October 12, 2016: wow, this is quite a story. Remember, Minnesota was the most visible among states jumping on the ObamaCare bandwagon. Governor Dayton loved ObamaCare. Now, not so much. Governor Dayton: Affordable Care is no longer affordable. Geico Rock 2016 award nominee. Even if he does not win "best in show," he will most likely win the honorary award.
Minnesota’s Democratic governor said Wednesday that the Affordable
Care Act is “no longer affordable” for many, a stinging critique from a
state leader who strongly embraced the law and proudly proclaimed
health reform was working in Minnesota just a few years ago.
Gov. Mark Dayton made the comments while addressing questions about Minnesota’s fragile health insurance market, where individual plans are facing double-digit increases after
all insurers threatened to exit the market entirely in 2017. He’s the
only Democratic governor to publicly suggest the law isn’t working as
intended.
Dayton’s comments follow former President Bill Clinton’s
saying last week that the law was “the craziest thing in the world”
before he backtracked.
“The reality is the Affordable Care Act is no longer
affordable for increasing numbers of people,” Dayton said, calling on
Congress to fix the law to address rising costs and market stability.
Much more at the link.
Original Post
I've seen numerous stories along the same line, but this may be one even folks in Hillary's camp can understand. In the WSJ today, an op-ed on page A15 -- ObamaCare's meltdown has arrived. Not linked; easy to google.
Helloooooo! Knock-knock, knock-knock. Hellooooo! Anyone home? Two new nominees for the Geico Rock Award 2016: Andrew Ogles, Tennessee state director, and Luke Hilgemann, CEO of Americans for Prosperity. The implosion began two years ago. I guess the folks at ground zero are now just climbing out of the rubble and writing about it. Wow.
The lede:
Tennessee is ground zero for ObamaCare's nationwide implosion. Late last month the state insurance commissioner approved premium increases of up to 62% in a bid to save the exchange set up under the Affordable Care Act.
"I would characterize the exchange market in Tennessee as very near collapse," the Tennessee insurance commissioner said.
Very. Near. Collapse.
Then last week BlueCross/BlueShield of Tennessee announced it would leave Nashville, Memphis, and Knoxville.
BC/BS said they had experienced losses approaching $500 million over the course of three years on ACA plans. This is unsustainable.
And it just gets worse from there. I don't think I will even link the article. As noted earlier, only the folks climbing out of the ObamaCare rubble are learning about this for the first time.
*****************************
The War Time President
This is a link to an AP story. The bottom line: President Obama would not be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize at this time.
AP tried to spin the story, suggesting that not everything Obama has done has been "bad." For example, "He is the commander-in-chief who pulled more than a hundred thousand U.S. troops out of harm's way in Iraq, ...." except that Obama's self-planned vacuum resulted in, everyone agrees, with the rise of ISIS. In response to this "JV team," according to the AP, President Obama "also began a slow trickle of US soldiers back in." Incredibly bad policy to begin with, losing a war that had been won, and then, a response that was way to late, way to weak. (We won't even talk about Syria; and, of course, there are now pundits in Russia who suggest a nuclear war between the US and Russia is closer than ever.)
I did not read the whole story, so I may have missed it, but it appears that the AP failed to note that President Obama is the first US president in history to have been at war the entire time he was president: and he was president for two full terms (assuming he doesn't find a constitutional loophole or create a constitutional crisis to extend his presidency, and his wars, which is not beyond the pale, if Trump has more electoral votes than Hillary at 11:00 p.m. Central Time, election night).
November 29, 2016: funny how things worked out. A reader noted that "there are so many other polls that show similar or different results" when I persisted in showing one of the very few (almost the only poll) that showed Trump defeating Hillary. Interesting, huh? The ABC poll that showed Hillary 15 points ahead, which was the outlier of all such polls, was later shown to be a "manipulated" poll.
Original Post
A reader asked earlier today (via a comment that I did not post because it was not in accordance with contractual guidelines) why I only link and only display the USC-Los Angeles Times presidential poll -- the poll is linked at the top of the sidebar at the right -- when there are so many other polls that show different results.
Yes, there are a gazillion polls to choose from. It's my understanding that the Rasmussen poll may be the most reliable and the most quoted. I don't think "anyone" quotes the USC-LA Times poll.
I never planned on posting a presidential poll at all. I'm not sure what made me decide to post any presidential poll at all, but the decision was made when I saw the poll for the first time. It had been linked by the Drudge Report, and Drudge continues to link it once in awhile, maybe every 7 to 10 days.
These are the reasons I started posting this particular poll, once I decided to post a poll, pretty much in order of importance:
the Los Angeles Times is the most liberal national newspaper in the United States; it is much more liberal than The New York Times; when the Drudge Report linked an LA Times poll -- now that is a story in itself
USC is my alma mater (not particularly important; coincidental, but may be important in my subconscious; I don't know)
the poll is very, very easy to "read"; even middle school students should be able to read it
the poll is not a single snapshot in time; the entire timeline is shown
the survey is "re-taken" every day (I assume there are other pollsters who do this on a daily basis with no change in polling technique)
every morning when I get up, I know that poll will be there, like clockwork, and the polling question, methods, etc., will have not changed -- sort of like the "McDonald's" of polling
Yes, the reader is correct, if I infer correctly why he asked the question, and I'm sure I did infer correctly. If the results showed from day one a 20-point difference between Hillary and Trump, with Hillary in the lead, and the delta never changing ("why am I not 50 points ahead?"), I doubt know I wouldn't be posting the poll, much less even looking at it.
What makes the poll interesting to me is that it is simply not what I would expect from the Los Angeles Times. In fact, it turns out others are asking the same question, and the Times had to explain in an article today why they continue to post the poll.
I am truly curious to see if the Los Angeles Times continues to post the poll through the end of October.
I am also curious to see if the USC-Los Angeles Times poll turns out to reflect the actual results on election day.
So, I guess the bottom line for posting this particular poll is because it was absolutely not what I expected in the LA Times. Now I'm curious to see how it plays out.
And I probably won't post it if near the end it consistently shows Hillary ahead of Trump. That's like writing a story about a dog that bites a man. Hardly newsworthy. Or interesting. (Later: that's a pretty good analogy -- about a dog biting a man -- LOL.)
Note: this post may be edited in the future to add some things I had not thought of while writing this iteration. I won't delete anything, but there may be more to add. I think the reader had a very, very interesting question. Sometimes I don't even know why I post something. I once had a professor tell me that if you can't put something in writing, you don't understand the issue.
If You Go Away, Dusty Springfield
****************************
Brisket
Updates
October 7, 2016: a reader sent me this article on brisket in the WSJ which appeared about 18 months ago. Very, very interesting. After all my years in Los Angeles, I never connected brisket with corned beef.
Original Post
I thought that was a good song to listen to while posting this note.
I had a religious experience earlier this evening. If you do not see the Bakken blog tomorrow morning, you will know what happened. Well, you may not know exactly what happened but if anyone asks you what happened to "the Bakken blog" -- just say, "I don't know, he simply went away after some religious experience."
It started two nights ago. The neighborhood had a "neighborhood nite out" party, sort of like #BlackLivesMatter but maybe better hashed with #TexasLivesMatter.
This was the first neighborhood party I've attended after living her three years.
Speaking of hash, I was sorely disappointed with the food and drink. I was disappointed in how the chairs and tables were arranged. I said to myself, I am going to make sure this doesn't happen again at the next neighborhood party.
The big disappointment was food. No Texas barbecue. You have got to be kidding. No Texas barbecue at a Texas neighborhood party. Also, no music, but that's a different story altogether. I guess I will have to put together a CD for the next neighborhood party of hire our oldest granddaughter to be the DJ.
But no Texas barbecue. I have never made brisket before (or pulled pork for that matter). It was time to learn.
I went to Albertson's down the street and talked to my favorite fishmonger / butcher. I told her I had not made brisket before but was going to learn today. That was 9:30 a.m. this morning after getting the oil changed in my Honda.
I asked her what "brand" brisket was best. She said Albertson's only carried one brand. We walked over to the brisket, and then she saw the tri-tip and suggested maybe I wanted to try tri-tip. She called the apprentice butcher over to get his opinion. He said he was from "Jersey" and had been in Texas only three weeks; he said they don't make much Texas bbq/brisket in "Jersey." After a bit more discussion, we all decided to use brisket and not the tri-tip.
I got the other ingredients and slow-cooked the brisket for six hours. Tonight, at 7:30 p.m. Central Time my wife and I had the brisket. That's when I had the religious experience. I'm not sure my wife had the same experience but she said it was the best brisket she had ever had. She suggested a bit of "liquid smoke" next time. She added a bit of Jack Daniels Original No. 7 Recipe Barbecue Sauce and wow, it was heavenly. I had never tried that barbecue sauce before; my wife must use it as a secret ingredient in something of which I am unaware.
So, now I've got that part down, the brisket. Later, maybe next week, we move to beef ribs.
For those who want to learn how to do brisket, start with this video, then do some recipe searching, and pick the recipe you want. But the video below is 95% of everything you need to know. In the video, he suggests an hour for every pound of brisket. I did six hours for 3 1/2 pounds of brisket in a slow cooker because we are not allowed bbq grills as such in the apartment complex.
*************************************
Photographing dark meat doesn't come out real well, but it is what it is.
The first photo: the ingredients. Note the garlic. Six cloves is what 3 1/2 pounds of brisket calls for. By the way, for the record, the 3 1/2 pounds of brisket was marked $22 and change. For some unknown reason, the cashier took $5.00 off at the cash register. Maybe it was on sale. I don't know.
The second photo: I needed a grill and a skillet to caramelize all the onions. You have no idea how much I love this kitchen. A few details to flesh out, but it's exactly what I want in a kitchen. The most important thing: everything -- literally everything is in arm's reach. But yet it seems to have a "big kitchen" feel.
The third photo: after 6 1/2 hours: the jus and onions to the left; the brisket to the right.
The fourth photo: jus on toast as an appetizer -- until my wife came home an hour later. I did not want to have this religious experience without sharing it with my wife. Under foil, the brisket stayed hot for another full hour after coming out of the slow cooker.
The fifth photo: a sampling of how the "pulled brisket" looked to the right.
October 7, 2016: from the comments below, brought up here so it can be googled --
In addition to the Marcellus (Pennsylvania) and the Utica (Ohio), there are the Upper Devonian formations that hardly anyone even knows about (three times as thick as the Marcellus Shale; does not overlie the entire Marcellus; situated in western New York [where fracking is banned]; western Pennsylvania [the rich get richer]; northeast Pennsylvania; western West Virginia, eastern Ohio; and, eastern Kentucky).
The
report last year from Wrightstone Energy, claimed 100 trillion cubic
feet recoverable from the UD based on 85 wells' production (total
drilled up to that point).
Last several months, there have been
dozens of wells turned online targeting the Genesee, Middlesex and
Burket formations with output WAY higher than the earlier Wrightstone
samples.
This is an incredible article. A reader reminds me often that as big as the Marcellus is and as "famous" as the Marcellus is, the Utica is much bigger. In other words, "we haven't seen anything yet."
Think about that when you read this article from Forbes (a big thank you from a reader for sending me this link).
The "title" of the article: the Utica and Marcellus continue to defy skeptics.
In other words, this article is not about how big the Utica and the Marcellus are. This article is how the Utica and the Marcellus have defied skeptics, continue to defy skeptics, and will continue to defy skeptics.
The same could be said for the Bakken.
There are two threads in this article: a) how big the Utica and the Marcellus are; and, b) how fast things are changing, confounding skeptics.
The two threads may be tangled. But here goes:
Utica: Ohio
Marcellus: Pennsylvania
together they have provided 85 - 90% of US shale production growth since the start of 2012: the ongoing drilling efficiency is a key driver (the operational words are "ongoing"; and "a" -- meaning that drilling efficiency is only part of the story -- remember Hillary wants to shut this success story down -- and we haven't exhausted that drilling efficiency)
shale business continues to evolve: rig mobility, multi-pad drilling, deeper holes, DUCs,
no sign that these giant plays in the Northeast are slowing down (assuming Hillary doesn't shut them down)
we could see pipeline additions of 18 billion cubic feet/day -- assuming the Native Americans don't have sacred burial grounds across the entire US
interestingly, despite all that, there is still upward pressure on prices due to demand for power generation, industrial use, and, export
Now this from David Hughes, a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, 2014:
There may be small, incremental further gains…but I think the biggest
gains have already been had…I think the Marcellus is getting pretty
close to the peak in [total] production…I wouldn’t be surprised to see a
peak in the Marcellus this year, maybe next year (2015) at the latest."
So, how did David's prognostication turn out? Well, I certainly wouldn't hire him as my fossil fuel consultant. I wonder where David is these days? Working for Hillary? Working for Soros?
Marcellus gas production has jumped 15% since 2014
the Marcellus play will produce nearly 18 Bcf/day this month
this is more gas than any other nations in the universe produces, except for Russia or the US as a whole
And there is more:
Ohio now has about 10 Tcf of proven gas, a ten-fold increase since 2009
Pennsylvania has over 70 Tcf, a doubling since 2012 alone
"not even our very best experts at the USGS can keep up"
More:
the Utica and the Marcellus: basis of some 800 Tcf that can be produced at a break-even price of $3/MMBtu or less
these plays are why the EIA projects that total US natural gas production will boom nearly 25% by 2025 alone to 96 Bcf/day --" a colossal 85% surge since 2005 when Exxon CEO Lee Raymond infamously declared that our gas production has peaked."
US gas production has increased every single year since 2006
Link here. (Update, August 30, 2015: this is so interesting. The NY Times has removed this article.)
Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they
are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast
new source of energy for the United States.
But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale
formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to
hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells.
In the e-mails, energy executives, industry lawyers, state geologists
and market analysts voice skepticism about lofty forecasts and question
whether companies are intentionally, and even illegally, overstating the
productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves. Many of
these e-mails also suggest a view that is in stark contrast to more
bullish public comments made by the industry, in much the same way that
insiders have raised doubts about previous financial bubbles.
“Money is pouring in” from investors even though shale gas is
“inherently unprofitable,” an analyst from PNC Wealth Management, an
investment company, wrote to a contractor in a February e-mail. “Reminds
you of dot-coms.”
