Climate Wierdness

That's what Thomas Friedman of the NY Times called climate change on Sunday. He was following up on the "study" issued by the UN that basically says "We're screwed."

And that's the problem with the liberals who want desperately to declare the debate over. The debate is anything but over. Calling for an end is just their way way of asking us to give up. But in the process of trying to get conservatives to shut up, liberals have decided to portray things in the worst way with the most catastrophic consequences. I believe they are doing so in the belief that if their predictions are bad enough, that we might be inclined to think that while they may be wrong, they might only be wrong about the depth of the disaster. So this is why they hint that in fact, it might already be too late. We are destroying the planet, but there might still be time to act,... barely.

OK, so let mew get this straight. All the carbon from burning fossil fuels (or anything else for that matter) is what is at fault. But even as we in the US have made the Prius one of the most popular cars in America, and have gone on an electric car binge, the problem remains that for every American who buys a Prius, there are 5 other people in the world who have just gotten a gas guzzling, carbon spewing car, truck, motor cycle etc. They want the transportation and they couldn't care less about climate change. Whats more they can't afford to think about that even if they did care. We can't convince them, and we can't control them. Oh, by the way what are we burning to generate the electricity that charges all those electric cars? Coal.

The liberals are ready to wreak havoc on our economy and way of life, in order to nibble around the edges. If we are really as bad off as they say we are, this is all spit in the ocean, and they know it. If they truly believed what they are saying, they would be all in for a two pronged attack. First would be the development and design of the safest nuclear power plants possible, with fail safe, earthquake proof systems that would contain any accidents and include a way to safely shut down on it's own. Nuclear is the only thing that can replace fossil fuels on the scale that we current burn them. Wind and solar will only compliment, not replace. The second prong would be to build huge carbon capturing systems to take some carbon out of the atmosphere. And these would also need to be nuclear powered.

So here's the deal. If you believe in global warming, yet aren't advocating for this radical path, then you are full of it. If it's as big a problem as Tom Friedman says, this is the only serious way that Americans can take this on. If you are advocating something less, then your motives are suspect in my book.

Stay in Your Own Lane, Please

So the other day I caught a video clip of Stephen Colbert interviewing that idiot Jimmy Carter, who has been out of office long enough for most people to forget how truly awful he was as President. I think the Democrats rehabilitated him around the year 2000 after not inviting him to their conventions for a couple of decades.

Colbert was playing the clueless conservative role that is his trademark and Jimmy was hawking his new book with some catch all title with "Religion, Women and Violence" in the title. And Carter can't resist trashing the Catholic church and commenting that he would consider converting to Catholicism if only he could do so with a married female priest, or something like that. And last year a good friend of mine who happens to be Episcopalian, was  posting all these fawning comments about the then new Pope Francis, saying how much she really liked what she perceived as liberal comments about the direction he might take the church (fact is she was reading tea leaves, and had it wrong.) But it occurred to me that I would never in a million years consider weighing in on which tenets or practices of which I approve or disapprove within the Baptist or Episcopalian churches. I just wouldn't. So why do they feel the need (or license) to do so concerning Catholics? I can't imagine a more inappropriate place to wade into. Jimmy carter would never become Catholic no matter who was converting him and it's ridiculous to say otherwise. What, he thinks so little of his Baptist faith that he's throw it under the bus for a chance to become Catholic? And my Episcopalian friend is ecstatic that her church has openly gay priests. But she'd go Catholic for Francis? Not. But why should they care at all what Catholics do? I do not get it. Maybe I should tell my friend that I'd consider becoming Episcopalian if only they'd stop letting their priests marry and throw out the female ones.

The Big Picture

They were discussing Obamacare this morning on talk radio and whether or not people were aware of or in denial about any cost effect coming their way. And this has been one of the most predictable results since O'care was conceived. Forget all this crap about saving that would accrue because of preventative care or steering people away from the emergency room. It's really so simple.

First, envision the system we used to have. X number of total dollars were spent insuring some 85% of Americans. Those 85% were reasonably happy with their coverage, cost and doctor. Keeping with the basic concept of insurance, you could not insure yourself against illnesses you already had. The president and Democrats like to refer to this as an "abhorrent practice" of the insurance industry, but it's just a basic tenet of insurance. You can't insure against a car wreck after you've had it and you can't buy a homeowners policy once your house is on fire.

Now, without regard to where the money is coming from or from whom it is coming, imagine that you are going to cover the other 15% (40 million people), prohibit preexisting condition exclusions, and increase the coverage to certain minimums for everybody. Now tell me with a straight face, that you think that all probably adds up to a savings of $2,500 per family, per year. Go ahead.

Minimum Wage

I was having a familiar argument with one of my socialist friends. He was talking about why we should raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The specific number isn't all that important to me, of course. I believe it is simply not the role of government to dictate these types of things and that it will create adverse conditions in the economy (namely higher unemployment.)

But he said something during our talk that was revealing. He was making that familiar argument that the current minimum wage is usually not enough for somebody to support a family. As I was pointing out that wages are set not by how much the worker needs as it is by how much value he brings to the business, he said something about the "guy at the top" deciding what the worker gets paid. And then added that the current system is "failing for millions of workers."

First, I questioned what it was that was failing. Is it the system that is failing, or the worker? While there may indeed be millions who are "failing" there are hundreds of millions who are not, But it is also not true that the boss is the one determining his wages. Wages are determined by the marketplace, Which means that a specific worker's wages are not just determined by his current boss, but by any potential future bosses as well. Any boss has to consider what other people might pay that worker, in particular his competition. 

Am I Missing Something?

As I have been saying all along, Obamacare has very clear incentives, and they are not directed in a way that will make young healthy people buy more expensive health insurance than they did before. In fact, the law provides even stronger incentives to not buy insurance, because the policies they have to buy now are more expensive and with higher deductibles. Meanwhile the fine is a joke (less than $300 max versus health insurance premiums that will crowd, if not exceed $2,000.)

But step back and think about it. The whole reason for the individual mandate was to force young people to buy more insurance and more expensive insurance because they were not doing so in large enough numbers to balance out the actuarial tables. So in an effort to “make” them buy more, they managed to raise the price of the premiums while simultaneously making the fine virtually insignificant. Does anybody see this as helping accomplish their goal? If they wouldn’t buy it before, what on Earth makes them think they will now? Oh and remember the reason you used to want insurance? You know, how you would buy a policy in case you got cancer or some other serious disease? We all did so because you can't buy insurance after you get sick, right? Wrong. Now you can't be denied no matter how sick you are! So why buy "insurance" ahead of time?

Well, maybe they will all buy insurance out of loyalty to Obama. After all, they voted for him.

Getting Personal

I used to think that the tendency of liberals to vilify their enemies with such ferocity, was due to the threat that person posed to them. So for instance, Sarah Pailin represented a threat because she was a conservative woman. Worse, was that she was on the Republican running against an all male ticket of Democrats. They had to take her down HARD. Ted Cruz is Hispanic with better academic credentials than Obama. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, clerked at the Supreme Court and was an international debate champion. So naturally he is a crazy radical.

But now, I'm starting to think that it's all because they need to personalize it. They have a hard time defeating ideas. They are not very good at fighting an idea. You have explain yourself, you have to use facts. They are much better at provoking emotions. And it is much easier to manipulate one's feeling about another person, than it is to manipulate their feelings about a concept.

The Liberal Arsenal

• pkbormes
• Brookline, MA

Time for Dems to remind people who caused the shutdown, wasted 24 billion taxpayer dollars, and risked the full faith and credit of the United States. That should overpower Republican lies about an effort which, after all, is intended to HELP the average American.

This is just a typical post from a NYT article about the Koch brothers efforts to hang the ACA around the necks of Democrats. But it contains everything in their pathetic arsenal. First is the shutdown. Some liberal think tank conjured up that $24 billion number as the "cost" of the shutdown (not taxpayer cost.) It was one of those studies extrapolating economic ripple effects where a family is not driving to Yellowstone, not buying gas, and not staying in a hotel. Then they look at the hotel and gas station not buying supplies and not paying staff and the staff not going grocery shopping. You get the picture. they can come up with any number they want. Then there is the threat of default, conveniently ignoring that only the executive branch could cause default to happen. And finally, the last refuge of liberal scoundrels: He had good intentions.