Losing The Senate Would Be Good For Obama Or Something

Um, yeah, sure, uh-huh. Looks like Dana Milbank has written off Democrats keeping the Senate and has moved to spin

For Obama, loss of the Senate could be freeing

(lots of whining about Obama not getting credit for our super awesome economy (sic))

No wonder this bear wants to break loose. And maybe he will — if Republicans take control of the Senate.

Crazy talk, you say? Maybe so. The prevailing view is that a Republican Senate would only compound Obama’s woes by bottling up confirmations, doubling the number of investigations and chipping away at Obamacare and other legislative achievements.

Milbank goes into his “reasons” why losing the Senate would be good for Obama, including

There would be no more excuses for Republicans’ failure to put forward their own health-care plan, immigration proposals, specific cuts to popular government programs, and pet causes involving abortion, birth control and gay rights. This would set up real clashes with Obama — who could employ the veto pen he hasn’t used a single time since Republicans gained control of the House in 2010 — and sharp contrasts that would put him on the winning side of public opinion.

How would clashing with Republicans be any different? He’s played the blame and demonization game from day 1.

Read: Losing The Senate Would Be Good For Obama Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled boat causing lake levels to fall, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on super-transparency.

Read: If All You See… »

Pause Hits 17 Years, 10 Months

I know, I know, Warmists will deny the actual data, because their computer models and overwrought rhetoric are more important

Via Climate Depot, here’s Christopher Monckton

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 17 years 10 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for more than half the entire satellite temperature record. Yet the lengthening Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (big snip)

The Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though numerous more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

Obviously, Warmists will deny this. They just cannot accept scientific data when it conflicts with their cultish beliefs.

My typical disclaimer: this does not disprove warming. The Earth is currently in a typical Holocene warm period. Well, actually, a low level warm period. What this does show is that the Warmists are mostly wrong in regards to the cause of the Modern Warm Period.

Read: Pause Hits 17 Years, 10 Months »

Obama Looking For Way To Get Women Free Abortifacients

This is something that has them Highly Concerned

(NY Times) The Obama administration, reeling from back-to-back blows from the Supreme Court this week, is weighing options that would provide contraceptive coverage to thousands of women who are about to lose it or never had it because of their employers’ religious objections.

The administration must move fast. Legal and health care experts expect a rush to court involving scores of employers seeking to take advantage of the two decisions, one involving Hobby Lobby Stores, which affects for-profit businesses, and the other on Wheaton College that concerns religiously affiliated nonprofit groups. About 100 cases are pending.

One proposal the White House is studying would put companies’ insurers or health plan administrators on the spot for contraceptive coverage, with details of reimbursement to be worked out later.

Another would give the administration itself a larger role in offering cost-free coverage to women who cannot get it through their employers, although the option for a new government entitlement appears unrealistic for financial and political reasons.

The White House is under such pressure that no one has been able to work out details of how the alternatives would be financed or administered.

Details schmetails, Obama has free abortifacients to provide to his base, religious beliefs be damned! The lawsuits so far have all been about covering abortifacients, not standard contraception, a point that the Times finally gets around to within their discussion of the Supreme Court’s female justices having a tizzy over the Wheaton decision.

The Obama administration says the cost of providing contraceptives will be offset by savings that result from greater use of birth control, “fewer unplanned pregnancies” and improvement in women’s health. But, Mr. Condeluci said, “It may be years before the savings are realized.”

It’s a cute talking point, but it doesn’t address the fundamental protection laid out in the 1st Amendment about government restricting the free practice of religion. Again, this debate boils down to Constitutionalists vs moochers.

Read: Obama Looking For Way To Get Women Free Abortifacients »

Is America Really That Polarized?

Yes, and no, as The Washington Post’s Dan Balz points out

Forget what you’ve heard about an America divided into warring camps, living in red and blue states or congressional districts. We actually agree on lots of things.

That, at least, is the conclusion of a study conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), whose goal is to give the public a louder voice in the policymaking process. (The study is also available on the Web site of Voice of the People.)

The group analyzed answers to more than 300 survey questions taken over the past few years and dealing with public-policy choices, and it compared responses from people who live in red congressional districts or states with those who live in blue districts or states.

The analysis found overwhelming convergence in attitudes, regardless of the makeup of the state or district where people live. People in red districts or states and those in blue districts or states truly disagreed with each other just 4 percent of the time.

Of course, one of the problems with the results could be who is asked within the red/blue states. The Party/ideological position breakdown is not provided. The results could also go to the questions asked. Regardless, the conclusion to the gridlock in Congress is

(Stephen) Kull (director of PPC) doesn’t dispute the fact that Congress is polarized along partisan lines. But he said it’s wrong to blame that on a polarized population. Members of Congress, he said, are responding not to their constituents but to the power (and money) of special interests that have their own, partisan agendas.

A couple points. First, gridlock is what the Constitution intended. It was set up to be a slow, ponderous process for passing laws at a national level. The States were supposed to be the primary government entities. Second, if the study is to be believed, we may agree on ends, but we do not necessarily agree on means. Take investing in renewable energy. There is a red/blue split of 59.1/63.5 believing that it is important. But, how do we get there? I’m all for it. What I am not for is pissing away taxpayer money in order to repay campaign contributors, along with dumping money into companies that will go nowhere. I’ve also mentioned I think research and development for individual buildings, rather than the these giants solar/wind farms would be better. Warmists claim they love renewables, yet, when construction occurs, they want it stopped. They say they love hydro-thermal. Yet, they want existing dams torn down.

There is a point, though, about special interests and money, and power, in Government. Not just Congress, but the presidency, as well.  A strong, centralized government doesn’t always listen to We The People. They may pretend to, but over time they focus more on the big monied interests. Hence the reason for term limits and repealing the 17th Amendment. Shift power from the federal government and back to the States, where it belongs.

But wait. There is another view, offered by Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University who has written extensively on the topic of polarization.

Abramowitz prefers to look at the issue through the differences between Republicans and Democrats in red states, blue states and purple states, not just by comparing the districts. He also argues that the differences on a number of basic issues that are at the heart of the national political debate underscore the degree to which the country is divided.

At the end of the day, why is this a Bad Thing? People have different opinions. Americans on the right want to debate and help those on the left understand why they are wrong. Those on the Left want to shut down debate, tell those on the right to shut up, and even pass laws restricting certain thoughts. They would prefer a more homogenized version of political thought, where everyone believes the same thing. In some cases, are forced to believe the same thing.

There is a fundamental difference between those who believe in low taxation, a weak central government, adhering to the Constitution, and freedom/liberty, as opposed to those who believe in mooching, a domineering central government, high taxes (for Other People), thought crimes, and living by the fruits of other people’s labor.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is America Really That Polarized? »

Fighting Hotcoldwetdry Is What Independence Day Is About!

This is the kind of stuff that I missed out on without cable services at home (idiot neighbor ran into junction box, cutting cable. Nice of them to tell me, eh? Kudos to the Time Warner Cable guy, who went above and beyond, not just fixing that, but, replacing other things and tuning up my service). Here’s Robert Redford

Addressing Climate Change Should Inspire Patriotism, Not Gridlock

Heading into the July 4th celebration of America’s independence got me thinking about when it comes to huge challenges we’ve faced as a nation, we have a rich and storied history of aspirational spirit and belief in what we, together, can accomplish.

Are we losing this quintessentially American drive for excellence? Have we stopped believing in ourselves? Sometimes it feels that way when one tries to parse the political rhetoric barreling at us day in and day out.

So, if you don’t rise to the occasion of solving “climate change”, you’re now unpatriotic.

This, and the rest of Redford’s missive, could easily inspire a giant, mega post. But, hey, why bother? These people are loons. And hypocrites. This is straight from the Progressive playbook. Funny how they never seem to realize that insulting people with opposing views will always cause them to not only not take action, but dig their heels in and go the opposite way.

Meanwhile, Noah Rothman covers a Duke professor who is calling for “real conflict” over inequity and “climate change”. Wouldn’t that require guns, which the Left hates?

Read: Fighting Hotcoldwetdry Is What Independence Day Is About! »

If All You See…

…is the awesome flag of the USA wrapped around a beautiful American woman, then Happy Independence Day!

 photo sexy-us-flag-bikini-babe.jpg

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Remembering.

Read: If All You See… »

Happy Independence Day!

 photo 2006-May-17-1976flag.jpg

 photo fireworks_4th_14.gif

 photo useagle3.gif

Happy 4th! Still no Internet, so not sure the size of these while using Droid.

Read: Happy Independence Day! »

Still No US Hurricane Landfall From Arthur

The last true, confirmed, without a doubt hurricane to make landfall in the Unites States was Ike, back in 2008. The closest was Issac last year, but it could be argued that the sustained winds were not at hurricane force at landfall. Sandy’s sustained winds were nit hurricane strenght, either. What about Arthur?

(WRAL) The eye wall of Hurricane Arthur  came ashore at Morehead City just before 11 p.m. with maximum wind gusts up to 100 mph and sustained winds of 67 mph. The storm was headed NE at 18 mph and was expected to pick up speed and continue to move away from North Carolina through the night.

WRAL is the preeminent North Carolina station when it comes to weather, and 67 does not equal a hurricane.

That’s not to imply that a tropical storm, especially one with 67mph sustained winds with gusts to 100 is not dangerous: it is. Hey, I’ve been through it many times, and it is no fun. But, Arthur was not a hurricane at landfall.

I’m not even going to get into all the wackos linking Arthur to “climate change”. Mostly since I’m still without internet.

Hoping everyone came through it OK. Hard to tell without TV and the ‘net.

Read: Still No US Hurricane Landfall From Arthur »

If All You See…

…is a horrid flooded world caused by the USA’s carbon footprint, you might just be a Warmist

 photo PT213b_zps37e5912f.jpg

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on open carry gun whores. He has a point.

FYI, Time Warner Cable is down in my area, so there may or may not be more posts till possibly tomorrow afternoon. Doing this on Droid while at gym. Can’t even adjust photo size.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove