We’re Saved! Youth Wins Contest To Take Fossil Fueled Flight To Rio20

By William Teach June 5, 2012 – 11:00 am

Obviously, said youth will tell us about the evils of fossil fueled flights

(Grist) If you had just a few minutes to address world leaders —to give the ultimate “My Fellow Earthlings” speech —what would you say? That was essentially the question behind A Date With History, a challenge sponsored by the climate campaign Tcktcktck, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Climate Nexus. They invited anyone between the ages of 13 and 30 to write a speech addressing the attendees of the Earth Summit in Rio next month.

Tell the bigwigs about what kind of future you want, they said. The best speechifier will win a trip to Rio —and possibly a chance to address the gathering in person.

Save the future by spewing tons of evil greenhouse gases.

Her name is Brittany Trilford. She’s 17, from Wellington, New Zealand, and yeah, she’s got some things to say to the folks who are in charge —about broken promises, about the consequences of corporate and government actions, and about what we could learn from nature about how to run the planet.

What she’s not going to do is practice what she preaches. Notice, like most Warmists, she wants someone else to Do Something (video available at the above link).

Said trip (both ways) from New Zealand to Rio would produce over 6,100 pounds of CO2. The average citizen of the world puts out 4 tons if CO2. That means that this one trip for a 3 minute video puts out 3/4ths of what most world citizens put out per year.

Heh: Tom Nelson “Hooray!: Brainwashed 17-year-old wins a trip to Rio for three-minute speech where she suggests that trace amounts of CO2 may cause her to not have a future”

Read: We’re Saved! Youth Wins Contest To Take Fossil Fueled Flight To Rio20 »

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

Democrats Continue Shiny Object Campaign With Paycheck Fairness Act Vote Today

By William Teach June 5, 2012 – 7:48 am

OK, we’ve already established that Democrats understand that there are, in fact, reasons why there can be a pay gap. The White House suggested that there are “varying degrees of seniority” as to why women are paid less, on average, than men working in the White House. Democrats at a crosspost at Right Wing News exposed that they understand the issue. Democrats have even said the Paycheck Fairness Act is simply a shiny object. If they really thought it was important, they would have brought it to the floor soon after it was announce over a month ago. Oh, and let’s not forget that under the PFA, Democrats, who have been shown to pay women less, would have to pay them the same, regardless of seniority or any other reasons

(The Hill) The White House and congressional Democrats on Monday launched a full-fledged public-relations blitz in support of a paycheck-fairness measure in advance of a key Senate vote on Tuesday.

President Obama, directly inserting himself into the Capitol Hill debate over pay discrepancies between men and women, joined other Democrats in urging the Senate to move forward on a bill that he said would both promote fairness and help the economy.

And with Senate Republicans widely expected to block the paycheck measure on Tuesday, Obama also signaled that Democrats are ready and willing to use that vote against the GOP as both sides hunt for support from women this campaign season.

“Women are the breadwinners for a lot of families, and if they’re making less than men do for the same work, families are going to have to get by for less money for childcare and tuition and rent; small businesses have fewer customers,” Obama said on a Monday conference call. “Everybody suffers.”

Yet, the Obama White House pays women around $11,000 less a year on average than men. Shame on them! Even though there are perhaps valid reasons for the pay disparity. Doesn’t matter. They’ll have to pay women the same, as will Democrats in Congress. Unless they exempt themselves. And let’s not forget that this would also mean that women could not be paid more than men, even if they have, say, more seniority.

And it’s just a shiny distraction meant to prop up the phony GOP war on women

In late April The Hill reported that bringing the Paycheck Fairness Act to the floor was a Democratic ploy to put GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney on the defensive with women voters.

Women should be insulted in the manner that Democrats are patronizing women, as well as the notion that women can only succeed with the help of the Central Government.

Then there’s this

Furthermore, this was designed to fix a problem, that for all practical purposes doesn’t exist. (I’m not saying that some women aren’t discriminated against. Some women are. Some men are. Heck, we had a big discussion on being discriminated against because of weight a while back. But, no one wants to bring out the scales at annual increase time.) CONSAD Research Corp did an indepth analysis of the effect of gender on pay in 2009. It turns out that almost all the differences can explained by choice. From the forward by the Department of Labor.

1. A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time.

2. A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care…

3. Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men…

It’s easy to say “hey, women see pay discrimination in the workplace.” Once we get beyond the actual sound bites, the reality is different.

Read: Democrats Continue Shiny Object Campaign With Paycheck Fairness Act Vote Today »

Posted in Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Wisconsin Democrats Forgot Exactly What The Recall Effort Is About

By William Teach June 5, 2012 – 7:01 am

Conversely, perhaps they do not want to be associated with public unions who are partly responsible for having negotiated contracts that leave the taxpayers to fund un-sustainable liabilities with the same Democrats

(Politico) The bitter battle over union rights in Wisconsin sent masses of angry protesters flooding into the streets, placed the state at the center of a national debate over Big Labor’s power and sparked the historic recall to topple GOP Gov. Scott Walker.

But you’d hardly know it from the campaign to replace him.

On the eve of the June 5 recall election, the issue of collective bargaining has become just a footnote in the hard-fought battle for Wisconsin. Democrats gloss over the issue in campaign speeches, political advertisements and debates in favor of zeroing in on Walker’s tactics. Democrats and labor groups run separate field operations. And the party’s nominee, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, wears the fact that he wasn’t labor’s top choice for the ticket as a badge of honor.

They can run, but they can’t hide. This recall is all about Democrats pandering to unions, particularly public unions. Unions back Democrats, giving them lots of support and money, and the Democrats turn around and provide them with benefits and perks that people in the private sector do not get, and leaves the taxpayer on the hook for an incredible amount of union contract created debt. Public sector union members essentially receive golden parachutes when they retire, paid for by the private taxpayer. They receive more vacation days than private sector employees. They barely pay anything towards their health insurance and pensions. It’s extremely difficult to terminate them for malfeasance. Public sector unions are part of the coming debt bomb. And it’s Democrats who have helped create the situation.

In addition, a Marquette University Law School poll released May 30 shows that most voters preferred limiting collective-bargaining rights for public employees. According to the poll, 55 percent favored curbing those rights for most public employees; 41 percent opposed limiting those rights.

Republicans attribute the public opinion shift to the success of Walker’s reforms.

“They don’t want to talk about collective bargaining because the fact of the matter is people around the state of Wisconsin believe that paying just a tiny fraction more toward your health care and toward your pension benefits is not too much to ask,” Priebus said.

What, exactly, is the point of a public sector union in the first place? Unions came into being (mostly) as a way of protecting the worker from harsh companies and bosses. Democrats tell us government is super awesome wonderful. So why the need of a government union? Today, they exist solely to elect Democrats who bargain with the unions which fleece the taxpayer.

Of course, when Democrats lose today, they are already prepared to create havoc through a recount. You also know that there will be the typical calls of election fraud.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Wisconsin Democrats Forgot Exactly What The Recall Effort Is About »

Posted in Democrats, Elections | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Basically “Phones” It In On Wisconsin Recall Election

By William Teach June 4, 2012 – 9:33 pm

PBO has essentially avoided the recall election, and Democrat challenger Tom Barrett must be thrilled that this is the best that Obama can offer

Tweets signed “bo” are ones that are supposed to be directly from him. This is the equivalent of phoning it in. Gov. Scott Walker even knocked Obama for being pretty much absent from the recall election.

Read: Obama Basically “Phones” It In On Wisconsin Recall Election »

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

Montana’s Democrat Gov Whines About Money In Politics

By William Teach June 4, 2012 – 2:38 pm

Of course, Montana governor Brian Schweitzer is only concerned with one type of money, namely from those Evil corporations because if that “infamous Citizens United” ruling

(NY Times) In the absence of strict rules governing campaign money, these big players will eventually get what they seek. I vetoed these bills, but future governors might sign them if they have been bribed by the same type of money that is now corrupting our State Legislature.

This will mean, sadly, that the Washington model of corruption -where corporations legally bribe members of Congress by bankrolling their campaigns with so-called independent expenditures, and get whatever they need in return -will have infected Montana.

Is money in politics a problem? Of course it is. Big entities have a hell of a lot more sway than you or I. Big money donors have sway. But, should we focus simply on companies who are using their 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress? What about the power of unions and other big interest groups, Gov. Schweitzer? Political Action Committees? 501 groups? What if we just limit contributions to individuals? Would someone like George Soros or the Koch brothers have more influence than your average wage earner?

Perhaps you should have a talk with your president, who broke tradition, and a promise, in refusing to accept public funding for his 2008 run.

But, he is correct in that money is a corrupting influence. However, rather than go after contributors we should go after the politicians, and put the burden on elected officials and those who want to be elected.

PS: Schweitzer is also probably pissed off that most corporate money goes to the party that isn’t trying to destroy companies, make it harder and more expensive to do business, and ruin the economy.

Read: Montana’s Democrat Gov Whines About Money In Politics »

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Montana’s Democrat Gov Whines About Money In Politics | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 4, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled airplane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Randy’s Roundtable.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Zombie Chatter Sweeps The Internet

By William Teach June 4, 2012 – 11:17 am

And the AP is not amused. Except that it gives them a chance to write a story

(NJ.com) First came Miami: the case of a naked man eating most of another man’s face. Then Maryland, a college student telling police he killed a man, then ate his heart and part of his brain.

It was different in New Jersey, where a man stabbed himself 50 times and threw bits of his own intestines at police. They pepper-sprayed him, but he was not easily subdued. He remains in critical condition.

He was, people started saying, acting like a zombie. And the whole discussion just kept growing, becoming a topic that the Internet couldn’t seem to stop talking about.

The actual incidents are horrifying — and, if how people are talking about them is any indication, fascinating. In an America where zombie imagery is used to peddle everything from tools and weapons to garden gnomes, they all but beg the comparison.

I’ll admit I read quite a few zombie and zombie style books. They’ve become popular over the past 10 years or so. What they tend to be about is people, and how they survive apocalyptic events. Zombies are just a convenient vehicle. In the past it might have been about aliens or nuclear war. Though there are some like that (see John Birmingham’s After America).

Zombies represent America’s fears of bioterrorism, a fear that strengthened after the 9/11 attacks, says Patrick Hamilton, an English professor at Misericordia University in Dallas, Pa., who studies how we process comic-book narratives.

No, not really. Nothing to do with that. Nice try, though. But, many of the books, and some movies, incorporate elements where the zombies/zombie-like creatures are created by Mankind intentionally or by accident. One series had them being created by a major hurricane destroying Galveston and the toxic chemical soup caused the dead to rise. Another (A New World by John O’Brien) has “night runners” (aren’t quite zombies) being created due to a faulty flu vaccine. Another I read was about a zombie apocalypse caused by an accident by terrorists. Authors use sometimes use the bioterrorism theme as a mode, but zombies aren’t popular because of it. The ability to web-publish gives many authors a great chance.

Mort is about zombies and vampires (I’m writing these off the top of my head, writing post with Droid phone). White Flag Of The Dead is about what one man will do to protect his newborn in a zombie world, where there are also really bad people. One was about aliens trying to cut the Earths population down with zombies and vampires. They all share the notion “how do people survive?”

Just like bacon suddenly went viral, so have zombies.

Read: Zombie Chatter Sweeps The Internet »

Posted in Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

California Gov. Jerry Brown Finds Environmental Regs Inconvenient For High Speed Rail

By William Teach June 4, 2012 – 8:34 am

California has lots and lots of environmental regulations that stifle business and its economy. Now, not all of them are bad, but, what’s a Democrat governor to do when these regulations get in the way of his high dollar boondogle?

(Oakland Tribune) Gov. Jerry Brown is proposing to fast-track California’s $69 billion high-speed rail project by easing legal scrutiny under the state’s landmark environmental law, this newspaper learned Friday.

The proposal, which the Legislature would have to approve this month as part of launching the state’s biggest-ever construction project, does not change the California Environmental Quality Act. But Brown’s plan, while angering environmentalists, would have two major consequences.

First, it virtually takes away the final bullet in the chamber that project opponents were hoping to use to kill high-speed rail: a court-ordered injunction halting construction.

Under Brown’s proposal, train foes would have to prove in court that the project causes major environmental problems, such as wiping out an endangered species or damaging extremely valuable land. In the past, opponents on the Peninsula have delayed planning for the project by convincing a judge of minor problems — for instance, that the state did not adequately study track vibrations. And Central Valley farmers Friday filed a lawsuit with a similar strategy in mind.

Second, the proposal adds to a growing number of large-scale projects that Brown and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have tried to exempt from the most intense environmental legal scrutiny by arguing that California needs to create jobs quickly. In this case, court delays would void key federal high-speed rail grants needed to begin construction, which would prevent job creation and the development of a greener way to travel.

Environmentalists are not particularly happy with Brown’s change of tune in attempting to essentially bypass the environmental regulations he previously supported when it was Someone Else attempting some sort of business venture. And a new poll shows that

Fifty-five percent of voters want to see the high-speed rail bond issue that was approved in 2008 back on the ballot, and 59 percent say they would now vote against it, according to the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times survey (lat.ms/N9tTcm) published Saturday.

It’s not like California is $16 billion in the hole and seeing the tax-base streaming out of the state for greener pastures. Let’s spend tens of billions (final cost will most likely be above $100 billion) on a train that few will ride. And destroy the environment at the same time!

Read: California Gov. Jerry Brown Finds Environmental Regs Inconvenient For High Speed Rail »

Posted in Democrats, Enviroweenies | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Nancy Pelosi Runs Her Own War On Women, Pays Them Less

By William Teach June 4, 2012 – 7:57 am

This according to the Washington Free Beacon

According to publicly available salary data at the website Legistorm, Pelosi’s female employees earned an average annual salary of $96,394 in fiscal year 2011. Male employees earned $123,000 on average, a difference of 27.6 percent.

The gap is even larger if calculated using the median salaries for men and women. For Pelosi’s female employees, the median annual salary was $93,320 in 2011, compared to $130,455 for male employees—a difference of $37,135, or 40 percent.

Pelosi’s entire staff—men and women—earned an average annual salary of $108,150 and a median salary of $114,662. By both measures, women made considerably less.

Well, well, well, how about them apples? No, no, it doesn’t matter why the women are paid less. That is immaterial to the discussion. Democrat talking points about the War On Women clearly state that women should be paid exactly the same regardless of position, time in service, or other factors. Obviously, Nancy hates women and simply wants to see them barefoot in the kitchen.

Will Rock The Slut target Nancy for her obvious hatred of women? Fortunately, Pelosi is sure to give herself a pass, much like she gives her Senate colleagues a pass

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday condemned companies that pay women less than men, but was unwilling to condemn Senate Democrats who pay their female staffers less than male staffers, saying that the Senate is “another world.”

Speaking in Washington, D.C., Pelosi reminded everyone that there shouldn’t be income disparity between men and women.

“It’s 2012. It’s 2012, everybody. What is it we’re talking about women getting paid less? Are you going home to your little girls each day and saying: ‘Work hard, study hard, be diligent so that when you grow up you can make less than your brother?”

She added, “There seems to be a decision somewhere in some companies and parts of our economy that that’s an okay thing to do.”

Funny how things never seem to be a problem when it’s Democrats doing it.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Nancy Pelosi Runs Her Own War On Women, Pays Them Less »

Posted in Democrats | Comments Off on Nancy Pelosi Runs Her Own War On Women, Pays Them Less | Trackback URL

Hillary Clinton Takes Unnecessary Fossil Fueled Trip To View “Climate Change”

By William Teach June 3, 2012 – 3:22 pm

We’re constantly told that fossil fuels are the worst cause of “climate change”, you know, hotcoldwetdry. So why’s Hillary Clinton flying to the Arctic to view “climate change”?

Arctic Warming Means Challenges, Clinton Says

Thinning polar ice means more sea traffic through the Arctic at a time of territorial claims to an area that could contain as much as 20 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Norwegian officials to discuss the changing Arctic.

The (Norwegian) foreign minister brought Secretary Clinton to this city above the Arctic Circle to meet with scientists and business leaders preparing for greater ocean traffic and greater oil exploration in a region that the U.S. Geologic Survey says could hold $9 trillion in oil and minerals.

So, Hillary took an unnecessary fossil fueled flight to Norway (her second trip in a year) and rode on a fossil fueled ship to discuss how fossil fuels are making it hotcoldwetdry as well as how to increase oil exploration? WTF?

Another reason she was there was to push the disastrous Law Of The Sea Treaty.

Read: Hillary Clinton Takes Unnecessary Fossil Fueled Trip To View “Climate Change” »

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