This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: “Your Tax Dollars At Work”

  • And In the “Shoulda Seen This Coming” Department . . . .

    Remember that little thing called “Medicaid expansion” that was an optional part of ObamaCare? You know, the one where states could optionally expand Medicare eligibility and the Federal government would pick up the tab – for a while?

    Well, guess what. Pretty soon (2017) part of the bill starts getting transferred to the states.  (Even so, the Federal government still will pick up 90% or more of the cost for the expansion.)  And guess what that means?

    If you guessed “big bills for the states who signed up” – give yourself a pat on the back.

    Moreover, those bills are significantly larger than originally projected. Because you see – enrollment under those “expanded eligibility” guidelines has been much higher than projected.  Many states are seeing an overage of over 100% of projections.

    Gee – people finding out that they can get “free sh!t” and taking advantage.  Why would anyone ever think that might possibly happen in greater numbers than expected?  Sheesh.

    Predictably, several states are now re-looking their ObamaCare Medicare expansions. I can’t say that I blame them; in the case of one state – Florida – the projected additional cost to the state is about $5 billion over the first 10 years. Guess who’s going to pay for that if they stick with it?

    You see, when it comes to goods and services – like medical care – there isn’t really any such thing as “free”. Someone, somewhere pays for it.

    And if it’s a government giveaway like ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion . . . that means we pay for it in the form of higher taxes and interest rates. Well, at least those of us who ever pay taxes or borrow money do.

    Fox today has an article that gives more details.  It’s worth a read.

  • Looks Like NOAA Is “Rectifying” History . . . . Yet Again

    Well, NOAA will come out with a      tall tale     scientific paper today that says that the nearly 20-year “Global Warming Pause” you’ve been hearing about – isn’t real.  Their new       cock-and-bull-story       scholarly article will appear in the journal Science.

    Unfortunately for NOAA, a couple of folks with a scientific background and no agenda (plus a healthy dose of skepticism) got their hands on the paper and its supporting data – which was “embargoed” from public release until 2PM EDT yesterday.  These two individuals took a critical look at the data and the paper’s methodology.

    The two individuals make a persuasive case that NOAA – for probably the 4th time since January 2009 – appears to have “diddled the data”.  Essentially, what NOAA has done is “adjusted” many past temps downward – below previously accepted values – for years before the mid/late 1930s/early 1940s.  Then they “adjusted” more recent temps upward above the accepted, measured values.

    The net result of these new “adjustments” is to make the now roughly 20-year pause in “global warming” they can’t explain go “Poof!” and disappear.   How . . . convenient.

    These two are the “money charts” from the article, which show exactly what’s going on.  First, here’s the one that highlights NOAA’s         blatant data manipulations         temperature “adjustments” to measured data in their       propaganda        scholarly paper released today by year.  Blue values represent “adjustments” which are reductions from measured reality; red values, “adjustments” that are increases over measured reality.  The “crossover point” is in the late 1930s/early 1940s – precisely when actual unadjusted measured raw data appears to show the beginning of a slight cooling trend.

     

    This second chart shows there have been multiple such adjustments since the beginning of 2009.  The adjustments from today’s article don’t seem to be shown – yet.

     

    Don’t believe that’s what’s going on here?  Well, then “Rjddle me this, Batman”:  if recent temperature measurements – made with highly accurate modern equipment we know well – are so “uncertain” that they have to be dramatically “adjusted” upwards, then how in the hell do they know how to “adjust” measurements taken 60+ years ago on equipment of what type they don’t always know downward? And why is the precise effect of these “adjustments” to explain away an apparent flaw in their claims of “runaway global warming” that previously could not be explained – a flaw demonstrated by their own measured data?

    Moreover, these adjustments fly in the face of common sense.  Modern electronic temperature measuring equipment responds much faster than mechanical measuring devices from decades ago.  Modern equipment thus captures fast, temporary transients – both high and low – that the older equipment simply missed.  Modern equipment would therefore be expected to capture HIGHER and LOWER daily extremes than equipment used a century ago, as well as lower lows – e.g., to show a bias towards MORE EXTREME MEASUREMENTS.

    If anything, any adjustments to harmonize old and new data would be to reduce more recent temperature extremes to correct for the capture of extremes by modern equipment – or to increase past extremes to account for missing those same transients.  You wouldn’t adjust both to harmonize the data – well, IMO you wouldn’t if you were doing legitimate science.

    But if you were instead attempting to push an agenda, truth be damned?  Maybe you’d do exactly that.

    Here, NOAA appears to have adjusted both old and new measured temperatures.  And they adjusted them in precisely the way needed to support their “runaway global warming” thesis.

    Sheesh.  The propaganda here from NOAA seems to be moving well beyond the Johnsonian or Nixonian in scope.  This one has the “Baghdad Bob” seal of approval.

    And remember:  since NOAA is Federally funded – we’re the ones paying for their propaganda.

    I’ll let you come to your own conclusion concerning why NOAA did this.  I personally think the actual reason this was done is quite obvious.  But maybe that’s just me.

    I will say this, though. Give me raw data and let me “adjust” it as I see fit, NQA, and I can prove any freaking thing I please from any data set you give me – reality be damned.  As one of the authors is quoted in the article from which the above diagrams appear: “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”

    The science blog “What’s Up With That?” has an excellent article by Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts describing just how NOAA is trying to pull a fast one here. It’s quite detailed, and isn’t exactly a “quick and easy” read.  But it’s IMO well worth the time to read anyway.

    Global warming my ass.

  • Former CIA Deputy Director: “The Arab Spring Was a Boon to Islamic Extremists”

    Now that he’s no longer in office, it appears that the former Deputy Director of the CIA – Michael ­Morell – has decided to make some money as an author.  He’s written a book about his career called The Great War of Our Time.  As you might guess from the title, it focuses largely on post-9/11 events.

    Here’s what he had to say about the “Arab Spring”. It explains quite a bit, actually.

    “We thought and told policy-makers that this outburst of popular revolt would damage al-Qaeda by undermining the group’s narrative. [Instead], the Arab Spring was a boon to Islamic extremists across both the Middle East and North Africa. From a counterterrorism perspective, the Arab Spring had turned to winter.”

    Yeah, that explains – at least in part – why we sat on our hands and watched while longstanding allies went down the tubes.  But it doesn’t explain why we “screwed the pooch” so badly on that call.

    I understand quite well that intel is not an exact science. But historically, whenever an authoritarian regime has collapsed, a temporary power vacuum is created. If there’s not someone immediately around to pick up the pieces, things get chaotic.

    Terrorist organizations do rather well in chaotic situations.  So I kinda wonder why we didn’t foresee the real possibility that the Arab Spring might create a chaotic situation that al Qaeda and its ideological brethren could exploit.

    Maybe it was as simple as a case of “telling the boss what he wanted to hear”. After all, when the boss makes it clear they only want to hear news with which they agree . . . well, that’s what they’ll get, true or not.

    That kinda seems to me to have been the case some 35+ years ago in Iran.  Maybe that’s what happened here too.

    The Washington Post has a reasonably good article about the guy’s book, and briefly covers a few other things he talks about in it as well. If you have a few spare minutes, the article might be worth a read.

  • More Comedy from the 9th Circus

    Well, the      gang of fools called the Ninth Circus Clowns of Unreal       “august body” called the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out on the Left Coast has given us all some new comic relief.

    It seems that a 5-member panel of that       clown Krewe      group of distinguished jurists has decided that it’s OK to be deliberately evasive when testifying before a Grand Jury. But only if your deliberately evasive answers fall in the “little white lie” or “What difference does it make?” categories.

    Specifically, a five-member panel of the US 9th Circuit has overturned Barry “My Head Just Got Bigger” Bonds’ felony conviction for obstruction of justice. The stated rationale was that Bonds’ testimony for which he was convicted of obstruction of justice – while evasive and highly implausible on its face – did not regard an issue of “central importance” to the government’s investigation. Since the issue was not one that was of “central importance”, per the Ninth Circus Circuit Panel, it was therefore permissible for Bonds to be evasive and dissemble while under oath.

    So, it’s OK to lie when under oath, or when answering an investigator’s questions  – sometimes. But only about
    “small stuff”. And sometimes it’s not OK.

    Yeah, that makes “perfect sense”.  Does anyone but me see a potential problem with that?

    Hey, I understand the concept of a prosecutor conducting a “fishing expedition; no, I don’t support that at all. But regardless of how you feel about PEDs in professional sports, the drugs involved were and are illegal. The questions Bonds was asked hardly seem unrelated to the subject of PEDs. Further, his answers seem to me to have been designed more to avoid going on the record – or exerting Fifth Amendment rights – than anything else.  IMO, it’s clear he was simply avoiding answering relevant questions clearly and completely.

    As always, YMMV. Bonds’ testimony can be found here; read it and decide for yourself. Be forewarned that it’s nearly 150 pages.

    IMO this isn’t exactly a shock.  Hey, the case was heard by a panel from the Ninth Circus, located out on the Left Coast. They seem to use a different definition of “reality” much of the time.

  • More Federal Follies

    Time for another synopsis of       sh!tbaggery       “wonderful conduct” from our fine Federal government, courtesy of Drudge.

    From the VA:

    • What? Retaliate against whistleblowers? US? You must be joking!

    • Looks like it’s not just the new Denver VA hospital project that’s got problems.

    • If you’re feeling down . . . looks like you might want to keep several different Suicide Hotline numbers handy, too.

    Meanwhile, from DHS:

    • Yeah, your luggage is really secure when you travel. (Though to be fair, TSA employees don’t seem to be the big offenders here.)

    • But we’re deporting fewer criminals – we must be getting safer, right?

    • And don’t forget those “scanner anomaly” checks. Jonn wrote about those yesterday.

    Finally: speaking of US safety and security these days – we have this “improvement”, too.

    Sheesh. It will be so good to see some adult leadership in DC again.

  • Oh, For the Love of . . .

    . . . doesn’t the 5-sided asylum have any real work to do?  Really?

    Pentagon Deploys ‘May I Kiss You?’ Training

    At least this “only” costs taxpayers around $325k a year.

    GMAFB.

  • Oh Boy. Here We Go Again.

    Headline conveys the essence; the linked article gives more details. I’m guessing the guy can kiss that recent promotion goodbye, though.

    Secret Service supervisor put on leave after assault allegation

    Looks to me like the new Secret Service chief certainly has his work cut out for him playing clean-up.

    But there’s also an old proverb: “A fish rots from the head.”  After his recent stunt with Congress following the last high-profile incident, one has to wonder if perhaps the Secret Service’s new boss might be part of the problem instead.

  • More Government Ak-yur-uh-see

    Yesterday, the USPS honored US the late entertainer and author Maya Angelou. They issued a stamp in her honor.

    There’s only one teeny little problem. The stamp apparently features a quote that isn’t Angelou’s.  Rather, it’s a slightly-modified version of a phrase actually written by children’s author Joan Walsh Anglund in 1967.

    It’s not the first time recently that the USPS has Fornicated Fido, though. In 2010, the USPS issued a stamp honoring the Statue of Liberty. Unfortunately, the stamp used an image of a Las Vegas replica of the statue instead of the real thing.

    We vets shouldn’t really be surprised at this kind of stuff. As Jonn noted here at TAH multiple times, vets have seen government at its best . . . and at its worst. And we know – from firsthand experience – that there’s usually not a helluva lot of difference between the two.