Clapton, Van Morrison Team Up For Anti-Lockdown Anthem

By William Teach November 28, 2020 – 10:30 am

The 60’s and 70’s big time rockers (well, Van was always more Jazz) remember the days growing up and advocating freedom

Music Legends Van Morrison and Eric Clapton Team for Anti-Lockdown Anthem ‘Stand and Deliver’

Rock music legends Van Morrison and Eric Clapton have teamed up for “Stand and Deliver,” a song that takes coronavirus lockdowns to task.

“There are many of us who support Van and his endeavors to save live music; he is an inspiration,” Clapton said according to Variety. “We must stand up and be counted because we need to find a way out of this mess. The alternative is not worth thinking about. Live music might never recover.”

Clapton also said that the end of live entertainment due to coronavirus lockdowns is “deeply upsetting.”

Proceeds for the track — set to be released on December 4 — will go to Morrison’s Lockdown Financial Hardship Fund, which works to lend financial assistance to musicians left struggling during the global pandemic and the mitigation lockdowns imposed across the world.

“It is heartbreaking to see so many talented musicians lack any meaningful support from the government, but we want to reassure them that we are working hard every day to lobby for the return of live music, and to save our industry,” Morrison added upon release of news of his Clapton collaboration.

Rock and roll and so much of the music industry used to be about rebellion, counter-culture, doing your own thing, government out of our bedrooms, “trust no one above 30”, “sex, drugs, rock and roll”. It wasn’t necessarily anti-government, just about freedom to do your thing. Rockers were livid over Al and Tipper Gore’s Senate hearings on rock lyrics. Folk rock was the first to take on the Vietnam war while JFK was still president. The Age of Aquarius, free love, No Nukes, etc and so on (I don’t want to dive into this rabbit hole, I’ll be here all day). Now? Music is taking the Government’s side so often, mostly those in “today’s hit music”, but, some in rock, hard rock, heavy metal, even punk and country. Of course, most of these “hit music” makers (songs written by committees of other people, music from computers, massive use of autotune) don’t worry about Government bothering them, because they say the Right Things and are rich. So, good for Clapton and Morrison to stand up

Morrison’s criticism of lockdowns has stirred controversy in certain circles, especially among government officials. The “Moondance” singer recently drew criticism from Northern Ireland’s health minister Robin Swann who called the protest songs “dangerous.”

“I don’t know where he gets his facts. I know where the emotions are on this,” Swann told BBC in September, “but I will say that sort of messaging is dangerous.” As Rolling Stone reported, Morrison has for decades voiced grievances through song, but “this time, Morrison’s preferred method of venting might also cause harm to others.”

Even during the Vietnam era and the era of Reagan’s big military buildup (meant to scare Russia and destroy it’s economy, not fight a war, especially with nukes), government didn’t try to shut music artists down. Of course, now they are worried about Wrongthink, and government must censor. Having a message is dangerous? Well, yes, to government figures using their power to control citizens. Freedom for the peons is dangerous to authoritarians.

Read: Clapton, Van Morrison Team Up For Anti-Lockdown Anthem »

Posted in Government, Music | Comments Off on Clapton, Van Morrison Team Up For Anti-Lockdown Anthem | Trackback URL

Cult of Climastrology Looks To Go After Advertising Industry

By William Teach November 28, 2020 – 7:02 am

Well, this is new. I haven’t seen the Cult of Climastrology go after advertising yet

Black Friday: How can the ad industry help tackle climate change?

(Thomson Reuters Foundation) - As shoppers scramble for deals on Black Friday, spurred on by frenzied marketing campaigns, critics have called on advertisers to consider how the industry impacts climate change and to shift to a greener model.

Environmentally conscious consumers worldwide are trying to limit the excesses of Black Friday, when people spend billions of dollars on retail goods, and push to make it more sustainable.

Using the hashtags #TurnBlackFridayGreen and #ReclaimBlackFriday on social media, individuals on Friday suggested people shun e-commerce giants like Amazon and buy locally.

Yet while the spotlight may be on retailers, big advertising firms have “largely escaped accountability” despite indirectly fuelling global warming, according to a report by the New Weather Institute think-tank and its partners.

What role does advertising play in the climate crisis and what is the industry doing to tackle the issue?

Obviously, the CoC is upset that Other People are seeing ads to buy things for themselves and as gifts for others, which is wasteful and Evil and stuff. You can read the rest of that Reuters article, let’s flip to the UK Guardian for a bit more honesty as to what this report and the CoC really want to do

Rein in advertising to help tackle climate crisis, report urges
Industry promotes materialism and lifts sales of climate-harming products, study says

Advertising needs to be controlled and changed to reduce its impact on the climate, according to a report released as consumers prepare to spend billions on Black Friday.

The report by the New Weather Institute thinktank and the charity We are Possible examines how advertising indirectly contributes to climate change and the ecological emergency.

Researchers say the promotion of consumerism, materialism and a work-and-spend cycle, and the industry’s role in pushing sales of beef, tobacco, high-polluting SUVs and flights, are all part of that indirect role.

The report says the advertising industry has so far escaped scrutiny about its role in contributing to climate change. Tim Kasser, an emeritus professor of psychology at Knox College in Illinois, who co-authored the report, said there was a body of evidence to show that in order to make progress in addressing and reversing climate and ecological degradation, it would be prudent to rein in and change the practices of the advertising industry.

Who would reign it in? Advertising won’t destroy their own industry, so, it would be up to government controlling the economy even more. What’s that called?

Read: Cult of Climastrology Looks To Go After Advertising Industry »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

NY Times: People’s Hatred Of Trump Failed To Help Down-ballot Votes, Seeing Crushing Losses For Dems

By William Teach November 28, 2020 – 6:50 am

This is yet another case of putting opinion in straight news, another case of the Credentialed Media trying to explain things, and another case of the Credentialed Media attempting to protect Democrats. This article is not in the opinion section

How Democrats Suffered Crushing Down-Ballot Losses Across America
In statehouse races, suburban voters’ disgust with President Trump failed to translate into a rebuke of other Republicans, ensuring the party’s grip on partisan mapmaking.

Sore LosersJust a few seats shy of a majority in the State House of Representatives, Democrats in Pennsylvania this year zeroed in on Republican-held suburban districts, where disdain for President Trump ran hot.

One of their prime targets was in the North Hills suburbs outside Pittsburgh, which are home to big brick houses, excellent public schools and “the fastest-trending Democratic district in the state,” according to Emily Skopov, the Democratic nominee for an open seat there, who gamely knocked on the doors of Republican voters in the days before Nov. 3.

She was half right. Joseph R. Biden Jr. carried Pennsylvania’s House District 28, after Mr. Trump had won it by nine percentage points in 2016.

But Ms. Skopov, the founder of a nonprofit group who positioned herself as a moderate, was defeated.

Across the country, suburban voters’ disgust with Mr. Trump — the key to Mr. Biden’s election — did not translate into a wide rebuke of other Republicans, as Democrats had expected after the party made significant gains in suburban areas in the 2018 midterm elections. From the top of the party down to the state level, Democratic officials are awakening to the reality that voters may have delivered a one-time verdict on Mr. Trump that does not equal ongoing support for center-left policies.

“There’s a significant difference between a referendum on a clown show, which is what we had at the top of the ticket, and embracing the values of the Democratic ticket,” said Nichole Remmert, Ms. Skopov’s campaign manager. “People bought into Joe Biden to stop the insanity in the White House. They did not suddenly become Democrats.”

Or, bear with me here, could it possibly be that there was, in fact, lots of cheating that led to Trump losing the general election? Across the country, there percent that voted president only is way, way, way higher than normal. The amount of disqualified mail-in votes is way, way lower than normal. Plus lots and lots of other irregularities. Maybe it all ads up to nothing. Maybe it doesn’t. Does anyone truly believe Joe freaking Biden received 80 million votes for real?

That dawning truth is evident in the narrower majority that House Democrats will hold in Congress next year, and especially in the blood bath that the party suffered in legislative races in key states around the country, despite directing hundreds of millions of dollars and deploying top party figures like former President Barack Obama to obscure down-ballot elections.

This year, Democrats targeted a dozen state legislative chambers where Republicans held tenuous majorities, including in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, North Carolina and Minnesota. Their goal was to check the power of Republicans to redraw congressional and legislative districts in 2021, and to curb the rightward drift of policies from abortion to gun safety to voting rights.

But in all cases, Democrats came up short. None of their targeted legislative chambers flipped, even though Mr. Biden carried many of the districts that down-ballot Democrats did not. It could make it harder for Democrats to retain a House majority in 2022.

Could it be that voters want Trumpism without Trump, as Ann Coulter rather unhingededly put it (nope, not linking her screed)?  Or, could it be cheating?

In the aftermath, moderate Democrats are feuding with progressives over whether policies that excite the party’s base, such as higher taxes to pay for social programs, policing overhauls and a rapid move away from fossil fuels, are a losing message with swing voters. Progressives have responded that moderate candidates aren’t offering voters an affirmative program to improve their lives.

Could it be that people don’t actually want Government in charge of their lives, that they do not want higher taxes, that they do not want Government taking away their use of reliable, affordable, easy to obtain fossil fuels? That people actually prefer the Trump message of reducing government’s role in our lives? Could it be that citizens held their noses about the “clown show”, and actually voted for Trump and Democrats cheated?

“One of the big questions is whether a Trumpist 2024 candidate can be a little bit milder so as to not alienate the suburbs, yet still inspire the low-propensity Republicans to vote at 2020 levels,” said J.J. Balaban, a Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania. “If they can pull that off, it’s going to be a very hard environment for Democrats.”

There’s that. Also, how extreme will the Democrats be over the next two years, leading to more House and Senate and down ballot losses in 2022.

Democrats’ failure to flip any of their targeted chambers means that Republicans will have control next year of 20 state governments that will collectively draw 188 congressional districts, according to one analysis. In a bright spot for Democrats, the party is closing in on a supermajority in the New York Senate. That outcome would help give Democrats control of mapmaking in states with a total of 73 House districts.

Bummer, Dems!

Read: NY Times: People’s Hatred Of Trump Failed To Help Down-ballot Votes, Seeing Crushing Losses For Dems »

Posted in Democrats, Elections | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Climate Apocalypse (scam) Causing Warmists To Not Have Kids

By William Teach November 27, 2020 – 4:58 pm

I think this is a wonderful idea. All climate cultists should follow this, thereby eliminating them from the gene pool. They won’t have mushy little heads to indoctrinate

Climate ‘apocalypse’ fears stopping people having children – study

People worried about the climate crisis are deciding not to have children because of fears that their offspring would have to struggle through a climate apocalypse, according to the first academic study of the issue.

The researchers surveyed 600 people aged 27 to 45 who were already factoring climate concerns into their reproductive choices and found 96% were very or extremely concerned about the wellbeing of their potential future children in a climate-changed world. One 27-year-old woman said: “I feel like I can’t in good conscience bring a child into this world and force them to try and survive what may be apocalyptic conditions.”

These views were based on very pessimistic assessments of the impact of global heating on the world, the researchers said. One respondent, for example, said it would “rival world war one in its sheer terror”. The research also found that some people who were already parents expressed regret over having their children.

The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, found no statistically significant difference between the views of women and men, though women made up three-quarters of respondents. A 31-year-old woman said: “Climate change is the sole factor for me in deciding not to have biological children. I don’t want to birth children into a dying world [though] I dearly want to be a mother.”

One 42-year-old father wrote that the world in 2050 would be “a hot-house hell, with wars over limited resources, collapsing civilisation, failing agriculture, rising seas, melting glaciers, starvation, droughts, floods, mudslides and widespread devastation.” Schneider-Mayerson said he thought the pessimistic views held were all within the range of possibilities, if not necessarily the most likely outcome.

The researchers found that 6% of parents confessed to feeling some remorse about having children. A 40-year-old mother said: “I regret having my kids because I am terrified that they will be facing the end of the world due to climate change.”

These rugrats won’t be too totally f*cked up due the mother’s climamoonbattery, eh?

Read: Good News: Climate Apocalypse (scam) Causing Warmists To Not Have Kids »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 27, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is milk for an evil carbon polluting cow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on how easy it is to not be shot by police.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Paris Climate Agreement Puts America Last

By William Teach November 27, 2020 – 10:30 am

Hmm, I do believe I’ve said this the other day, and back when Obama signed the agreement meant to circumvent the duly elected U.S. Senate

Paris Climate Treaty Puts America Last

Here we are in the midst of the second wave of a once-in-a-half-century pandemic, with the economy flattened and millions of Americans unemployed and race riots in the streets of our major cities. And Joe Biden says that one of his highest priorities as president will be to … reenter the Paris Climate Accord.

Trump kept his America First promise and pulled America out of this Obama-era treaty. Biden wants us back in — immediately.

Why? Paris is an unmitigated failure. You don’t have to take my word for it. National Geographic, a supporter of climate change action, recently ran the numbers and admits in its recent headline: “Most Countries Aren’t Hitting 2030 Climate Goals.” That’s putting it mildly. Most haven’t even reached half their pledged target for emission reductions.

Robert Watson, the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, laments: “Countries need to double and triple their 2030 reduction commitments to be aligned with the Paris target.”

Gee, this sounds like a treaty we definitely should be part of and pay the bills for.

The one country making substantial progress in reducing carbon emissions is the U.S. under President Donald Trump. Even though our gross domestic product is way up over the past four years, our carbon dioxide emissions are DOWN. Our air pollution levels and emissions of lead, carbon monoxide and other pollutants are at record-low levels.

Trump has just let the private sector do their thing, rather than picking winners and losers.

Here is Paris in nutshell: We put our coal miners out of their jobs and cripple our $1 trillion oil and gas industry while China and India keep polluting and laugh at us behind our back.

Yeah, but Joe loves him some China

Across the globe, world leaders are overjoyed that under a Biden administration, the U.S. will reenter the Paris Accord. Why wouldn’t they be? We pay the bills. We hang our booming free market economy on a cross of climate change regulation. We pretend that the world is complying — when their actions speak much louder than their words. We trust, but we don’t verify.

If Paris is one of Biden’s first official acts as president, he will be announcing to the world that putting America First has been replaced with putting America Last.

If he does, there should be a Conservative movement to demand Joe, Kamala, their families, White House operations, etc, stop using fossil fuels 100%.

Read: Paris Climate Agreement Puts America Last »

Posted in Global Warming, Joe Biden | Comments Off on Paris Climate Agreement Puts America Last | Trackback URL

Sky Tram To Reduce Traffic Congestion In Lost Angeles Runs Into Opposition

By William Teach November 27, 2020 – 7:09 am

Have you ever noticed that climate cultists never seem particularly happy when things are done in the areas they live and that impact themselves? And that they always have Excuses?

Proposed aerial tram for Dodger fans ignites controversy at Los Angeles State Historic Park

To the average visitor, the Los Angeles State Historic Park looks to be an urban oasis — a serene expanse of rolling grass and shady glens tucked between Chinatown and the Los Angeles River.

But the park’s assorted picnickers, joggers and children flying kits belie a long history of conflict, one that continues to this day.

The park, which opened on Earth Day 2017, is just a few blocks from the site where hundreds of white rioters killed 19 Chinese men and boys on Oct. 24, 1871. And just to the north, developers and city officials forced more than a thousand mostly Latino families from Chavez Ravine in the 1950s to build the stadium where the Dodgers now play. (snip)

Now, a company funded by former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt has proposed a $125-million electric aerial gondola system to ferry baseball fans and concert goers from Union Station over the park to Dodger Stadium — and community activists have weighed in with a barrage of concerns.

“This park is a tribute not just to the historic struggle that created it but to the communities that continue to fight for it,” said Jon Christensen, an environmental historian at UCLA.

I’m betting that only, at most, 1% of the people who use the park even know these things. Community activist = nosy neighbors getting involved in everything and causing problems.

Standing on a pedestrian bridge in the park with panoramic views of the L.A. skyline, she wagged a finger in disapproval and said, “We don’t want gondolas in this park. People come here to enjoy nature, open space and fly kites high up in the sky.”

I understand the point, but

The project currently envisions two competing proposals: the southern Broadway alignment and the Spring Street alignment. Both would encroach upon and cross portions of the park with a passenger tower, stanchions, aerial cables and gondola cars able to whisk some 5,500 people per hour from Union Station to the stadium in about seven minutes, the developer said. Proponents say it will help reduce traffic and improve air quality.

In other words, this would decrease carbon pollution in Los Angeles, and there would be less traffic and vehicle pollutants in the same area these people live in. Warmists shoudl support that, right? Oh, right, NIMBY.

But opponents worry the project could transform the surrounding working-class neighborhoods into a commercial center festooned with corporate advertising. The area, after all, is already struggling to contain gentrification triggered by creation of the park on what had been an abandoned downtown rail yard.

Or, the area could take advantage and look to capitalize on this themselves. The gondolas are for going to and from Dodgers Stadium. It’s not like they are going downtown. Gentrification is just a buzz phrase to attempt to dupe minorities. Anyhow, this should be forced upon the people, so they understand exactly how the Cult of Climastrology operates.

Read: Sky Tram To Reduce Traffic Congestion In Lost Angeles Runs Into Opposition »

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

NY Times: Why, Yes, The Supreme Court’s Decision Does Put The First Amendment First

By William Teach November 27, 2020 – 6:55 am

Let’s not forget, the Constitution is really laying out what the specific duties of  the federal government are, and why lines they may not cross. The 1st Amendment lays out more of what the Government may not do. There was no exception because people were eating bats in a wet market in China (or, more likely, screwing around with diseases in a poorly secured facility)

Cuomo Attacks Supreme Court, but Virus Ruling Is Warning to Governors

As the coronavirus pandemic has deepened and darkened in recent months, the nation’s governors have taken increasingly aggressive steps to curb the current surge of infections, with renewed and expanded restrictions reaching into people’s homes, businesses, schools and places of worship.

Many of these rules, often enacted by Democratic officials and enforced through curfews, closures and capacity limits, have been resisted by some members of the public, but largely upheld by the courts.

Late Wednesday night, though, the U.S. Supreme Court forcefully entered the arena, signaling that it was willing to impose new constraints on executive and emergency orders during the pandemic, at least where constitutional rights are affected.

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down an order by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo that had restricted the size of religious gatherings in certain areas of New York where infection rates were climbing. The governor had imposed 10- and 25-person capacity limits on churches and other houses of worship in those areas.

New restraints? No. Old freedoms for The People.

The decision seemed to signal that some governmental efforts to stem the pandemic had overreached, impinging on protected freedoms in the name of public health. If unconstrained religious observance and public safety were sometimes at odds, as the governor and other public officials maintained, the court ruled that religious freedom should win out.

As it should be. The federal Constitution and NY state constitution do not discuss saving people from making bad decisions. Even decisions that could lead to their deaths. We don’t stop them from climbing mountains or smoking or drinking (well, have to be of age for last two). We don’t make them have some sort of contraption to keep them from falling while taking a shower. I bet you’re thinking of lots of examples right now. We do stop the Government from interfering with our 1st Amendment Rights, though.

Mr. Cuomo accused the court of partisanship, suggesting the ruling reflected the influence of the three conservative justices who have been nominated by President Trump in the past four years.

“You have a different court, and I think that was the statement that the court was making,” Mr. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, said on Thursday. “We know who he appointed to the court. We know their ideology.”

Hey, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Perhaps, though, Cuomo should take a gander at his own Constitution (though, the Progressives did manage to modify Article I Section 3 to perhaps allow these offenses against religion).

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted in a dissenting opinion that none of the governor’s most strict restrictions were currently in force. While the governor’s capacity limits on houses of worship might have violated the First Amendment, Justice Roberts wrote that it was not necessary for the court “to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time.”

“The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not,” Justice Roberts wrote, saying it is “a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials.”

But of course Roberts took this road. One of the worst picks for the court by a Republican ever. A real Conservative would have backstopped the Rights of citizens 100%

Critics of the court’s decision contended that Mr. Cuomo’s actions had not infringed on religious freedom and that the Supreme Court’s ruling could have dangerous public health consequences.

“The freedom to worship is one of our most cherished fundamental rights, but it does not include a license to harm others or endanger public health,” said Daniel Mach, the director for the American Civil Liberties Union’s freedom of religion and belief program.

Actually, it does. Because, let’s say I have chicken pox as a kid, and you decide to be near me to get it so that you will become immune, that’s on us. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give Government permission to abrogate our Rights for Reasons.

Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, an ultra-Orthodox umbrella group which had also sued to overturn the rules, called the decision historic, saying it “will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts.”

Exactly. I’m betting the Court might have been a little more caring of Cuomo’s point of view had he not allowed all the violent protests and such.

Read: NY Times: Why, Yes, The Supreme Court’s Decision Does Put The First Amendment First »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Bat Soup Virus, Constitution | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 26, 2020 – 1:45 pm

…is a horrible fatty cupcake causing obesity which is bad for climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on certification being halted in Pennsylvania with proof of fraud.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Happy Thanksgiving (sticky for day)

By William Teach November 26, 2020 – 8:26 am

I want to wish all the folks who frequent Pirate’s Cove, as well as my blog friends out there, a wonderful Thanksgiving. Y’all, regardless of political identification, make it all worthwhile.

Read: Happy Thanksgiving (sticky for day) »

Posted in Holidays | 17 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove