Surprise: Belief In Hotcoldwetdry Doesn’t Always Lead To Action

By William Teach November 8, 2014 – 10:25 am

The hell you say!

(Phys.org) Americans are undergoing a significant shift in thinking about climate change, but rising public awareness of a warming climate has not translated into action, according to new survey research.

In the recent 2014 Empire State Poll, 82 percent of New Yorkers say they believe is happening. Downstate New Yorkers are even more convinced – 86 percent say climate change is real. However, less than 1 percent of the 800 New York state residents polled think climate change is the most important issue facing the state, and less than 20 percent would be willing to take political action.

With support from the Atkinson Center’s Rapid Response Fund, a multidisciplinary team of Cornell researchers set out to identify factors that may motivate Americans to mobilize for grassroots action on climate change. Mobilizing could include voting, serving on boards, contributing money, attending marches or demonstrations, and other forms of political participation and activism.

Huh. I thought this might be about Warmists actually taking actions within their own lives to significantly reduce their own “carbon footprints”. In fact, as you all read, this is about Warmists taking political action in an attempt to force Other People to practice what Warmists believe.

Wendy Wolford, the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future’s faculty director of economic development, said: “Many things we take for granted today – like women’s right to vote, diversity in the university and an eight-hour workday – were fought for by ordinary people in protests, demonstrations and social movements …. Over coming years, our group will be able to document not just why people would hypothetically organize, but why they actually did.”

So, again, what we see is that this is all about politics. Comparing a fake issue like climate change with universal suffrage is beyond stupid. Climate change is all about hardcore leftist politics.

Read: Surprise: Belief In Hotcoldwetdry Doesn’t Always Lead To Action »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Very Concerned Over SCOTUS Taking On Ocare Subsidies Case

By William Teach November 8, 2014 – 7:51 am

They really are Very Concerned. SCOTUS Blog reported Friday

The Supreme Court, moving back into the abiding controversy over the Affordable Care Act, agreed early Friday afternoon to decide how far the federal government can extend its program of subsidies to buyers of health insurance.  At issue is whether the program of tax credits applies only in the consumer marketplaces set up by sixteen states, and not at federally operated sites in thirty-four states.

Rather than waiting until Monday to announce its action, which would be the usual mode at this time in the Court year, the Justices released the order granting review of King v. Burwell not long after finishing their closed-door private Conference.

Hot Air takes a deep dive into the issue, well worth the read. The issue comes down to the way Democrats wrote Ocare, setting it up so that only those who obtain insurance through State run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. We could say “hey, read the bill next time,” but they intentionally set it up so that States would want to buy into Ocare, rather than having the federal government run their exchanges. The NY Times Editorial Board is appalled that the Supreme Court could decide that language has meaning

Health Care Reform Imperiled

Will five Supreme Court justices eliminate essential health care subsidies for more than four million lower-income Americans, based on a contorted reading of four words?

It sounds inconceivable, but that would be the effect of a ruling in favor of the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. On Friday, the justices announced that they would hear that case, King v. Burwell, a dispute over the meaning of a single phrase — “established by the State” — in the 900-page health-care reform law.

Because one subsection of the law says these subsidies are available on an exchange “established by the State,” the plaintiffs claim there can be no subsidies for anyone living in the 36 states where the federal government established a health exchange after state officials did not.

The NY Times and Ocare supporters do not like that language is important. That said, it is not just one subsection, is a major component of How The Ocare Subsidies Work.

In cases where there is a dispute over statutory wording, a well-established legal principle requires courts to defer to a government agency’s reasonable interpretation of the language at issue. In fact, the plaintiffs concede that their strained reading of the law could render several other provisions nonsensical.

In other words, the NYTEB knows that Democrats really messed up in crafting the bill, one which the majority of the country is still against.

The Supreme Court itself has said repeatedly that when construing laws, “we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.”

In fact, one of the key architects of the law, Jonathan Gruber, who was paid $400,000 to help, had this to say in 2012

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

That was the intent. It was written that way on purpose. The Democrats could have rewritten it and passed legislation when it was pointed out while they still controlled both the House and Senate. They did not. So, if it’s a mistake, they sure didn’t think so back in 2010. Ezekiel Emanuel has also said the same thing about the intent. The intent was explicit and purposely put into the law as a way to coerce reluctant states into setting up exchanges to get at the federal goodies.

Read: NY Times Very Concerned Over SCOTUS Taking On Ocare Subsidies Case »

Posted in Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Democrats: “Yeah, Our Economic Message Was Lacking”

By William Teach November 8, 2014 – 6:54 am

The midterm shellacking continues to roll on. Mostly it is delusional, but a few tidbits of reality leak through. Here’s one of them

Democrats Say Economic Message Was Lacking

For all the finger-pointing among Democrats over Tuesday’s election calamity, the White House, Congress and party establishment all share responsibility for weaknesses that the defeats laid bare, critics say, and should confront them as the 2016 contest takes shape.

The problems are fundamental, involving questions of where Democrats focus their party-building efforts, what voters they talk to, and most crucial, what they say to those voters. Missing this year, many Democrats say, was a broad economic message to enthuse supporters and convert some independents.

After that, the Times jumps into all sorts of other excuse making and blamestorming for many, many paragraphs

Even before Tuesday’s results were in, some Democrats were complaining that the party had failed to develop a national economic message and policy agenda that would appeal both to white men and to women and minorities, as well as counter the Republicans’ own lack of an affirmative policy platform. Many blamed Mr. Obama, yet the president was all but banned from the campaign trail given his unpopularity.

“Absent any clear or far-reaching national agenda and message to address people’s real economic concerns about jobs, wages and opportunity,” Mr. Teixeira and Mr. Halpin wrote late Thursday, “the Democrats essentially ceded control of the national campaign, opting to try their luck with a series of localized and targeted campaigns.”

In other words, Democrats stressed abortion and the #WarOnWomen and other minor issues, while avoiding any sort of coherent message on the economy. The closest they came was pushing for a minimum wage raise to $10.10 an hour.

Another analysis released Friday, from Democracy Corps and the Voter Participation Center, which works to increase turnout among unmarried women — a quarter of the voting-age population — concluded that single women’s support fell short because they “did not hear issues important to them: an economic agenda for working women and men.”

In comparison, Republicans talked about the dozens and dozens of economic bills sent from the House to the Senate, which were immediately tabled in committee without even a hearing. They talked about repealing and replacing Ocare, which has been a drag on the economy. Reducing the role of government within the economy (for the liberal impaired, it doesn’t meandoing away with the role, just reducing the size and scope). Balancing the budget. Stopping the flow of illegals, who tend to reduce overall pay. Stopping the threat against fossil fuels, which harms the economy. Reducing all the burdensome regulations that harm business. Having a proper tax policy. And many others. That’s what Thom Tillis did here in North Carolina, and what Republicans did in other states. Just because the message was lost in the liberal media outlets doesn’t mean that voters did not hear it.

What was the Democrat message? Let’s hit the DNC website, shall we? Um, let’s see, there is no agenda when you click on Issues>jobs and the economy. There are blog posts, the last of which was May 9, 2014. On green investment.

How about the DSCC? You’re taken right to a “Thank you” page, already asking to sign up so they can take back the Senate. With not skip button. Let’s try dscc.org again. And right back to the loser page. I think we can safely assume any issues were about #WarOnWomen, minimum wage, free money, and the other policies that avoid the overall economy.

BTW, have you noticed that, while the economy is still pretty crummy, the bleeding stopped when Republicans took over the House and stopped the Democrat agenda? Now that they control the House and Senate, we can finally see some progress, provided Mr. Obama cooperates with the will of the voters.

Read: Democrats: “Yeah, Our Economic Message Was Lacking” »

Posted in Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Election Advice To Dems That They Will Never Ever Take

By William Teach November 7, 2014 – 4:32 pm

Over at the Washington Post,  Republican Michael Gerson writes about the midterm shellscking,  focusing on the harm Obama caused Dems. You’re welcome to read that, and within he has some interesting advice

To be a national party, Democrats need to contend for rural and small-town voters, for older voters, for working-class white voters, for white Catholics, even for suburban evangelicals. This requires not just a populist economic message (which is important) but the recognition of a set of values — a predisposition toward social order, family and faith — that is foreign to most liberal bloggers and Democratic strategists. In Colorado, for example, Democrats tried to apply a blue-state strategy — emphasizing abortion rights and the supposed Republican “war on women” — in a purple state. It backfired. (In contrast, Bill Ritter was elected governor of Colorado in 2006 as a pro-life Democrat.) In the Obama era, nearly every cultural signal sent by the national Democratic Party would be applauded in the faculty lounge.

Especially focusing on the first half,  there is no way that Democrats would take that advice. The Oakland Raiders have a better chance of winning this year’s Super Bowl (they’re 0-8). Liberals despise the people mentioned. They tend to hate Southerners,  rural folks,  those in the Midwest,  all of whom they sneeringly refer to as Flyover County. Hicks. Rubes. Rednecks. Neanderthals. You’ve heard this before,  so I shan’t belittle the point, but they really do hate people who aren’t like themselves politically. Passionately. And certain groups like those mentioned. They are very intolerant people.

Which is interesting,  considering how many liberals are escaping their Blue areas,  which they have destroyed with their policies,  and coming to Red areas.

Anyhow,  more on the Democrat autopsy here. And here.

Read: Election Advice To Dems That They Will Never Ever Take »

Posted in Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Election Advice To Dems That They Will Never Ever Take

By William Teach November 7, 2014 – 2:10 pm

Over at the Washington Post,  Republican Michael Gerson writes about the midterm shellscking,  focusing on the harm Obama caused Dems. You’re welcome to read that, and within he has some interesting advice

To be a national party, Democrats need to contend for rural and small-town voters, for older voters, for working-class white voters, for white Catholics, even for suburban evangelicals. This requires not just a populist economic message (which is important) but the recognition of a set of values — a predisposition toward social order, family and faith — that is foreign to most liberal bloggers and Democratic strategists. In Colorado, for example, Democrats tried to apply a blue-state strategy — emphasizing abortion rights and the supposed Republican “war on women” — in a purple state. It backfired. (In contrast, Bill Ritter was elected governor of Colorado in 2006 as a pro-life Democrat.) In the Obama era, nearly every cultural signal sent by the national Democratic Party would be applauded in the faculty lounge.

Especially focusing on the first half,  there is no way that Democrats would take that advice. The Oakland Raiders have a better chance of winning this year’s Super Bowl (they’re 0-8). Liberals despise the people mentioned. They tend to hate Southerners,  rural folks,  those in the Midwest,  all of whom they sneeringly refer to as Flyover County. Hicks. Rubes. Rednecks. Neanderthals. You’ve heard this before,  so I shan’t belittle the point, but they really do hate people who aren’t like themselves politically. Passionately. And certain groups like those mentioned. They are very intolerant people.

Which is interesting,  considering how many liberals are escaping their Blue areas,  which they have destroyed with their policies,  and coming to Red areas.

Anyhow,  more on the Democrat autopsy here. And here.

Read: Election Advice To Dems That They Will Never Ever Take »

Posted in Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 7, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will rise hundreds of feet if Other People do not give up their fossil fueled travel, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on Dems predicting midterm victory. And a double shot with a post on the Clinton scorecard.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Know What The Midterms Mean? That The GOP Has To Totally Lead On Climate Change!

By William Teach November 7, 2014 – 9:43 am

No, really

After Election, Republicans Must Prepare their own Climate Policy

The Republicans have won a clear victory. They will take over the Senate, expand their control of the House, and deserve congratulations for their win.

Now, it is time to govern. The challenges that this country faces are long. And governing is different than campaigning. It means dealing with problems as they come – and not always in what fits best in a 30 second advertisement.

After this election, climate change is an issue that Republicans may think they are safe to ignore. The President has made a big push to regulate carbon emissions through the EPA over the last two years. Some outside groups sought to bring climate action into the campaign. Today, the electoral results could not be more clear: Obama’s policies were repudiated at the polls. Throughout the election, Democrats in swing districts went out of their way to avoid talking about climate change or the EPA.

Republicans could think that they are safe to continue saying “I’m not a scientist” when asked about climate change. They could think this means they don’t need a climate policy. That would be the wrong lesson to take from this.

President Obama’s policies on climate change are all wrong. His Department of Energy picks winners and losers among politically connected companies. His command-and-control policies at the EPA will ensure that “no lawyer is left behind” in a flurry of lawsuits over where to build power plants, and what kind of production is allowed.

However, that does not mean that not action is needed. The science has never been clearer. The threat has never been higher. On Sunday, the world’s climate scientists released their summary report, giving a dire warning of “severe, widespread and irreversible” effects from climate change. It had no effect on the election.

I didn’t realize that the election was all about “climate change”, and that winning means the GOP, what with the ass-whooping they put on Obama and the Dems, have to embrace solutions to the 18+ years of no statistically significant warming.

Here’s where it does get interesting

Fortunately, chemistry does not care about partisan politics. Republicans can actually be more effective in preparing for climate change by doing what we do best:  embracing free markets, promoting breakthrough technologies, and devolving power to states and local governments. We don’t need Obama’s Cap and Trade plan. We don’t need to suddenly embrace the EPA or other big government solutions. We don’t need to give taxpayer dollars to politically connected industries.

Instead, Republicans should promote basic research and development into clean technology that will allow the private sector to effectively reduce emissions. They should devolve power to states and local governments to most effectively prepare for the effects of climate change, because the federal government shouldn’t give a one-sized fits all response. They should see that free markets have decided that solar and wind power is the cheapest new source of energy in some markets – but big monopoly utilities are blocking it. There are Republican solutions to climate change – and this year is our opportunity to force President Obama to take a new, conservative, and more effective track on addressing climate change.

Wait, didn’t I write something similar in yesterday’s post on National Geographic? We do not have to do this for “climate change” reasons, but the need to expand the economy and look towards the future, to create more energy, which can hopefully be cleaner than current “alternatives” are. There is nothing wrong with doing this. The end results of energy independence with cleaner energy and leading the world would be a good thing. Oh, and pushing power back to the States, where it belongs.

I’d love to see R&D into the use of alternatives – wind, solar, hydrothermal, geothermal, etc – for small use, for individual buildings, especially homes, rather than these giant wind and solar projects.

Read: Know What The Midterms Mean? That The GOP Has To Totally Lead On Climate Change! »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Tells GOP “Hands Off On D.C. Marijuana Law”

By William Teach November 7, 2014 – 8:44 am

No, really. This is what they find important after the thrubbing Obama and the Democrats endured

Congress should allow D.C.’s marijuana legalization to stand

D.C. VOTERS, as expected, gave overwhelming approval to a ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana and, as expected, there were immediate rumblings from Capitol Hill of plans to block its implementation. We did not favor passage of Initiative 71, but we do believe in democracy and self-government. Congress should recognize how inappropriate it would be to interfere with the District on this local issue.

Um, why? Congress is essentially in charge of D.C. Furthermore, marijuana is still a Schedule 1 drug by federal law, the same class as cocaine, meth, LSD, crack, and heroin, among others. The Department of Justice should actually be jumping in and suing, much like they should in states that have legalized in some form.

However, if you thought that the Washington Post Editorial Board would defend the statement, you’d be wrong. You’re welcome to read the four following paragraphs to see if you can find any notion of the EB offering any sort of defense, reasoning, and/or rational for the statement. You won’t.

I will, sort of, though. On one hand, it should be stopped because marijuana is, as I noted, a Schedule 1 drug per federal law. On the other hand, I personally do not think people smoking pot is a big deal, especially in light of alcohol being legal, and it being a considerably worse drug than pot. If they want to smoke it, fine. Treat it the same as alcohol, in terms of where it can be smoked.

That said, the Washington Post hasn’t held the same position on other voter initiatives, such as banning gay marriage. When the People of California spoke and passed Proposition 8, the WPEB was very unhappy, and wanted it killed. They very much wanted DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) killed. They’ve very much wanted other laws and amendments, ones in which the People spoke, killed, such as North Carolina’s Amendment 1.

While I do not remember the EB chiming in on Wake County’s previous plan to go to local schools, rather than busing kids all over the county in the name of economic diversity (FYI, the busing plan hasn’t been about racial integration for decades), the paper itself often ran outraged articles, letters, and op-eds by other people, extremely upset over said local schools plan, despite having a local schools system in the Washington area. They were chiming in on a “local issue”.

Democrats/liberals/progressives love the notion of democracy and people voting, right up to the point that they lose the vote. Then they want it stopped.

Read: Washington Post Tells GOP “Hands Off On D.C. Marijuana Law” »

Posted in Wonky Media | Comments Off on Washington Post Tells GOP “Hands Off On D.C. Marijuana Law” | Trackback URL

Ouch: “Lame duck swims to Asia”

By William Teach November 7, 2014 – 8:06 am

Quite frankly one of the most amusing headlines regarding Obama and the midterms, something I really would not have expected to appear in Politico

lame duck obama

I almost don’t even care what the article says, but

If President Barack Obama expects to escape the spate of brutal post-election news by traveling 6,000 miles and 12 time zones to Asia, he’s in for a surprise.

Regional players are taking stock of whether the U.S. president once seen as a global rock star will now have diminished heft on the world stage, and some are delivering their verdict well ahead of his arrival Monday for an eight-day trip to China, Burma and Australia.

Global Times, an English-language newspaper published by China’s state-run People’s Daily, has carried two withering editorials in recent days.

“The lame-duck president will be further crippled” in the wake of a GOP victory, the newspaper warned in one before the voting was complete. “He has done an insipid job, offering nearly nothing to his supporters. US society has grown tired of his banality.”

Conservatives often note that international news outlets often do the job that the US media doesn’t. The big question for the US media is whether they turn on Obama at this point. He’s a drag on the party, he has rarely provided any help to other Democrats, he tends to be stingy with the cash he raises in regards to other Dems, and his brand is seriously damaged. What we should expect from him for the next two+ years is for him to significantly ramp up his partisan rhetoric, and to do things which the voters repudiated him over. Right now, Dems have to think about 2016, and Obama will be a helper.

“When Southeast Asia looks at this trip and him coming, they’re wondering, you know, who is Barack Obama now after the midterm elections?” Bower said. “They’ll be trying to discern whether he has the commitment and political capability, the political capital to follow through on earlier commitments.”

When has Obama ever had the commitment and political capability to follow through, other than on campaigning? By his own words he’s “lazy”. He rarely puts in the hard work the job requires. That said, there’s a better chance of Things Getting Done with a GOP Senate, which supports the Transpacific Partnership trade agreement, something Harry Reid was dead set against. And it may well be that other Democrat Senators will join the GOP majority on this, once Reid is out of the way.

One interesting thing to note, the GOP congress may make Obama look good by the end of his term, if Obama follows along with the economic measures the GOP will pass.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Ouch: “Lame duck swims to Asia” »

Posted in Barry Obama | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

GOP Wave Means The Theocracy Is Coming Or Something

By William Teach November 6, 2014 – 3:31 pm

This may not be the dumbest thing I’ve read about the GOP Midterms win,  but it ranks high up there, and gives me serious pause about the people who are allowed to walk around and get drivers licenses. This is a letter to the Raleigh N&O,  and makes one wonder exactly why they would choose this one of all they get. Highlighting moonbattery from their side? Or do they feel the same? Anyhow, Theocracy is on our doorstep, y’all!

Regarding the Nov. 5 news article “ Tillis edges Hagan”: Oh, goodie. One step closer to theocracy, to a government that forces us all to live according to the professed religious beliefs of the party in power, because if we live according to our own, that apparently violates their religious freedom. Check the history books (or look around the world) to see how well that usually works out.

photo facepalm.gif

Read: GOP Wave Means The Theocracy Is Coming Or Something »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove