ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [286] -- Bullygate

[ Posted Friday, January 10th, 2014 – 17:43 PST ]

Welcome back to our regular Friday roundup of politics! We've been on hiatus for quite a while now, since we took two weeks off to dole out our year-end awards, and then last week we were just sick as a dog, which precluded all rational thought (much less trying to type coherently). So we've got a lot to cover this week, and our apologies in advance for all the stuff we're bound to have missed in the past month.

Of course, the big news at the end of this week was New Jersey's Chris Christie trying to navigate a bridge over some very troubled waters, but our guess is that this story is going to stick around for some time to come, so we're only going to mention it in passing (although we did write yesterday of our disappointment that we seem to have returned to labeling political scandals with the "-gate" suffix). Is Christie now no longer a viable candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination? Is "Bullygate" more appropriate than "Bridgegate"? Well, we'll have plenty of time to contemplate all of that in the weeks to come, that's for sure.

Liz Cheney dropped out of the Wyoming Senate race, which may be a sign of trouble for Tea Party candidates everywhere, or it may just be a sign that Wyoming Republicans don't take kindly to carpetbaggers who don't even know how to properly get a fishing license. Either way, we're relieved we won't have to listen to Liz expounding on all sorts of subjects about which she knows very little, in the upcoming months.

The mainstream media, in the past few weeks, have proved once again that "the weather" is the ultimate shiny, shiny object which the kittenish news anchors cannot resist, no matter how normal the story truly is. I mean, how many times can America realistically believe that "It Gets Cold In Winter" is some sort of breaking story? Look for the groundbreaking followup series "It Gets Hot In Summer," which will run in six months' time, just like clockwork.

Sigh.

The most fascinating news story was the opening of the legal recreational marijuana marketplace in Colorado, of course. This story wasn't fascinating just because it actually was newsworthy, but also for the secondary effect that Serious People in Washington are now forced to stop with the endless stoner jokes and actually address the failed policy of the War On Weed.

This led to some monumental hypocrisy, it should be noted, from such luminaries from the Washington cocktail party circuit (irony intended) as David Brooks, Ruth Marcus, and Joe Scarborough. Here is their argument, in a nutshell:

I smoked a little pot when I was young and reckless.

I did not get arrested.

We should keep on arresting people for smoking pot today. Because.

There's a longer and funnier translation ("condensed for maximum stoner hilarity") of the Brooks and Marcus columns available, if this was too brief, I should add.

At heart, this is just a continuing chapter in the endless story of "Why Baby Boomers Are So Special, Because Of Their Specialness," really. You see, when they were young, smoking pot was a lark, really. Now that they are parents with children, smoking pot is immoral and evil and must be stamped out. As long as suburban children don't go to jail, the way that inner-city children do for the same crime.

Part of this is intellectual inertia. The War On (Some) Drugs has been going on for so long now, and has been used so effectively against Democrats and liberals (painted as "soft on crime!"), that even now -- with legal weed being sold in an American state -- the knee-jerk reaction is still the most prevalent. This is the same type of idiocy that led to banning needle exchanges during the height of the AIDS crisis -- because it "would send the wrong message to kids." Sending the message "letting people needlessly die is good because it gives me political cover" was such a better message for the kiddies, after all.

In any case, there was one prominent pundit who did get it right. E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post summed up the reality of the situation perfectly, because he took the time to look at some hard data which unequivocally shows the racial disparity of how drug laws (marijuana laws in particular) are enforced in the real world. Which led him to the conclusion that the "lock them all up" philosophy has just failed. If you'd like to read something a lot more reasonable than the hypocrisy of Brooks and Marcus, this is the column you should read.

Two final thoughts, on marijuana. The first is an interesting historical footnote pointed out in the Huffington Post -- Denver was where the first federal arrest for marijuana took place, back in 1937. And the last is yet another poll showing that Americans' attitudes are changing much faster than the politicians, on this particular issue. If the people lead, the leaders must eventually follow, one hopes.

