Team Obama Really Excited To Treat Women As An Uninformed Voter Block

By William Teach March 11, 2012 – 9:04 am

Whether or not this contraceptive/abortifacient mandate rule was intentionally passed to shift the focus from Obama’s pathetic record on the economy, deficits, debt, energy prices, wasting money, etc, that has been the upshot, with his buddies in the MFM falling right in line, such as this front page NY Times article: Obama Plans Big Effort to Build Support Among Women

President Obama’s re-election campaign is beginning an intensified effort this week to build support among women, using the debate over the new health care law to amplify an appeal that already appears to be benefiting from partisan clashes over birth control and abortion.

On Monday, mailings will go out to one million women in more than a dozen battleground states in three separate versions for mothers, young women and older women, campaign and party officials said.

What’s the message, that women aren’t capable of earning the small amounts of money necessary to purchase contraceptives, or at least ponying up the copay amounts? Or that they’re too stupid to adequately monitor their own health insurance/care? Or is it simply that they’re women, and need a strong Central Government to run their lives? Rather an anti-woman’s empowerment message, eh?

An effort called “Nurses for Obama” will begin on Wednesday, with nurses nationwide enlisted to be advocates for the health care law in their communities. And a new Web site will include links to video testimonials about the health care overhaul signed by Mr. Obama in 2010, including from a former critic who subsequently was found to have breast cancer.

Through the month, ending with what the campaign’s headquarters has designated a “Women’s Week of Action,” campaign field offices will organize phone banks, campus activities, house parties and media events featuring local residents helped by the law, officials say.

For all their talking of empowerment and being their own woman, liberal women sure do seem to like being treated as incapable of using their own thoughts and taking care of themselves, and instead expect to be treated as morons and a voting block, taken care of by a man, or, well, if we’re talking liberal men, a metrosexual.

Mr. Obama closed with the health care law and cited the same points that his campaign is highlighting: an end to insurance company caps on lifetime coverage, mandated coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the ability of young adults to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, and for preventive services like contraception. “So when you see politicians who are trying to take us back to the days when this care was more expensive and harder to get for women — and I know you’re seeing some of that here in Texas — you just remember we can’t let them get away with it,” he said.

Contraception was harder to get before ObamaCare? Really? I guess it wasn’t available everywhere from pharmacies, Planned Parenthood, gas stations, nightclubs, grocery stores, the Internet, all over. What he is telling women is that $9 a month for birth control pills is too expensive for women to afford, so, they should have Everyone Else share in the cost. It’s an anti-women talking point, and, while it will work in the short term, in the long term it is sure to backfire. Yes, Liberal women will be on board, but, despite the GOP losing some “centrist” women for the moment, most aren’t so dumb that they will fall for this line for long. Many will not make the mistake they made in 2008, when they fell for a snake oil salesman.

And, just as amazingly, Obama is actually talking about ObamaCare, something he, and most Democrats, have avoided like the plague (sadly, I can’t write “Black Plague”, pretty much the worst ever, because that might be considered raaaaacist). How long will this last? Depends on the economy. If you were Obama, which would you rather talk about: the law that gives people stuff (without discussing all the pesky problems over fines and government involvement) or $4 gas?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Team Obama Really Excited To Treat Women As An Uninformed Voter Block »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Aww: Average Citizens Aren’t Pushing For Climate Change Deal

By William Teach March 10, 2012 – 5:23 pm

Perhaps Warmists are realizing that, yes, all the taxes, fees, “solutions”, and restrictions would apply to themselves

(Reuters) – Ordinary people are not putting enough pressure on governments to deliver a legally binding deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the U.N.’s climate chief said.

“There is not enough well up from the bottom up. I don’t see millions of citizens demanding climate action,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said at a lecture on Friday.

This is regarding the so-called Durban climate deal, which has no money at this time, as well. No one really cares, because either a) they are a Climate Realist, and think the issue is mule fritters, and wonder why Warmists take unnecessary fossil fueled flights to the ends of the earth to tell us we need to pay extra for offsets when we take unnecessary fossil fueled flights, or b), they are a Warmist, and don’t want to give up their own high CO2, modern lifestyles, and know that the Durban deal would affect them personally. They did little in their own lives after Kyoto was passed.

Read: Aww: Average Citizens Aren’t Pushing For Climate Change Deal »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 10, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean waiting to swallow up an island, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Verum Serum.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Whiny Liberal Whines About Obama Unemployment Chart

By William Teach March 10, 2012 – 12:37 pm

Poor Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider had a hissy fit Friday about the GOP using Obama’s own stimulus related chart

Once again, conservatives are using today’s jobs number as a jumping-off point to slam Obama.

Our pal Jim Pethokoukis at AEI takes the opportunity to remind everyone that the unemployment rate — of 8.3 percent — remains well above where The White House predicted it would be with the stimulus, back in 2009.

Now, just to understand what’s going on here, the light blue line represents what The White House thought the arc of job creation would look like without the stimulus. The Dark Blue Line represents what the White House predicted the jobs trajectory would look like WITH the stimulus.

Said chart was used to say This Is Why We Need To Pass This $850 billion campaign donor kickback bill.

Here’s what you need to realize. The original chart above comes from a document (.pdf) that was put out by White House economic advisors Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein on January 10, 2009.

It’s important to recall that his was right in the throes of the recession. At the time, things were weakening much faster than anyone could possibly realize in real time.

So what Joe’s saying is that the Obama administration was too incompetent, to stuck in academic thought, to divorced from how economies work, to understand just how bad the recession was….hey, didn’t it officially end in June 2009, before the Stimulus truly kicked in? So, that would mean that Obama’s Stimulus made the unemployment situation worse.

James Pethokoukis responds

The point is that with the right response from Washington, the recovery could be much stronger than it is right now — and the unemployment rate much lower.

And the Democrat/Obama response has been exactly wrong the vast majority of the time, hence, high unemployment that has lasted throughout the entire Obama term. But, Liberals always have an excuse.

Read: Whiny Liberal Whines About Obama Unemployment Chart »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Economy, Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Kiribatians May Move To Fiji To Escape Dangerous Sea Level Rise

By William Teach March 10, 2012 – 8:09 am

That is, if the “international community doesn’t Do Something”, like give them vast amounts of redistributed money

(MSNBC) Fearing that climate change could wipe out their entire Pacific archipelago, the leaders of Kiribati are considering an unusual backup plan: moving the populace to Fiji.

Kiribati President Anote Tong told The Associated Press on Friday that his Cabinet this week endorsed a plan to buy nearly 6,000 acres on Fiji’s main island, Viti Levu. He said the fertile land, being sold by a church group for about $9.6 million, could provide an insurance policy for Kiribati’s entire population of 103,000, though he hopes it will never be necessary for everyone to leave.

“We would hope not to put everyone on one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it,” Tong said. “It wouldn’t be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation. For them, moving won’t be a matter of choice. It’s basically going to be a matter of survival.”

I wonder if they realize their islands were created during a period when the seas were much higher? They were created by corals, which live….under water!

Some scientists have estimated the current level of sea rise in the Pacific at about 2 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year. Many scientists expect that rate to accelerate due to climate change.

Wait, estimated? So, no real hard data? They’re guesstimating? And, can they prove the rate will accelerate? Anyhow, .1 inches per year would be normal during a warm period: the average sea rise over the last 7,000 years is 6 inches per century, with, obviously, less or negative rise during cool periods. But, the sea levels have actually gone down as of late. And, to get all sciencey, let’s look at actual data for Kiribati

The Australian government operates a sea level station in Kiribati. The following figure shows the last available report (through mid-2009) showing sea level anomalies for 1993 through June 2009. [http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf] Each grid line is 0.1 m on the vertical scale with the zero being the line above which positive anomalies are colored red and negative anomalies, blue.

(note: I’ve broken the graph up in two to fit in the post)

Anyhow, up, down, up, down, up, down. Anyone see massive sea level rise? Oh, sorry, it “could” happen 50-100 years down the road.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Bummer: Kiribatians May Move To Fiji To Escape Dangerous Sea Level Rise »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama Weekly Address: “Soon You’ll Be Able To Only Afford To Fill Up Every Two Weeks!”

By William Teach March 10, 2012 – 7:35 am

He’s still beating the “alternative energy will help save you money sometime in the future” drum, though he’s not particularly concerned with rising gas prices now

Hi, everybody. I’m speaking to you this week from a factory in Petersburg, Virginia, where they’re bringing on more than 100 new workers to build parts for the next generation of jet engines.

Isn’t taking unnecessary fossil fueled flights bad for globull warming?

If we accelerate that trend, we can help drivers save a significant amount of money. That’s why, after 30 years of inaction, we finally put in place new standards that will make sure our cars average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade – nearly double what they get today. This wasn’t easy: we had to bring together auto companies, and unions, and folks who don’t ordinarily see eye to eye. But it was worth it.

Because these cars aren’t some pie in the sky solution that’s years away. They’re being built right now – by American workers, in factories right here in the U.S.A. Every year, our cars and trucks will be able to go further and use less fuel, and pretty soon, you’ll be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week – something that, over time, will save the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump.  We’ll reduce our oil consumption by more than 12 billion barrels. That’s a future worth investing in.

For the moment, though, you’re on your own, chumps, and just need to suck it up vis a vis rising gas prices. Which means you’ll only be able to afford to fill up every two weeks. Of course, that $8k you’ll save (interesting that he left out the part about it being over the lifetime of the vehicle) will be be lost immediately to the high cost of these POS cars to purchase. Oh, and the medical bills if you get in an accident, since they are so much lighter.

So we have a choice.  Right now, some folks in Washington would rather spend another $4 billion on subsidies to oil companies each year. Well you know what?  We’ve been handing out these kinds of taxpayer giveaways for nearly a century.  And outside of Congress, does anyone really think that’s still a good idea?

Does anyone outside of Washington, and, in particular, the White House, think it’s a good idea to waste $24 billion on subsidies to the alternative energy sector, will little to show for it?

I want this Congress to stop the giveaways to an oil industry that’s never been more profitable, and invest in a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.  We should be investing in the technology that’s building the cars and trucks and jets that will prevent us from dealing with these high gas prices year after year after year.

Promising like Solyndra? Like the Chevy Volt? The expensive Fisker POS, made for the 1%, that died during Consumer Reports testing? Like all the other companies that were given DOE loans and died? Wind turbines that can’t be used when it is cold and/or windy? Solar plants that can’t be built because they might affect a turtle? That kind of promising?

Ending this cycle of rising gas prices won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight. But that’s why you sent us to Washington – to solve tough problems like this one. So I’m going to keep doing everything I can to help you save money on gas, both right now and in the future. I hope politicians from both sides of the aisle join me. Let’s put aside the bumper-sticker slogans, remember why we’re here, and get things done for the American people.

If he solves it the same way he solved the recession, it’s going to be a long, painful ride, folks. Well, painful for us, not him, since he gets his gas paid for by the taxpayer.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Weekly Address: “Soon You’ll Be Able To Only Afford To Fill Up Every Two Weeks!” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Good News! Government Spends $10 Million To Stimulate a $50 Light Bulb

By William Teach March 9, 2012 – 3:39 pm

The same people who can afford to drive a Volt (and have the limo pick them up when it runs out of charge) will be the ones purchasing this idiocy

(Washington Post) The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

The L Prize was meant to ease this transition by enticing manufacturers to create affordable bulbs to replace the most common type, the traditional 60-watt.

I’m not against these types of alternative bulbs: I’d be for them if they were cost-effective. I’ve mentioned before that I had switched over to CFLs when they actually lasted quite a bit longer than a standard bulb. I liked that they saved me some $$$ and produced less heat (I had lived on the top floor of an apartment complex with a vaulted ceiling with little insulation. Not the best thing to be adding heat in a North Carolina summer). Who doesn’t want to save money? Didn’t have to be a Warmist to switch over.

However, with CFLs, you can waste some money finding the ones you like. A 60 watt replacement doesn’t necessarily put out the equivalent of a 60 watt incandescent. And, you might not like the light. Incandescents are easy: buy a frosted? Daylight (my preference)? Big round above the mirror? Etc? No matter the brand, all the same. CFLs? Not so much. Will we get the same with LEDs? I have two LED flashlights, different manufacturers. The light the put out is different. Same with the LED book light. Do you want to spend $25 or more, and, in this case, $50, to find out you hate the light it projects? Government has no business mandating this type of purchasing decision.

Read: Good News! Government Spends $10 Million To Stimulate a $50 Light Bulb »

Posted in Energy, Enviroweenies, Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 9, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil Gaia killing hamburger which No-one Else should eat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Eye Of Polyphemus.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Why, Yes, The Climate Change Hoax Is Creating OCD

By William Teach March 9, 2012 – 11:31 am

As The Reference Frame points out, we already knew these people were a bit nuts, but, a peer reviewed study proves it

(Sky News….interestingly, they put this in the “offbeat news” section)Concern about climate change usually centres on rising sea levels, melting ice caps and drought.

But an Australian study has found people with obsessive compulsive disorders (OCDs) can harbour very different worries – from fear of termites gobbling up their homes to concerns about thirsty cats.

The study, by University of Sydney researchers, is believed to be the first in the world to document how exposure to information and media reports about climate change can influence people with OCDs.

‘We suggest that mental health professionals need to be aware of, and assess for the presence of such concerns,’ the study, led by Dr Mairwen Jones, recommends.

Dr Jones, and her co-researchers at University of Sydney’s Anxiety Disorders Clinic, studied 50 people with OCDs and found 14 (28 per cent) had concerns directly related to climate change.

The most common were about wasting water, electricity and gas, often leading to constant checking light switches, taps and stoves.

Other concerns were more out of the ordinary.

‘Two of the 14 participants were concerned that increased air temperatures would result in rapid evaporation of the water in their pet bowls,’ the study found.

This led them to constantly check their pets had enough water.

OK, it’s not a particularly big sample of people. But, it shows the problems associated with the constant drumbeat from Warmists and the media that we’re doooooooooomed. Over to the study page:

….Compulsions included checking and rechecking pet water bowls, light switches, taps, stoves, skirting boards, pipes, roofs and wooden structures. While these behaviours are not particularly unusual for people with this condition, it was the rationale they provided for carrying them out that was surprising. Instead of checking and rechecking so as to prevent fire or flood, the rituals were specifically performed so as to reduce their global footprint, or respond to climate change-induced negative events.

Our findings demonstrate that the types of obsessions and compulsions experienced by 28% of our sample were directly aligned with the current issue of climate change and the perceived dangers associated with this phenomenon.

So, the drumbeat is making people OCD. Good job, Warmists!

Read: Why, Yes, The Climate Change Hoax Is Creating OCD »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post Writer Who Lied About Rush Gives B*tchy Apology

By William Teach March 9, 2012 – 9:22 am

In case you missed it, the WP’s Alexandra Petri wrote on the 7th

Advertisers learned something about Rush Limbaugh’s demographic this week. “Here we thought lots of pleasant, upstanding people were listening to and enjoying the rational things Rush had to say,” dozens of companies said. “Apparently not.” It turns out that people who really, truly still enjoy Rush Limbaugh’s show are — how do I put this? — jerks.

In her story, she claimed  that his show picked up “AshleyMadison.com, the site where you go to cheat on your wife, and another website that is explicitly for sugar-daddy matchmaking.” Rush called her out, saying “it’s an out-and-out lie complete with your b-i-itchy opinion in it, and it is untrue.” The same article basically stated that all Rush listeners were jerks (Dan Reihl has more).

Today, she is whining like a 5 year old told she can’t have a toy, and, unshockingly, uses the old liberal “it was humor” defense

….Whenever their ads claw their way onto a local radio station carrying Rush, Rush says, he contacts the relevant authorities immediately and has them pried off. To say that these are the companies he keeps would be misleading. They might like to be. But Rush has prevented them.

Still, the whole point of the piece was that the people most eager to be associated with Rush Limbaugh’s show are — well, advertisers seeking jerks. This has not changed.

Look, the longer this goes on, the less it sounds like an apology. And it should be.

So, instead, she doubles down

Speaking of jerks. Limbaugh listeners, I am sorry for calling you jerks yesterday. Yesterday I had no proof. I should have waited until today, when your phone calls and tweets (“Ivy league preppy elitist no talent hack”) gave me ample evidence.

See? It’s your fault that she lied and you called her out, Rush listeners.

Look, I am a humor blogger, unaccustomed to being denounced on the radio. All my writing appears beneath a caricature of me looking like a pleasant oval who has had too much caffeine. The caption says I “put the pun in punditry.”

Ah. Humor blogger. Gotcha. So, since I often blog about the humorous idiocy of the globull warming issue, I could call you, by your own liberal standards, an ObamaWhore*, and get away with it? And not have to apologize? I could denigrate Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelious, and other Democrat women? Can’t have it both ways, Alexandra and other liberals. Which way do you want it?

*it’s a sad commentary on today’s society that I actually have to explain that it was an allegory, and that I’m not actually calling her an ObamaWhore.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Washington Post Writer Who Lied About Rush Gives B*tchy Apology »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs, Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove