Nanny Bloomberg’s Fizzy Drink Ban Highlights Wider Difference In Political Beliefs

By William Teach June 14, 2012 – 9:14 am

Yesterday we learned, via the NY Post, that Nanny Bloomberg and his Board Of Health cohorts may look to regulate some other food and drink products along with restricting sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (I wonder if it has occurred to Nanny B. that this would cause more plastic bottles to be discarded, many of them ending up in the oceans?). Movie popcorn, milk shakes, and even those crazy coffee drinks could end up being regulated. The Politico’s Tim Mak points out: Debate over government’s role fizzes around soda ban

Many Americans are having a hard time swallowing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on the sale of big sodas – but it’s not just about the sugar.

The micro public health policy issue of restricting the sizes of some drinks — and the strong public reaction to it on both sides — has become a touchstone for the polarized and passionate debate over the proper role of government.

“We have very deep divisions in American society, so this [soda policy] reflects that — it’s about the role of government in American life, and the public is deeply divided on that,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “It’s clear it taps into very deep emotions, because it got a very emotional reaction.”

“I don’t think anybody in Kansas cares what they do in New York, but the larger issue [of the role of government] is something they want to fight about,” pollster Scott Rasmussen, who has surveyed the soda issue nationally, told POLITICO.

As the story points out, a Reuters poll showed that 64 percent were against the ban while 36% supported the ban, while a Rasmussen poll showed the breakdown to be 65/24.

“The real reason this issue caught on is because this is exactly the dividing line that is splitting people. There are some that just think government has to do these things, and there are others that are saying ‘no, this is precisely not the role of government.’ It’s such a clear example – this is not a convoluted, long health care bill,” said Rasmussen, the president of polling firm Rasmussen Reports.

On the other hand, he said, “Among those who support it, there is a belief that government should be in charge of things like health, and this is a prudent measure. I don’t think that anyone disputes that large, sugary drinks are good for health. So there’s this sense that it’s part of the role of government.”

And that is the debate, what is the role of government in today’s society? Can government use the force of law to restrict the freedom to make a choice, even if it is a “bad” one? Is it governments business whether you or I choose to purchase a 20 ounce or larger soda or sweet tea? Can they restrict us from purchasing a large popcorn with butter at the movies? Can they apply the force of law to stop us from purchasing a large Frosty at Wendy’s? Or should it be our personal choice? For myself, I’ve started drinking more water (which is boring) while avoiding soda. That’s MY choice.

Interestingly, the same liberals who tend to believe Government should be able to regulate anything for which they get a burr in their bums, like large sugary drinks, are the same people who screech about “my body my choice!!!!!” when it comes to aborting a baby. These are the same people who think globull warming regulations are wonderful, as long as they apply to That Guy. Who think higher taxes are awesome, as long as they apply to That Guy. Liberals scream about privacy and liberty, yet they don’t seem to have an issue with Government regulating our lives to death.

Read: Nanny Bloomberg’s Fizzy Drink Ban Highlights Wider Difference In Political Beliefs »

Posted in Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Could Stoners Be Obama’s Secret Election Weapon?

By William Teach June 14, 2012 – 8:34 am

Considering the inept performance of our 44th president and his penchant for eating food that his wife says is bad for Everybody else, maybe the legalization of pot is the perfect statement for his campaign: Is Legalizing Weed Obama’s Secret Weapon?

This year there’s another incumbent president with modest approval ratings who could turn out his base with controversial ballot measures. But this time, the issue features no biblical or scatological imagery. In 2012, voters in swing states will decide whether they’ll allow their fellow citizens to bear joints. Unlike the gay marriage votes, there’s no indication that Obama’s re-election team is behind any of the pot legalization initiatives, but there are Democrats who are hoping that it will boost turnout among weed’s biggest fans: young people.

Getting more young people to vote has long been a Democratic fantasy, since they tend to vote so heavily Democratic. But past attempts to bong the vote have been disappointing, in part because stoners aren’t the group anyone would most count on to bother filling out a ballot. Ahead of the 2010 midterms, The Wall Street Journal ran the story, “Democrats Look to Cultivate Pot Vote in 2012,” noting that California’s pot-legalizing Proposition 19 was being studied to see if similar measures “could energize young, liberal voters in swing states for the 2012 presidential election.” But exit polls that year showed no spike in young voter turnout, and marijuana legalization was the top issue for just 1 in 10 voters, the Los Angeles Times reported. (Also: Californians ended up voting down Prop. 19.) Still, there were hopeful signs: 64 percent of voters 18-to-24 supported it, and 52 percent of voters 25-to-29 did. In March, the pro-legalization site Just Say Now suggested that the presidential election will draw more young people to the polls, and they’ll vote for pot legalization while they’re there.

