…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… »
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the same result reached by two Republican appeals court judges in a similar case, although that decision was later withdrawn by the full appeals court.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 »
Old and busted:
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.
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.
…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… »
There are very few Believers in “climate change”, ie, the notion that every change in the weather and earth is caused mostly/solely by Mankind’s release of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 (what they unscientifically call “carbon pollution”) from fossil fuels, who will admit that one of their primary goals is to change the economies of countries and the world into a far, far left Progressive/Socialist one. Naomi Klein is one of them. She’s been running around talking about her book, saying exactly that. Here’s another
(NY Times) The world needs binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for all major economies. But to tackle climate change, we need to transform the global economy, and that’s something that no treaty can accomplish on its own. Each country needs to to address climate change on the domestic level for those policies to have an effect internationally.
That’s Warmist Scott Moore, making that statement as part of a NY Times Room For Debate segment on can we do without a global climate treaty?. Changing the economy is vital for Warmists, who, at heart, are Progressives, what Jonah Goldberg referred to as “nice fascists”. For instance, you refer back to this article on 5 takeaways from Naomi Klein’s book
(from #1)…Instead, Klein argues, we need to break free of market fundamentalism and implement long-term planning, strict regulation of business, more taxation, more government spending and reversals of privatization to return key infrastructure to public control.
And
5. Confronting climate change is an opportunity to address other social, economic and political issues.
In other words, pushing everything to the far left.
“When climate change deniers claim that global warming is a plot to redistribute wealth, it’s not (only) because they are paranoid. It’s also because they are paying attention.â€
That’s a direct quote from Klein.
Perhaps the market forces would change if Warmists weren’t such massive consumers, users of fossil fuels, and didn’t have such huge carbon footprints.
Read: NY Times: To Solve Climate Change, The Economy Must Change »
In light of Obama throwing the intelligence community under the bus during his 60 Minutes interview in regards to the rise of ISIS/ISIL, one has to wonder just how often he receives a live briefing, rather than (supposedly) reading the briefing material
(Breitbart) A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI)report reveals that President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1% of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) in the 2,079 days of his presidency through September 29, 2014.
The GAI report also included a breakdown of Obama’s PDB attendance record between terms; he attended 42.4% of his PDBs in his first term and 41.3% in his second.
That’s right, campers, a shade over 40%.
On Monday, others in the intelligence community similarly blasted Obama and said he’s shown longstanding disinterest in receiving live, in-person PDBs that allow the Commander-in-Chief the chance for critical followup, feedback, questions, and the challenging of flawed intelligence assumptions.
Remember, Obama is supposed to be “one of the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence in the worldâ€.
“It’s pretty well-known that the president hasn’t taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009,†an Obama national security staffer told theDaily Mail on Monday. “He gets them in writing.â€
The Obama security staffer said the president’s PDBs have contained detailed threat warnings about the Islamic State dating back to before the 2012 presidential election.
As noted many times, Obama likes to be president, he doesn’t like to do president.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: How Often Has Obama Missed His Daily Presidential Briefing? »
How often do we hear Liberals screech that government shouldn’t be in the bedroom, and how Republicans are evil on this? Usually, the argument is about abortion on demand and Government paying for abortion, contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization. But, what about consensual sex?
(ABC News) Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he has signed a bill that makes California the first in the nation to define when “yes means yes” and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.
State lawmakers last month approved Senate Bill 967 by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. Campus sexual assault victims and women’s advocacy groups delivered petitions to Brown’s office on Sept. 16 urging him to sign the bill.
De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
“Every student deserves a learning environment that is safe and healthy,” De Leon said in a statement Sunday night. “The State of California will not allow schools to sweep rape cases under the rug. We’ve shifted the conversation regarding sexual assault to one of prevention, justice, and healing.”
This sure seems like Government telling people how to act in their own bedrooms, does it not?
BTW, why is there such a supposedly huge issue with sexual assault on liberal college campuses run by liberals, with teachers that are liberals, and many students who are liberals?
The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
Three out of 4, you bet. I think we all can agree on that. Except for those with bad intentions in their hearts. As for drunk, um, college?
Double BTW: why not take sexual assault complaints out of the hands of the schools, and put it in the hands of law enforcement, where it belongs?
Read: California Decides That It Does Want Government In The Bedroom »
…is a wonderful city full of other Warmists who take buses instead of cars, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Say Anything, with a post discussing whether we should fear all Muslims.
Read: If All You See… »
Perhaps this explains why Warmists tend to have the largest “carbon footprints” and refuse to practice what they screech about
Trusting Science Leads to Complacency About Climate Change
Here at Care2, we care a great deal about climate change — and we also care a great deal about science, which provides much of the basis for our understanding of climate change. You might intuitively think that our understanding of and belief in science is part of what drives us to take individual action to halt climate change, but research from Amsterdam suggests, oddly, that just the opposite is true.
Research subjects with a high degree of faith in science were actually less likely to engage in individual actions to address global climate concerns. Shockingly, the study suggests, the best way to get people to take action on climate change may not lie in educating them about the science.
The mechanism through which this phenomenon occurs is fascinating, and, like other psychological events, it explains a great deal about human behavior. Put simply, people who put their trust in science also believe that science has the capacity to solve climate change — in which case their actions as individuals don’t matter, because researchers will figure out how to fix the problem before it crosses the final divide and can’t be resolved. Why sort your recycling when thousands of brilliant minds are being put to the task of controlling the climate before it’s too late?
Of course, the problem is that Warmists only believe certain science and scientists, and refuse to even entertain that they might be wrong.
The study has real implications in terms of how we teach climate change to students and address groups on the issue. Given the compensatory control issue, the best thing to do may be to refocus individuals and to get them thinking about personal control. Instructor Diana Liverman unconsciously enacted these changes in her classes before this research came out:
Enacting personal control still won’t get Warmists to practice what they screech. And, quite frankly, the study about complacency also misses the mark, because this is not about science, but about enacting far-left policies of control.
Read: Huh. Those With Strongest Belief In “Science” Least Likely To Take Action On “Climate Change” »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