We end this week with a few quick items on religion. Seems Oklahoma is going to have to decide whether to allow a Satanist statue on their statehouse grounds, after allowing a Ten Commandments monument to be erected. A drawing of the proposed statue was released, which has to be seen to be fully appreciated. And the first-ever Pastafarian officeholder was sworn in to the town council seat he won in Pomfret, New York -- while wearing a colander as a mark of his faith. Worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should feel proud indeed!

Last and indeed (literally) least, we have a fun map for anyone who finds themselves guilty of too much state pride. This is a map of all the United States, annotated with what each state is "worst" or "least" in. Enjoy!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We have an Honorable Mention to hand out, for a deputy whip in the House, Representative Diana DeGette, who hails from Colorado. She sent an email out which is easily the best commentary so far on the entire subject: "It was a big week in Colorado. Across the state, recreational marijuana was sold for the first time. And guess what? The world didn't end."

Well done, Representative DeGette! We couldn't have put it better if we had tried.

But a big milestone happened which must be acknowledged, as Janet Yellen became the first woman ever to head the Federal Reserve. Her Senate confirmation was the final step for her on her path to becoming one of the most powerful women in all American political history, in fact. More independent than any cabinet secretary, and more powerful than any other individual woman who has served in any of the three branches of government, Yellen begins her term with the economy in much better shape than it has been in years.

While she has yet to put her real stamp on the Fed, her easy confirmation in the Senate and her rise to power have been impressive indeed -- more than enough to qualify her for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Federal Reserve Board Chairman Janet Yellen on the Federal Reserve Board contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

This story needs no embellishment or further explanation. Here is the news report:

Kentucky state Rep. Leslie Combs accidentally fired her gun in the state Capitol building's annex office on Tuesday night, according to a report from WHAS11.

Combs says she was attempting to unload her handgun when it went off, sending a bullet ricocheting off the floor and into a nearby bookcase. Though fellow Rep. Jeff Greer was in the room, no one was hurt.

Following the incident, Combs told reporters she'd put the gun away. "I don't want to use it anymore," she said.

Combs went on to explain that she thought the gun was "totally clear" but didn't seem too concerned about the mix-up.

"I am a gun owner. It happens," Combs said.

For reckless endangerment and statehouse gunplay, Representative Leslie Combs is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. There's just nothing else to say about this one, really, unless you'd like to make some sort of "longshot" joke.

[Contact Kentucky state representative Leslie Combs on her official contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 286 (1/10/13)

Before we begin offering up our own suggested talking points, for Democrats everywhere to contemplate, we have to point out an extraordinary article in The Atlantic. The article is an extended interview piece with none other than Frank Luntz, who is probably the best creator of talking points over on the Republican side of things. Calling the estate tax the "death tax" was his brainchild, just to give one example of his wordsmithing abilities (and how influential his advice is among Republicans).

Luntz, it seems, is depressed these days. Not only did Republicans lose big in the 2012 elections, but it seems that the American public just isn't buying his particular brand of dog food any more. Which is making Luntz very sad. Don't believe me? Try this on for size:

The crisis began, he says, after last year's presidential election, when Luntz became profoundly depressed. For more than a month, he tried to stay occupied, but nothing could keep his attention. Finally, six weeks after the election, during a meeting of his consulting company in Las Vegas, he fell apart. Leaving his employees behind, he flew back to his mansion in Los Angeles, where he stayed for three weeks, barely going outside or talking to anyone.

"I just gave up," Luntz says.

. . .

It was what Luntz heard from the American people that scared him. They were contentious and argumentative. They didn't listen to each other as they once had. They weren't interested in hearing other points of view. They were divided one against the other, black vs. white, men vs. women, young vs. old, rich vs. poor. "They want to impose their opinions rather than express them," is the way he describes what he saw. "And they're picking up their leads from here in Washington." Haven't political disagreements always been contentious, I ask? "Not like this," he says. "Not like this."

Luntz knew that he, a maker of political messages and attacks and advertisements, had helped create this negativity, and it haunted him. But it was Obama he principally blamed. The people in his focus groups, he perceived, had absorbed the president's message of class divisions, haves and have-nots, of redistribution. It was a message Luntz believed to be profoundly wrong, but one so powerful he had no slogans, no arguments with which to beat it back. In reelecting Obama, the people had spoken. And the people, he believed, were wrong. Having spent his career telling politicians what the people wanted to hear, Luntz now believed the people had been corrupted and were beyond saving. Obama had ruined the electorate, set them at each other's throats, and there was no way to turn back.

For everyone interested in the continuing battle over how to "frame" things politically, I strongly recommend this article. If only for the schadenfreude of seeing Frank Luntz bemoan how little people are buying into his spin these days. It truly is an extraordinary read, folks.

 

1
   I am not a bully

Well, bully for him (as Teddy Roosevelt might have said).

"Chris Christie tried to rewrite history in his recent press conference, and wants us all to believe that he is, quote, not a bully, unquote. That's really funny, since he has spent his entire political career building up the image of himself as a bully. Check out just about any of the videos which his own political team posts online of him dealing with his own constituents. He yells at them, he belittles their opinions, and generally throws his considerable weight around in what can only be called true bullyboy style. It's laughable to hear Christie now try to convince us that he isn't a bully, because there are so many videos out there that prove him to be flat-out lying about that. They're not even all that hard to find."

 

2
   How can you study traffic when it stops?

This is a key question that I haven't heard anyone ask yet. Of course, someone might have asked it during his press conference -- I didn't watch the entire two-hour spectacle, I have to admit.

"The really hilarious thing at the heart of the Christie bridge scandal is that somehow we were all supposed to believe that the entire exercise was to perform some sort of 'traffic study.' This is just flat-out ridiculous on the face of it. How can you study traffic by bringing it to a halt? What can be studied by closing two lanes out of three? What possible data can be collected by creating a traffic jam instead of watching the normal flow of traffic across a bridge? I would like to hear someone ask both Chris Christie and everyone else involved with this bit of political payback how any sane person could believe that bringing traffic to a screeching halt is a valid way to study traffic."

 

3
   Nine million and counting

This is a crucial talking point which all Democrats really need to practice, because it puts things into much better perspective than the media is right now.

"The number of people who have gained health insurance that they otherwise might not have been able to acquire has now reached nine million Americans, and it continues to grow. In the first three months of the Obamacare website exchanges, over two million people signed up for private insurance policies. But don't forget about the others who have been helped by Obamacare as well -- including three million young people who have been able to stay on their parents' health insurance. This wouldn't have been possible without the Affordable Care Act, so you've got to count them, too. And then there are the four million people who have gone to the website to find out that they are now eligible for Medicaid. Again -- this would not have happened without the Affordable Care Act. Through the end of 2013, over nine million people have benefited directly by gaining health coverage. And that number is only going to grow bigger and bigger, over time."

 

4
   Hospitals not overwhelmed

Yet again, the doomsayers were wrong.

"The opponents of Obamacare trotted out a new doom-and-gloom prediction, just before the new year began and people's new health insurance coverage started to kick in. Hospitals and doctors' offices, we were told, would be swamped and just overwhelmed with all the new patient load. People would be standing in long lines, beginning the first of the year, and there would be a massive doctor shortage because there were so many newly-insured people. Also, hordes of people who thought they had coverage would be turned away because the insurance companies had no record of them. Neither of these dire threats materialized, though. Here we are in the second week of Obamacare coverage, and I haven't heard a single story on the news of a hospital with lines out the door. Or masses of people left in limbo without coverage. It seems the system was able to handle the influx without muss or fuss. You can chalk this up on the increasingly-long list of apocalyptic outcomes from Obamacare which have just not come to pass. Maybe the media could keep this in mind, the next time the doomsayers come up with their next nightmare scenario, what do you think?"

 

5
   The War on the War On Poverty

It's bootstrappin' time!

"I see that Republicans have launched a new war on poverty. They have just noticed that there are poor people in America, it seems, and they've got all kinds of ideas how to solve the problem. These ideas all have one thing in common: they make life tougher on the poor. So the GOP is going to fight poverty by making life harder and harder on the poor, in the hopes that they all will decide not to be poor anymore. Or something. It's tough to even try to understand their logic. They're going to fight poverty by cutting food stamps and by refusing to extend unemployment insurance. I'm really not sure how that's supposed to work. Or how this is even supposed to be some sort of compassionate conservative rebranding -- it sounds like the same old 'screw the poor, it's their fault for being poor' philosophy that Republicans have believed all along."

 

6
   So long, Liz

Being a lover of the political fray, I am indeed sorry to see her go so early. Heh.

"The Tea Party seems to have suffered an early defeat in their plans to primary every Republican senator they possibly can. The most prominent candidate they had in this election cycle just walked away from her Senate campaign in Wyoming. Is the Tea Party on the way onto the scrap heap of history? Perhaps it is too soon to tell, but one thing is for certain, we won't have to listen to the shrill voice of Liz Cheney for the rest of the election season. That's comfort enough, I suppose. I guess it'll give her more time to work on her fishing."

 

7
   I stand with The People

This one is short, so allow me to properly introduce it. Sooner or later Democratic politicians are going to notice that this is a winning issue with the voters. Nationwide, support is up to 55 percent. More people in Colorado voted for legalization than voted for President Obama in 2012. The people are leading, and the leaders need to catch up. Some day soon, this will be a required box to check off for any Democratic candidate -- instead of a fearsome and brave thing to say which might lose you votes. Look at the shift on gay marriage, to see how this will take place over the next five years or so. But however long it takes, sooner or later Democrats will feel enough political cover to stand up and proudly say the following:

"I fully support ending the wasteful and destructive War On Weed. Prohibition of alcohol was wrong, and had to be ended. Prohibition of marijuana should follow the same route. It is a failed policy, and it needs to end. Now."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

26 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [286] -- Bullygate”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not a bully

    With the utmost respect, no one here has ANY moral authority or foundation to call out Gov Christie on his bullying...

    No one here said squat when Obama bullied WWII Veterans and bullied the American people (thru the Park Service) during the shutdown, so no one here has ANY soapbox to stand on to point fingers at Gov Christie..

    Having said that, when Obama bullied reporters (via his DOJ) over their reporting, CW was the LONE voice who spoke out against that...

    Ergo, he (CW) DOES have some moral standing...

    Beyond the fact that it's his frakin' "house" I mean.. :D

    I'll get to the rest later... I'm beat...

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nine million and counting

    If you use the creative accounting numbers by the Obama Administration, I could see how you might arrive at that 9 million number..

    But still no discussion on the people who got their insurance cancelled??

    Still no "success stories" to counter ALL the horror stories??

    How come??


    Hospitals not overwhelmed

    Yet again, the doomsayers were wrong.

    Were they???

    I can point to story after story of Doctors being put on hold for HOURS to confirm insurance and hospitals not being able to match insurance with real people..

    Sure, it's not End Of Days, but don't be lulled into thinking everything is peachy keen wonderful...

    The War on the War On Poverty

    You DO realize that the poverty rolls have grown immensely under Obama right??

    The Obama Administration has epitomized "The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Poorer"...

    Warriors for the middle class, my ass!!

    The mainstream media, in the past few weeks, have proved once again that "the weather" is the ultimate shiny, shiny object which the kittenish news anchors cannot resist, no matter how normal the story truly is. I mean, how many times can America realistically believe that "It Gets Cold In Winter" is some sort of breaking story? Look for the groundbreaking followup series "It Gets Hot In Summer," which will run in six months' time, just like clockwork.

    When it's colder in Chicago than it is at the South Pole, that's newsworthy.

    When I am sitting in sunny FL in the middle of the day and it's THIRTY FOUR FRAKIN' Degrees!!! That is newsworthy.. :D

    I shit you not, that one day we had a HIGH of 34 degrees!!! If it would have rained, it would have snowed!!

    'Sides.. The Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) fanatics like to pick specific weather events and point to that as "proof positive" that humans are causing climate change..

    Why shouldn't everyone else jump on the "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" bandwagon.. :D

    As to the legalization issue that's been on-going....

    Food for thought.. Such a cash-only business is perfect, almost tailor made, for organized crime.. Further, do you think the Sinola or Baja Cartels are going to take a 1.45 BILLION dollar hit to their business and NOT respond???

    Mexican cartels already had a HUGE presence in Colorado... Look for this legalization issue to bring them all out of the shadows.. And not in a good way..

    Also look for a plethora of CCW applications.. Which is ironic because it's... well.. Colorado...

    Aspects that the pro-drugs crowd failed to take into account...

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    First off, LOVE the analysis of luntz' whining. His ability to spin feces to sound like gold has hit a few snags. poor frank.

    As to whether Gov. Christie qualifies as bully, that's a tougher question. As of last month, I live and work quite close to the bridge that all the hubbub is about. Every work day there I have walked through halls that encourage urban students to "stop bullying." but I'm not so sure most people take the time to stop and reflect on what the word really means.

    Many teachers in NJ believe fervently that Christie's political behavior toward them is a form of bullying. Why? The defintions for bullying, with which most teachers are intimately familiar, have three key elements. One is an unequal power dynamic, two is a pattern of repeatedly targeting the same person or group, and three is the use of some form of coercion or social exclusion. Dan Olweus, for decades the foremost authority on the research of bullying, set up a series of paramenters to determine whether a scenario was or wasn't bullying. If you sift through the types of comments Christie and his staff have made about certain groups over the course of his tenure as governor, I think it comes fairly close to that line. I make no claim to impartiality on the subject, but I think I'm expert enough for my opinion's credibility to at least be above average. Depending on how strict a definition one uses, it's within the realm of the reasonable to call this pattern bullying.

    From Christie's own perspective, I'm sure his desired political ends justify the means he uses. based on his actions on other issues, I have no doubt at all that he fervently believes himself to be acting in the best interest of New Jersey's citizens. Michale's assertion about President Obama's behavior may be excessive, but there is a parallel I can see; both men seem to exist among so much hyperbole that they may not see the kernel of valid criticism amidst all the noise.

    JL

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Michale,

    Still no "success stories" to counter ALL the horror stories??

    There are just as many success stories as horror stories - probably more, if you're interested in looking for them. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I've always thought the overall impact of Obamacare would be modest, notwithstanding a certain percentage of outliers on either side. At least for the moment, I've seen enough evidence on both sides to continue to reserve judgment.

    Warriors for the middle class, my ass!!

    On this point, I have to agree with you. Although the consumer financial protection board has been a step in the right direction, pro-corporate, anti-populist policy seems to be a given no matter who is in the white house.

    that one day we had a HIGH of 34 degrees!!! If it would have rained, it would have snowed!!

    'Sides.. The Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) fanatics like to pick specific weather events and point to that as "proof positive" that humans are causing climate change..

    Umm, isn't that what you just did?

    I've explained this before, and if it doesn't eventually sink in I may need to keep something on hand to copy/paste in every time you repeat your hypothesis that human-influenced global warming is all myth.

    Surface temperature, the measurement you reference as global warming evidence, accounts for about 3% of global heat change, while 90% of the change in heat globally has been absorbed by the oceans. data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in australia, and other world-wide sources, provide nearly incontrovertible evidence for the overall heat gain of the globe.

    JL

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    One is an unequal power dynamic, two is a pattern of repeatedly targeting the same person or group, and three is the use of some form of coercion or social exclusion.

    Sounds like Obama to a Tee.... :D

    Umm, isn't that what you just did?

    Yea, but *I* do it to point out how ridiculous, how MORONIC, it is to take one minute moment in time and ascribe an entire planet's climate to that one relatively insignificant planetary even...

    In other words, I am being facetious. The Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) fanatics actually believe their own press...

    "Fascinating"
    -Spock

    Surface temperature, the measurement you reference as global warming evidence, accounts for about 3% of global heat change, while 90% of the change in heat globally has been absorbed by the oceans. data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in australia, and other world-wide sources, provide nearly incontrovertible evidence for the overall heat gain of the globe.

    And yet, plenty of other scientists have different theories..

    Funny, iddn't it??

    I've explained this before, and if it doesn't eventually sink in I may need to keep something on hand to copy/paste in every time you repeat your hypothesis that human-influenced global warming is all myth.

    I never said it's a myth..

    But it IS only a theory..

    A scientific theory that is, apparently, VERY flawed since not ONE SINGLE PREDICTION or MODEL has been accurate..

    NOT.... ONE.... SINGLE..... ONE.....

    It got so bad, that the IPCC had to re-market the religion to try and obtain more converts..

    The current theory STILL ignores scientific fact such as the Medieval Warming Period and a plethora of other established facts...

    The only "myth" here is that there is a consensus...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale's assertion about President Obama's behavior may be excessive, but there is a parallel I can see; both men seem to exist among so much hyperbole that they may not see the kernel of valid criticism amidst all the noise.

    I need to FINISH reading comments before I shoot from the hip...

    Apologies, JL... :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    both men seem to exist among so much hyperbole that they may not see the kernel of valid criticism amidst all the noise.

    This is so dead on ballz accurate, it's scary..

    It's my biggest beef with the Left in general and Wiegantians.... With VERY few exceptions, no one here believes that there is ANY valid criticism of Obama...

    That's what chaps my ass....

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In other words, I am being facetious. The Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) fanatics actually believe their own press...

    is the "planet is cooling" part facetious as well? based on coordinated measurements of heat exchange, it's certainly not accurate.

    And yet, plenty of other scientists have different theories...

    it's one thing to posit a different theory of causality or predictive model. it's another to take a factual measurement and claim that the opposite is true. the planet overall has been warming at a historically high rate. That's a fact, surface air temperature fluctuations notwithstanding.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's one thing to posit a different theory of causality or predictive model. it's another to take a factual measurement and claim that the opposite is true. the planet overall has been warming at a historically high rate. That's a fact, surface air temperature fluctuations notwithstanding.

    Why isn't the temps rising as fast as the CO2 concentrations??

    Perhaps there are other factors at work, no??

    There are PLENTY of scientists that show those other factors have much more of an impact than puny little humans..

    Their science is just as valid, but it's ignored in favor of a POLITICAL agenda...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:
  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    is the "planet is cooling" part facetious as well? based on coordinated measurements of heat exchange, it's certainly not accurate.

    Yer right.. I should strive for accuracy...

    How about:

    Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Not Warming Nearly As Fast As The Prevailing Theories Vis A Vis CO2 Causations)

    Or this:

    Human Caused Global Warming (Yet Not ONE Frakin' Model/Prediction Has ever, EVER Been Accurate)

    Either one is a pretty dead on ballz assessment of the current religion...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's another to take a factual measurement and claim that the opposite is true. the planet overall has been warming at a historically high rate.

    Historically high rate???

    {{cough}} Medieval Warming Period {{cough}} {{cough}}

    As far as consensus???

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html#

    WHAT consensus???

    Richard Lindzen

    Judith Curry

    William Happer

    John Christy

    Freeman Dyson

    These are SCIENTISTS

    CLIMATE scientists

    Physicists

    PEER-REVIEWED

    What makes them wrong and the scientists that follow a political agenda right???

    Don't tell me, let me guess.

    THEY are bought by "big oil" and the scientists that follow the political agenda are completely untainted by the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars dolled out by government grants and UN corruption...

    And I have some swampland in FL I wanna sell you.. :D

    There is no consensus...

    You may be right...

    But you also may be wrong..

    THAT is the long and short of it....

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    But getting back to Train Wreck Care...

    It will be interesting to see what the new week brings..

    I'de be interested to read any of these "success" stories that are allegedly out there.. :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Richard Lindzen

    Judith Curry

    William Happer

    John Christy

    Freeman Dyson

    What makes them wrong and the scientists that follow a political agenda right???

    i have no idea what researchers' motivations or prejudices might be, regardless of whether they are part of the 97% who think global warming is excessive and caused by humans, or the 3% who think it is within the normal range and/or caused mainly by non-human factors.

    overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus can be and has been wrong at times, but that is the exception, not the rule. anti-consensus views are most often due to differing areas of specialization - scientists focused mainly on their own area of expertise and not seeing the whole picture. the trouble politically is that grant money obfuscates in both directions. for my money, the hard data are on the side of human causes, al gore and davis guggenheim notwithstanding.

    JL

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it this way, Joshua...

    You have a theory.

    You create computer models to test your theory.
    You make predictions, based on those computer models.

    And you are NEVER right.. Not ONE of your models works. Not ONE of your predictions come to pass..

    Now, what would common sense dictate?

    Common sense dictates that you MUST adjust your theory to accomadate this new reality.

    But that's not what the IPCC does. That's not what these so-called "scientists" do. What THEY do is that they adjust reality to fit their flawed models and totally inaccurate predictions. They don't adjust the theory to fit the data, they adjust the data to fit the theory. They fudge the data. They hide the decline..

    Not only does that violate EVERY precept of science and the scientific method, it totally decimates common sense..

    Put another way.

    Let's say you and I build a T.I.D. A Temporal Incursion Device. Using this device, we totally obliterate the human race from existence. Human beings never EVER existed.

    (Yea, I know.. If human beings never existed, how could we build a TID to obliterate the human race?? Go with me on this.. :D)

    Anyways, Earth is a planet that has NEVER seen human kind. We'll even go so far as to postulate that NO INTELLIGENT LIFE has ever evolved here.

    (Some would say no intelligent life has ever evolved here anyways, but again. Go with me on this. :D)

    So, we have a planet totally devoid of sentient life forms.

    Would the planet still experience Climate Change?? Of course..

    Would there still be huge storms and blistering heat? Of course..

    Would there still be massive blizzards and destructive hurricanes? Of course..

    Given that, given that there would be all the things happening now with or without humans, isn't it LOGICAL to at least ENTERTAIN the possibility that human kind's impact on the planetary weather system is not NEARLY as disruptive as the politicians would have us believe??

    I mean, just ignore the science (for the moment) and look at it from a common sense point of view..

    What does common sense dictate about a theory that has absolutely NO TRACK RECORD for being accurate???

    What does common sense dictate about a planet that would experience Climate Change, experience destructive storms and experience all sorts of insane weather events WITHOUT having ANY intelligent life on the planet??

    What does common sense tell you?

    overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus can be and has been wrong at times,

    But that's my point. There is no "overwhelming" scientific consensus.

    THAT is the myth...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    i have no idea what researchers' motivations or prejudices might be, regardless of whether they are part of the 97% who think global warming is excessive and caused by humans, or the 3% who think it is within the normal range and/or caused mainly by non-human factors.

    I am also constrained to point out that science is not a popularity contest. It's not a "majority rules" kind o' thing...

    97% of "scientists" thought the world was flat.

    They were wrong..

    97% of "scientists" thought that the sun revolved around the earth.

    They were wrong..

    100 years from now, when we know a buttload more about climatology than we do now, the 97% of scientists who believe that humankind can actually affect planetary climate will likely look as silly and as moronic as the flat-earth "scientists" look today.

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the YA GOTTA LOVE THE IRONY department..

    Surprise! Walmart health plan is cheaper, offers more coverage than Obamacare
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-walmart-health-plan-is-cheaper-offers-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670

    :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news..

    Harry Reid Blocks Iran Sanctions Vote
    Obama tougher on Congress than Iran.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harry-reid-blocks-iran-sanctions-vote_774165.html

    Looks like Harry Reid didna listen to you, CW..

    Reid is going to allow Obama to kiss Iran's ass.... :^/

    Driving our Middle East allies straight into the arms of China and Russia..

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Back to obamacare...

    Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review
    A Health Care Reform Blog––Bob Laszewski's review of the latest developments in federal health policy, health care reform, and marketplace activities in the health care financing business.

    http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2014/01/will-there-be-obamacare-death-spiral-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+HealthCarePolicyAndMarketplaceBlog+%28Health+Care+Policy+and+Marketplace+Blog%29&m=1

    Another government bail-out in the works..

    The AFFORDABLE Care Act is ANYTHING but "affordable"...

    Insurance costs are going to skyrocket and the US tax payers will be on the hook for over $25 BILLION dollars to bail out the Insurance Companies....

    How do you like your Train Wreck Care now??

    About the only silver lining to all this is that it will happen right before the 2016 POTUS elections.. It will serve to emphasize how completely and utterly ill-equipped Democrats are as leaders...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nine million and counting

    Actually, the number is closer to 2 million..

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBREA0C1GM20140113?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

    And, of those 2 million, only 20% are young people..

    Train Wreck Care needs about 40% of young people to be viable...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    100 years from now, when we know a buttload more about climatology than we do now, the 97% of scientists who believe that humankind can actually affect planetary climate will likely look as silly and as moronic as the flat-earth "scientists" look today.

    Perhaps. Or perhaps in a hundred years most of florida will be below sea level. Or perhaps something in-between. Or perhaps something even more extreme than al gore's most hysterical scenarios. Your assertion that scientific climate models have been universally inaccurate isn't the case. climate is a complex thing, but scientific knowledge of it has grown light years over the past couple decades.

    "Read a book!"
    ~ Handy - 'The Tick'

    JL

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your assertion that scientific climate models have been universally inaccurate isn't the case.

    Really??

    Show me a climate model that predicted the suspending of Global Warming..

    Show me a climate model that predicted ANYTHING accurately??

    You can't because none exists..

    On the other hand, I can point to HUNDREDS of IPCC fear mongering predictions that NEVER came to pass. I can point to HUNDREDS of IPCC fear mongering predictions that we're PROVEN and DEMONSTRABLY wrong....

    I'll show you mine if you show me yours. :D

    What makes your priests right and the other priests wrong??

    Numbers??

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    climate is a complex thing, but scientific knowledge of it has grown light years over the past couple decades.

    And yet, not ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST can explain why CO2 emissions have risen dramatically over the past couple decades and yet, there has been no, repeat.. NO statistically significant rise in temps..

    "Can you explain that, Colonel? The truth is, there was no transfer order. Santiago wasn't going anywhere. Isn't that right, Colonel."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    If you would like to read from a REAL scientist, as opposed to a political whore of a "scientist"

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/

    He's an actual CLIMATE scientist. Not like the train conductor "scientist" that runs the IPCC...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Show me a climate model that predicted the suspending of Global Warming..

    there isn't, because it hasn't.

    Show me a climate model that predicted ANYTHING accurately??

    early 90's IPCC projections of sea level rise between 1990 and 2010 were accurate, though the actual rise was at the high end of their projection.

    And yet, not ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST can explain why CO2 emissions have risen dramatically over the past couple decades and yet, there has been no, repeat.. NO statistically significant rise in temps..

    i can explain, but it's up to you to actually understand and take it in. one, it takes time for changes in CO2 to have an impact on heat retention. two, there HAS been a significant rise in overall temperatures, just not air temperatures.

    that was simple, and i'm just a social scientist.

    JL

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    there isn't, because it hasn't.

    This is exactly what I mean.

    It's fully accepted by EVERYONE (even the proponents of the theory) that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 2-3 decades..

    early 90's IPCC projections of sea level rise between 1990 and 2010 were accurate, though the actual rise was at the high end of their projection.

    Cite

    i can explain, but it's up to you to actually understand and take it in. one, it takes time for changes in CO2 to have an impact on heat retention.

    According to ice core samples, in history, rising temps PRECEDED rise in CO2 levels..

    So, we should be seeing those high temps already..

    two, there HAS been a significant rise in overall temperatures, just not air temperatures.

    Again, cite??

    And you'll provide "science" that says you are right and I'll provide "science" that says you are wrong and so it will go and so it will go..

    And THAT is my entire point. There is "science" to support each theory.

    It all comes down to what one WANTS to believe.

    Me?

    I believe that the question is still open..

    Why??

    Because that's what the science, ALL the science, says...

    If one doesn't take into account ALL the science, then that is not science.

    That's faith...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    test

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]