If All You See…

By William Teach December 11, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle causing the seas to rise and islands to tip over, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on Economics 101.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Steve Israel (D-LaLa Land) Wants To Ban Guns That Don’t Exist

By William Teach December 11, 2012 – 11:24 am

I guess Israel is too scared to actually file legislation that attacks real guns

(Daily Caller) New York Democratic Rep. Steve Israel is calling for legislation to renew the federal ban on plastic guns, according to his official congressional website.

“Recent reports have pointed to the new possibility of building guns at home using a 3-D printer,” Israel’s website states. “Right now, plastic guns are illegal under the Undetectable Firearms Act, but this law is set to expire next year.”

The only problem is that these guns don’t actually, you know, exist.

Read: Steve Israel (D-LaLa Land) Wants To Ban Guns That Don’t Exist »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Extreme Weather Belief Like A “pagan rite of human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest”

By William Teach December 11, 2012 – 9:12 am

There was a time when Warmists said “weather is not climate! Yeaaaarrrrrrg!” Now, because fewer and fewer are buying into what they push (which they themselves refuse to act on, as witnessed by the yearly working vacations in exotic locations which produced tens of millions of tons of CO2), they have now moved on to “extreme weather” (some, like Al Gore, have even moved on to “dirty weather”) in order to blame every weather event, including snow and cold, on someone else living a modern life

(NY Post) Superstorm Sandy. Parching drought across North America. A scorching midsummer heat wave in the Midwest. All these weather extremes are telltale signs that CO2 causes climate change, according to global warmists.

Indeed, the global climate-change nomenklatura gathered last week in Doha, Qatar eagerly (if grimly) cited Typhoon Bopha, which had just wreaked carnage in the Philippines, as the latest proof.

But it’s not. The link between extreme weather and global warming has as much scientific basis as the pagan rite of human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.

There is no long term trends in “extreme weather” having gotten worse. In fact, in some cases, extreme weather has gotten better. More is available at Watts Up With That? Suffice to say, Warmists are being their typical barking moonbat selves. And still haven’t given up their own fossil fueled vehicles, much less reduced their own fossil fuels usage.

Extremes are a natural part of our climate, which constantly changes and is rarely stable for extended periods. In fact, weather extremes are the “old normal,” not a “new normal,” as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proclaimed in Qatar.

Why can’t so many rational, well-educated people understand this simple fact? The answer may be superstition.

I’d ditch that talk about “rational, well-educated”, as most who are believers in “climate change” have no interest in doing research themselves to determine the reality, and, when one throws around the phrase “climate change”, they aren’t interested in science, they’re interested in politics.

Climate-change skeptics might be regarded as modern-day witches because they think that global warming comes from natural forces. However, it’s superstitious alarmists, who believe that extreme weather originates in our CO2 emissions and who have a dread of impending disaster, who are really the witches.

They may have a dread, but, until they act like it’s a crisis and make changes in their own lives, there’s little reason to believe it is a crisis. And, let’s be clear, the debate is not about warming: the Earth has warmed a few degrees since the end of the Little Ice Age. The debate is about causation.

Read: Extreme Weather Belief Like A “pagan rite of human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Overly Hysterical Obama Jumps Into Michigan Right To Work Fight

By William Teach December 11, 2012 – 8:48 am

And, as usual, the Campaigner in Chief was equal parts class warrior, divisive, and full of mule fritters

(The Hill) President Obama on Monday injected himself into an escalating fight over changing Michigan into a right-to-work state, saying the state Legislature’s move to ban the required paying of union dues was all about politics.

The quick entry into the fight by Obama suggests the White House could be more aggressively involved in the Michigan fight than in a similar battle in Wisconsin in 2011.

It also signaled an alliance between Obama and labor amid fiscal talks in which Obama will be under pressure to offer Republicans entitlement reforms opposed by unions.

Once again (NMP) Obama is showing that he is the president of only a segment of America, taking sides against others.

“I’ve just got to say this,” Obama said at the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant in Michigan before a small crowd of workers. “What we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions. We shouldn’t be doing that.

Except, that is not what right to work laws do. They simply mean that people cannot be forced to pay union dues and/or join a union in order to get a job and work. Outrageous, eh?. The Michigan law doesn’t touch union bargaining in the least. One shouldn’t expect Obama to know the actual facts when there is a sympathetic crowd in attendance, should we? One which will give him the adulation he desires right before heading off to his 1%er vacation in Hawaii.

“You know, these so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics,” Obama added to applause and cheers from the crowd. “What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”

That’s weird: he held his recent convention here in North Carolina, a right to work state. But, he is sort of correct: people who work and are paid union dues do bring home less than their non-dues paying co-workers, since the unions yank money out of their paychecks. Why does Obama want people to make less?

“What we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages,” Obama told a small crowd at the plant. “We don’t want a race to the bottom. We want a race to the top.”

In the Obamaeconomy, that race apparently involves snails, based on how well the economy has recovered. And, if you want to see the results of long term Democrat policies, which include over the top unionization, just take a look at these before and after pictures of Detroit. That’s the view of America after Obama.

Anyhow, God forbid that workers have the right to choose. Obama doesn’t like that.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Overly Hysterical Obama Jumps Into Michigan Right To Work Fight »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

School Children Won’t Know What The Gophers Hockey Team Looks Like

By William Teach December 10, 2012 – 3:45 pm

Won’t someone think of the kids?

Up to 16 inches of snow had fallen in the Twin Cities by Sunday night, and National Weather Service forecasters predicted that a couple of more inches might fall overnight. Late Sunday, Ham Lake had 15.2 inches of snow, and Columbus Township, also in Anoka County, reported 16 inches, the Weather Service said. Hugo had 15.8 inches. Chanhassen, Excelsior and Burnsville all reported about 12 inches. Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport got 10.2 inches.

More than 150 flights at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport were canceled Sunday, said airport spokesman Pat Hogan. Delta Air Lines, the airport’s dominant carrier, said travelers through the Twin Cities and Duluth can re-book their flights without charge.

Among the inconvenienced fliers were members of the University of Minnesota men’s hockey team, who had their flight from Colorado to the Twin Cities diverted to Omaha. The Gophers were on their way back from a two-game series vs. Colorado College.

It’s so terrible!

Read: School Children Won’t Know What The Gophers Hockey Team Looks Like »

Posted in Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Central Government Borrows 46 Cents For Every Dollar Spent In Fiscal 2013

By William Teach December 10, 2012 – 2:14 pm

Doug Ross calls this a “grim milestone“, and he’s right

(Washington Times) The federal government borrowed 46 cents of every dollar it has spent so far in fiscal 2013, which began Oct. 1, according to the latest data the Congressional Budget Office released Friday.

The government notched a $172 billion deficit in November, and is already nearly $300 billion in the hole through the first two months of fiscal year 2013, underscoring just how deep the government’s budget problems are as lawmakers try to negotiate a year-end deal to avoid a budgetary “fiscal cliff.”

Higher spending on mandatory items such as Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt led the way in boosting spending compared with the previous year, which also highlights the trouble spots Congress and President Obama are struggling to grapple with.

Imagine, dear reader, that you ran your household finances or business using this model: how long till you were forced into bankruptcy?

Doug goes on to ask if there are any Democrats with virtue remaining in Washington. The answer is no. Most refuse to acknowledge that there is a spending problem, that there is a serious debt/deficit problem, nor a problem with the safety net programs. The leaders, including Obama and Reid, want all entitlement reforms off the table in the fiscal cliff talks. In fact, they want to spend more. This only makes sense if Democrats are completely divorced from reality or want to intentionally bankrupt America.

Read: Central Government Borrows 46 Cents For Every Dollar Spent In Fiscal 2013 »

Posted in Democrats, Economy | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 10, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fuel gas pump filling up an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Q&O, with a nice wrapup of the zombie climate talks in Doha.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Hooray! Warmists Trot Out Uneven Atmospheric Heating As New Excuse

By William Teach December 10, 2012 – 9:10 am

The great thing about Warmists is that they never let things like science stand in the way of defending their cult. They keep coming up with great new ways to push their dogma (except for practicing what they preach). We hear things about missing heat, that the oceans are soaking it up, that Gaia is punishing some “carbon polluting” nations, that hot is causing more snow and cold. And, right on time to witness yet another year where it is super duper cold in Alaska, Europe, and Asia with lots of snow and the Antarctic has seen record growth, we get

Uneven climate change due to atmospheric heat capacity

Much of the unevenness in warming due to climate change is a result of a variation in the atmosphere’s heat capacity. The claim, made by researchers in Norway, is likely to be seen as ammunition against climate sceptics who have questioned why some parts of the world are apparently not warming.

Most scientists agree that the world is getting warmer due to anthropogenic carbon emissions. Some areas, such as the Arctic, appear to be warming faster than others. The phenomenon is temporal as well as geographical: in general, night-time temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures. (snip)

In the atmosphere, heat capacity is dependent on the depth of the planetary boundary layer, which can be between 50 and 2,000 metres thick. Davy’s group hypothesized that the observed asymmetry in global warming could be at least partially accounted for by variations in the boundary layer: regions with a shallow boundary layer would have a relatively low heat capacity, and would warm faster, while regions with a deep boundary layer would have a relatively high capacity, and warm more slowly.

Yet, while parts of America bake, big parts of Europe freeze, and have the same planetary boundary layer. Or will Warmists claim that CO2 output has changed the PBL in certain areas? Which would be dangerously close to the reality of the urban heat island effect. Because much of the depth of the PBL is due to wind speed, which can be changed due to land use, as well as what the land temperature is, which can be much higher in urban areas than in the surrounding countryside.

But, really, the whole point in this exercise is for believers in AGW to find yet another way to explain away why their predictions of planetary doom keep failing.

Read: Hooray! Warmists Trot Out Uneven Atmospheric Heating As New Excuse »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Is There A Constitutional Right To Gay Marriage?

By William Teach December 10, 2012 – 8:42 am

That’s the question the Associated Press asks, as reposted at The Blaze

Gay marriage supporters see 41 reasons to fret over the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case of California’s ban on same-sex unions.

While nine states allow same-sex partners to marry, or will soon, 41 states do not. Of those, 30 have written gay marriage bans into their state constitutions.

That fact is worrisome to those who firmly believe there is a constitutional right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, but who also know that the Supreme Court does not often get too far ahead of the country on hot-button social issues.

But, gay marriage advocates are positioning the coming SCOTUS review of the California marriage proposition and DOMA as one which will challenge and outlaw discrimination, much in the way that their decisions on sodomy, interracial marriage, and segregation laws did

The forces that mounted the legal challenge to Proposition 8 have said all along that the right to marry is so fundamental that it should not depend on success at the ballot box or the votes of state legislatures. Washington lawyer Theodore Olson, representing gay Californians who wish to marry, said he will argue that there is a “fundamental constitutional right to marry for all citizens.”

Is there a constitution right to marry? Much like the “separation of church and state”, this appears nowhere within any portion of the Constitution. There is no specific right for gay or straight people to marry.

But, one has to wonder about another part of the Constitution, equal protection under the law, which would also be known as equal treatment under the law. Yet, there are many cases where people are not treated equally under the law. People are taxed at different rates. Certain people who become political appointees are not prosecuted for tax evasion, while other citizens have their bank accounts seized and may do jail time. Women are mostly banned from combat positions in the military. The government ignores some laws at will. It institutes some laws affording certain pressure groups more protections under the law than others (hate crime legislation, for one). Should gays be treated the same under the law as straights who get married? Should gays be denied the same treatment as straights who are afforded the legal protections when it comes to things like visitation rights and property rights?

The problem is is that marriage should be left in the hands of the churches to decide. Yet, government has become involved in the process, requiring a license in order to be married in the eyes of the state. If we are a nation of law, not of men, should the government be required to give a marriage license to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, but leave it up to the church to decide if it wants to perform a legal marriage ceremony? I’d have to say yes, regardless of any moral opposition I may have (note: I’ve always thought that the government should perform civil ceremonies, due to the equal protection under the law clause).

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Is There A Constitutional Right To Gay Marriage? »

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

Fareed Zakaria Wants To End The War On Terrorism To Save Billions

By William Teach December 9, 2012 – 6:32 pm

I know what you’re thinking, because it was most likely what I was thinking when I read the headline. First, that Zakaria is a far left dupe and a terrorist apologist. Second, there are people out there who want to kill Americans. Buuuuuuut, he actually makes a few good points

As we debate whether the two parties can ever come together and get things done, here’s something President Obama could probably do by himself that would be a signal accomplishment of his presidency: End the war on terror. Or, more realistically, start planning and preparing the country for phasing it out.

For 11 years, the United States has been operating under emergency wartime powers granted under the 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force.” That is a longer period than the country spent fighting the Civil War, World War I and World War II combined. It grants the president and the federal government extraordinary authorities at home and abroad, effectively suspends civil liberties for anyone the government deems an enemy and keeps us on a permanent war footing in all kinds of ways.

How many times have we complained about the TSA and their infringement on our persons, as well as absurd policies? How about the Central Government voting themselves massive new powers to spy on citizens? What about SOPA, PIPA, the NADA, and others? How about the conservative notion of limited government? Certainly, law enforcement and intelligence should not forget about the fact that terrorists, mostly Islamic ones, do want to harm America and Americans. But, where does it end in terms of massive government?

If you want to know why we’re in such a deep budgetary hole, one large piece of it is that we have spent around $2 trillion on foreign wars in the past decade. Not coincidentally, we have had the largest expansion of the federal government since World War II. The Post’s Dana Priest and William Arkin have described how the U.S. government has built 33 new complexes for the intelligence bureaucracies alone. The Department of Homeland Security employs 230,000 people.

Well, there are quite a few other reasons for our deep budgetary hole, but that’s a damned good point about the expansion of government, which conservatives did complain about during the Bush years. And once a federal bureaucracy is entrenched, it’s almost impossible to do away with. Then you have to pay them all the expensive benefits and pensions. They unionize. So, maybe it’s time to ramp the war down.

Read: Fareed Zakaria Wants To End The War On Terrorism To Save Billions »

Posted in Musings, War On Terrorism | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove