Daily Archives: November 1, 2018

“When did liberals become the fun police?”: Bill Maher’s Halloween video

Why Evolution Is True

Here’s a 6½-minute segment on Halloween from Bill Maher’s latest show, which covers offense culture, snowflakes, Republicans, wokeness, and many other topics of interest (and humor). The part about cultural appropriation of costumes, which is great, begins at 3:05.  I like the whole thing, though.

View original post


Five States to Vote on Futile Climate Proposals

Science Matters

Investor’s Business Daily has published this editorial Midterm Elections: 5 States Could Wreck Their Economies In Futile Fight Against ‘Climate Change’  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and titles.

Election 2018: Next week, voters in five states will decide whether they want to raise their own taxes, kill jobs and lower their standards of living. All in a fanciful effort to stop “global warming.” They’d be better off letting the free market do the work.

Washington, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado all have global-warming ballot initiatives, each heavily financed by environmental activists. New Mexico voters will decide whether to elect a powerful land commissioner who promises stiff curbs on emissions.

None of these will make any difference in the global climate. But they will cost their residents dearly.

How Much do We Love the Climate? Let us count the ways.

How about a carbon tax on everything?

In Washington, voters…

View original post 823 more words

Did state houses make much difference to housing supply?

croaking cassandra

I’ve been among those suggesting that the KiwiBuild programme –  even if it involved the government itself directly commissioning the building of new houses that no existing developer already had in prospect –  was unlikely to increase overall housing supply very much, or affect overall average house prices very much.  It was never clear how such a programme could affect overall housing supply very much.  For it to do so, there would have to be large unexploited profits left sitting on the table by private developers (properties selling for far more than it would cost to bring new developments to market).  If that isn’t so –  and we don’t see any obvious signs of such unexploited opportunities – whatever the government itself builds or commissions is just likely to mostly displace and replace houses that the private sector would have built.   (There is another possibility, that the government not…

View original post 1,275 more words

UN climate negotiations costing $150 million annually

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Yet another climate conference?
These people seem to have become addicted to their own process, which invariably just leads to the next meeting, ad infinitum. Hotels and airlines aren’t complaining though.

The cost of United Nations climate summits have ballooned in tandem with the carbon dioxide emissions officials are trying to restrain, according to estimates put together by environmental economist Richard Tol.

Tol estimates that the costs U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) annual negotiations exceed $150 million in the last three years.

View original post 126 more words

Lord Hain and Privilege: When power, wealth and abuse combine to subvert the rule of law – Paul Wragg

The Bill of Rights 1689 is no different to any other piece of legislation; it must be read compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998

Inforrm's Blog

Judges have their role to play, and Parliamentarians theirs, and “it is for the public to judge whether what I have done is right or wrong”, says Lord Peter Hain.  Yet since Lord Hain chose to breach the court injunction issued by the Court of Appeal in ABC v Telegraph Group plc by hiding behind Parliamentary privilege, this is exactly what the public does not get to do. 

View original post 1,737 more words

Robert Craig: The Peter Hain Case: The Effect of Article IX

UK Constitutional Law Association

Peter Hain’s decision to breach an interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal in the case of ABC v Telegraph Media Group has caused serious concern. It is one of the cardinal rules in Parliament that members should not interfere in ongoing legal proceedings and Hain did not wait until the end of the proceedings before breaching this injunction, even though the case had been scheduled for an early full hearing. He does not appear even to have read the court judgment he saw fit to overrule, effectively.

The duty of comity means that both judges and parliament must respect the others’ boundaries. If Hain’s decision to intervene in live proceedings is treated leniently by parliament, there must be some concern about whether the judiciary will continue to treat Article IX with its current level of extreme deference. Nevertheless this affair shows the importance of the core principle that…

View original post 1,596 more words