Politically Active Celebrities perform for People with Records of Human Rights Abuses

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

The biggest names in the entertainment community are mostly liberals.  Why?  Because they are more enlightened than most, of course.  Liberals revel in being smarter and more informed than those knuckle-dragging Neanderthal Republicans.  Who are just so stupid.  As anyone is who votes for them.  Yet these smart people are often surprised to learn that something they did wasn’t all that smart (see Lopez sings ‘Happy Birthday’ to Turkmenistan head by Nekesa Mumbi Moody posted 6/30/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Jennifer Lopez sang “Happy Birthday” to the leader of Turkmenistan during a show, but her representative said she wouldn’t have performed there at all if she had known there were human rights issues in the country…

Lopez’s publicist says the event was vetted by Lopez’s staff: “Had there been knowledge of human rights issues any kind, Jennifer would not have attended…”

In 2011, Oscar-winning actress Hilary Swank profusely apologized after attending a birthday party for Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who had been accused of torture and killings; she said she didn’t have a full understanding of the event.

Beyonce, Nelly Furtado, 50 Cent, Mariah Carey and Usher were paid handsomely to perform at parties linked to the late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. All later announced plans to donate their performance fees to charity and said they hadn’t known the leader was connected to terrorism.

Granted, most Americans probably could not find Turkmenistan on a map.  But they should know that it’s one of those former Soviet republics in central Asia.  The crossroads of ancient history.  And beyond.  Thousands of years of history.  And thousands of years of past wrongs to right.  Because of this some of these former Soviet republics don’t exactly have stellar human rights records.  Staunch advocates of human rights (as most of the entertainment elite are) should know that there is some bad stuff happening in the area.  And should at least look up the country they’re going to on Wikipedia.

Chechnya is a hotbed of Islamist activity.  And one of the more brutal places in the world.  Islamist separatist militants fighting for a free Chechnya occupied a Beslan school in a hostage crisis in 2004.  Ending in the death of 186 children.  Chechen Islamists also were responsible for the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis.  With the demand that the Russians leave Chechnya.  That ended with the Russians pumping in some gas into the theater to subdue the terrorists.  Which it did.  But the gas also killed about 128 of the hostages.  Incidentally, the Boston Marathon bombers had a Chechnya connection, too.  The fighting in the area can be brutal.  And the human rights can be lacking.

How anyone cannot know that Moammar Gadhafi was a sponsor of terrorism is beyond me.  One of the greatest acts of terrorism was the Libyan sponsored bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland.  Which was in retaliation for Ronald Reagan bombing Libya.  Which he did in response to Libya’s bombing of a German discotheque frequented by American service men.  Gadhafi was a thorn in the America’s side during the Eighties.  And he was still sponsoring terrorism until he renounced terrorism after George W. Bush invaded Iraq following 9/11.  He was right up there with Saddam Hussein and the State of Iran when it comes to America’s greatest enemies.  Yet these people had no idea he was connected to terrorism.

These are not the most informed people in the world.  Yet they are treated as if they are.  And when they make a political endorsement people will listen to them.  Even if they have no idea what’s going on in the world of foreign policy.  But they will tell people who to vote for to run the nation’s foreign policy.  And the sad thing is that these people probably don’t understand economics any better than they understand foreign policy.  Yet they are making political endorsements.  Which people are listening to.  Because they sound so enlightened and smart.  And nothing at all like those knuckle-dragging Neanderthal Republicans.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Europeans are moving away from Green Energy as President Obama moves toward Green Energy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Europe had gone all in on the green energy bandwagon.  To save the world from catastrophic climate change brought about by manmade global warming.  But they paid a price.  They have increased the cost of electric power.  Which increased the cost of manufacturing.  Making them less competitive on the world markets.  Resulting in anemic economic growth.  And a sovereign debt crisis as tax revenues fell.

Their journey into green energy has been an unmitigated disaster.  They are now reversing course.  And climate change be damned.  If there ever was a problem to begin with.  For let’s face, what good did all of Europe’s green energy efforts do anyway?  The climate doomsayers are still warning us that we must act now before it’s too late.  So apparently whatever the Europeans did had no impact on the climate.  Only their economies (see Europe exits climate money pit as Obama jumps in by RON ARNOLD posted 6/27/2013 on the Washington Examiner).

Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told me, “The centerpiece of President Obama’s climate plan is a declaration of all-out war on coal. The only affordable way to reduce emissions from existing coal-fired power plants – which now provide 40 percent of the nation’s electricity – is to close them down…”

Ebell added that “Obama is pursuing his anti-energy agenda undemocratically through executive actions that bypass the people’s elected representatives in Congress.”

Autocrat Obama is also doing it without learning from the European Union’s green energy experience: skyrocketing energy prices, a ruinous slide into fuel poverty, solar panel financial meltdown, wind power bankruptcies and the specter of EU disintegration. As a result, the EU suffered an outbreak of realism.

In May, Europe’s heads of state and government at the EU Summit promoted shale gas and reduced energy prices. They would rather promote competition than stop global warming.

Obama just returned from Northern Ireland at the G8 meeting where he evidently didn’t ask why the United Kingdom removed climate change from the agenda.

European carbon markets had collapsed with the price of carbon hitting record lows, wrecking the European Union’s trading scheme for industrial CO2 emissions.

British Gas owner Centrica was buying up shale gas drilling rights in Lancashire for fracking operations. Green investors faced bankruptcy as Spain cut subsidies even further.

Large German companies such as Siemens and Bosch abandoned the solar industry, which had lost them billions, while investments in failed solar companies, including Q-Cells and SolarWorld, destroyed 21 billion euros of capital.

In response, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a June energy conference in Berlin to expect reduced government spending on energy like wind and solar power to keep Germany economically competitive. Europe’s clean energy economy had become a black hole eating euros.

The United Kingdom is struggling to maintain their National Health Service (NHS) under the pressures of an aging population.  Fewer people are entering the workforce to pay taxes to fund the NHS.  While more people are leaving the workforce and consuming more and more NHS resources as they live longer into retirement than ever before.  A clarion call for anyone considering moving in the direction of a national health care system that also has an aging population.  Yet that is exactly what president Obama did during his first two years in office while the nation was suffering in the worst recession since the Great Depression.  Instead of cutting taxes to put people back to work he put into place massive tax hikes coming our way to fund Obamacare.  Learning nothing from the British.

Now he has an entire continent showing how wrong it is to pursue green energy.  And what does he do?  Ignores the Europeans completely and plunges headlong into the same foolish mistake they made.  Instead of cutting taxes to help put Americans back to work in the worst recovery since that following the Great Depression he plans on raising taxes on energy producers.  To fund green energy.  While increasing regulatory costs on good, dependable coal-fired power plants.  Which will increase the cost of electric power.  As well as the cost of doing business.  Not to mention the higher electric bills coming our way because of his desire to follow the Europeans down the dead-end road of Green Energy.

It’s as if the president is doing everything within his power to destroy the American economy.  Or he is completely clueless on how economies work.  He went to Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.  So either these institutions are clueless on how economies work.  Or President Obama is purposely trying to destroy the American economy.  For someone or some institution is responsible for the president’s horrible economic policies.  They didn’t just happen.  There must be a method to this madness.  At least a reason for it.  Some reason for turning us into a failed European social democracy.

Of course, many believe that is the reason.  To turn us into a European social democracy.  To transform the country from the free market capitalism of the Founding Fathers into something closer to the state socialism favored by such anti-capitalists like Karl Marx.  Those on the left ridicule any such claims.  But Obamacare and this new Green Energy policy sure have more in common with socialism than capitalism.  As does the present anemic economy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Scientists’ predict Climate Crisis after Studying 19 Years of the 4.5 Billion Year Climate Record

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

The earth is, what, 4.5 billion years old?  And climate ‘scientists’ can look at a 19-year snapshot of data and know everything that is going on with climate?  That 19-year snapshot represents only 0.00000042% of the earth’s total climate picture.  That’s a small percentage.  Very small.  Much, much smaller than 1%.  Statistically speaking it’s meaningless.  Yet by this 19-year snapshot today’s climate ‘scientists’ know all when it comes to climate (see Greenland, Antarctica ice melt speeding up, study finds by Matt Smith posted 11/29/2012 on CNN).

Two decades of satellite readings back up what dramatic pictures have suggested in recent years: The mile-thick ice sheets that cover Greenland and most of Antarctica are melting at a faster rate in a warming world…

The net loss of billions of tons of ice a year added about 11 millimeters — seven-sixteenths of an inch — to global average sea levels between 1992 and 2011, about 20% of the increase during that time, those researchers reported…

Long-term climate change fueled by a buildup of atmospheric carbon emissions is a controversial notion politically, but it’s one accepted as fact by most scientists. Previous estimates of how much the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contributed to the current 3 millimeter-per-year rise in sea levels have varied widely, and the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change left the question open.

While the 19-year average worked out to about 20% of the rise of the oceans, “for recent years it goes up to about 30 or 40%,” said Michiel van den Broeke, a professor of polar meteorology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. The rest comes from thermal expansion — warmer water takes up more space.

So in other words, 80% of the rise in sea levels has nothing to do with melting ice sheets.  Yet they predict doom and gloom that global warming will melt these glaciers and raise sea levels and wash away all of our coastal communities.  So global warming may be melting the ice sheets.  But not much.  Surely not as much as they melted after the ice ages.  When some glaciers retreated from nearly the equator back towards the poles.  And that happened before manmade activities began releasing carbon into the atmosphere.  Meaning that ice sheets melted far more before any manmade global warming.  But when your data sample looks only at 0.00000042% of the climate record you’re likely to miss significant things like this.

They concluded that Greenland and two of the three ice sheets that cover Antarctica have lost an estimated 237 billion metric tons, give or take a few billion, in the past 19 years. The ice sheet that covers eastern Antarctica grew, but only by about 14 billion tons — not nearly enough to offset the losses from the layer that covers the western portion of the continent and the Antarctic Peninsula.

They call it global warming.  Not warming in small pockets of geographic areas.  For if the warming was only in small pockets there would be no global warming.  No coming cataclysmic global climate disaster.  And nothing to worry about.  But if global warming is truly global then the warming would be uniform.  Global.  And surely equal throughout a small geographic region like Antarctica.

Okay, so they put the fear of God in us that the world will end if we don’t act within the next 5 minutes.  Okay.  So tell us, how much time do we have?

Don’t panic: At the current rate, it would take between 3,000 and 7,000 years for those regions to become ice-free, said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington…

In July, researchers watched as a stretch of unusually warm temperatures melted nearly the entire surface of the Greenland ice sheet…

“Any model that someone would use to predict sea level rise is only really as good as the data that goes into it,” Shepherd said. “And the fact that our data is twice or three times as reliable as the most recent overarching assessment has to give some weight to improving the value of those model predictions in the future…”

“Right now, all of that is very complicated stuff, and we’re not at the point where all of that is integrated into the models we have now,” Schmidt said.

Really?  They look at a 19-year snapshot and can predict 7,000 years out?  Even though it’s complicated stuff?  I suppose that would be easy once you assume in your model that everything in the world will continue as they have during that 19-year snapshot.  Of course that would make it hard to explain how the glaciers retreated from near the equator all the way back to the poles a few times following the ice ages.  Ah, they probably just consider that a statistical anomaly.  Despite there being 5 major ice ages so far.  That lasted in the tens of millions of years.  Some even lasted in the hundreds of millions of years.  And according to the climate ‘scientists’ another one was right around the corner from the Seventies.  Before, of course, they changed their minds and started warning us about global warming.  Which was a lot more fun.  Because you couldn’t enact a lot of environmental regulations on business to stop the cooling.  But you can make an argument for environmental regulations to stop the warming.  Which is why they’re sticking to the warming.  Because it’s a lot more fun.

Interestingly, between these ice ages the earth may have been ice free.  Meaning that the ice sheets they’re wringing their hands over may not have existed during other interglacial periods.  Again, those ice-free times were BEFORE any manmade greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere.

It’s bad science that only looks at a 19-year snapshot of data.  Especially when other scientists have found a cyclical warming and cooling of sea surface temperatures every 20-30 years.  Something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Perhaps this is why they looked at 19 years of data.  To keep their models predicting what they want to find.  Not what actually may be happening.  And something like the PDO could really throw a wrench in things.  Which is why much climate science is not science.  It’s politically motivated.  Where ‘scientists’ are funded by governments.  And these scientists conclude what these governments want them to conclude.  So they will keep funding them.  For after all, if they found there was no manmade global warming what would these scientists do for a paycheck?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Alec Baldwin apologizes for his Gay Slur tweeted in the Heat of the Moment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife.  With a few women.  Even with (at least) one in the White House.  But he is still loved by the left.  Especially the ladies.  Because Bill Clinton says he is a feminist.  Someone who doesn’t objectify or sexualize women.  Even though a string of infidelities would suggest otherwise.  But that doesn’t matter.  For if you act like a feminist most of the time you can get away with some very bad behavior some of the time.  That’s a big perk about being a liberal.  You can get away with a lot.  All you have to do is say you’re sorry (see Alec Baldwin apologizes to NY gay group for tweets by Associated Press posted 6/28/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Alec Baldwin has apologized to a New York City-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights group for a series of tweets that could be interpreted as homophobic.

Baldwin’s messages were directed at a newspaper reporter who accused his wife of tweeting during the funeral for the former star of “The Sopranos” James Gandolfini (gan-dahl-FEE’-nee). Baldwin says in a letter to GLAAD posted on its website Friday his tweets didn’t have anything to do with “issues of anyone’s sexual orientation.”

According to CBS News he called the reporter a “queen.”  In order to insult him.  For many men will insult another man by calling him a homosexual.  Because of all that testosterone coursing through their bodies.  Making some of these men wear their shirts open to show all that crispy chest hair.  And date women young enough to be their daughters.  Or even their granddaughters.  Because these manly men have so much heterosexual charms that they can get these young women.  While other men who aren’t as sexy as them walking on a European beach with their bellies hanging over their Speedo swimsuits might as well give it up and be a “queen.”  The ultimate insult a manly man with a young wife can hurl at another man.  For they are so hetero that they can get the young hottie as these ladies just can’t resist that crispy chest hair.  Or that glorious belly.  While these beautiful young women stay away from these other men as if they were “queens,” seeing them as so sexually unappealing that they can’t even imagine them pleasuring a woman.

So men hurl gay slurs at their friends.  For this is how men joke around with other men.  They insult each other.  And being called a “queen” impugns that they cannot satisfy a lady.  The greatest insult of all.  Throw in a few drinks and these can become fighting words.  For men are very sensitive about their bedroom skills.  And know that other men are, too.  So the gay slur is often the go to insult.

The men who use the gay slur may not be homophobic.  But they don’t want anything to do with that lifestyle.  As they are all about rocking their woman’s world in the bedroom.  And making sure that others know just how much of a swaggering stud they are.  Especially when their woman is much younger than they are.

Most times these gay slurs are harmless.  Because they aren’t directed at gay people.  And are not meant to attack gay people.  They’re used most times among friends.  And soon to be ex-friends.  But if someone on the right uses one they are accused of a hate crime.  While those on the left just have to say, “Sorry.”  And all is forgiven.

The left will attack anyone on the right for a momentary slip of the tongue.  Saying it is a sign of deeply held bigoted hateful views.  Even if it was something they said 20 years earlier.  But if a liberal has a momentary slip of the tongue it is NOT a sign of deeply held bigoted hateful views.  But it does make one wonder what a person really thinks when they go to a gay slur in the heat of the moment.  Not jokingly hurling the gay slur at a friend.  But at someone that fills them with a deep seething hatred.  Is he just going through the motions of being a good liberal?  Just so he can avoid being attacked for very bad behavior some of the time?  Who knows?  But one thing for sure if you don’t want to be held to a high standard every time you stick your foot in your mouth it is better to be a liberal.

It’s a pity that the left can’t be so forgiving to those on the right suffering from foot-in-mouth disease.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The IRS targeted 100% of Conservative Groups filing for Tax Exempt Status but only 30% of Progressive Groups

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Many were shocked that President Obama won reelection.  What with the horrible economy.  And the Benghazi scandal.  But what was even more shocking was why Mitt Romney lost.  And it wasn’t because of the Hispanic vote.  It was because conservatives sat at home on election night.  Instead of voting.  Baffling many.  Especially with the huge conservative turnout during the 2010 midterm elections.  Thanks to the Tea Party movement.  Which seemed strangely quiet during the 2012 campaign.  Now we know why they were quiet during that election.  Because the IRS was actively silencing their voice.

Whoa, whoa, said the Democrats.  Now hold on a minute.  The IRS is politically neutral.  And the fact that 95% of the policy-makers at the IRS donated to the Obama campaign doesn’t make the IRS politically biased.  Besides, progressive groups were targeted just as much as conservative groups.  So there.  Of course, the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration begs to differ (see Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups by PAUL BEDARD posted 6/27/2013 on the Washington Examiner).

Refuting Democratic suggestions that progressive groups were also swept up in the IRS probe of the tax status of Tea Party organizations, the Treasury Department’s inspector general has revealed that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups.

In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.

The Wednesday letter to the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee punched a huge hole in Democratic claims that progressive groups were targeted as much as the Tea Party groups from May 2010-May 2012, the height of the Tea Party movement.

The letter from the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed that there just weren’t many progressive groups who even sought special tax exempt status. A total of 20 sought it, and six were probed. All 292 Tea Party groups, meanwhile, were part of the IRS witchhunt.

Well, well, well.   The IRS influenced the 2012 election by suppressing the Tea Party’s ability to raise money to pay for political ads.  As some in the Tea Party suffered onerous IRS audits in response for their tax-exempt status request.  While others wanted to avoid an onerous IRS audit.  By keeping their name off of any Tea Party fundraiser list.  Resulting with a subdued Tea Party voice in the 2012 election.  Allowing the IRS to prevent a repeat of the 2010 midterm election.  By abusing the power of their office.  And getting the man they supported with donations 95% of the time return to office for a second term.  But the IRS isn’t politically motivated.  For they are politically neutral.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,