May 30, 2015

Anti-Liberty Democrats FUC-ing California [Darleen Click]

For a brief few months at the end of last year, I thoroughly enjoyed paying around $2.50 per gallon of gas.

Currently, local prices in the Inland Empire of So Cal are hovering around $3.80. In Los Angeles, it is over $4. We have the highest priced gas in the nation by more than $1/gal.

And it isn’t just about our “summer blend” or that our Watermelon Greens have made sure our refining capacity has never expanded, it is that the excuse of Global Warming has allowed Democrats and Jerry Brown to punish people for the crime of owning their own transportation.


To get a feel for the government-induced gasoline price spikes on the horizon, a recent remark from California Air Resources Board (CARB) chair Mary Nichols is revealing. In a 2013 magazine article, referring to carbon permit pricing, she wrote:

“Although $70 is likely to motivate large changes in electricity generation, the effect will be far less for transportation, where $70 per ton translates into $0.70 per gallon of gasoline. That is not enough to motivate oil companies to switch to alternative fuels or to induce consumers to significantly reduce their oil consumption, but it is still important to establish the principle of placing a price on carbon.” [Emphasis ours.]

That’s right, even a 70¢ gal. punishment for motorists is not adequate according to the state’s air czar. This, after polls have shown that a majority of motorists would not pay 1¢ more for gasoline in order to reduce “global warming”. Just 18% of motorists were willing to pay 50¢ more to reduce global warming. […]

Is California’s price at least 60¢ higher due to its global warming law? Herein we track the state’s still-growing price penalty, the stratified wholesale price climbs behind it, and reveal how two government permit programs — the low carbon fuel standard and the FUC fee — to enact the Golden State’s global warming law are clobbering refiners, marketers, retailers, and consumers.

California’s pump prices recently shot up more than double what the nation’s did, caused in part by its new structured-in costs designed to damage gasoline demand. But it would take a retail price above $13.00 gal. to do what the governor wants, we calculate. The latest California gasoline price surge has refiners reeling and industry watchdog outfits calling for their heads, with retailers caught in the crossfire of angry consumers.

Sadly, the joke is on consumer advocates accusing Big Oil: Consumers, not refiners, are the main target of warming regs.

AB32 hasn’t just created a cudgel for authoritarian Democrats to nudge shove the hoi polloi they hold in contempt around — defining for them how they should eat, what housing they should live in, what vacations they should take and, of course, be punished each time they use their own cars — but created a huge slush fund and allowed an explosion in government employees.

The collection of funds from AB32 is already huge. So huge that new avenues for assignment of the funds are cropping up like weeds. Last year’s state budget earmarked 35% or $130-million of “global warming” funds for affordable housing. Governor Brown’s budget proposal would add $400-million for housing projects. Nearly all of the nearly $200-million spent on the state’s “bullet train” project has come from the cap-&-trade and FUC fees.

One state politician put it this way, that matching the “warming” funds to the state’s needs is the art of good government. Each year, some 40% of cap-&-trade income is unassigned, with lines forming to request money; Brown wants some of it for anti-drought programs, such as for rebates to consumers buying dishwashers with lower water use.

The state Chamber of Commerce is suing on the basis that the program is an illegal tax. While cap-&-trade applies to myriad carbon emitters who are forced to buy permits, gasoline consumers ALONE will shell out $1.5-billion in 2015 to satisfy the FUC fee.

In addition to slashed gasoline demand and artificially exploding gasoline prices, the apparatus for study, administration, and enforcement of the California fuel price-rationing scheme will have to be fed. The building of applicable state agencies has been increasing monumentally.

As the page 8 graph shows, the budgets of both the California Energy Commission and the California Air Resources Board have exploded since 1998. Combined, they swelled from $239-million in 1998 to $1.2-billion last year. This is an expansion of more than 400%. If these two groups were funded solely by gasoline taxes, it would require 8¢ gal. to satisfy their ravenous budgets.

These two outfits are bent on pursuing the goal of putting California’s petroleum industry — producers, refiners, jobbers, and retailers — out of business. This is to serve the objective of protecting the public. Officials believe that motorists, consumers of cement products, and much else, need to have the cost of supplying hydrocarbons or goods made by the use of them rise so spectacularly that demand for them is stricken.

The belief that AB32 and other extreme reduction of natural resource programs is to guide industry into doing the right thing (charging more and more for products), fondly held by anti-petroleum groups and even by naïve petroleum industry participants, fails to appreciate that the mission is to punish consumers into not consuming.

Thanks to AB32 and preceding diktats, CARB’s 2015 operating budget is $736-million.

As goes California, so goes the rest of the nation. Don’t believe for one second that Democrats around the country aren’t looking with lust at what is happening in California. No less than Obama stood before a branch of our military and said the greatest threat to our country was …

Climate Change.

Democrats would love to FUC the whole country.

Posted by Darleen @ 9:31am
2 comments | Trackback

May 29, 2015

“We know what happens when you criticize Muhammad, we know how some people react to that.” [Darleen Click]


Washington D.C. Metro surrenders to potential Assassin’s Veto

U.S. News (Steven Nelson) reports:

The mass transit authority that oversees commuter buses and trains in the nation’s capital is banning issue-oriented ads for the remainder of the year after receiving an ad proposal featuring a cartoon of Muhammad, Islam’s central figure.


It’s hard to characterize this, I think, as speech derogatory of Muslims in general as people (though such speech would be constitutionally protected, and in my view couldn’t be restricted through viewpoint-based rules banning such derogatory expression). It is rather criticism of a particular belief, the belief that no one is allowed to draw Muhammad, on pain of punishment by the sword. Indeed, it is prescient criticism, given the juxtaposition of the ad and the metro system’s response to it. As artistic statements go, this one is spot-on.

The reason for restricting it, then — even by totally rejecting all issue-oriented ads, in an attempt to make the restriction viewpoint-neutral — seems likely to be either a general condemnation of blasphemy, or a specific fear that speech that offends extremist Muslims is too dangerous for American transport agencies to display. And indeed, this is what “Former D.C. Council member Jim Graham, who served 12 years as a member of the Metro system’s board of directors and twice as its chairman” told the U.S. News:

Graham says he instinctively supports people’s freedom to advertise controversial messages, recalling his fight to place HIV awareness ads in the D.C. system in the early days of the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s.

But he says current board members are “obviously in a bind because we know what happens when you criticize Muhammad, we know how some people react to that. I don’t think we ever had a situation [in the past] where someone threatened to blow up a bus.”

Graham says he’s not aware of any credible threat in response to the ad, but that, “We know worldwide what has happened to others who have gone down this path.”

The Washington Post story (Paul Duggan) likewise reports:

“My view is, you put that ad up on the side of a bus, you turn that bus into a terrorism target,” a top Metro official said Thursday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the agency anticipates being sued over the ban. “I think it’s a very bad outcome for everybody. But it’s a risk we don’t want to put our passengers under.” …

“I think there’s a potential threat and a danger if we were to accept that ad,” Metro board member Michael Goldman said. “Better to be safe than sorry.”

Yep, just keep feeding that crocodile, guys.

Posted by Darleen @ 1:30pm
23 comments | Trackback

May 29, 2015

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge [Darleen Click]

The inspiration:


A story:

Nana’s funeral was barely over before my brothers started arguing over her will. I left them, slipping to the back porch. For as long as I could remember her hair was white, her skin unlined and she could hold me for hours with her adventure stories.

It was more ornate sculpture than key and was the only thing I wanted from Nana along with my memories. It felt surprisingly warm in my hand.

Behind the brooms was a door. As I unlocked it, hearing the colors and smelling the light, I briefly wondered how I would look with white hair.


Now, your turn.

Steve B wrote an excellent story last time. I eagerly await what he’ll offer today.

