Monthly Archives: December 2018

Thoughts on Climate

Posted on by
Reply

George Melloan had some in a recent Wall Street Journal, and so do I.

Melloan pointed out that the hoi polloi around the world aren’t sold on the climate funding industry’s panicky wailing about atmospheric CO2 and how we have to do something—anything—give money—and how we have to do it Right Damn Now.

Never mind that

Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen posited two immense, complex and turbulent fluids—the oceans and the air in the atmosphere—are in constant reaction with each other and the land, causing what we experience as storms and temperature changes. Variations in the sun’s radiation and the rotation of the planet play parts as well. And yet, he said, climate modelers claim that only one tiny component of this enormous churning mass, CO2, controls the planet’s climate.
This borders on “magical thinking,” he said….

And

According to a NASA satellite survey, the Earth has gotten greener, thanks in large part to a rising concentration of that vital plant food CO2. That means we are able not only to feed an expanded population but give the poorest among us a more nutritious diet.

What the climatistas and their climate funding industry also carefully ignore is the so-what of their claims. Say man-caused effects are potentiating the warming of our planet.  Earth has been warming since it coalesced out of the dust cloud—because the sun has been warming since it ignited. We’re currently a few degrees colder than that geologic warming trend line, courtesy of the just concluded Ice Age; warming will only bring us back to “normal.”  When the planet was warmer than that trend line—including no northern ice cap—life was lush.  As Melloan intimated, when the atmosphere contained more CO2—plant food—than today, life was lush.

All that would happen were the climatistas’ worst panic-mongering to come true is that some humans would be inconvenienced and have to move away from the coasts and off some islands.  Nature doesn’t care very much about our convenience.

Another Schumer Shutdown?

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) told NBC News‘ Meet the Press that there would be no money for a border wall “in any form.”  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) has been saying much the same thing the last couple of weeks, but she doesn’t have the votes to block the money, and she doesn’t have the votes to become Speaker next month if she doesn’t say no this month.

But Schumer: this is the same Senator who a couple of administrations ago voted enthusiastically to fund a border wall.  This is the same Senator who earlier in this administration enthusiastically supported a DACA fix the took care of 1.8 million illegal aliens vice the 800 thousand Schumer wanted to handle and that also had $25 billion for a border wall—and then welched on the deal.  This is the same Senator who agreed earlier this year to $1.6 billion for a border wall but now says no money.

It’s clear that Senator Chuck Schumer is so desperate to oppose President Donald Trump that he’s willing to have open borders and a free flow of illegal aliens rather than see to the security of our borders—or the safety of aliens who want to and try to enter our nation legally.

Trump said he’d proudly take the blame for any government shutdown over the matter, but the responsibility plainly will be that of the automatic obstructionist.  After all, Democrats…aren’t eager to help the Republican president fulfill his signature campaign pledge in 2016….

Go figure.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

Alphabet’s Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, testified before the House Judiciary Committee last Tuesday, and he declined to justify his company’s decision to use the Southern Poverty Law Center as what the company calls a “trusted flagger,” a facility whereby these Trusted Ones can identify speech of which they personally disapprove as hate speech and thereby have it censored from Google’s products.  Pichai also was unable to explain why Google predominantly censored Conservative speech.  This prompted Congressman Louie Gohmert (R, TX) to take official notice of Pichai’s own bias.

You’re so surrounded by liberality that hates conservatism, hates people that really love our Constitution and the freedom it’s afforded people like you, that you don’t even recognize it.  It’s like a blind man not even knowing what light looks like, because you’re surrounded by darkness.

Sadly, the same can be said of Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and his management team and of Facebook’s Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg; Director, Ads, Business Integrity Rob Leathern; and the rest of Zuckerberg’s management team, as well.

Not Throwing a Party is Exclusionary

Posted on by
Reply

According to Howard Kurtz, self-styled news media “critic,” not having a party for members of the NLMSM is exclusionary.  President Donald Trump has decided not to throw a White House holiday party for the media this year.

the president’s decision to exclude the media establishment, at least for this year.

There it is, right from the jump.  Not having a big, expensive party is exclusionary.  Right up there with the actual bigotry of excluding blacks, or women, or… from access to a government facility or public business.

It gets really petty, too: not having this party is particularly terrible, Kurtz says.

The annual Christmas-season gathering was a significant perk for those covering the White House….

But it’s terrible that this perk won’t happen this year.

Journalists who attended the events, which featured a catered buffet of lamb chops, crab claws and elaborate desserts, got to roam the decorated mansion with a spouse or other family member, a friend or a colleague, adding to the invitation’s allure.

But it’s terrible that this right perk won’t be granted this year.

But the biggest fringe-benefit was the picture-taking sessions, in which the president and first lady would patiently pose with guests…copies of which were invariably sent home to mom.

Now Mom is being left out.  Heinous.

Aside from Kurtz’ whining over not getting his shiny, glittering toy this year, he gave his game away with his spin on his claimed motive for Trump’s decision.

President Trump has canceled the White House holiday party…a victim of his increasingly contentious relationship with major news organizations.

Here’s Kurtz insisting that it couldn’t possibly be because of the press’ increasingly contentious relationship with the President and First Lady—a hostility that the NLMSM has evinced in full throat from the very beginning of the Republican primaries.

How precious, how childish, can the NLMSM get?

Taxing Speech

Posted on by
Reply

California has decided to kill two birds with one stone.  The State thinks it needs more money, so it’s going to raise a new tax.  The State is anxious to…manage…speech of which it disapproves, so it has chosen its target for its new tax.

California state regulators have been working on a plan to charge mobile phone users a text messaging fee intended to fund programs that make phone service accessible to the low-income residents, reports said Tuesday.

Here’s Jim Wunderman, Bay Area Council President, on the plot, though:

It’s a dumb idea. This is how conversations take place in this day and age, and it’s almost like saying there should be a tax on the conversations we have.

Wunderman understated the problem.  It’s not just a dumb idea, it works out to a naked attack by Government on its citizens’—its employers’—speech.

In the event, when the FCC decided to designate texting to be  an “information service,” and not a telecommunications service, the State decided to withdraw its proposal to tax it.  The State rationalized it decision by claiming “text messaging was not a classified service under federal law.”

However.

The FCC’s designation is a quibble that’s meaningless in this context. Taxing speech directly is the beginning of an effort to manage permissible speech by artificially driving up the cost of it.  The medium used for making speech–a “telecommunications service,” for instance–is just as critical to the freedom of speech as are the utterances themselves. Taxing the service is an opening toward managing speech indirectly by artificially driving up the cost of using a medium for speaking.

Beyond that, the State’s excuse that text messaging hadn’t yet been designated is disingenuous. Not every activity in which an American citizen engages needs Government designation in order to be engaged.  Only those activities to be explicitly proscribed or managed need designation.  That’s at the core of our founding principles of limited government that works for us and of individual liberty and individual responsibility.

As a result, questions arise concerning this Progressive-Democrat- run State’s move to use taxes to manage speech.

What other forms of speech will California try to tax?

Whose forms of speech will California try to tax?

What can we expect regarding speech–and any other individual liberty and responsibility–can we expect a Progressive-Democrat national government to attempt?  Especially in their universe of “you didn’t build that,” and “we’re a collectivist society in which it takes a village to most anything?”