Dime Dancing

Egged On
The more honest Obamacare advocates are, in effect, admitting that to make this omelet you have to break 8 million eggs — roughly the number of people with individual plans who are expected to lose them. Obama, however, goes on as if he can conjure omelets out of thin air.

This rather bizarre belief in the unlimited power of the speech arises from Obama’s biography. Isn’t that how he rose? Words. It’s not as if he built a company, an enterprise, an institution. He built one thing — his own persona. By persuasion. One great speech in 2004 propels him to the presidential level. More great speeches and he wins the White House.

But then comes governance. (Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 11/4/2013)

Krauthammer nails it. Obama is an empty suit with a teleprompter and a so-so speechwriter. He has proven monumentally inept at governing. His signature legislative accomplishment was passed solely because at one brief moment in time he had full control. Now it turns out to be a national joke that even Democrats are running from. 


Emitted
Developing countries want the West — historically responsible for emissions, for the most part — not only to take the lead in reducing the use of fossil fuels, but to put up huge amounts of money to help poorer countries adapt to climatic changes that have already become inevitable. Western governments, which in some cases are already starting to consider their own adaptations to climate change, agree in principle that they should help poor countries. (NYT, 11/12/2013)

And so now we have it in writing. The whole climate change nonsense is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme. It is designed to work on a large scale as described above and an individual scale (see McKibben, Bill). 


Consumed
Americans are growing more comfortable with marijuana, with 58 percent favoring legalization, according to the latest Gallup poll. At the same time, some researchers believe they have identified a side benefit to increasing availability of the drug: It could lead to decreased consumption of alcohol among young people. (New York Times editorial, 11/3/2013)

Sheer brilliance from the geniuses at the Times. Legal dope will result in fewer drunk teens. 

(Of course, there will be more stoned teens....)