Rush Limbaugh had a great point on his radio show recently. Now that the Global Warmists have admitted the fact that the world hasn't warmed over the past 15 years, they should be celebratory. If global warming is bad, then no global warming should be good, right? They can still be worried over the long run, believing the world will continue to heat up, but now there's a chance things won't be so bad. They don't see any cause for celebration.
This is like the slowdown in health costs. Liberals are very excited, even though it's possible it might be short-term. They're trying to convince themselves, though, that it's permanent (and likely due to Obamacare).
In both cases, there was an unexpected change in the trend, and in both cases, the change was inexplicable. Why the different reactions?
Liberals have a vested interest in global warming. If it doesn't happen, they look like fools, they stop receiving government grants for researching it, and they lose what they crave: control over other people's lives.
One of the many criticisms Republicans have over the global warming debate is that they don't believe the models. This new development supports that criticism. If scientists don't know why the world has not heated over the past 15 years, their model is missing something important. Republicans think that the climate is too complex for current methods to predict--there's too many interactions between the separate components. We don't really know how the world will react to warmer temperatures; it may have some kind of self-regulator. Who knows?
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Democrats Admit Actions Politically-Motivated
The news isn't that their actions are politically motivated. The news is that they admitted it.
Democrats continuously claim that their actions are noble--they're doing the best for the American people. Those evil Republicans, however, always have nefarious political motivations. If you follow the news closely, you would have noticed how frequently they brought up Mitch McConnell saying his main goal was to defeat President Obama.
Well, here's Democrat James Clyburn admitting that they designed the ACA to help them win elections. Now Republicans have the opportunity to take the moral high ground. Why wasn't the sole goal of this legislation to insure the uninsured and bring costs down--to help people? How many people have to go uninsured so that the Democrats can win in 2014? How many people are going to die for their blatant politicking?
I expect to hear next to nothing about this development from Republicans, from the media, and from the Democrats who endlessly criticized McConnell.
Democrats continuously claim that their actions are noble--they're doing the best for the American people. Those evil Republicans, however, always have nefarious political motivations. If you follow the news closely, you would have noticed how frequently they brought up Mitch McConnell saying his main goal was to defeat President Obama.
Well, here's Democrat James Clyburn admitting that they designed the ACA to help them win elections. Now Republicans have the opportunity to take the moral high ground. Why wasn't the sole goal of this legislation to insure the uninsured and bring costs down--to help people? How many people have to go uninsured so that the Democrats can win in 2014? How many people are going to die for their blatant politicking?
I expect to hear next to nothing about this development from Republicans, from the media, and from the Democrats who endlessly criticized McConnell.
Monday, August 5, 2013
If You're not a Socialist, You're a Monster
Neil Irwin believes that if you spend more than what he deems appropriate on a bottle of wine (apparently it only applies to goods that are bought and sold second-hand for some reason).
If the person who drinks a $3,500 bottle of wine also donates $1 million to charity is he still a monster? I guess so, because that's what Neil Irwin said. I'm glad we have his clear and irrefutable arguments to help us understand what's right and wrong.
If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine, you have to think for just a minute about this option instead: Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good, but from a less renowned chateau. And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa.What makes $100 an acceptable amount? I have no idea. I guess it's because I'm not as morally developed as Neil Irwin.
If the person who drinks a $3,500 bottle of wine also donates $1 million to charity is he still a monster? I guess so, because that's what Neil Irwin said. I'm glad we have his clear and irrefutable arguments to help us understand what's right and wrong.
How the Media Deceive
Sarah Kliff's title is a little more neutral, but if you read this story, and think about it, it's clear that one title is misleading and the other is accurate. It's true that both title's are technically correct, but one leaves out relevant information (the fact that Maryland's rates are already pretty low), and, therefore, provides no information about how Obamacare will affect premiums.
I would've given the paper a pass if it said something like "Rates could fall by as much as X %".
I would've given the paper a pass if it said something like "Rates could fall by as much as X %".
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
They Just Don't Understand Nuance
I've noticed a tendency among Leftists to equate doing nothing about an issue to being against that particular issue. I had a friend from Latin America who hated George W. Bush. Incredulously, I asked why he would hate George W. Bush since he barely did anything to Latin America. His response, "Exactly."
The Left wants government to do stuff for them. If Republicans don't believe the government should provide money to certain things, then they take that as Republicans being against them. Look at the contraception debate. I, and fellow Libertarians I know, believe the government should not have a regulation mandating free contraceptives for women. It's not because we're against their use, we just don't believe that's in the government's purview.
The Left distorts that opinion and says we're against contraceptives and against women's rights and we hate women.
The newest piece of evidence is Eduardo Porter's piece. In it he says, "But there is an odd inconsistency in conservatives’ stance on procreation: many also support some of the harshest cuts in memory to government benefit programs for families and children." Just because we don't want the government to bestow extra privileges on certain people for certain activities doesn't mean we're anti-children. There's no inconsistency in reality, only in the small minds of Leftists who think everything is black and white--you're either with us, or your against us.
I remember when they claimed they were the party of nuance.
The Left wants government to do stuff for them. If Republicans don't believe the government should provide money to certain things, then they take that as Republicans being against them. Look at the contraception debate. I, and fellow Libertarians I know, believe the government should not have a regulation mandating free contraceptives for women. It's not because we're against their use, we just don't believe that's in the government's purview.
The Left distorts that opinion and says we're against contraceptives and against women's rights and we hate women.
The newest piece of evidence is Eduardo Porter's piece. In it he says, "But there is an odd inconsistency in conservatives’ stance on procreation: many also support some of the harshest cuts in memory to government benefit programs for families and children." Just because we don't want the government to bestow extra privileges on certain people for certain activities doesn't mean we're anti-children. There's no inconsistency in reality, only in the small minds of Leftists who think everything is black and white--you're either with us, or your against us.
I remember when they claimed they were the party of nuance.
President Obama Mischaracterizes Tax Burdens
I could only make it through a couple paragraphs of President Obama's speech. Eventually, I realized how lengthy it was and gave up. Not before I read this, though.
"We changed a tax code too skewed in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families."
In what way was the tax code skewed in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families? The United States had the most progressive tax code in the world at the time, and it's even more so now. Not only is it inaccurate, it doesn't make any sense. How can a tax code possibly be skewed towards those who pay higher rates and higher dollar figures? Plus, "at the expense of working families?" The tax code isn't zero sum.
Who wrote this?
"We changed a tax code too skewed in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families."
In what way was the tax code skewed in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families? The United States had the most progressive tax code in the world at the time, and it's even more so now. Not only is it inaccurate, it doesn't make any sense. How can a tax code possibly be skewed towards those who pay higher rates and higher dollar figures? Plus, "at the expense of working families?" The tax code isn't zero sum.
Who wrote this?
"Research" on Middle-Out
I confess I have no idea what the Middle-Out Theory. I'll probably add a post soon on that. But this summary of "research" showing that it works is awful. Let's take them one by one.
First, the author cites correlation, but unfortunately for him correlation does not imply causation. Economic growth could cause income equality or something else could cause both.
Second, he cites the large percentage of entrepreneurs that come from the middle class. Well, they might come from the middle class, but I bet the money that funds them comes from the wealthy.
Third, he says that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to spend money and spending money helps the economy. I believe even Krugman only believes this is true when resources are unused (a recession) not necessarily when times are good. So this may be evidence.
Finally, he says that because middle class people try to keep up with wealthy people and spend themselves into debt, then it's better if wealthy people just didn't have the money. This sort of logic is twisted. Just because some people can't control themselves doesn't mean you should punish others.
First, the author cites correlation, but unfortunately for him correlation does not imply causation. Economic growth could cause income equality or something else could cause both.
Second, he cites the large percentage of entrepreneurs that come from the middle class. Well, they might come from the middle class, but I bet the money that funds them comes from the wealthy.
Third, he says that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to spend money and spending money helps the economy. I believe even Krugman only believes this is true when resources are unused (a recession) not necessarily when times are good. So this may be evidence.
Finally, he says that because middle class people try to keep up with wealthy people and spend themselves into debt, then it's better if wealthy people just didn't have the money. This sort of logic is twisted. Just because some people can't control themselves doesn't mean you should punish others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)