I’m not so sure it’s that big of a deal and would drive young dopers to the ballot box, since it is only a ballot initiative in three states. Plus, getting stoners up off the couch is rather difficult. However, two of those states are Colorado and Ohio, two very important swing states. Furthermore, Obama has said nothing about legalizing marijuana, whether for medical use or simple personal use. I don’t think he cares less. For all we know, he might be against pot, being a father now.

Obama has no secret weapon. His drone strike and war policies are not particularly popular with young folks who tend to vote Democrat. These same young folks care about jobs. And there aren’t that many.  The unemployment rate among 18-29 is 12.1%. With those who have given up it is 16.9%. Factoring underemployment, the rate is about 50%. And those who’ve graduated college aren’t thrilled with a job filling potholes and painting bridges for a few weeks.

Personally, I could care less if marijuana is legalized. It’s a lot less dangerous a drug than alcohol. Perhaps it would keep people from abusing prescription medication, which is a dangerous and growing trend. But, if this is his secret weapon, he’s bring a nerf gun to an artillery fight.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Could Stoners Be Obama’s Secret Election Weapon? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 13, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is a refrigerator sucking up all of Gaia’s energy and releasing greenhouse gases, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Dr. Tim Ball.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

NC Senate Votes For Science On Sea Rise, Rather Than Prognostication

By William Teach June 13, 2012 – 12:58 pm

I mentioned to you previously how the North Carolina general assembly had proposed legislation that would require that historical data be used to determine sea level rise predictions, which sent Scientific American into apoplexy. Now

(AP) The North Carolina Senate has approved a bill that ignores scientists’ warnings of rising sea levels.

Senators approved the bill on a 34-to-11 vote Tuesday. The measure received little fanfare and no senators spoke in opposition to the measure.

The bill now goes back to the House for a vote.

HB 819 says that only the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission can calculate how fast the sea is rising for state governmental purposes and those calculations must be based on historic trends, which are much lower than the science panel’s projections.

There was a choice between going with the hysterics from people who were looking into their crystal ball computer models and looking at what has actually occurred, and the Senate voted to go with that science stuff.

A state-appointed science panel warned sea levels could rise by more than three feet by 2100 and threaten more than 2,000 square miles of coastal land.

It could. Or could not. Probably won’t. There has essentially been no rise this century.

“This bill has made us the laughingstock of the country,” said Senate Minority Leader Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe. “We’ve been on Stephen Colbert’s comedy show.”

It’s amazing that going with established scientific facts using historic, real world data instead of garbage in garbage out computer models can somehow make NC a “laughing stock”, when it should be the other way around. Steven Goddard points out

The IPCC forecast range is 7-24 inches of sea level rise. The 3 foot+ forecasts are from a few fringe lunatics who lack basic mathematics and science skills.

But Stephen Colbert made fun of NC! Oh, the humanity!

Read: NC Senate Votes For Science On Sea Rise, Rather Than Prognostication »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, NC News | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama To Give Major Economic Campaign Speech, Which Contains Nothing New

By William Teach June 13, 2012 – 9:09 am

It’s been a bad few weeks months years for Obama on the economy. Nothing seems to be working. And it seems that every week over the last few months has been labeled as a “really bad week” by, well, everyone, including the MSM and Democrat pundits. We were treated to O’s “the private sector is doing fine” comment last week. Unemployment is still stagnant. The James Carville group Democracy Corps released a report saying Obama should talk about anything but the economy. And now, with Obama’s economic policy and message in complete freefall, we get

(USA Today) President Obama will seek to draw economic contrasts with Republican opponent Mitt Romney in what campaign aides are billing as a major speech on Thursday.

In announcing the address at a community college in Cleveland, the Obama campaign said the president will describe his vision as “ensuring that our economy is built to last and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Obama also plans to condemn Romney’s vision, which the campaign said is “based on the same failed economic policies that brought on the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

And what will this “major speech” propose?

Obama is not expected to unveil any new policy proposals of his own; the president is still trying to persuade Congress to adopt elements of a jobs bill he proposed last year.

Essentially, the Obama presidency/2012 election has become Seinfeld: a campaign/administration about nothing. As Ed Morrissey points out

Well, the Senate is controlled by his own party.  If they haven’t passed Obama’s agenda — indeed, his own team seems entirely disinterested in it, to the extent they know about it at all — maybe that’s a hint that some new thinking is required.

Obama’s jobs bill is sticky note. His “to do” list is right there on the front page of the White House website. That’s not a plan. It’s not even really a rough outline. Unshockingly, the RNC has released a new web video slamming Obama

And, let’s not forget, Team Romney has shown themselves to be very agile when it comes to immediately responding to Team Obama. Except a video within an hour or two after Obama’s speech about nothing slamming Obama for having no new ideas. And, I’ll bet it includes something about Obama spending the day campaigning while pretending to care about One World Trade Center, since Obama will head to view 1WTC after the speech in Cleveland, as Obama has several fundraisers planned in NYC that night.

Read: Obama To Give Major Economic Campaign Speech, Which Contains Nothing New »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy, Elections | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Obamanomics: Most Now See China As World Economic Powerhouse

By William Teach June 13, 2012 – 8:43 am

Before we get to the money quote, which happens to be the 2nd to last paragraph of this Politico story, we learn, via a Pew Global Attitudes Survey, that people around the world have cooled on Obama’s foreign policy

Global opinion of President Barack Obama has declined dramatically since 2009, according to a new survey of the president and his policies in 21 countries.

Approval of Obama’s international policies has dropped from 78 percent to 63 percent in Europe; from 34 percent to 15 percent in Muslim countries; from 40 percent to 22 percent in Russia; and from 57 percent to 27 percent in China, reports the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

The study suggests that U.S. foreign policy unilateralism and the Obama administration’s aggressive use of drone strikes are partly to blame for the surging global discontentment for Obama’s foreign affairs approach.

People really do not like his drone strike policy. Let me say that I do support it, but I often wonder whether Obama might enjoy the power to personally select the people on his kill list a bit too much. Anyhow, it’s rather amusing that the people surveyed find Obama’s foreign policy to be based on “unilateralism.” Don’t forget, President Bush put together a coalition of over 40 countries for both our Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. He reached out to allies. When was the last time, heck, anytime, that we had a news report of Obama reaching out to any military partner?

Of course, most respondents want the incompetent-in-chief reelected. I’d hazard to guess that it is due to two notions; first, because he is a wild eyed leftist like so many surveyed, and second because an Obama presidency keeps America weak.

Anyhow, here we go

At the same time, China has overtaken the United States in perception of which is the world’s leading economic power: Among 14 countries, 36 percent chose the U.S., and 42 percent chose China.

When Bush left office, 46% thought the US was the world economic powerhouse. In the poll, there is good and bad Obama’s America news, but that one is the most telling, and devastating. America’s economy is a mess. Our debt and deficit are out of control. Obama has been president for 3 1/2 years. It’s his economy. And his policies have relegated America to number 2 behind China.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obamanomics: Most Now See China As World Economic Powerhouse »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Quote Of The Day From Obama: Spit Take Or Nose Spew?

By William Teach June 12, 2012 – 6:35 pm

Does this quote from His Royal Majesty Barack H. Obama beat out the previous post on needing an additional $36 trillion for globull warming? You decide (via Hot Air, where Allahpundit Erika Johnsen discusses)

“Those of us who have spent time in the real world understand that the problem is not that the American people aren’t productive enough,” Obama said during a fundraiser today, after saying that Romney believes that America “automatically” prospers when the wealthy profit. “[Romney says] his 25 years in the private sector gives him a special understanding of how the economy works, [so] my question is why are you running with the same bad ideas that brought our economy to the brink of disaster?” …

OK, based on the bold part, spit take or milk from the nose spew?

Read: Quote Of The Day From Obama: Spit Take Or Nose Spew? »

Posted in Barry Obama | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

What Say To $36 Trillion In Spending For Globull Warming?

By William Teach June 12, 2012 – 2:45 pm

Yes, you read the headline correctly (via Tom Nelson)

(CNN Money) The International Energy Agency said the world’s clean energy investments are sorely lacking and this week called for an additional $36 trillion of funding by 2050.

In a sharply-worded introduction to a 700-page report, IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said governments and private industry need to do far more if the world is to hold global warming to what most scientists say is an acceptable level.

Wait, an “additional” $36 trillion?

Read: What Say To $36 Trillion In Spending For Globull Warming? »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach June 12, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an awesome Gaia compliant bicycle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Archived Data Blocked By GISS

By William Teach June 12, 2012 – 12:11 pm

What is GISS? That’s NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Government funded. The money comes from taxpayers. Primarily at the force of law. Steven Goddard has found out that the archived data and James Hansen’s writings have been blocked

Michael Hammer has found the original uncorrupted GISS US temperature data on John Daly’s web site. Prior to GISS/USHCN perverting the data set in the year 2000, the 1930s was the hottest decade.

That data looks like this

But, when you go to the webpage where it came from now, you find that the page is no longer available. Steven also found that the archived page cannot be accessed because of a robots.txt file. Steven looked at the text file, and we see that accessing the data has been “disallowed”. There’s your “open science”, folks.

Read: Archived Data Blocked By GISS »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove