…is rising ocean that will end liberal Manhattan cocktail parties, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Al Gore’s silly reasoning as to why Obama got butthurt at the debate, and some eye candy for the ladies.
Read: If All You See… »
Personally, were I still a Warmist, I’d engage Climate Realists by showing them I was doing all I can to live the carbon neutral lifestyle, but, hey, that’s me. The Energy Collectives Tom Schueneman takes another approach
Property Rights: Conservative and libertarian thought are defined by a few basic principles. One of the central tenants of conservative thought concerns property rights. Property rights are a central tenet of conservative thought and may be an effective approach to changing behavior. Property rights may be the key to reaching conservatives and libertarians.
For conservatives and libertarians, property rights constitute the basis of individual liberty and as such they are the primary bulwark against government power. As conservatives see it, property rights are intertwined with the second amendment and go all the way back to the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It is widely recognized in common law that harm done to property warrants redress. The perpetrators of property damage could be forced to assume liability and pay compensation.
This also would apply to impacts from global warming. The property impacts from climate change induced extreme weather or an anticipated sea level rise would entitle owners to compensation. Under such a system, the level of liability would be determined in proportion to the amount of emissions generated.
So, essentially what this certainly Leftist believer in hotcoldwetdry is saying is that any property that is hurt by Mother Nature can and should sue, well, everyone, including Warmists, because pretty much all humans are doing something that causes hotcoldwetdry. Under this doctrine, I think I’ll sue Tom for using energy to publish an article, energy which causes hotcoldwetdry, because some boards on my back deck need to be replaced due to weather exposure. Hey, fair is fair, right?
Furthermore, I find it interesting that Tom thinks that only Conservatives and Libertarians believe in property rights. I’m sure Lefties believe in property rights, too, but only as far as it effects their own property, not Other People’s property.
Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax: Conservatives and libertarians resist regulation on climate issues, but as reviewed on the Volokh Conspiracy, they are likely to be receptive to a revenue neutral carbon tax. Under such a plan, the federal government would impose a price on carbon that is fully rebated to taxpayers on a per capita basis. This tax would be more transparent and it would target energy consumption.
Except, this would never ever possibly happen, because in reality the major point of a carbon tax is to put more money in the hands of Government, and said “rebates” will never offset the cost of living increases from the initial tax, and the debt and deficit, not too mention unpaid liabilities, will skyrocket as politicians use the money for other things, such as to get themselves re-elected.
Ignoring Climate Change Paradoxically, it may be more productive to avoid challenging the confused beliefs of climate deniers. This is the view of director Peter Blyck, the maker of the documentary film ‘Carbon Nation.’ In a recent NPR interview, Blyck expressed his view that the best way to get people to make more environmentally friendly energy choices is to avoid the subject of climate change altogether. Blyck says his “common sense†approach to curbing CO2 emissions is not about changing people’s views on climate change.
Rather than debate the science of climate change, Byck explores common ground on energy issues. For example, he claims that Americans agree on issues like solar and wind energy. According to Byck, 70 percent of Americans claim to love solar energy and 90 percent of Americans like wind energy. Most US citizens also claimed to like geothermal and energy efficiency.
In other words, hide their beliefs. They should have done this long ago. But, they cannot help themselves. Furthermore, they are completely incompetent when they attempt to push solar, wind, etc, and their projects tend to fail because they do them from an ideological standpoint, not an economic standpoint. Oh, and many Warmists block these same projects.
Furthermore, if they could actually prove scientifically that mankind is mostly or solely responsible for this warm period, they wouldn’t have to hide their beliefs. They can’t, which is also why they hide their raw data and methodologies.
Read: Warmist Provides 3 Approaches For “Engaging US Climate Deniers” »
Trackback URL
OK, he didn’t call Obama a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure, but, dog whistle, you know?
(Fox News) Mitt Romney, fresh off what by most accounts was his victory Wednesday night in the first debate with President Obama, said in a Fox News interview that the deadly consulate attack in Libya was a “tragic failure” of security and that the Obama admiration’s explanations have been “misleading.”
“Let me note my condolences and sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives,” Romney told Fox News in a joint interview with his running mate, Paul Ryan. “I believe obviously what happened there was a tragic failure. There had been warnings of a possible attack, there were requests … to have additional security forces. They were turned down.”
“This was a terrorist attack. Lives were lost,” Romney said. “We expect candor and transparency from the president and from the administration, and we didn’t get it.”
Eli Lake, who has been doing the hard work on investigating Libya (which most media outlets haven’t) told us Thursday
In the six months leading up to the assault on the United States consulate in Benghazi, the State Department reduced the number of trained Americans guarding U.S. facilities in Libya, according to a leading House Republican investigating the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks. The reduction in U.S. security personnel increased America’s reliance on local Libyan guards for the protection of its diplomats. (snip)
On Tuesday, Chaffetz and the oversight committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), disclosed in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton details of an alleged April 6 bombing at the consulate. The letter detailed how in the run-up to the 9-11 assault there was an escalation of military-style attacks on Western targets in Libya’s second-largest city. The letter also said U.S. security personnel had requested, and were denied, additional security for the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi.
Eli notes that a State Department official stated that “it was routine to reduce the number of U.S. personnel serving in new diplomatic posts such as Benghazi over time.” Perhaps in a country that is stable and doesn’t have to deal with large numbers of Islamic extremists and members of al Qaeda in the area. Perhaps in countries where the diplomatic personnel haven’t asked for more protection. Perhaps at diplomatic posts that haven’t seen multiple attacks over the previous months, and where they hasn’t been “an escalation of military-style attacks on Western targets in Libya’s second-largest city.”
Read: Romney: “You Know Obama’s A Complete SCOAMF On Libya, Right?” »
Trackback URL
You know, since Obama is the 44th president, and since everything else, including the words Chicago and golf, are considered racist to mention
(WRAL) With a month to go until the presidential election, the government on Friday issues its September jobs report, expected to show an uptick in the U.S. unemployment rate after employers added only a modest number of jobs.
Economists forecast that the unemployment rate edged up last month to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent, according to a survey by FactSet. Employers are expected to have added 111,000 jobs.
That would be an improvement from the 96,000 jobs gained in August. But that is still barely enough to keep up with growth in the working-age population.
The Labor Department issues the jobs report at 8:30 a.m. EDT.
What you have here is stagnation. There’s absolutely no other way to put it. Mr. Obama’s “Stimulus” was an utter failure, as were his smaller stimulus bills originating from a Democrat controlled Congress. His jobs policies were utter disasters, his monetary policies have scared investors, his constant yammering about raising taxes on jobs creators have scared jobs creators, his housing policies haven’t fixed the issues in the market place, his “green” energy policies have managed to raise costs for consumers, which would include companies who could otherwise use the money for employees, there’s major concern over the debt and deficit…..essentially a complete failure. And Obama has offered nothing new, just more of the same.
Is it racist to mention that the unemployment rate has been 8%+ for 44 straight months? tinyurl.com/9uwd575
— WilliamTeach (@WilliamTeach) October 5, 2012
It is rather serendipitous that we get 44 straight months of plus 8% unemployment just 32 days before the election.
An increase in the unemployment rate could add momentum to Mitt Romney’s campaign to unseat President Barack Obama. Jobs and the economy were central issues in the first presidential debate Wednesday and most polls showed that voters considered Romney to have prevailed.
Ya think?
Pure SCOAMF.
A fool at the UK Telegraph declared the Obama won the debate, and states that Romney “lacks compassion”. In other words, he’s not a rock star, a celebrity, a guy yammering on about “feeling your pain”. We’re tired of touchy feely politicians using their hearts instead of their brains. Where has all this compassion gotten us? Well, look at Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Britain, and so many other countries, including the US, which have promised more than they can ever possibly deliver. We need someone who can Get Things Done, not give us their feelings and empty promises.
Well, well, quick update:
The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care and in transportation and warehousing but changed little in most other major industries.
The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September. For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1 and 8.3 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by 456,000 in September.
Can’t wait for the full numbers to come out so we can see how it is possible for the rate to drop despite the jobs additions being only 3,000 more than predicted.
Romney: “This is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. The results of President Obama’s failed policies are staggering – 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years. If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone.â€
Ed Morrissey notes that 342,000 more left the workforce. For the math challenged, that means that for every new job, 3 people left the jobs market in despair.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Is It Racist To Mention That The Unemployment Rate Has Been 8%+ For “44” Straight Months? »
Trackback URL
Warmists are inconsolable, via Grist
And once again, the greatest threat facing humanity, climate change, is totally ignored. #climatesilence #debate2012
— David Atkins (@DavidOAtkins) October 4, 2012
Bummer
If you watched the real-time reaction to the debates, the disappointment among folks within the energy and environment community over the lack of attention to climate was palpable. Even with 160,000 signaturesdelivered to PBS’s Jim Lehrer calling on him to ask the candidates about climate change, the issue was completely ignored during the 90-minute conversation — continuing a long streak of silence throughout the campaign.
Apparently, neither of the candidates has been watching the polls showing that climate could be a major factor in how undecided and independent voters cast their ballots.
It’s so important that Warmists won’t give up their fossil fueled lives.
Anthony Watts also notices that “climate change” was off the radar. And poor Al Gore
I would ask both candidates about climate change. What would you ask them? #debatequestions #current2012
— Al Gore (@algore) October 4, 2012
And other Warmists are bummed
The 2012 election’s only bipartisan consensus: not to talk climate change fb.me/WMNKv5iC
— Green LibDems (@GreenLibDems) October 4, 2012
So much for online petitions. 160,000 signatures and Lehrer still ignores climate change. Can’t change the world in 30 seconds, folks.
— CitizensClimateLobby (@citizensclimate) October 4, 2012
@citizensclimate I watched4 1 hour 2 hear meaningful comment on extreme weather/climate change from Obama/Romney, then turned it off.
— Mary Gorman (@gorman_mary) October 4, 2012
Thousands Make Last Plea to Include Climate Change in Presidential Debates truth-out.org/news/item/1190…
— Lucien Quincy Senna (@LucienSenna) October 4, 2012
Well, sorry, honey, as for last night’s debate, you’re a bit too late. Oh, and why are you all using evil energy to discuss “climate change”, energy which is giving the planet a fever?
Read: Bummer: “Greatest Threat Facing Humanity” Not Mentioned During Debate »
…is a sea that’s going to rise up and swamp the world, you might just be a Warmist
This one’s for The Troglopundit. I couldn’t very well run across the picture and not post it, what with his obsession of Danica. Oh, and a post on weird Ukrainians.
Read: If All You See… »
…this one tells quite a bit about who won and who lost
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gathers his notes while President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle try to leave the stage following the first presidential debate at the University of Denver, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012, in Denver. (AP Photo/David Goldman)
Trackback URL
As Ace points out, on one hand Team Obama decided not to increase security at the Benghazi consulate. On the other hand
According to the Wall Street Journal, as the attack on the U.S. consulate was raging, Obama took a “wait and see” approach.
Ninety minutes after news of the attack reached Washington, Obama, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, JCS Chair General Martin Dempsey, and a national security adviser convened for an oval office meeting in which they ultimately rejected the course of U.S. military intervention. Instead, they decided to reach out to the Libyan government to ask if they would send reinforcements.
When the U.S. personnel at the consulate left the main building for what was supposed to be a safe house, questions regarding the deployment of forces seemed moot.
But the battle was still raging, and Ambassador Stevens’ life was close to its end.
So, essentially, US leaders on the other side of the Atlantic ocean decided to not bother doing anything themselves other than make a pleading phone call to the brand spanking new leadership of Libya in the hopes that Something would get done, abdicating their roles as protectors of US citizens. Mary Joe Ambassador Stevens is unavailable for comment.
From that WSJ account
“There was no serious consideration at that hour of intervention with military force, officials said. Doing so without Libya’s permission could represent a violation of sovereignty and inflame the situation, they said. Instead, the State Department reached out to the Libyan government to get reinforcements to the scene.”
Yet, Obama sent two super secret special ops Blackhawks deep into Pakistan, 30 miles from the capital, loaded with SEALs, on a mission to kill Osama. That certainly was a violation of sovereignty, was it not? And isn’t deploying our military to bomb Libya from the air previously a violation of sovereignty? Could they not have called the Libyan government and said “hey, we’re sending military assets to protect our diplomatic personnel, deal with it”?
Let’s review:
The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration’s concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan “sovereignty” and the need for “permission.” After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration’s reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it’s time to blame the intel munchkins and move on.
It’s not like we have multiple warships capable of deploying military assets that could have provided security for the consulate personnel in the Mediterranean or something.
BTW, lots of sensitive documents were left behind, and the FBI still hasn’t accessed the crime scene terrorist attack scene.
Read: BTW, Obama Decided Not To Send In The Military To Rescue Our Benghazi Personnel »
Trackback URL
I’m not going to bother with a long debate wrap-up, since this is a crosspost. John Hawkins (and many others) have done a fine, fine job in digesting the debate. I will say one thing: I listened to most of the debate on the radio, and it was somewhat like the Nixon-Kennedy debate, where those who watched TV thought Kennedy won, and those who listened on radio thought Nixon had won. Why? Because on TV Nixon looked awful, because of bad makeup and him getting over a cold, so he looked pasty and had bags under his eyes, while Kennedy looked marvelous! On radio, I’d give Obama B- (Mitt an A), while when I watch the video recaps, Obama gets a D+. He just didn’t look that engaged, he was looking down, he looked jumpy.
Anyhow, here’s Matthews
(Daily Caller) “Where was Obama tonight?†Matthews said. “He should watch — well not just ‘Hardball,’ Rachel, he should watch you, the Reverend Al, he should watch Lawrence. He would learn something about this debate. There’s a hot debate going on in this country — know where it’s being held? Here on this network is where we’re having the debate. We have our knives out. We go after the people and the facts. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed. He was, ‘Wait an hour and a half, I think I can get through this thing, I don’t even want to look at this guy.’ Whereas Romney — I loved the split screen, staring at Obama, addressing him like the prey. He did it just right. I’m coming at an incumbent. I’ve got to beat him. You got to beat the champ and I’m going to beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy moderator whatever he think he is because I’m going to ignore him. What was Romney doing? He was winning.â€
The DC also provides some fun tweets from Michael Moore and Excitable Andrew Sullivan
PBO – lemme get this straight. You can send in drones that kill civilians, but you can’t stop Romney or Lehrer from interrupting you?
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) October 4, 2012
Look: you know how much I love the guy, and how much of a high info viewer I am, but this was a disaster for Obama. thebea.st/RdXvE9
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) October 4, 2012
How is Obama’s closing so fucking sad, confused, lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost election tonight. thebea.st/RdXvE9
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) October 4, 2012
Now we’ll have to see what happens with the next two debates, as well as the VP debate. Perhaps Paul Ryan will bring his crossbow and just put Biden out of his misery early? (Lighten up, a joke)
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Did you know that the UN General Assembly was still going on? Yeah, me neither
(UK Telegraph) Pak Kil-yon, Pyongyang’s vice-foreign minster, put the blame for the tense state of inter-Korean relations firmly on South Korea’s conservative government and claimed the citizens of the North feel “shame” and “political terror.”
Monday’s speech was the first time a representative of North Korea has addressed the General Assembly since Kim Jong-un assumed power after the death of his father in December last year.
Neither the United States nor the UN escaped criticism, with Pak saying recent joint military manoeuvres between the US and South Korean troops were “reckless provocations.”
“Today, due to the continued US hostile policy towards the DPRK, the vicious cycle of confrontation and aggravation of tensions is an ongoing phenomenon on the Korean Peninsula, which has become the world’s most dangerous hot spot and where a spark of fire could set off a thermonuclear war,” Pak said.
Provocation or typical bluster by North Korea?
Read: BTW, North And South Korea On The Verge Of Nuclear War »
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.