Obama: “My Policies Are On The Ballot This Fall”

By William Teach October 3, 2014 – 7:25 am

Well, that’s good to know, since neither the Senate nor House Democrats have actually released any sort of platform for the mid-terms as a group. At one point, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi promised to release a platform in 100 days. That would be the day before the election. But, according to the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, Obama was less than helpful to Democrats

28 words that Democrats really wish President Obama didn’t say today

President Obama was at Northwestern University on Thursday to deliver an economic speech that, he and his team hoped, would lay out the case for why the public is better off today than they were six years ago — even if they didn’t feel it in their everday lives. Instead, Obama just gave every Republican ad-maker in the country more fodder for negative ads linking Democratic candidates to him.

Here are the four sentences that will draw all of the attention (they come more than two thirds of the way through the speech): “I am not on the ballot this fall.  Michelle’s pretty happy about that.  But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot.  Every single one of them.” Boil those four sentences down even further and here’s what you are left with: “Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot.  Every single one of them.”

You can imagine Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina or Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky grimacing when they heard those 28 words. That trio has spent much of the campaign insisting that this election is NOT about Barack Obama, that it is instead about a choice between themselves and their opponents.

Cillizza paints the problem in an obvious way: Obama is very unpopular in many of the States where Senate seats are in play. True. But he ignores a central premise: if Obama’s policies are so darned unpopular that Democrats cringe when discussing them, how good are those policies? If Democrats do not want to even bring them up, policies they either voted for or tacitly supported when Obama unilaterally decided to implement them, it’s Obvious with a capital O that the Democrat vision is Bad For America.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama: “My Policies Are On The Ballot This Fall” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Elections | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Here We Go: Yet Another “How To Convince Skeptics On “Climate Change””

By William Teach October 2, 2014 – 1:45 pm

I always find these amusing, because Warmists can’t convince themselves enough of the reality of human caused Hotcoldwetdry to make them change their own behavior

Psychologists Are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously

If there weren’t such a stark divide between American conservatives and almost everyone else on the question of the existence and importance of climate change — a divide that can approach 40 points on some polling questions — the political situation would be very different. So if any progress on climate change is going to be made through the American political system — apart from executive orders by Democratic presidents — it is going to have to somehow involve convincing a lot of conservatives that yes, climate change is a threat to civilization.

How do you do that? The answer has more to do with psychology than politics.

The practice of tailoring a political message to a particular group is commonplace, of course. But the climate activist community has broadly failed to understand just how differently conservatives and liberals see the world on certain issues, and, as a result, just how radically different messages targeting conservatives should look.

Well, that makes sense, since the entire issue is about politics, not science

It’s worth pointing out, of course, that for many conservatives (and liberals), the current debate about climate change isn’t really about competing piles of evidence or about facts at all — it’s about identity. Climate change has come to serve as shorthand for which side you’re on, and conservatives tend to be deeply averse to what climate crusaders represent (or what they think they represent). “The thing most likely to make it hard to sway somebody is that you’re trying to sway them,” said Kahan.

No, it’s about the lack of evidence to prove that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by anthropogenic forces, primarily from greenhouse gases, and an understanding that the push by Warmists is all about enforcing a Progressive government on everyone.

In a larger context, social scientists have shown in laboratory settings that there are ways to discuss climate change that nudge conservatives toward recognizing the issue. Research is proceeding along a few different tracks. One of them involves moral foundations theory, a hot idea in political psychology that basically argues that people holding different political beliefs arrive at those beliefs because they have different moral values (even if there’s plenty of overlap). Liberals tend to be more moved by the idea of innocent people being harmed than conservatives, for example, while conservatives are more likely to react to notions of disgust (some of the conservative rhetoric over immigration reflects this difference).

This is why these leftist buffoons are getting religious leaders (ones who are Left leaning, mind you) to ignore things that the Bible actually says and push Hotcoldwetdry.

So how would this translate to a real-world message? “What you need to do is put the system first,” said Feygina. “Instead of saying, ‘Let’s deal with climate change, let’s be pro-environmental, let’s protect the oceans,’ what you need to do is come in and say, ‘If we want to preserve our system, if we want to be patriotic, if we want our children to have the life that we have, then we have to take these actions that allow us to maintain those things that we care about.’” The starting point can’t be about averting catastrophe, in other words — it has to be about pride in the current system and the need to maintain it.

Of course, since the answer is “more and more Big Government, imbued with Progressive ideals and policies, more and more taxation, and more and more restrictions on our freedoms both personally and in the private sector”, that won’t fly, either.

You want to convince me that AGW is real? Practice what you preach. I’m sure everyone who reads these posts over the years might be tired of that meme, but, it is a very basic premise. If Warmists aren’t willing to make substantive changes in their lives, why should anyone believe in what they’re selling?

Read: Here We Go: Yet Another “How To Convince Skeptics On “Climate Change”” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 2, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which No One Else should be allowed to drive, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on Michelle O refusing to campaign for Senate Dems.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Latest “Climate Change” Scare: Walruses Congregating In Large Numbers

By William Teach October 2, 2014 – 7:33 am

This means doom, of course

As sea ice melts amid global warming, 35,000 walrus crowd the shores of Alaska

In days of yore, the life of a Pacific walrus was idyllic. Blubbery and social, these 1 1/2 ton beasts laid on sea ice, holding court. Their favorite food, shellfish, was just a short trip down to the ocean floor. Sure, it’s cold down there, but these tusked giants can slow their heartbeats to withstand polar temperatures.  If there was a squabble, it was likely about love or love lost.

This harmony has now been threatened by climate change. Due to global warming, the sea ice favored by walrus has disappeared — and now, in northwest Alaska, more than 35,000 walrus have come ashore seeking refuge.

“The walruses are hauling out on land in a spectacle that has become all too common in six of the last eight years as a consequence of climate-induced warming,” said a release from the U.S. Geological Survey. “Summer sea ice is retreating far north of the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea in U.S. and Russian waters, a condition that did not occur a decade ago.  To keep up with their normal resting periods between feeding bouts to the seafloor, walruses have simply hauled out onto shore.”

“Those animals have essentially run out of offshore sea ice, and have no other choice but to come ashore,” Chadwick Jay, a research ecologist in Alaska with the U.S. Geological Survey, told the Guardian.

Obviously, this never happened before. We’ve never watched nature programs with huge numbers of walruses (and other types of seals, seal lions, etc) hauled on to the beach. Hey, maybe they were huddle for warmth. And, perhaps the story is “blatant nonsense”

Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science…this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.’

‘The Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s’

‘Dating back to at least the 1604, there have been reports of large walrus gatherings or haulouts.’ – ‘Walrus haulouts are not unusual and have long been recognized and islands have been set aside for such gatherings.’

Walruses known to migrate away from ice in late summer & fall: “In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.”

As Anthony Watts notes

Because -there’s no other possible explanation- global warming must be to blame.

In the unenlightened old days, the appearance of 35,000 walrus would have been a cause for optimism, evidence that the species was doing well. But in this age of post normal science, such an event has to be interpreted as a portent of global warming – and so, by definition, it must be spooky and bad.

It’s more evidence that the Church Of Gore will do and say anything to keep their cult going.

BTW, even if this was happening because of global warming, it in no way would prove anthropogenic causation, just something that has happened during Holocene warm periods.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Latest “Climate Change” Scare: Walruses Congregating In Large Numbers »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: The Science Is Not Really Settled

By William Teach October 1, 2014 – 3:07 pm

That’s not according to me: Time magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger says it. Sort of

The Climate Deniers’ Newest Argument

It’s a lot easier to attack environmental scientists when you make up something they didn’t say—and then criticize them for saying it

There are few things more satisfying than when people you’re arguing with say something manifestly wrong or tone-deaf. It’s the polemical equivalent of getting a big, fat fastball right right in your sweet spot. Just swing away with a look of disdain or checkable fact and the home run trot is yours.

Alas, that happens less often than one might like, but there’s nothing that stops you from pretending your adversary said something dumb and then pouncing on the imaginary remark. Thus we had the “You didn’t build that” and “Let Detroit go bankrupt” silliness of the 2012 Presidential campaign, in which both President Obama and Mitt Romney were pilloried for saying things they never actually said—or at least didn’t mean—at all. And so, too, we have the “Climate science is settled” charade, in which climate change deniers hand-select four words environmental scientists often do say, reframe those words to mean something else entirely, and then beat the scientists up for faux-saying it.

Interesting. Because AL Gore did, in fact, say “the science is settled” in front of Congress. Climate scientists, leftist opinion writers, pundits, newspapers and media outlets favorable to the notion of “climate change” constantly say it.

Read: Surprise: The Science Is Not Really Settled »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach October 1, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrendous waste of non-renewable water, you might just be a Warmist

Continuing on with short shorts week, the blog of the day is protein wisdom, where Darleen Click resorts to rule 5. And a post on the media relationship with Obama.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Federal Judge Rules Against Subsidies For Federally Run Ocare Exchanges

By William Teach October 1, 2014 – 8:02 am

This has, of course, driven liberals bat guano insane

(Think Progress) Much of the Affordable Care Act must be defunded and millions of Americans must lose their health insurance, according to an opinion issued Tuesday by Judge Ronald A. White, an Oklahoma federal judge appointed to the bench by George W. Bush. White’s opinion reaches the same result reached by two Republican appeals court judges in a similar case, although that decision was later withdrawn by the full appeals court. To date, nine federal judges have considered this question of whether much of the law should be defunded. Only three — all of whom are Republicans — have agreed that it should be.

Whew! Quite a bit of leftist insanity. Let’s switch over to SCOTUS Blog for a more reasoned and rational explanation

Deepening the controversy over tax subsidies to help lower-income workers obtain health insurance, a federal trial judge in Oklahoma on Tuesday barred those credits for individuals who shop for coverage on marketplaces run by the federal government, not by a state.

That issue is already awaiting the Supreme Court’s attention, with the federal government due to file there on Friday a defense of the subsidies scheme that has so far helped nearly five million individuals to afford health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.  (That case is King v. Burwell.)

In Oklahoma, U.S. District Judge Ronald A. White of Muskogee became the latest to rule on the dispute.  For the time being, his is the only ruling still in effect that would strike down the federal marketplace tax credits (and it is subject to appeal).

Essentially, this is a result of Democrats not reading the bill they voted for, and finding out that the language which only allows subsidies for citizens in states that set up their own exchanges, rather than also for federally run exchanges. Of course, many of the architects of Ocare wrote the law in that specific way in order to entice states to set up their own exchanges.

This ruling wouldn’t cause anyone to lose their insurance: they just won’t have other taxpayers paying for it. Besides, does it really matter? If they can’t afford the premium, how are they going to afford the average deductible of $5081?

Interestingly, none of the same liberals going bat guano insane over this were particularly worried about people who actually lost their plans that they liked specifically because of Obamacare requirements.

Read: Federal Judge Rules Against Subsidies For Federally Run Ocare Exchanges »

Posted in Healthcare | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

FCC To Consider Petition To Ban Redskins Name

By William Teach October 1, 2014 – 7:26 am

Old and busted:

  • “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell
  • “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington
  • “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire
  • “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Ben Franklin

New hotness: “I’m offended. You must be silenced” Every Liberal

(Yahoo Sports) The Federal Communications Commission, an independent government agency that regulates radio and television broadcasts, is considering whether to fine and punish broadcasters for using the Washington Redskins nickname, per CNBC.

John Banzhaf III, a George Washington University law professor, has sent the FCC a petition asking regulators to strip Washington D.C. radio station WWXX-FM (ESPN) of its broadcasting license when it comes up for renewal for using the name Redskins, which Banzhaf deems to be “akin to broadcasting obscenity.”

If the word “Redskins” is deemed to be indecent — and some do consider it a slur against Native Americans — the FCC could impose a de facto ban on the word being used on television and radio. Broadcasters who then use the word would be subject to fine and/or possible suspension.

And No One Must Be Offended

(Reuters) Banzhaf says the word is racist, derogatory, profane and hateful, making its use “akin to broadcasting obscenity.”

Which is hilarious, since liberals approve of broadcasting heavy sexual content and violence on TV, but can’t deal with the word “Redskins”.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: FCC To Consider Petition To Ban Redskins Name »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Liberal World, Sports | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Of Course: Climate Change Helped ISIS

By William Teach September 30, 2014 – 2:31 pm

You just knew some Warmist would go there. In this case, it’s Charles B. Strozier, a professor of history at City University of NY, and Kelly A. Berkell, an Attorney and research associate, Center on Terrorism at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Wait, I thought we weren’t supposed to listen to anyone who isn’t a “climate scientist”?

How Climate Change Helped ISIS

As the Obama administration undertakes a highly public, multilateral campaign to degrade and destroy the militant jihadists known as ISIS, ISIL and the Islamic State, many in the West remain unaware that climate played a significant role in the rise of Syria’s extremists. A historic drought afflicted the country from 2006 through 2010, setting off a dire humanitarian crisis for millions of Syrians. Yet the four-year drought evoked little response from Bashar al-Assad’s government. Rage at the regime’s callousness boiled over in 2011, helping to fuel the popular uprising. In the ensuing chaos, ISIS stole onto the scene, proclaimed a caliphate in late June and accelerated its rampage of atrocities including the recent beheadings of three Western civilians.

While ISIS threatens brutal violence against all who dissent from its harsh ideology, climate change menaces communities (less maliciously) with increasingly extreme weather. Most of us perceive these threats as unrelated. We recycle water bottles and buy local produce to keep the earth livable for our children — not to ward off terrorists. Yet environmental stressors and political violence are connected in surprising ways, sparking questions about collective behavior. If more Americans knew how glacial melt contributes to catastrophic weather in Afghanistan — potentially strengthening the Taliban and imperiling Afghan girls who want to attend school — would we drive more hybrids and use millions fewer plastic bags? How would elections and legislation be influenced? (snip)

Toting a metal water bottle is good, but it’s time for ordinary people to consider the bigger picture. When we fail to get the facts right about greenhouse gas emissions, we may unwittingly enable ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and other extremist groups to flourish. As we consider our personal positions on climate change, it is important to understand all that is at stake in our interconnected world.

Read: Of Course: Climate Change Helped ISIS »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 30, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful field perfect for a solar array, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on Donna Brazile calling to scrap the Constitution.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove