An additional caveat to assessments of a 2030 ‘emissions gap’ is  that most NDCs are formulated in terms of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)emissions, a composite metric of warming impact of different gases based on Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from various IPCC reports. It is therefore impossible to assess precisely the 2030 emissions of CO2 itself that are compatible with these pledges without additional assumptions, because CO2e pledges could be attained through varying combinations of long-lived and short-lived forcer mitigation.

Emissions budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5° C Sept 18 2017

Last month I did a post on how the variance in computer model’s predictions on Hurricane paths despite decades of data and the finest computers and training available was a simple proof of the folly of relying on computer climate models dealing with “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” trying to predict events decades in the future.

You aren’t dealing with a single “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” you are dealing with EVERY complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes that exists on the earth. Every single additional item you add increases the variation of the data models. Furthermore you are also dealing with variations in the sun, variations in the orbits of the earth, its moon and more.

And that’s just the variations in natural phenomena, imagine the variation in industrial output on the entire planet for a period of 50 or 100 years.

Think of the computer modeling and tracking of that single hurricane and apply this thinking to the climate of the earth as a whole. How accurate that model is going to be over 100 years, 50 years, 25 years or even ten years?

Would you be willing to bet even your short term economic future on it, would anyone in their right mind do so?

That post got both a ton of attention and a ton of pushback by those insisting that I was comparing apples and oranges (hurricanes vs the planetary system) not realizing that my point was primarily about computer modeling and variations of data over a long period of time.

Well one month later the Independent (via insty) acquaints us with a new study that suggests global warming models “on the hot side”

the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

The original forecasts were based on twelve separate computer models made by universities and government institutes around the world, and were put together ten years ago, “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”, Professor Allen added.

Or in other words when you have actual data that decreases the variable involved suddenly the path to the goal of avoiding disaster seems easier.

Of course you won’t be surprised to hear that this change in data is being sold as a reason to move forward on draconian emissions control because we now have a chance to achieve temperature goals without actions that are: “incompatible with democracy” but take a look at the quote not from the news article but from the actual study that I lead this post with in which I highlight several key words in BOLD:

An additional caveat to assessments of a 2030 ‘emissions gap’ is  that most NDCs are formulated in terms of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)emissions, a composite metric of warming impact of different gases based on Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from various IPCC reports. It is therefore impossible to assess precisely the 2030 emissions of CO2 itself that are compatible with these pledges without additional assumptions, because CO2e pledges could be attained through varying combinations of long-lived and short-lived forcer mitigation.

Or to put it in english:   We have no idea if we’re actually right because we are making assumptions from a range of potential figures from multiple reports (whose composites, metrics and assumptions are not detailed here) so we can’t actually say how much carbon we have to restrict to keep the planet down to our temperature goal without making guesses.

But we conclude you have to make giant adjustments to your economy and tax code, that coincidently favor connected interests that fund such studies

You’re going to base the economy of your state, your country your continent on THAT?

Read through that entire report, it has more weasel words than an end user agreement writ and as you do ponder this exchange from the classic Doctor Who episode the Aztecs:

Tlotoxl: A vision is with us, Autloc. When does it rain?
Autloc: This day. When the sun’s fire first touches the horizon to the west.
Tlotoxl: At that moment shall I present her to the people. A vision is with us and shall stand before them. And I, in supplication to the Rain God, shall offer human blood. The rains will come. No more talk against us that the gods were against us and brought drought to the land. The rains will come and power shall again be ours.
Autloc: I tell you the rains will come with or without sacrifice.
Tlotoxl: Does the High Priest of Knowledge only worship him who has fallen, and not him who has made us strong?
Autloc: I worship the same god as you.
Tlotoxl: Then above all, honour him. He has made us rulers of the land. For this he demands blood. And he shall have it.

and ask yourself if we are seeing the same scenario from our elite classes demanding a sacrifice to prevent a crisis that doesn’t exist in order to maintain their positions and wealth?


If you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



by baldilocks

Social Media is great for putting out both information and disinformation (aka Bravo Sierra) at the speed of light. I wonder what the mixture ratio is for this story.

A Texas woman was drawn into an intense racial debate on Hobby Lobby’s public Facebook page after she took offense to the company selling cotton stems.

In what appears to be a now deleted Facebook post, Daniell Rider, of Killeen, claims the store’s cotton stalks were “WRONG on SO many levels.”

“There is nothing decorative about raw cotton… A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American slaves. A little sensitivity goes a long way,” Rider wrote on Facebook, according to CBS 7.

Rider’s comment, and photo of the cotton, inspired thousands of comments on other Hobby Lobby Facebook posts, many of which were from people defending the store.

(…)

Hobby Lobby is still selling the cotton stems on its website, where they have been marked down from 29.99 to $15.

