Reader Tips

Richard Fernandez looks at environmentalists' long-term track record when it comes to predictions.

Excerpts:

Time after time the environmentalists called out a result like a wannabee Babe Ruth. Time after time they struck out, their credibility saved only by the media’s inability to keep score and inexplicable tendency to give them one more turn at bat.

Later,

The worst thing about political crusades is that they manufacture “facts”. That is to say they mass-produce lies. As a now-skeptical environmentalist Fritz Varenholt noted, movements to save the world tend to force the data into the narrative.

The whole thing here.

"YouTube has joined a growing list of social media companies who think that forcing users to use their real names will make comment sections less of a trolling wasteland…"

Phoenix Woman Ordered to Not Give Out Water in 112 Degree Heat Because She Lacked a Permit

(From Jim Treacher's twitter.)

Also, check out the faked horrific anti-gay hate crime article linked at the above page.

We can only speculate at this point:

The film director was seen parking his car and jumping - "without hesitation," according to witnesses - from the Vincent Thomas suspension bridge at about 12:30 (19:30 GMT) on Sunday…..The death is being treated as a probable suicide…

@ EBD re your 1st post...."The political trends which have ruined California for example and which on a wider scale threaten the Western world had their roots in good intentions. "
Good article until he made this stupid comment. The only good intentions a politico has in mind are his own.

Re: Shootout in Chinatown:

Good song!

Reminds me of the movie: Once Upon a Time in America."

But Justhinkin (11:15), he didn't say "The politicos who have ruined California…have good intentions", he said "The political trends which have ruined California…had their roots in good intentions."

I think he's right. The (non-activist, and largely non-politically-minded) people I've met who support every idea that has anything to do with looking after other people or the planet typically do have good intentions, in a "feeling" way; they're just not thinking through, or paying any attention to what the consequences are writ large.

Local muslims up in arms! Facebook entry says man wants to use Carl Gustaf on mosque. But local newspaper i.d.'s local police spokesperson as person who made remarks - read the comments section. Photo on website removed, but printed version of story shows the cops photo. Hope cop carries his back-up at all times for future jihadis.

Muslim spokes person for mosque equates facebook entry with shooting of Sikhs, hate crimes against Jews, Christians:

"I don't want to say people are taking potshots at Muslims only. It's not just Muslim places that are being abused. Synagogues are sprayed with graffiti.

Stones are thrown at Sikh temples. Sometimes, it is my Jewish brothers. Sometimes, my Christian brothers."

http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Suspension+follows+Facebook+comments/7120663/story.html

Right...

From the truth is stranger than fiction file:
Holder Justice Department Recruits Dwarfs, Schizophrenics and the “Intellectually Disabled”
Link is:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/21/justice-department-recruits-dwarfs/

This hiring policy likely goes a long way towards explaining operations such as fast and furious and other imbecilic things the "justice" department has done. Likely Holder's IQ score is as closely guarded a secret as Obozo's university transcripts.

National Post, Wednesday, Aug. 15. A group of tobacco farmers launched a class-action lawsuit that accuses governments of turning a blind eye to cigarette smuggling by First Nations, but a judge has put the kibosh on it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/15/court-dismisses-tobacco-farmers-500m-lawsuit-against-governments-over-illegal-cigarettes/

"'If a private law duty of care exists in this case, where does it end? It seems to me that the government [would be] exposed to the risk of suit by anyone disadvantaged by any decision made under a regulatory or taxing statute.'" [said Judge Duncan Grace]

This is why governments should keep their activities to a minimum, protecting individual rights. They should not be in the business of "disadvantaging" anyone.

The decision is similar to the 2001 Supreme Court ruling in Cooper vs. Hobart, which ruled that regulators do not have a "duty of care" to the regulated, and therefore government officials cannot be held responsible for their own incompetence, laziness or malfeasance. The issue then becomes, if regulations are supposed to be for the public benefit, if we can't trust government to enforce them properly, what is the point? Especially considering the 2008 ruling St. Lawrence Cement, which said that a polluter can be held responsible despite being in compliance with regulations. Combined, these two rulings mean that regulations are worthless and unnecessary.

"Ronald Slaght, who represented the Department of National Revenue in the case, argued governments cannot be expected to universally enforce every aspect of every law."

"'There aren’t unlimited resources to do everything in government, so there has to be a balance,' he said. 'There is no policy of abandonment of [tobacco-tax] enforcement, but it is a difficult issue.'"

This is good reason to keep the number of laws on the books to the bare minimum, the important stuff, so that the peons can get on with their lives without having to worry about government interfering in their lives over every little thing.

Oh dear,this could be rather inconvenient news. But ,maybe our media will keep it covered up until Jackapalooza is over. I bet they will,they have avoided it for the last 24 hours.

" The victim of a gruesome killing and dismemberment was a 41-year-old single mother of three who owned and operated a controversial Scarborough spa, Peel police confirmed Tuesday."

http://missingwomen.blogspot.ca/2012_08_01_archive.html

Oh nv53,

That would defeat the purpose, those laws are there to keep everyone from guessing if they have broken some stupid law. Keeps them on the straight and verrry narrow, it all so gives the powers that be an easy opportunity to persecute those who pee them off.

A very fine tradition of making laws to capture people, never forget the mail fraud charges they used to get the mob back in the day. If they can't catch you for something real, they will just make it up.

I can't believe with all the yammering horror over Akins' qualifying some rapes as "legitimate rape" that no one has brought up Whoopi's "rape rape" comment on The View.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NX_D0Bv9M0

(Yes, I realize Polanski is not running for office, but still ...)

Re: EBD at August 21, 2012 10:07 PM

Allow me to make the easiest prediction in the world:

Forcing Youtube commenters to use their real names won't improve the grammar, spelling or quality of their comments much.

It's probably nothing...

Buffett Cancels Municipal-Debt Bet Five Years Early

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Buffett-Municipal-Debt-Bet/2012/08/21/id/449185

The Grey Lady @ 9:11, exactly. The aim of the left-liberal coalition is to pass enough laws that at any given time everybody is committing a crime of some sort and simply waiting to be arrested. That way they control society.

@davidsuzukifdn http://huff.to/PwsIEj Does this man know how stupid he sounds?

Sadistic, Whoopi Goldberg's defense of Roman Polanski's rape of a 13 year old, by declaring that it wasn't 'rape-rape' but merely 'statutory rape' (because the child was below the age of consent) is outrageous on its own. But, neither of them are members of the GOP. That makes a huge difference.

Akin's claim that a woman will biologically reject fertilization by rape was biologically false but his comment was about more than rape. It was about abortion and a 'woman's right to choose'. Those who are against abortion as a form of contraception, might still agree with a rape abortion.

But since the Obama gang assert that the GOP have a 'war on women', then Akin's comment fits into this theme.

What is worrisome, however, is the speed with which the Democrats grab at anything to divert attention from debating the real issues: the economy, jobs, entitlement reform, medicare reform, foreign relations, the debt. These issues are never discussed. Instead, we get the diversion and we get Obama telling us his favourite volours and foods.

Re: ET at August 22, 2012 11:30 AM

As I understand it, Akin made the distinction about "legitimate rape" because the true pro-life opponents of legalized abortion believe that a rape exception for otherwise illegal abortions would lead to routine phony claims of rape. That distinction clearly identifies Akin as an outlier on abortion policy since most "pro-life" politicians are actually "pro-personal responsibility" when it comes to abortion policy as they generally support exceptions to banning abortions for cases of rape or incest.

Akin's comments about women being able to biologically reject fertilization in cases of rape are a good lesson in why it is foolish to let one's political frustration and ideological zealotry lead one to make ridiculously unsupportable statements.

https://twitter.com/CHRISMAL0NEY/status/238283278925328384/photo/1/large

It's OHIO, not OIHO. I blame Bush

Posted by: wallyj at August 22, 2012 9:06 AM

That's not the same massage parlour that Mini Marx frequented is it?

Mini Marx? Good one. :-)

Look Akin was trying to dance around the issue here. If you've listened to interviews of him with Hanity trying to hammer him about quitting you know he's a weasel. We all know he does not support abortions even in cases of rape and that's a valid and very defensible. For example if you ban abortions except for in the case of rape you then have a situation where women must prove that the conception was not consensual in order to get an abortion. Ask a liberal how this exemption would be crafted. Go ahead come up with a way it could work.

Here's an interesting analysis of the Electoral College at Vodkapundit

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2012/08/22/wargaming-the-electoral-college-34/

nv53 @ 2:36a.m. --

Your post is astute, as it points out a substantial number of issues that ought to be of interest to conservative revolutionaries in Canada, IMO. I can think of a few (others will have more):

1. Why is it that so many examples of government hypocrisy are brought to light by folks from the rural area?

2. Did the supposed ignominy of the plaintiffs (being tobacco farmers, after all), taking a position as they did against an arguably protected minority (favoured by the media and the "chattering classes"), have any influence on the decision in the case?

3. Is not the purpose of judicial review to encourage and/or achieve equity? It does not appear that either the judge or the government representative attempted to defend government action (or inaction) on the basis that it was equitable.

4. Further to point three, what of the Charter provisions guaranteeing equal protection? Some defenders of the decision might argue, "Oh well, everybody knows that the Charter doesn't apply to corporations", which I'd guess some or all of the plaintiffs are. But why? How is paying appropriate tax a "private law duty of care", exactly? Beyond that, why are business people increasingly forced into corporate arrangements, which offer decreasing protections against public laws codifying and penalizing "private law dut[ies] of care"?

5. Does the Canadian state's writ extend to the First Nations anymore, or is the decision simply offering cover for the suspicion that it doesn't? If it doesn't, don't we need to come up with an, er, equitable solution to this mess?

6. Why do we allow some politicians and government types, at election time, to say they can do anything and everything, but when they fail, claim the defence of limited resources and capabilities?

7. Tangentially, why do we allow governments to encourage private risk in response to policy, and then escape the payment for damages in light of sudden changes in policy? Example: Ernie Eves pulled exactly this sort of legislative stunt in 2002-2003 around electricity prices in Ontario, leading to the rise of you know who...

I agree with your conclusion: fewer laws lead to more respect for laws; I'd add only that greater consequences for bad laws leads to fewer laws.

Here's an interesting little article from the Daily Rash: "Joe Biden Speaks at Michigan Mosque Wearing a Burqa" http://www.thedailyrash.com/joe-biden-speaks-at-michigan-mosque-wearing-a-burqa

Our prime Minister announced a new and huge National Park located up in the NWT.

That qualifies as good news,or it should. But not at our state broadcaster. Their headline;

" Harper leaves room for mining near North's new national park"

They are not a news organization.
FIRE.THEM.ALL.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/08/22/pol-harper-north-tour-wednesday.html

@ Laura at August 22, 2012 4:47 PM

Funny . Rumour has it he was hiding a dog under his burqa.

Speaking of hiding, I wonder if Obama and Biden will try to wear tiny hidden microphones linked to their handlers during the debates. The handlers could then provide them with the answers.

Obama has no principles; he'll do whatever it takes to win.