Posted by Darleen @ 12:30am
9 comments | Trackback

May 29, 2015

With apologies to Led Zeppelin and music lovers everywhere [McGehee]

There’s a lady who’s shown all about her is known
And she’s buying a stairlift to heaven.
When she gets there she knows, on the Sunday news shows
With a word she can get who she came for.
Ooh, ooh, and she’s buying a stairlift to heaven.
There’s a sign on the desk but she wants to be sure
‘Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
In the garden out back, lies a songbird who sang,
Interrupting her Majesty’s preening.
Ooh, don’t it make you wonder?
Ooh, it should make you wonder.
On North Africa’s shore monsters kicked in the door,
We were all misled as to the reason.
And a new day won’t dawn for those who are gone,
And questions will still find no answers.
Ooh, what difference does it make?
Ooh, what difference at this point?
There’s a feeling I get when I watch ABC,
And my spirit is crying for real news.
In my thoughts I have seen dancing dwarfs through the trees,
And her voice is heard when they are speaking.
Yes Bill did tussle with an intern, back during his term,
Turns out she did stand by her man.
Yes, it may look inevitable, she’ll be the nominee
In the real world there’s no guarantee.
But don’t you wonder?
Your head is shaking and you don’t know, which way to go,
The piper’s calling you to join him,
Dear lady, what happened to those emails, and did you know
Your stairlift rides on the lying wind?
And as we wind on up the trail
Our feet avoiding the rail.
There rides a lady we all know
Who talks a lot and wants to show
She has a plan for all your gold.
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last.
“Now one is all, and all is mine,
Don’t fall in love, just fall in line.
And she’s buying a stairlift to heaven.
Lyric inspired by *

Posted by McGehee @ 12:23am
8 comments | Trackback

May 28, 2015

Feminist Greer attacks Elton John; decries ‘deconstruction of motherhood’ [Darleen Click]

Now I don’t know why Germaine Greer is so surprised

Speaking at the Hay Literary Festival, Greer accused the men of “deconstructing motherhood”, criticising them for the fact that Furnish was listed as mother on their children’s birth certificates.

“Sometimes I think that really the problem is the concept of motherhood, which we can’t give any real structure to,” she said.

“Sir Elton John and his ‘wife’ David Furnish have entered on the birth certificate of their two sons that David Furnish is the mother. I’m sorry. That will give you an idea of how the concept of motherhood has emptied out. It’s gone, it’s been deconstructed.”

The Express says the couple’s children were born with the help of IVF treatment and share the same surrogate mother, who John and Furnish claim they “love like a sister”.

However, Greer, who wrote The Female Eunuch, also criticised IVF: “We now have a ‘genetic’ mother, who supplies eggs.

“It depends entirely on where she is if she is going to be allowed to know what happens to the eggs. And women tend to care. An egg is not a sperm, we do not produce 400 million of them in one go. One miserable little egg pops every month.

“Then they give you follicle stimulating hormones and you have seventeen or something [eggs] and they give you cut price IVF and distribute the rest of your eggs where they see fit. In some places you are allowed to know what happens to them, in other places you are not.”

She added: “What you get is a reduced bill for IVF because a child is being born by the people involved using your eggs.

“I’m sorry. Did we talk about this? Did we sit down and talk about what eggs mean to women?”

Contemporary feminist is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Left and a driving tenet of it is the obliteration of gender. The whole push for so-called same-sex marriage is predicated on making mothers and fathers irrelevant.

And now Greer — whose 1970 book, The Female Eunuch, was full of misandry and descriptions of women as oppressed ‘castrated males’ — believes motherhood is something special? Something unique to the female sex?

Stacy McCain has written a whole book on radical feminism, but nothing evokes as much schadenfreude as watching a radical Leftist have a come-to-Jesus moment.

Posted by Darleen @ 8:50pm
17 comments | Trackback

May 28, 2015

#SomeBlackLivesDontMatter [Darleen Click]

Remember Baltimore? The city of “over-policing” where Freddie Gray’s death resulted in the controversial indictments of six police officers?

Well, the police have decided to take a more laid-back approach and, via Bob Belvedere, there have been 36 homicides so far this month.

“I’m afraid to go outside,” said Perrine, 47. “It’s so bad, people are afraid to let their kids outside. People wake up with shots through their windows. Police used to sit on every corner, on the top of the block. These days? They’re nowhere.”

Perrine’s brother is one of 36 people killed in Baltimore so far this month, already the highest homicide count for May since 1999. But while homicides are spiking, arrests have plunged more than 50 percent compared to last year.

The drop in arrests followed the death of Freddie Gray from injuries he suffered in police custody. Gray’s death sparked protests against the police and some rioting, and led to the indictment of six officers.

Now West Baltimore residents worry they’ve been abandoned by the officers they once accused of harassing them. In recent weeks, some neighborhoods have become like the Wild West without a lawman around, residents said.

Where is Al Sharpton? Where are the marches? The calls for accountability?

Could the silence be because these victims don’t provide the correct political theater for the Left?

Let’s be honest: Some black lives really don’t matter. If you are a young black man shot in the head by another young black man, almost certainly no one will know your name. Al Sharpton won’t come rushing to your family’s side with cameras in tow. MSNBC won’t discuss the significance of your death. No one will protest, or even riot, for you. You are a statistic, not a cause. Just another dead black kid in some city somewhere, politically useless to progressives and the media, therefore all but invisible. […]

When April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Tuesday what can be done about violence in places like Baltimore, Earnest first suggested passage of more gun-safety laws — even though Baltimore already has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country.

When Ryan followed up with a query premised on more summer jobs and rec centers as a short-term answer to the shootings, Earnest referred her to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as those of Labor and Education. It was the blind questioning the blind.

What neither of them mentioned is the police. In Baltimore, the famous looted CVS stopped burning, but the riot kept going in a different form. Just as the Freddie Gray unrest was initially stoked by an inadequate police response, the wave of shootings has been enabled by less aggressive police patrols. […]

It is wrong for the police to shrink from doing their job, but the last month in Baltimore shows how important that job is. This is especially true in dangerous, overwhelmingly black neighborhoods. They need disproportionate police attention, even if that attention is easily mischaracterized as racism. The alternative is a deadly chaos that destroys and blights the lives of poor blacks.

It is a paradox that a figure who is anathema to the BlackLivesMatter movement, Rudy Giuliani, saved more black lives than any of his critics ever will. He did it by getting the police to establish and maintain basic order in New York’s neighborhoods and defending the cops when the likes of Al Sharpton maligned them.

Now that Mayor Bill de Blasio has pulled back, shootings are trending up in New York City. But it’s OK, as long as nameless young black men are the ones being shot at. For progressives only some black lives matter.

Posted by Darleen @ 1:48pm
5 comments | Trackback

May 28, 2015

Save the Children! Won’t you please Save the Children!!! [Darleen Click

Posted by Darleen @ 1:21pm
Leave a comment | Trackback

May 28, 2015

Of course, Alice Goffman could just be making it all up [Darleen Click]

Steven Lubet does an old-fashioned journalistic review of sociology’s newest heart-throb, Alice Goffman and her book, ON THE RUN: Fugitive Life in an American City, revealing a confirmation bias that never even thought to vet the specifics.

On the Run is the story of the six years Goffman spent conducting an ethnographic study in a poor black community in West Philadelphia. Beginning in her sophomore year at the University of Pennsylvania and continuing through her graduate work at Princeton, she observed a group of young men in a neighborhood she pseudonymously called 6th Street. Goffman eventually moved into an apartment in the neighborhood, sometimes taking in two of them as roommates, while she chronicled their lives, challenges and, most notably, their almost endless interactions with the law on matters ranging from trivial to homicidal. […]

The praise overwhelmed the nays, and soon there was talk of a possible film or television adaptation. The New York Times selected On the Run as one of fifty notable works of non-fiction for 2014; it was the only university press book on the list. Picador won a bidding war for the paperback rights, and issued a widely promoted trade edition in April 2015.

One of the previously unremarked upon problems is Goffman’s credulity toward her sources, which leads her to repeat dubious stories as though they are unquestionably true. Consider the case of the brothers Chuck and Tim (all names in On the Run are pseudonyms), which Goffman also tells in her public appearances. In Goffman’s account, eighteen year old Chuck and eleven year old Tim were out for a drive, when they were pulled over by the police. It turned out that the car had been stolen, and Chuck was arrested, notwithstanding his protest that he had only borrowed it from his girlfriend’s uncle. Young Tim was also arrested, according to Goffman, and later placed on three years of juvenile probation on the charge of “accessory” to receiving stolen property. (p. 12).

This story is not incidental to the book, as Goffman uses Tim’s ordeal to demonstrate how difficult it is for her subjects to avoid acquiring significant criminal records at an early age. Although I do not doubt her general point about the snares of the judicial system, these particular events almost certainly could not have happened as she retells them in her book and lectures.

I spoke with a former Philadelphia public defender and a current Philadelphia prosecutor, both of whom have personal knowledge of juvenile court proceedings during the period of Goffman’s study. Neither one could imagine that an eleven year old would be arrested and charged merely for riding in a stolen car. The only reason he would be taken into custody, said the prosecutor, “would be to get him home safely.” Even adult passengers, he told me, are not charged for riding in stolen cars, because that is not a crime in Pennsylvania. There is nothing to prosecute, he said, because it isn’t against the law.

The former public defender was still more skeptical of the alleged juvenile court charge and probation for accessory to receiving stolen property. That would never happen to an eleven year old simply for riding in the car, he explained. There would have to have been proof of something more – “like maybe if the kid had popped the ignition with a screwdriver.” And in any event, a three year “probation sentence” would have been impossible, because Pennsylvania does not have fixed terms of probation for juveniles. Moreover, there are several outcomes less severe than probation that are virtually always given to first-time juvenile offenders for non-violent crimes. If the length of a short “consent decree” had been extended to a three years, it would have been for continuing behavior far more serious than merely sitting in a stolen car. Finally, there is no such offense as accessory to receiving stolen property in the Pennsylvania Crime Code. “Accessory” is a term you might hear on television, said the prosecutor, “but not from a juvenile court judge.”

I do not know what actually happened to Chuck and Tim that day, but neither does Goffman. Chuck’s story about his girlfriend’s uncle would be immediately familiar to anyone who has ever represented a car thief, but we can leave that aside for now. I am not naïve about neighborhoods like 6th Street. I spent two years in a legal services office on the West Side of Chicago, and another decade as a defense lawyer in the Cook County juvenile and criminal courts. The idea that an eleven year old received such a heavy sentence for such innocent behavior is so implausible as to raise red flags, as is Goffman’s uncritical reliance of the story.

Lubet even cites the story in Goffman’s book that she participated in driving around her homeboys while they were actively trying to find someone to murder; an action that constitutes a felony in just about every jurisdiction in the country.

Lubet asks

I do not know if Goffman’s editors and dissertation committee held her to a journalist’s standard of fact checking.

Perhaps because the story was too good, too in line with how her peers in academia view those people along with their contempt of the America they can blame for the social conditions as laid forth in the book. Even Lubet, who has done the job her editors should have, can’t help but fall in with the politically correct

I did not set out to censure Goffman, and it gives me no pleasure to make these observations about such an accomplished young scholar. There is much of value in On the Run, especially as it reveals the terrible consequences of brutal- and over-policing in minority neighborhoods.

Alice Goffman wouldn’t be the first sociologist to embellish her stories and romanticize the “exotic” people she is studying. She is to sociology what Timothy Treadwell was to zoology; Alice just didn’t end up being eaten by her subjects.

Or she could just be making the whole thing up.

Posted by Darleen @ 8:17am
10 comments | Trackback

May 26, 2015

BREAKING: Rockets fired into Israel from Gaza [Darleen Click]

… and Hamas claims they have no idea who is doing it…

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — A Hamas official says unknown militants in the Gaza Strip fired a rocket at Israel. Israeli officials say there was no damage or casualties.

The official says at least one rocket was fired Tuesday night and that it wasn’t clear who fired it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity as he wasn’t authorized to brief journalists about the fired rocket.

Cue “Blame the Jews” in 3…2…1…

Posted by Darleen @ 12:55pm
5 comments | Trackback

May 26, 2015

Control the language … [Darleen Click]

The Left in America abuses language on a daily basis — “ban bossy”, racialize the term “thug”, the myriad of microagressions, even slapping the “cultural appropriation” label on the movie title Aloha

Some Native Hawaiians disapprove of the name of a movie filmed and set in Hawaii, saying that titling it “Aloha” is a disrespectful misappropriation of culture and simplifies a word that’s rich with meaning. […]

“If you have a romantic comedy about the military in Hawaii … but a title that says ‘Aloha,’ I can only guess that they’ll bastardize the word,” said Walter Ritte, a Native Hawaiian activist on the island of Molokai. “They’re taking our sacred word … and they’re going to make a lot of money off of it.” […]

The trailer is an example of “typical Hollywood,” where “Hawaii is the verdant background for white fantasies,” said Ty Kawika Tengan, chair of the ethnic studies department at the University of Hawaii’s Manoa campus.

“It’s been so appropriated in so many different ways — made into a commodity, made into a slogan,” he said of the word aloha. “It gets so divorced from important indigenous Hawaiian context. … It’s romanticized, literally, into a romantic comedy.”

During filming in 2013, the movie was untitled. State Film Commissioner Donne Dawson said if she had known the title, she would have advised against it.

All governments or ideologies that trend towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism work to control language as part of controlling the population. When certain subjects are, basically, off-limits or restricted to only special classes, even engaging in private thought or private acts is forbidden and punishable.

The Left’s studied silence on Islamism isn’t so much they agree with Islam’s tenets as having their controlling strategies, and move to total control, in common.

In Malaysia, one of 11 nations President Obama is seeking to bring into his “Trans-Pacific Partnership” free-trade zone with the United States, the government has prohibited a Catholic newspaper from using the word “Allah,” says the U.S. State Department.

“Allah,” the Arabic word for God, was adopted by the Malay language.

In Malaysia, as the New York Times explained in an article last November, the government has gone so far as to restrict its use in the Bible. […]

This January, the Federal Court, Malaysia’s highest tribunal, rejected the Catholic Church’s appeal and upheld the ban on using “Allah” in the Malay-language Catholic newspaper.

Father Lawrence Andrew, the editor of the newspaper, was quoted by Agence France Presse as saying he believed this was just the start of what the Malaysian government would do.

“This is only the beginning,” said Father Andrew. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they come along and say ‘don’t use it (Allah) in your services.'”

In 2013, according to the State Department report, Malaysian authorities also targeted an Evangelical Christian organization for using the word “Allah” on their Facebook page. […]

“In January the Pahang mufti, appointed by the State Islamic Authority, declared that non-Muslims were prohibited from using the word ‘Allah’ and 34 other words associated with Islam,” said the State Department. “He told reporters that non-Muslims were barred from using the words in statements, speeches, publications, or in any broadcast as it could ‘mislead’ and affect the faith of Muslims. He said that doing so would violate the law, which, with a conviction, carries a fine up to RM 5,000 ($1,526) and/or imprisonment up to two years.”

Is it surprising that a majority of Democrats would criminalize so-called “hate speech”?

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
~~ George Orwell

Posted by Darleen @ 12:38pm
30 comments | Trackback

← Older posts