This sort of thing piques my paranoia, in that it makes me suspect that there are groups out there who are dedicated to stirring up racial animosities by putting forth faux racial outrage – outrage which is so ridiculous that observers will begin to despair for racial conciliation. (Side note: the notion that racial conciliation is needed for the great majority of Americans is also suspect.)

And, believe it or not, my paranoia is the optimistic option.

The cynical one is that people come up with this type of nonsense on their own.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

One of the most revealing examples of the cultural divide occurred when Emmy voters determined that The Handmaid’s Tale was the best drama on television. Furthermore, Elisabeth Moss won an Emmy for her role as best actress. All told, this dreadful television program won eight awards.

Based on a novel by Margaret Atwood, this series is set in Gilead, a totalitarian society in what used to be part of the United States. Gilead is ruled by a “Christian” regime that treats women as property of the state and is faced with environmental disasters and a plummeting birth rate. To repopulate a devastated world, the few remaining fertile women are forced into sexual servitude.

The regime hangs gays, abortion clinic workers, and… wait for it…Catholics.

I admit I tried 15 minutes of Episode One a few months ago without really knowing what the program was about. Simply put, I quickly found the show offensive, including the use of Gilead, an actual region from the Bible in what is now Jordan.

The author is a feminist from Canada who writes what she calls “speculative fiction.” In The Guardian, she says, “Speculative fiction could really happen.”

That’s right. She thinks that a totalitarian government based in the United States could create a state with women as sexual slaves.

Furthermore, Atwood is virulently anti-American, seeing Canada as the only hope for North America.

According to various sources, the author is part of the animals-are-people-too brigade. In Surfacing, one character remarks about eating animals: “The animals die that we may live; they are substitute people…And we eat them, out of cans or otherwise; we are eaters of death, dead Christ-flesh resurrecting inside us, granting us life.”

This wingnut is a leftist in every sense of the word.

Atwood has received numerous awards for her books—an indication that something is clearly wrong with the sensibilities of the cultural elite.

In a related development, Axios.com, a leading political website, reported about a study of 3,500 viewers nationwide that “showed that viewers who voted for … Hillary Clinton are more interested in dark comedies and programs featuring unconventional families, antiheroes, and strong female leads … Clinton voters also like political satire.”

Trump voters “are more likely to favor shows that depict traditional family values. They prefer male leads and heroes who are not conflicted and ‘tend to do the right thing’ … They are likely to tune out entertainment shows with depictions of gay people in sexual situations, negative portrayals of religion, and political humor.”

It seems clear that the Emmy voters fall on the Clinton side of this equation. It’s scandalous that this piece of tripe, The Handmaid’s Tale, became the darling of the cultural elite. Fortunately, the series runs on Hulu, so not that many people saw it.

Well, I guess it’s time for me to get back to Shooter, The Last Ship, and a few other favorites of my fellow Trump supporters.

Footnote: I hope that Hulu does a better job with The Looming Tower, which is the best book on 9/11 and scheduled for broadcast in the next year.

Monday morning was a contradiction, because Sunday had been so busy there had been no real time for the letdown of the high from Saturday’s Buffet Books and Blather event but as I hit the adoration chapel after daily mass there was a sense of urgency as Stacy’s TV appearance so I cut my prayer time down figuring I could get my decades in during the course of the day heading back to the house hoping that Stacy wasn’t completely in the zone.

This statement requires some clarity for those who have never shared a room with Robert Stacy McCain.  One Stacy McCain starts writing on a subject he enters a zone where it is nearly impossible to get his attention on anything else.  You won’t get him out of hotel room , you aren’t going get him to leave a McDonald’s to avoid the rush hour, and even getting out of the house for a TV appearance can be iffy.

Fortunately Stacy while writing had been pretty much prepared so when we left the house at 11 we figured there was plenty of time to make it to the studio in Worcester even when picking up gas for the car and a coffee for Stacy.  If only the traffic , namely the construction on I190 had cooperated, but in the end I dropped Stacy McCain off at the studio at noon on the button and headed over to the parking garage a block away and walked to the studio.

Stay was still out front, as Mrs. Finn was also delayed, when she did arrive her producer had still not arrived so it meant further delays but Stacy filled it with stories and conversation that continued to hold our host’s attention.

When he did arrive it was decided to tape a pair of shows back to back as this would be her only chance to have Stacy live in studio so they recorded two shows back to back but even with two shows it was impossible to cover all that Stacy had to say about feminism and culture.

When the shows were done it was time for more Mexican food. It turned out that the nearest restaurant was back across from the DCU center the site of yesterday’s event, so we walked the four blocks over. When we got there I was surprised to find Alan Napelton the head of the Catholic Marketing Network whose event I had covered in Chicago the previous month and who I had only managed to speak to for a few minutes the day before at the bar next to the place where we were seated. I took advantage of the moment to have the meeting that I had hoped to have the day before with him while Stacy shared a lunch with Mrs. Finn still regaling her with stories of which he has a seemingly inexhaustible supply.

When everyone was done eating it was getting pretty late in the day and we still hadn’t gotten to UMass Amherst which was on Mr. McCain’s “must do while I’m in Massachusetts list” so after saying our goodbyes to Mr. Napelton we hustled the five blocks back to the parking garage where we parted company with Mrs. Finn and headed west.

We arrived in Amherst near 6 pm and found ourselves at the Franklin Dining center where we got our bearings. As always the first thing we did was check out the bulletin boards to see what the feel of the place was and that fell wasn’t just left, but ultra ultra left.  Flyer after flyer advocated everything from the various gay, bisexual , Islamic, Socialist, and Transgender clubs but oddly not a single sign up or poster for the college republicans (we had our suspicions why but that’s for later in the story).

The plan was for Stacy to touch bases with the president of the college republicans and basically repeat what he had done at Harvard College the previous Thursday, however the delay in getting there complicated matters and the College republicans president was not available, however the VP of the college republicans had some free time so we drove over to her dorm area, picked her up and headed back to a lounge area where Stacy conducted an interview on audio.

And I interviewed Miss Bishop directly after Stacy on camera

where we discovered that the reason why there were no posters for sign ups for the college republicans is the no-hate on campus meme

Republicans and Americans excluded of course
that we saw plastered all over the place apparently doesn’t apply to the college republicans whose sign up posters were constantly torn down so as to make it a waste to put it up as nobody would ever be scolded or caught for it.

Apparently while we were at UMass Amherst on 9/11 the student body did not confine their suspension of the “no hate” policy to the GOP but extended it to the US itself:

The banner, which first caught students’ and officials’ attention yesterday morning, was slung above a doorway on Valentine Dining Hall and read in large, capital letters: “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people,” a quote that is largely attributed to American historian Howard Zinn.

Below that was the phrase: “In honor of those killed and displaced by America’s so-called ‘war on terror.’ ”

There are 3000 Americans who might have taken umbrage at the “so called” in that banner that is if they hadn’t been slaughtered 16 years prior to the day.

But this was unknown to us at the time, for now we contented ourselves with our interviews discovering that like Harvard UMass had plenty of conservatives in the closet but unlike Harvard the percentage willing to go on record was 1/6 of 1% vs Harvard’s 2%.

However like the students at Harvard young miss Bishop defended both her school and the education she got there even though it seemed that when it came to college republicans clear love their alma maters said love was apparently not returned.

By the time we finished it was well after dark so after thanking Miss Bishop for giving us so much time on such short notice, we headed toward home stopping only in Gardner for one last Mexican meal and a chance to record one more segment for the podcast (available here) with Stacy while we had the chance.

For it would not be so many hours before we would be heading for the airport our adventures in Massachusetts concluded.

In the end we had covered the state several times, Boston, Cambridge, Lexington, Worcester, Amherst, Gardner Leominster and of course Fitchburg, we had put almost as many miles on my car as we did during the Scott Brown election (and said car died when it returned from taking Stacy home) and in addition to our events and speeches we had done some first class shoe leather reporting with the stories to back them up.

That above all else, made the week worthwhile, because first hand reporting and seeing things for yourself is what this business is all about. The gallery follows the Tip Jar Pitch.

Robert Stacy McCain in Massachusetts the Story so far:

9/15 Interviews from the EWTN Family Celebration in Worcester Williams, Warsaw, Grodi, Conroy, Radlicz and Pacwa
9/14 Robert Stacy McCain In Massachusetts Day 5: EWTN & Many Colleges
9/13 Robert Stacy McCain in Mass: Day 4: Buffet Books and Blather
9/11 Robert Stacy McCain in Mass Day 3: Tom Jones in Lexington
9/9 Robert Stacy McCain in MA Day Two: Shock and Awe at Harvard University
9/8 RSM in MA Day 2: Reverses, Feminists in NYU & The Kids at Espresso Pizza
9/6 Robert Stacy McCain Now in Massachusetts

At the Other McCain

9/12 Fear and Loathing at Logan International: Massachusetts is Depraved and Decadent
9/9 Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It
9/8 VIDEO: Kent Haeffner, President of Harvard University College Republicans
9/7 Heading to Harvard Yard
9/6 Fear and Loathing and BWI


My time with Stacy McCain resulted in 8 posts of original reporting and one large event livestreamed. I think it was good and worthwhile work worth the time, effort and expense involved. If you agree please hit DaTipJar Below and let us know you appreciate real actual reporting done by the new media and are willing to support it.



Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



Remember your subscription pay our Magnificent Seven writers each month

RH (NG36B) (Saturday Afternoons):
Zilla of the Resistance (Friday Evenings):
Jerry Wilson (Thursday Evenings)
JD Rucker (Thursday afternoons and Sunday Evenings)
Fausta Wertz (Wednesday and Friday Afternoons)
Juliette Akinyi Ochineg (Baldilocks) (Tuesday and Saturday evenings):
Chris Harper (Tuesday afternoons):
Pat Austin: (Monday Afternoons)
John (Marathon Pundit) Rubbery: (Sunday Afternoons):

And Don’t miss our Part Time Riders either
Ellen Kolb (1st & 4th Wednesday Afternoons each month):
Jon Fournier: (3rd Wednesday Afternoon each month)
Michigan Mick: (1st & 3rd Monday Evenings each month)
Tech Knight (2nd Wednesday Each Month)

Watching awards shows on television is as big a treat as having a colonoscopy without anesthesia. Well, actually, it’s worse. I’ve never had a colonoscopy that lasted three hours.

It doesn’t matter if the host is affable and funny — Billy Crystal and Johnny Carson come to mind — or amazingly irritating like David Letterman. The shows are overstuffed extravaganzas that drain your body and rot your brain.

With an attitude like that, I couldn’t wait to skip Sunday’s Emmy Awards broadcast. I couldn’t stand watching three minutes of Stephen Colbert’s past and present TV shows. Why in God’s name would I want to spend three hours with him and the croaking chorus  of Trump haters sharing the stage?

Apparently you and many others felt the same, sending the Emmy ratings to new depths. It’s good to know so many good folks have the good sense to avoid political poison masquerading as entertainment (and so few conservatives are masochists).

Meanwhile, the entertainment establishment, pink to its left-wing core, is studying birds’ flight patterns and reading beasts’ entrails to discern why viewers of its awards programs are vanishing. You don’t have to be a seer to figure out that your numbers will be weak if you don’t mind driving away half your audience. But the movers, shakers and moguls of Hollywood don’t know anybody who doesn’t think about politics as they do, so they’re simply stumped.

Just as fan disgust with Colin Kaepernick isn’t the only reason why ratings have plummeted for NFL broadcasts, partisanship isn’t the only cause for the decline in interest for the Emmys and Oscars.

Thirty years ago, cable TV was a relatively small operation, so most Americans were still stuck with the three major networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. Even poorly rated shows had a dozen million viewers. The series finale for CBS’ MASH was seen by nearly 106 million people in 1983; that audience record stood until 106.5 million viewers watched New Orleans beat Indianapolis in the 2010 Superbowl.

Cable has grown like a monster since 1983 and created a bigger stir in recent years by offering original programming. Many new shows are low-budget reality programs, but some basic cable channels — FX, USA, AMC and SyFy — offer top-notch stuff that was once the purview of HBO and Showtime.

Of course, Netflix was a huge game changer when it threw big money into new programming and brought instant relevance to streaming video.

And therein lies a big problem for the Emmys — they’re elitist. Only a handful of this year’s nominees represented broadcast TV, and even fewer of them took home awards. The big winner, as usual lately, was HBO.

Just as people in showbiz don’t know anyone who supported Donald Trump, they don’t know anybody who doesn’t have cable TV. More importantly, they don’t know anybody who doesn’t have HBO or Netflix, where they presume the best stuff appears. As of the end of 2016, HBO only had about 49 million subscribers, and Lord knows how many of those are hotels, motels and other businesses.

As a result, a good portion of the American public has no skin in the Emmy game since the awards revolve around programs they don’t even have the ability to watch. I guess the entertainment bigwigs have written them off as deplorables.

Then, too, there’s more than one aspect of elitism in terms of the type of shows the nominators enjoy. I watch more than my share of TV, and I’m the kind of guy who won’t abide stupidity on my flat screen. Yet only a couple of my favorites — Better Call Saul, The Americans, Stranger Things — even had an Emmy nomination. Instead, the voters exhumed the long-dead corpse of Saturday Night Live and showered it with glory.

The same thing goes for the Oscars. But that’s another story.

It’s an old story, but it just doesn’t seem to go away: the federal government seems determined to interfere in almost every aspect of life and business in our country, whether it be new rules on autonomous cars or who needs to be paid for overtime.

In this last respect, though, there is some good news. Earlier this month, a judge in Texas struck down an Obama-era rule that would hugely increase the number of people who would need to be paid for overtime. The rule was opposed from it’s conception by the US Chamber of Commerce, but was pushed through by an administration seemingly determined to put many small companies out of business.

Taking a look at the proposed rule, and the reasons why it was struck down, is a good lesson in the limits of federal power. It also suggests that the over-reach of the Obama administration is reducing, which gives us reason for hope: it seems that, under Trump, the power and size of the government will once again come under scrutiny.

The Proposed Rule

The overtime rule began in the closing period of the Obama administration. In summer 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) finalized the proposal. The idea was simple enough: from December 1, 2016, more people would have to be paid overtime. Specifically, the rule revised the Executive, Administrative, and Professional exemptions (EAP) on overtime payments.

Those employees covered under the EAP exemptions are currently not eligible for overtime if their base salary is above a certain level. Until 2016, this amount was $455 per week, or $23,660 per year. The new rule proposed a huge change to this threshold, raising it to $913 per week, or $47,476 per year.

This, as you will notice, is a huge increase. Yet the rule went even further, calling for automatic, inflation-linked updates to salary levels every three years. As even NPR has pointed out, these proposals would have made an estimated 4.2 million people eligible for overtime payments.

Now, I’m all for people being paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, but this rule simply went too far. For many businesses still recovering from the 2008 crash, and only now starting to take on more employees, paying more of their staff more for their overtime is simply not an option. The alternative, which would be to limit employee’s hours to 40 per week, is also unworkable for many small companies.

In many small companies, employees willingly work overtime, because they are invested in the future of “their” company and want to see it flourish. If they feel they are owed overtime, they are free to negotiate this with their employer. Putting a federal rule in place to govern these relationships is not only heavy-handed, it also stifles the kind of creativity that we desperately need at the moment.

A Temporary Reprieve

Though all of these points were raised by opponents of the rule before it was passed, the Department of Labor (DOL) went ahead and passed it anyway. Looking at the briefing documents from that time, the rule seems to have been included in a widespread “pushing-through” of legislation in the closing year of the last administration. Some in the DOL, and other government departments, felt that 2016 was there last chance to pass “liberal” amendments to certain key pieces of legislation, and in the rush many of these were very poorly drafted.

Though the change in administration was the reason why the rule was pushed through so quickly, it was also to be its downfall. In practice, everybody knew that it would not come into effect without a legal challenge, and therefore not until after a new president was elected.

It was in this context that a temporary halt was put on the rule. Business groups won a temporary injunction from a US District Court in Texas, and this essentially put its implementation on hold until it had wound its way through litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit of Appeals. As a result, for more than a year groups representing both businesses and employees have been awaiting a decision on whether the rule would ever come into effect. With the recent judgement, that wait is finally over.

The New Ruling

On Thursday 31 August, Judge Amos Mazzant gave his judgement, and issued an order invalidating the proposed rule. This is certainly a victory for those opposing the rule, but it is also worth looking at the fine detail of the ruling, because this gives renewed hope that the interference of the Obama administration is slowly coming to an end.

Please bear with me here, because the ruling is quite complex, but I will try to explain in terms that everyone can understand!

The injunction first clarified some of the confusion created by the court’s earlier injunction. Some had felt that the granting of the original injunction was on the basis that the DOL had overstepped its power in trying to implement any minimum salary requirement. This issue is still live, being part of the appeal against the original injunction.

The new ruling grants that Fifth Circuit precedent provides the DOL with the power to “define and delimit” such requirements “from time to time”. However, it also stated that in this particular case, the salary level proposed was simply too high. It was felt that the original spirit of the EAP exemptions was to exclude employees who are not eligible for overtime because of their duties, and not merely their salary. The court held that, in the original legislation, the salary cap had merely been a proxy to screen out some employees, making an exhaustive analysis of their duties unnecessary.

Therefore, in trying to raise the salary cap to make more people eligible for overtime, the court felt that the DOL were actually exploiting loopholes in the original legislation. I am inclined to agree, and think that the application of common sense in this matter is as welcome as it is unusual.

The second part of the ruling went further. One of the issues up for debate was whether the rule was entitled to “Chevron Deference”. Though a phenomenally complex ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), essentially ruled that any federal rule that “fails to carry out Congress’s unambiguous intent” is invalid.

In this particular case, the law was found to not uphold Congress’s intent. This was because, as I’ve already mentioned, the salary limits in the original legislation were designed to exclude those employees who are performing “professional” roles already, are therefore paid enough already, and should therefore not receive overtime. In this sense, the salary limits were intended just as a way of excluding those already holding decent jobs that involved particular duties.

The ruling held that, therefore, Congress’s intent in imposing the original salary cap had been to exclude those employees who did certain jobs, and not those who earned a particular salary. The salary threshold, in short, was just a convenient way of measuring how “professional” a job was. The Texas court, rightfully in my view, held that increasing the salary threshold went against Congress’s intent.

A Victory, For Now

Phew. If you’ve kept up with me so far, you can hopefully see what I’m driving at. The fact that the Trump-era DOL has signalled it will not appeal this ruling is very welcome. Though a few appeals are still crawling through appeal courts, it seems likely that the salary cap will stay where it is for now.

This is a victory for business, who were deeply worried about the effect of a raised cap on their profits. It is a victory for common sense, in that the Court has recognized that what the DOL were trying to do was essentially against the wishes of Congress. And in this last regard, it also a victory for our constitution.

The salary cap for the EAP exemption was only ever meant as a proxy measure of how “professional” a job was, and not as an absolute measure of who deserved overtime. This was clearly Congress’s intent in imposing it in the first place, and what the DOL tried to do amounts to “hacking” the law to achieve their own ends. We should all be glad that this has finally been recognized.

That said, the story is not over. NPR reported that officials in the DOL are already drafting a new rule that will have a similar effect. Any new rule will have to be an almost complete re-writing of the original, given the wide-ranging nature of the court’s injunction against it. Nevertheless, we should continue to be on our guard against the DOL and other departments seeking to use supposedly legitimate means to unlawfully extend their power.

About the author

Sam Bocetta is a retired defense contractor for the U.S. Navy, specializing in electronic warfare and advanced computer systems. He now teaches at Algonquin Community College in Ottawa, Canada as a part time engineering professor and is the ASEAN affairs correspondent for Gun News Daily.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I read Tim Imholt’s post a few days ago on this blog with great interest.  I’ve done more than my fair share of “monument blogging” to the point that I’m wary of ever writing about another monument in my life, but it is a cause I think is important.

Tim makes a great point and one I appreciate; the media wants us to be freaked out about this.  They want controversy, they want protests, they want huge crowds of protesters with signs and firearms.  Drama sells.

I watched the “protests” in Dallas, too.  It made me sad to see the statue removed. I didn’t know the Robert E. Lee replica house was back there and that makes me feel a little better.

In Shreveport, I have been a little anxious as we have a “rally” coming up in a week or so.  There’s been a “call out” on social media for attendance (on both sides) at a rally around our Confederate monument.

Our case is a little different that those we are seeing nationwide.  Shreveport’s monument is on private land that just so happens to be in front of the courthouse.  The land was given to the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1903 along with a $1,000 donation for the monument, and all this is recorded in the minute books of the governing body at the time, the Police Jury.  Our monument was commissioned in 1905 and dedicated in 1906.

So removing it is a bit more of a problem for opponents than in other cities.   The issue is now in the courts.

As far as the protests though, everyone saw what happened in New Orleans.  The problem there is that many locals didn’t want the monuments there removed.  Poll after poll proved that; of course a few did, but most did not.  The protests we saw on television and social media were driven by outside agitators.   One lady came from Oklahoma, dressed in Confederate garb and carrying a battle flag; as much as I admire her dedication and spirit, she was not from NOLA.  Another woman was from Florida and a man from Oklahoma.  These people brought protesters out in force because of their high-profile social media status and then comes the media.

What happens then is that perception is distorted.  In truth, on a local level, these monuments have stood with dignity and peace for over a hundred years in many cases. This sudden outrage is questionable.  The local people, as we saw in Dallas, aren’t outraged.  These monuments are part of their landscape and most people don’t even know what they are or who they represent, it’s just “a guy on a horse.”

A while back, an attorney in Shreveport appealed his convicted client’s case because the attorney said the monument interfered with the man’s right to a fair trial.  (He lost the appeal).

Shame on the media for perpetuating this nonsense. Let the locals decide what they want to do with their monuments and stop encouraging the frenzy.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

Henry Gondorff: If they put you on the spot, we have to fold the con

The Sting 1973

We have seen plenty of posts concerning Hillary Clinton book tour like this:

On September 18, Hillary Clinton will kick off the book tour for What Happened, her memoir about the 2016 presidential election, in Washington, D.C. The crowd at the Warner Theatre will, no doubt, be filled with many representatives of Pantsuit Nation and other pro-Clinton factions of the Democratic Party. But, as Politico found out by talking to Democratic lawmakers and other Clinton allies, there will be plenty members of the minority party staying home on the 18th, preferring to stick toothpicks in their eyes than relive the nightmare of the 2016 elections.

“There is a collective groan whenever there’s another news cycle about this,” said California Democratic representative Jared Huffman, who added that Clinton’s tour comes at “maybe at the worst possible time.” It’s not just the distraction the book will provide from a party fighting for issues such as DACA, Huffman said, but the party fissures that could be reopened by Clinton’s critiques.

But there is one aspect of the tour that everyone is missing.

Historically a book has been a great way for people or organization to give big money to a connected person. After all if an author gets say $2 for the sale of a book then a business can buy 10,000, 20,000 or even 100,000 copies of their book and viola you have just given twice that figure to said connected person without showing up as a donor.

Furthermore not only are said books a tax write-off for said company but if you give those books away to a charity, any charity, suddenly you have a charitable deduction as well.

After all why do you think book publishers give large advances to pols books that generally end up in the dollar bin at stores across the nation?

However this time there is something different.

Hillary Clinton is no longer considered a good investment for foreign governments, large corporations or donors anxious to buy favor. With no influence to sell and even less potential to regain any , dollars given to her are simply thrown away.

However there is one group that thanks to media hysteria is still invested in Hillary, Democrat voters still in denial over the last election.

There are millions of people still on meds in blue states, on college campuses and in trendy neighborhoods who are not only still in mourning but are “still in therapy over Hillary’s loss”. To them Hillary Clinton is a symbol of the paradise that was, in their minds “stolen” in a Russian conspiracy and her very presence will be cathartic.

Now under normal circumstance this would not be the case, but thanks to the media’s own obsessive behavior, people who would normally have gotten on with their lives are still in a state of shock and dismay in need of a release.

When it came to running a campaign or the state department Hillary Clinton might have been 2nd rate but let it never be said that any member of the Clinton clan didn’t recognize a bunch of suckers (perhaps millions of them)  with cash ready to be parted from them when they saw one.

Thus we see stories like this:

Hillary Clinton Coming to Connecticut for 2 Book Signings

Hillary Clinton shows up late as fans turn out in hundreds for NYC book signing

Hillary Clinton to hold book signing in Buffalo

With more to come Portland, Boston, Seattle, Milwaukee, Atlanta

Time is of the essence, there is no way of when reality will compel these folks from abandoning their self-pity and delusion and get back to living their lives so Hillary has to strike while the potential to make from two to five bucks a head is still there. Sure it’s not the easy money she is used to but it’s the only influence she has left to sell.

So now we will be treated to something extraordinary. Hillary Clinton dealing with these suckers plebes all over the country, cracking a smile, signing her name and even risking the odd conservative in line asking a question about Benghazi or email servers or Bill’s Bimbos as she travels the country hawking books to make a buck and perhaps dreaming that it will turn into a groundswell to have one more go at the White House.

But if you are a voter of the left excited to get close to Hillary to give yourself closure remember this:


As it’s very unlikely that anyone is out to buy 10,000 or 100,000 copies of my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer (although if someone wants to do so fee free) the best way for you to let us know that our reporting, our writers and the growing collection of short youtube interviews, are worthy of support we do is here is of value please hit DaTipJar Below



Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



Remember your subscription pay our Magnificent Seven writers each month

RH (NG36B) (Saturday Afternoons):
Zilla of the Resistance (Friday Evenings):
Jerry Wilson (Thursday Evenings)
JD Rucker (Thursday afternoons and Sunday Evenings)
Fausta Wertz (Wednesday and Friday Afternoons)
Juliette Akinyi Ochineg (Baldilocks) (Tuesday and Saturday evenings):
Chris Harper (Tuesday afternoons):
Pat Austin: (Monday Afternoons)
John (Marathon Pundit) Rubbery: (Sunday Afternoons):

And Don’t miss our Part Time Riders either
Ellen Kolb (1st & 4th Wednesday Afternoons each month):
Jon Fournier: (3rd Wednesday Afternoon each month)
Michigan Mick: (1st & 3rd Monday Evenings each month)
Tech Knight (2nd Wednesday Each Month)

As I write this mini-article, millions of Americans are hearing about how bad Donald Trump is, how unfair the government is going to be to illegal immigrants, how Ted Cruz loves porn, and who won an award or two scattered in with the slew of liberal jokes. I’m not.

Instead, I’ve put together a list of better ways to spend my time than to show support (and yes, by merely watching it you’re showing your support) for an industry that generally despises the small-government, freedom-loving conservatives that accounts for most readers of this blog.

  1. Watch Ben Shapiro’s Berkeley speech. I don’t care if you’ve already seen it. Watch it again.
  2. Read the Constitution. Hey, it’s Constitution Day!
  3. Check out my latest conservative news project, NOQ Report.
  4. Read this article by Lloyd Marcus that highlights the importance of sustaining the American Dream regardless of race.
  5. Listen to the Book of John (because there’s never a bad time for John).
  6. Watch John Stossel asking people about the Constitution. Hey, it’s Constitution Day!
  7. Listen to my interview with The Foo.
  8. Learn what you can about California’s decision to become a sanctuary state. It may happen in your state some day.
  9. Check out this underreported story about a t-shirt maker who may be forced out of business for defending his rights.
  10. Contribute to DaTechGuy. He needs our support.

I don’t care who wins the awards. The narcissistic town of Hollywood (where I had to live for nearly two months while my son had two open-heart surgeries) doesn’t deserve my attention. They do more to harm conservatism than just about any other town in the nation outside of Washington DC.

By John Ruberry

“They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please.
“The Rainmakers, Government Cheese.

“I am sick and tired of subsidizing crooks.”
Roger Keats, Toni Preckwinkle’s 2010 Republican general election opponent, announcing his move to Texas.

Last month in this space I wrote about Illinois’ bubbling soda tax rebellion in Cook County, where Chicago is. It’s where I live. Many people call it “Crook County.” I do.

After a lawsuit delayed its imposition for a month, a one-cent per ounce sweetened beverage took effect which covers not just soda–whether it has sugar or artificial sweetener–but also flavored bottled water, sports beverages, energy drinks, and sweetened coffee. But not expensive  sugary coffee purchased from a barista at a Starbucks or other high-end coffee vendors. Oh, how did that last one escape notice?

A penny-per-ounce doesn’t sound like much, but as you’ll see in my photograph on the left, a 42-ounce bottle of AriZona iced-tea on sale for a dollar at a Dollar Tree store near my home suddenly costs $1.42–that’s a 42-percent sales tax rate. A budget-minded family who purchases a 24-pack of store-brand pop (the word soda isn’t used much in the Chicago area) for $5.00 at the local big-box retailer has to dish out $7.88.

Of course the tax is “for the kids.” It always is that way with leftists.

Leftist? Who is a leftist?

Cook County Board President Toni “Taxwinkle” Preckwinkle, a Chicago Democrat, that’s who.

Proof? Do you want proof?

On my way to work on Friday I heard a clip from Dan Proft on WIND-AM Chicago of former Utah Republican politician Dan Liljenquist describing a “sobering experience” about the time he met with Preckwinkle when she was a Chicago alderman. Liljenquist was a law student at the University of Chicago and working for the Institute for Justice’s Clinic on Entrepreneurship. They were offering free legal advice to inner city Chicagoans who wished to start their own business. Liljenquist pitched his idea to Preckwinkle, who replied to him, “I’m opposed to self-employment. You give these people false hopes that they could ever earn a living on their own.”

Yes, Preckwinkle is a leftist. With leftists, government is their god. When there is a problem only government can solve it. Government, of course, is never the problem. So Preckwinkle has set herself up as Mother Preckwinkle, spending other people’s money on Cook County’s massive health care network. Perhaps private hospitals and health care institutions can do a better job, and there are plenty of them here. Sure, not all health care facilities accept Medicaid but plenty do. And what if–wait for it–instead of depending on county health care, county residents instead got jobs in the private sector and become eligible for employer-based health insurance. Or even better, let’s say they start their own businesses and hire people who become eligible for private insurance.

Oops, I’m giving them “false hopes.”

Cook County, not surprisingly, is suffering from negative population growth.

I mentioned Mother Preckwinkle. But sometimes a mother can’t do it all–she needs a nanny. Enter billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. “Nanny Bloomberg” is spending $3 million on radio and television ads supporting Taxwinkle’s tax. Opponents of the soda tax, the Can the Tax Coalition, led by retailers, are spending a lot on their ads too. Preckwinkle dismisses them as “Big Soda.”

Mother and Nanny say that the soda tax is a health care measure to prevent diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. But Taxwkinkle sued the retail group for delaying collection of the tax by for a month. You mean that the tax was not about health? After an uproar, the suit was quickly dropped.

Oh, speaking of uproar, 87 percent of Cook County residents oppose the soda tax.

Food stamp recipients, because of federal law, don’t have to pay the pop tax. There are nearly 900,000 people on food stamps in Cook County. That shoots the “for the kids” and “it’s for our health” argument to pieces.

Crook County has been living beyond its means for decades. Some of the soda tax money will go to woefully underfunded but generous pension plans. Mother Preckwinkle and her predecessors have been rewarding their public-sector union allies for most of my life.

But it’s not Preckwinkle’s money. It belongs to taxpayers such as myself.

In downtown Chicago

Taxwinkle hasn’t campaigned as a leftist. Amazingly, she originally ran as a tax-cutter. Preckwinkle eliminated an unpopular county sales tax. Then she brought it back. But Preckwinkle is governing as a leftist. Because of course she is one. It’s time for Cook County residents to wake up and think about what they vote for. And that includes the mostly lap-dog members of the Cook County Board.

And many more politicians as well.

Leftism is expensive but it’s profitable for retailers who live on the other side of the Cook County line. Pop sales are booming there.

John Ruberry is a fifth-generation Cook County resident who regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.