by revelations about the National Security Agency’s dragnet collection of the phone records of millions of citizens, without any individual suspicion and regardless of any connection to a counterterrorism investigation.

Just as a sidebar, a Rasmussen poll showed exactly the opposite of that WP-Pew poll. A related poll found that 56% think the US government is a threat to individual rights. And it should be pointed out that 50% + of the survey respondents had followed the NSA programs news coverage “not too closely/not closely at all.” So, if they have no real idea about the issue, their opinions shouldn’t matter.

Perhaps the lack of a broader sense of alarm is not all that surprising when President Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, and intelligence officials insist that such surveillance is crucial to the nation’s antiterrorism efforts.

Add in some Republicans, like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who have come out in favor of the NSA program, and others whose main talking points are about prosecuting Snowden.

But Americans should not be fooled by political leaders putting forward a false choice. The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. Far too little has been said on this question by the White House or Congress in their defense of the N.S.A.’s dragnet. (snip)

Tracking whom Americans are calling, for how long they speak, and from where, can reveal deeply personal information about an individual. Using such data, the government can discover intimate details about a person’s lifestyle and beliefs — political leanings and associations, medical issues, sexual orientation, habits of religious worship, and even marital infidelities. Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University Law School and a privacy expert, likens this program to a Seurat painting. A single dot may seem like no big deal, but many together create a nuanced portrait.

And then what does the government do with the data? Might someone use it for nefarious purposes? Might a politician use it for payback or to target political opponents or the supporters of political opponents? It’s not unheard of. Do a search of “Bill Clinton Echelon.” And it’s not just confined to Clinton: several presidents have used spy agency data to retaliate against US citizens. There’s a fundamental lack of trust in the government, and government does little to attempt to earn back that trust.

The effect is to undermine constitutional principles of personal privacy and freedom from constant government monitoring. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, challenging the program’s constitutionality, and it was right to do so.

It undermines the 4th Amendment, which did not give permission to fishing expedition warrants. Rand Paul has introduced the 4th Amendment Restoration Act for the 3rd time, and hopes that the Democrat led Senate will finally give it the time it’s due. It makes for strange bedfellows when the ACLU and Rand Paul are on the same side, eh? Usually the ACLU is on the side of Democrats regardless.

Even if most Americans trust President Obama not to abuse their personal data, no one knows who will occupy the White House or lead intelligence operations in the future. The government’s capacity to assemble, keep and share information on its citizens has grown exponentially since the days when J. Edgar Hoover, as director of the F.B.I., collected files on political leaders and activists to enhance his own power and chill dissent. Protections against different abuses in this digital age of genuine terrorist threats need to catch up.

Well, we should expect the Times to throw in a little Obama love, though I’m not sure where they get that notion that most trust Obama. The WP-Pew Poll is not the source. Anyhow, no one in government should be trusted with this information.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: NY Times Says Surveillance Is A Threat To Democracy »

Posted in Barry Obama, Constitution, Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

How Much Energy Is Required For Two Slices Of Toast?

By William Teach June 11, 2013 – 2:56 pm

An important question an enviroweenie/Warmist wants answered from Grist (because your average E/W doesn’t seem to have the brainpower to do the Internet search themselves, so instead will ask someone else to do the work, thereby increasing the amount of energy needed to find the answer)

Ask Umbra: Can my bicycle power my toaster?

How much biking would it take to fire up your toaster? Well, your typical cyclist puts out about 100 watts, and a toaster requires 800 to 1,000 watts. There’s some loss involved in the energy capture and storage. According to Begley, it takes “15 minutes of hard riding … to toast two slices of bread.”

There are two main reasons why this route might not be practical for you, Eric: First, the cost is prohibitive for most people, typically around $500-$1,000 or more. You could try your hand at building your own, but even the DIY model is estimated to start at $300. Second, it is … kind of a dumb idea. At least for your average homeowner in the developed world. We use an insane amount of power at home, a fact colorfully illustrated by the BBC when it rounded up 80 cyclists to power a family’s home for a day. For a while, teams of 10 or 20 cyclists could keep things going, but at one point all 80 weren’t enough. A smaller-scale experiment at Middlebury College has been similarly eye-opening. Turns out the bike-generator idea, though cool, is pretty  darned inefficient; here are two pieces that explain why, one short and passionate and the other long and nerdy.

Actually, I think this is a fantastic idea for Warmists. First, it would allow them to practice what they preach. 2nd, it would allow them to understand the high costs and burdens that their push for governmental regulations and laws would create.

Read: How Much Energy Is Required For Two Slices Of Toast? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Energy, Enviroweenies, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 11, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is snow created because of too much warmth, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp Of The Saints, with a post on Libertarians vs “libertarians”

Read: If All You See… »

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

Should Hybrid/EV Drivers Pay Their Fair Share?

By William Teach June 11, 2013 – 11:33 am

I mentioned back on May 31 that North Carolina was looking to slap some extra taxes and/or fees on people who drive hybrids and electric vehicles (Chevy Volt’s and Nissan Leafs would be in this category). Fox News noticed what NC is looking to do, and mentions (on their front page) the whole “fair share” issue, as around 10 other states have done/looking to do

North Carolina is joining a growing number of states exploring new fees for hybrid and electric car owners to help make up for revenue those drivers aren’t paying in gas taxes on their fuel-efficient vehicles.

The proposal strikes many owners of alternative-fuel vehicles and some advocacy groups as a wrong-headed approach to balancing priorities of promoting U.S. energy independence with sustainable infrastructure funding. But policymakers and some experts argue taxing hybrid and electric vehicle owners is a matter of making sure all drivers help maintain the roads they use and construct new ones. (snip)

Sen. Neal Hunt, R-Wake and a chief budget-writer, argues the policy ensures all drivers are contributing their fair share toward maintaining the roads and services they all use.

“I just seems logical to me that they should pay a small fee for the use of the highways and the wear and tear they put on the highways,” he said.

Liberals love the fair share meme, so they should be A-OK with policies that make sure everyone is contributing their fair share to maintaining the infrastructure. So, will you liberals support these policies?

Read: Should Hybrid/EV Drivers Pay Their Fair Share? »

Posted in Energy | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: NY Times Admits To 15 Year Pause In Global Warming

By William Teach June 11, 2013 – 7:53 am

Then attempts to cover up for the utter failure of the Warmists models

(NY Times) As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

Like this?

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

Believe it or not, this article is not on the opinion pages. Original Warmist theory did say that temperatures would continue to go up up up as CO2 concentrations grew. Then, when Earth’s climate, driven primarily by natural forces, refused to co-operate (and people were able to get both sides with the rise of the Internet), they started referring to it as “climate change”, eventually, over the past 5 years, causing Warmists to blame snow and cold and everything else on Mankind’s release of CO2, finally ending (for now) with the talking point that the heat is “hiding” in the deep oceans.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

Yet, we’re supposed to make drastic, costly, and liberty infringing legislation and regulation based on the rantings of people who do not know what’s going on.

Rarely do they (meaning Climate Realists) mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Yet Warmists always want to mention 1980 as their starting point. Because from the 1940’s to the late 1970’s the Earth saw cooling. Hey, here’s another data point: 1990. The global temperature, such as it is, has only risen 0.28 degrees Fahrenheit since that year. Not scary. As far as the “historical record” goes, most data sets show that the warm periods over the last 7,000 years have been warmer than the current one.

But that does not really tell you what your retirement money is going to do in the market over 30 or 40 years. It does not even tell you how you would have done over the cherry-picked decade, which would have depended on exactly when you got in and out of the market.

The Times makes that argument in regards to Climate Realists focusing on the pause since 1997 in an attempt to diminish/defeat the CR argument, yet, what it does is highlight that Warmists have made arguments for catastrophic global warming over the next 50-100 years using cherry picked data for a short period of time (15 years).

And then hyper-Warmist Justin Gillis (you might be familiar with him as being one of the biggest AGW supporters in “journalism”) attempts to tell us about missing heat in the oceans, which cannot be proven, but, hey, trust the Warmists! And things like pollution and aerosols hiding the warming. That’s not science, it’s cultish doctrine.

So, if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point, too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin. That will put extra energy and moisture into the atmosphere that can fuel weather extremes, like heat waves and torrential rains.

Again, is this an article or opinion piece? There’s been no increase in atmospheric moisture in over 25 years. In fact, satellites show a decrease. Extreme weather has been debunked. And, quite frankly, if the pause ends and temps go up, the Earth might eventually get to the same point as previous warm periods.

It’s no wonder that the Times’ article is not allowing comments: Warmists do not like to get the snot beat out of them.

Read: Bummer: NY Times Admits To 15 Year Pause In Global Warming »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Marco Rubio: Illegal Alien Legalization Before Border Security

By William Teach June 11, 2013 – 6:49 am

Remember how Rubio continues to yammer on about border security, making it the focal piece of his shamnesty push to conservatives and Republicans, as you hear his commercial on the radio (they haven’t played it on TV for awhile) for the umpteenth time? How you’ll read about him trying to make the border provisions better? How’s that working out?

(Washington Examiner) In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place, and will in no way be conditional on any security requirements.

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

Here is an English translation of Rubio’s remarks. Here is video of the Univision appearance.

As Byron York points out, the first thing the Gang Of Amnesty bill does is offer legalization to illegals, something Rubio has been rather unwilling to say to Conservatives and the American media during interviews. This legalization will occur once the background checks are done (the feds tend not to deport illegals with lots of legal violations, so anyone think any but the worst will not be approved?) and fines are paid (I bet those who are going through the legal system would love to pay so little, and, really, does anyone think Los Federales will force the illegals to actually pay the fines?). At that point, the group in charge of determining that the border is secure can….it won’t matter, because the government will move along quickly to turn the illegals into voting citizens, regardless of the waiting provisions, then make sure they are on government services, regardless of the legislation provisions.

At this rate, Rubio has become so squishy he is almost guaranteed to be the 2016 GOP presidential nominee, as picked by the liberal media and the Republican establishment, allowing an easy win for whoever the Democrat contender is.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Marco Rubio: Illegal Alien Legalization Before Border Security »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist: A Carbon Tax Is Conservative Or Something

By William Teach June 10, 2013 – 3:07 pm

There is so much #Fail in this little missive by Warmist Clay Evans I do not know where to actually begin

Climate-change action is a conservative position

“On May 2, after nightfall shut down photosynthesis for the day in Hawaii, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere touched 400 parts-per-million there for the first time in at least 800,000 years.”

So began a May 9 blog post on ScientificAmerican.com.

Except, Warmists seem to miss that it actually did not happen. Then he jumps into “consensus”, which isn’t science. The need to get below 350ppm of CO2. Then

Pointing out such things to climate-change “skeptics” is considered bad taste these days. But as former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, a Republican jettisoned by voters for daring to accept the scientific consensus, put it, “Your child is sick, 98 doctors say treat him this way, two say, ‘No, this other is the way to go.’ (If you) go with the two, you’re taking a big risk with those kids.”

What if the doctor is making that prescription based on junk science? What if they’re pushing meds because of money from Big Pharma? Of course, most doctors don’t base their prescriptions on false data.

It is genuinely astonishing that many, likely most, people who “reject” the reality of anthropogenic climate change — those who are sticking with the 2-3 percent of scientific skeptics, no matter what — would describe themselves as strong supporters of “family values” and “personal responsibility.”

Again, a 0.28F increase in global temps since 1990, 0.14F since 1997. If your body temp goes up that amount, are you really concerned? Do you even notice? Perhaps if you’re a hypochondriac. Anyhow, let’s get to the meat. After describing how Conservatives are against action because it would create bigger Big Government along with collectivism we get

Yet the most promising tool for reducing emissions, a carbon tax recommended even by many conservative economists, isn’t even under consideration because the Grover Norquists of the world have convinced so many Americans that taxes are bad, period. The thing is, taxing “bad things” like cigarettes and booze used to be a time-honored — even conservative — way to change negative behaviors, to the benefit of all (ooohhhh, social engineering!) But that tool was yanked out of the box and Congress is as likely to pass a carbon tax as it is to reduce its vacation days.

In other words, “rejecting” climate change is anything but a conservative position. It violates so many core conservative principles: Be frugal; plan for the future; sacrifice for your children and grandchildren; conserve what you have.

So, somehow, slapping taxes on things is now a Conservative position? The second paragraph is cute, but it forgets that Conservatives, for the most part, do not believe that Mankind is responsible for more than a tiny portion of the warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age. And most of Mankind’s contributions come from agriculture, landfills, and the land use/UHI.

In short, individual effort is not enough when it comes to climate change. This monumentally threatening problem requires legislation, taxes and government enforcement. It can be done in “conservative” ways, such as a cap-and-trade system, but taxing the negative impacts of carbon emissions is frankly more effective.

0.28. 0.14. And Mankind tends to do better during warm periods than cool ones. Taxation is not conservative.

Read: Warmist: A Carbon Tax Is Conservative Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 10, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…are glaciers that melted in the 1930’s because someone drove an SUV now, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Yid With Lid, wondering if Edward Snowden should be thrown in jail.

Read: If All You See… »

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

CBS: Possible Coverup By State Department Of Misconduct

By William Teach June 10, 2013 – 10:50 am

The most transparent administration ever?

(CBS News) CBS News has uncovered documents that show the State Department may have covered up allegations of illegal and inappropriate behavior within their ranks.

The Diplomatic Security Service, or the DSS, is the State Department’s security force, charged with protecting the secretary of state and U.S. ambassadors overseas and with investigating any cases of misconduct on the part of the 70,000 State Department employees worldwide.

CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries” — a problem the report says was “endemic.”

The memo also reveals details about an “underground drug ring” was operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

CBS takes great pains to avoid mentioning when all this was really occurring, and there could have been issued during the previous administration. I’d also like to note that I am not placing Blame on Mr. Obama for this specific issue, regardless of whether he’s POTUS or not, unless something comes out that shows he was notified of this cover-up. It is interesting to note, though, that his administration seems to have a very skewed version of “transparency”.

In one specific and striking cover-up, State Department agents told the Inspector General they were told to stop investigating the case of a U.S. Ambassador who held a sensitive diplomatic post and was suspected of patronizing prostitutes in a public park.

The State Department Inspector General’s memo refers to the 2011 investigation into an ambassador who “routinely ditched … his protective security detai” and inspectors suspect this was in order to “solicit sexual favors from prostitutes.”

Unsurprisingly, nothing was done to the ambassador.

Is this an Obama scandal? Only in terms of him being the Chief Executive and this happening on his watch. It is more a continuation of the problem with Big Government and its pattern of misconduct.

More: Hey, I wonder if Obama will soon say he first learned about this from media reports, and that he’s going to make sure everyone responsible will be held responsible…and given promotions? Anyhow, Bryan Preston writes regarding one of the primary players mentioned in the CBS article

Patrick Kennedy’s becoming famous. He was at the center of Benghazi, too. According to a report by Sharyl Attkisson, Kennedy is the State Department official who kept the Foreign Emergency Response Team (FEST) on the sidelines during the Benghazi attack.

Ed Morrissey mentions Kennedy, as well. Weasel Zippers: “Scandal-palooza rolls on.” Patterico: “In other words, another day in the Obama administration.”

BTW, Hot Air mentions yet another scandal featuring HHS employees engaging in insider trader.

Read: CBS: Possible Coverup By State Department Of Misconduct »

Posted in Current Affairs | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Horror! CO2 Emissions Rise Could Doom World To 9 Degree Rise

By William Teach June 10, 2013 – 8:47 am

All hail the computer model!!!!!

(Washington Post) Global emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use rose 1.4 percent to 31.6 gigatons in 2012, setting a record and putting the planet on course for temperature increases well above international climate goals, the International Energy Agency said in a report scheduled to be issued Monday.

The agency said continuing that pace could mean a temperature increase over pre-industrial times of as much as 5.3 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), which IEA chief economist Fatih Birol warned “would be a disaster for all countries.”

You really have to love these people and their doom-saying. It would be even funnier if politicians and policy wonks weren’t listening to these hysterics and conspiracy theorist and planning all sorts of legislation to control the lives of all citizens and private entities. The Earth’s temperature has gone up only 1.4F since 1850, despite the supposed rise of CO2. All the Warmist models fail. They can’t even be shown to produce past climate, even in the short term. None of them can produce the 15 plus year pause in temperature increase.

The energy sector accounts for more than two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions, so “energy has a crucial role to play in tackling climate change,” the IEA said. Its report urged nations to take four steps, including aggressive energy-efficiency measures, by 2015 to keep alive any hope of limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius.

And this kind of over-the-top, mad as a march hare prognostication leads politicians to do really stupid things, like recommending that electricity usage be reduced by 154 terrawatts. That’s 40% of the U.K. power needs. At this time. All for a non-existant problem invented in the minds of people who have money on the line.

The United States was one of the few relatively bright spots in the report. Switches from coal to shale gas accounted for about half the nation’s 3.8 percent drop in energy-related emissions, which fell for the fourth time in the past five years, dipping to a level last seen in the 1990s. The other factors were a mild winter, declining demand for gasoline and diesel, and the increasing use of renewable energy.

Wait, so mild winters are good?

Emissions also climbed in developing countries outside the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, especially in the oil-rich Middle East, where fuel prices are heavily subsidized.

And Warmists really don’t like that those in the 3rd World might have a chance at a decent life through the use of power. Dare I say that they are racists, since so many of these people are Black? Yes, I dare say it.

Oh, wait, I forgot that the warming is hiding in the deep oceans or something. Because Warmists always have an excuse for why their models fail. Yet they, for the most part, refuse to make big changes in their own lives to account for their beliefs. Meanwhile, parts of Europe have had the coldest spring in over 50 years. The US has had a very cool spring. We’ve seen Alaska cool 2.4F since 2000. Winter in Europe and….eh, what does it matter? Warmists do not listen to hard facts, only what hypocritical Warmist doctrine leaders tell them.

Read: Horror! CO2 Emissions Rise Could Doom World To 9 Degree Rise »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove