No Drama Obama

PBO really, really doesn’t like any draaaaama in his little bubble, because the POTUS shouldn’t ever have to deal with drama, dagnabit! (via Twitchy)

(Time) And yet, as the dry-runs continued to produce red flags—over and over—the president remained in his steely cocoon. If this were the presidency of George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, the obvious theories would abound: the chief executive is disengaged. Or incurious. Or worse. But since Obama is none of the above, what gives?

This much is clear, after speaking with both past and present senior administration officials: no one was really in charge, so no one knew for sure how bad the overall picture was. What’s more, and—perhaps most telling—no one wanted to even hint to the president that this techno-savvy administration possibly had a website stuck in, say, 1995. “People don’t like to tell him bad news,” says an ex-White House staffer. “Part of it is the no-drama culture.”

As the saying goes, Obama likes to be president, he doesn’t like to do president. This goes back to Obama never having held a position of leadership, no managerial or executive experience, neither in the public nor private sectors. Anyone who has been In Charge, even over just a few folks, knows that Drama occurs. Deal with it. Lead. Manage. Move it forward.

I will disagree on one point: he loves drama when it comes to partisan politics, just not within the duties of POTUS.

Along those same lines of partisan politics, Obama didn’t push “comprehensive immigration reform” when Dems controlled Congress because he wanted to use the issue to attack Republicans. The Lonely Conservative has the 411.

Read: No Drama Obama »

If All You See…

…is a horrid drought world caused by people shooting evil guns which contain lead bullets, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on Valerie Jarrett leading negotiations with Iran.

And some Rule 5 from Evil Blogger Lady and Diogenes’ Middle Finger.

Read: If All You See… »

Warmist: Climate Changed Caused The Japanese Tsunami

This is one of the reasons the Warmist movement is dangerous: it creates idiots

(Raleigh N&O) Americans, 5 percent of the world population, are responsible for 25 percent of the global energy consumption. It is little disputed that carbon derived energy is responsible for climate change, itself seems guilty of “acts of God” like the recent disaster in the Philippines or the tsunami that caused the nuclear incident in Japan. So here is a new economic problem: what is the real cost of carbon energy?

The letter to the editor is in the context of comparing energy costs in Europe and the US. This warmist blames “climate change” and “carbon derived energy” (kudos for being scientific) for the Japanese tsunami. It’s cute how she writes “acts of God” in parentheses.

Oh, and it is very much disputed. Heck, Warmists dispute it themselves by refusing to give up their own fossil fuels usage.

Read: Warmist: Climate Changed Caused The Japanese Tsunami »

Warmists Robert J. Samuelson: We’re Not Sure What’s Going To Happen, But Let’s Get A Carbon Tax In Place Anyhow

The delusion of the Warmists is on complete display in this opinion piece called Global warming pragmatism

Economist Robert Pindyck of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently examined the computer models that estimate the effects and costs of climate change — and he didn’t like what he found. The models reflect two gaping uncertainties, he says. First, we don’t know how much increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will raise global temperatures. “There are feedback loops” — interactions between greenhouse gases and weather — “that aren’t easy to measure.” The models make assumptions. Next, he says, we don’t know what economic losses will result from higher temperatures. More assumptions. The “damage functions” in the models, he says, “are completely made-up.”

Huh. So the economist Samuelson cites states that Warmists and their computer models and prognostications and scaremongering are plain mule fritters.

Pindyck sounds like a “global warming denier.” He isn’t. True, he thinks climate change and its adverse economic consequences could be wildly overstated. He also thinks they could be wildly understated. The effects might ultimately be catastrophic. We simply don’t know. Ignorance reigns. The best course, he says, would be to adopt a modest carbon tax — because there are certainly some ill effects of global warming — and adjust it as we learn more. Meanwhile, we shouldn’t assume that computer models convey scientific truth. “The models create an illusion of knowledge,” he says. “For me, the issue is being honest.”

Well, obviously, that’s the answer, yet another tax. I guess we’re going to tax your bodies, made up of carbon…oh, wait, that’s right, these Warmists keep calling everyone who doesn’t believe in “climate change” “anti-science”, yet they can’t even use the proper term, “carbon dioxide”. There is a difference between that and “carbon”.

Samuelson notes that there are three things which keep Government from Doing Something, including

Second, it requires that governments inflict pain (higher energy costs) on today’s citizens for hypothetical gains (less global warming) for tomorrow’s citizens. The politics are ugly.

Yet, this has been tried in many countries, particularly after the Kyoto Protocol was passed. All people in those countries obtained were higher taxes and higher costs, higher unemployment, more and more controlling regulations, and a reduction in life quality. It saw massive seat losses for the Australian political party that passed their form of a carbon tax, along with a loss of control of the government. Japan wants nothing to do with any sort of scheme (remember, Kyoto is in Japan). Same with New Zealand. Canada is moving away from this. So are other countries.

There’s no obvious way around these obstacles. Why not try something different? The crux of the matter is putting a price on carbon — through a tax on oil, coal and natural gas — that reflects global warming’s costs. This would promote energy efficiency and favor renewables. The trouble, as Pindyck says, is that we don’t know what that tax should be, because we don’t know global warming’s full effects.

But, hey, let’s slap a tax on the people of the USA anyhow! WarmistThink. A tax in search of a problem. The problem mostly being made up in the first place.

Read: Warmists Robert J. Samuelson: We’re Not Sure What’s Going To Happen, But Let’s Get A Carbon Tax In Place Anyhow »

Here We Go: NY Times Editorial Board Finally Figures Out An Angle On Obamacare

The Editorial Board of the “Paper of Record” has been strangely silent over the past couple of weeks, with only tiny mentions of the “Affordable” Care Act over the past month, despite the enormous problems that have cropped up. Their last big one was when they deemed that Obama “misspoke” when he said “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” When they do chime in, it tends to be to carry the administration’s water (I bet NY Times bigwigs want nothing to do with signing up through the Exchange themselves) and go after Republicans. They finally found another angle

The Shame of American Health Care

Even as Americans struggle with the changes required by health care reform, an international survey released last week by the Commonwealth Fund, a research organization, shows why change is so necessary.

The report found that by virtually all measures of cost, access to care and ease of dealing with insurance problems, Americans fared poorly compared with people in other advanced countries. The survey covered 20,000 adults in the United States and 10 other industrial nations — Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain, all of which put in place universal or near-universal health coverage decades ago. The United States spends far more than any of these countries on a per capita basis and as a percent of the national economy.

Obviously, O-care is The Answer!

The Affordable Care Act was created to address these problems by covering tens of millions of uninsured people and providing subsidies to help many of them pay for policies; by setting limits on the out-of-pocket costs that patients must bear; and by requiring that all policies cover specified benefits.

Americans are understandably frustrated with the Obama administration’s failure to produce a functioning website. President Obama’s erroneous statements that all people who like their current insurance policies can keep them — not true for many people buying insurance in the individual market — has added to anger and misunderstanding. The reform law, however imperfect, is needed to bring the dysfunctional American health care system up to levels already achieved in other advanced nations.

It may have been created to address these problems (doubtful), but it in no way accomplishes any of what they say. Cost is going up in the form of premiums and deductibles. Access to care is going down as networks are limited and doctors want nothing to do with either the insurance or more Medicaid patients. The issue of dealing with insurance companies will probably not change, though now more people will have to deal with The Government, vis a vis the majority of signups who were shifted to Medicaid. Furthermore, access will be more of a problem when the unelected and unaccountable Independent Payment Advisory Board (aka “death panels”) gets involved in determining care, and you have a large number of people with Medicaid and Exchange plans accessing a limited number of medical facilities. These plans also do not include the best medical centers, as well.

Certainly, there is a problem with the healthcare system in the United States. You can start with the notion that this is a huge country with 300 million plus people and mandates for the system come from a federal government way away in D.C., determining rules and regulations with little regard to reality. Then the States chime in. Both often ignore the medical and insurance professionals. There are things we can do to help fix the problems, much of them created by Government. Obamacare is not that answer.

Read: Here We Go: NY Times Editorial Board Finally Figures Out An Angle On Obamacare »

Only In The Obameconomy Do You See This Scenario

A bit of a late Sunday night musing, but couldn’t let this one go. The Star Ledger’s Kathleen O’Brien offers “Obamacare tax pitfalls: Two scenarios“. Here’s the first

Q. Let’s say you’re a single, 27-year-old who works at a pizzeria. At the time you apply for Obamacare, you’re making $15,900 a year. Halfway through 2014, you land a job as a graphics artist that doesn’t have benefits, but you double your salary to $31,800. Thrilled by your change of fortune, you forget to update the federal insurance website. What financial impact will that have?

The very fact that anyone would even consider writing that first part as a viable scenario tells you all you need to know about the Obama presidency and how pitiful the economy is under his stewardship.

Read: Only In The Obameconomy Do You See This Scenario »

NY Times: Say, That Climate Change Thing Sure Creates Inequities, Eh?

I told you the other day about how Warmists are making a concerted push with the “inequities” meme. I’ve seen a bunch of tweets regarding #COP19 along those same lines. Now, here comes the NY Times, which apparently received the memo about the meme

Growing Clamor About Inequities of Climate Crisis

Following a devastating typhoon that killed thousands in the Philippines, a routine international climate change conference here turned into an emotional forum, with developing countries demanding compensation from the worst polluting countries for damage they say they are already suffering.

From the time a scientific consensus emerged that human activity was changing the climate, it has been understood that the nations that contributed least to the problem would be hurt the most. Now, even as the possible consequences of climate change have surged — from the typhoons that have raked the Philippines and India this year to the droughts in Africa, to rising sea levels that threaten to submerge entire island nations — no consensus has emerged over how to rectify what many call “climate injustice.”

Growing demands to address the issue have become an emotionally charged flash point at negotiations here at the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which continues this week. (snip)

Although the divide between rich and poor nations has bedeviled international climate talks for two decades, the debate over how to address the disproportionate effects has steadily gained momentum. Poor nations here are pressing for a new effort that goes beyond reducing emissions and adapting to a changing climate.

So, much of the article goes along in the same vein. The inequity meme is part of the “climate justice” progressive talking point, deriving from their “social justice” beliefs, which come from their need to create more and more Big Government.

And what these “developing countries” want is $$$. Lots of it. Because they’ve done so great with all the money we’ve given them for other things. And because Bad Weather is never supposed to happen and the climate is always supposed to stay static.

Read: NY Times: Say, That Climate Change Thing Sure Creates Inequities, Eh? »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful wooden bench made to overlook a changing climate which changes because someone cut down a tree to make the evil bench, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Adrienne’s Corner, with a post wondering whether Obama wrote the “lose your plan” rules.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! Another fantastic day in the Once And Future Nation Of America. My Devils won, my Pirates kick royal booty, we’ll see what the Giants do. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Weasel Zippers notes the doctor drop is starting
  2. The Gateway Pundit covers the (at least) 27 Dems who said you could keep your plan
  3. Raised On Hoecakes brings a really heartwarming story
  4. Sister Toldjah brings naked socialism…not the good kind
  5. The Lonely Conservative notes a wee bit of an issue with bringing back insurance in NY
  6. The Last Tradition notes more Obamacare registration issues
  7. The Daley Gator says that it must suck to be a liberal
  8. Doug Powers has some Obamacare victims you shouldn’t fee sorry for…I don’t
  9. Yid with Lid has stupid media bias tricks
  10. The Last Refuge wonders about race based car loans
  11. That Mr. G Guy notes that Biden got a woman killed
  12. Public Secrets brings out the cluebat for mugged liberals
  13. protein wisdom has language highjacking for O-care
  14. neo-neocon has the modified Obamacare rapture
  15. And last, but not least, Joshuapundit notes an awkward anti-Israel moment at the UN

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Good News: Amnesty Key To Making “Affordable” Care Act Work

I doubt that this will become a regular talking point for Democrats, but I also bet that they all thinking this

(Washington Times) Rep. Jared Polis said Friday the key problem with health care right now is that illegal immigrants aren’t included in Obamacare, and said part of the solution is to pass a bill granting them citizenship rights.

The House is debating a GOP-written bill that would allow Americans to keep their health plans that have been canceled under Obamacare, but Mr. Polis, a Colorado Democrat, said the chamber should instead be looking at ways to make sure everyone in the country is covered by the Affordable Care Act — including illegal immigrants.

“American citizens are essentially being forced to pay for the health care costs of people who are here illegally every day, until we pass comprehensive immigration reform,” he said. “We’re wondering why rates are going up. … It’s no surprise. When somebody doesn’t have insurance, their costs are shifted onto other people that do.” (snip)

But Mr. Polis said leaving (illegal aliens) outside of the health mandate means that they end up using emergency care, but don’t end up paying their own bills — leaving the rest of the country to pick up those costs.

Here’s an idea: instead of legalizing, them, kick them out. Sure, there are tiny percentage who we might want to offer a pathway, a true pathway, not straight legalization or a phony pathway, but most need to leave, both those who jumped the border and those who have overstayed their visas.

Dems want to pass their shamnesty bill, but they would need to get the illegals their green cards prior to being able to enroll them in O-care. And we all know that the minute the Senate bill would be passed Dems would push to move past all the obstacles in the bill to get to the green cards.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Good News: Amnesty Key To Making “Affordable” Care Act Work »

Pirate's Cove