Monthly Archives: May 2009

Do “Man Made Disasters” Get Named?

Hurricane Sonia is fast approaching the mainland, and headed straight for Washington DC.

Judge Sotomayor is just another facet of President Obama’s  near total disregard for the rule of law. If one needs reminding, the President has expressed disdain for contract law, bankruptcy law, and with AG Holder’s dismissal of the Philadelphia voter intimidation case, election law. Let the President be clear, he has expressed disdain for the rule of law well before he was President, and even acted upon that disdain as candidate Obama by refusing to divulge the source of over $300,000,000.00 in campaign contributions.

Yes, hurricane Sonia will prove to be a “man-made disaster” for civil rights when she takes the bench.


Climate Reporting – Getting Colder

Climate reporting is getting colder with respect to accuracy. On April 7 the Washington Post published a woefully reported article on Arctic ice, claiming that it was in rapid decline and misrepresenting George Will while they were at it. Yesterday on May 18, only a month from the solar maximum at the North Pole, Arctic ice remains at an extent greater than any measured by the IARC satellite (which went online in 2002)’

 Last year, uninformed press release rewriters posing as “journalists” ran story after story predicting Arctic catastrophe because of the fragile “first year ice”. This year the articles bemoan the lack of “multi-year ice” as the Post’s article typifies.

 Next year, will the crisis be the dearth of Arctic ice older than three years?

 The ongoing crisis is the surplus of credulity within the news media.

Internet Breakdown

Would be too much to expect the man who “took the initiative to create the internet” to do a simple search of his own public comments? Hasn’t Al Gore made enough money from selling his global warming snake oil to at least pay someone to do it for him?

The idea that Al Gore waited a respectable period of time before critizing the next administration is so out of character that it doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Who Did Not Vote For Obama?

Besides the “Fox table”?

The President was reading a joke when he made the comment to the guests at the White House Correspondents Dinner this past Saturday, but how many table could be filled with non-Obama voters?

Certainly, the celebrities and news media people attending the dinner included a disproportionate number of “Nader” voters and such, but if the “Fox table” included Chris Wallace, it was not uniformly anti-Obama as Wallace is a registered Democrat, who almost certainly voted for Obama (as opposed to some wing-nut like Nader). Wallace is hardly the only democrat at Fox, too.

The real question is whether the news media should waste time claiming to be objective.

Is this Really a Jobs Strategy?

President Obama has identified companies who, in an effort to avoid high taxes and other costs in the U.S., have moved jobs overseas. The President’s solution is to raise taxes on them. What’s wrong with this strategy?

If a shareholder of a international company was given a chance to vote on whether the company would pursue a cost ineffective strategy or become a foreign company, what would be the likely outcome? This is the most extreme example, but I think it properly characterizes the choices companies affected by the President’s plan will have to make.

Supreme Bigots

Oddly enough, the news media seems to be ignoring President Obama’s statement that he “will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity” and assume that he will pick someone primarily of the race and gender that will most further President Obama’s political career.

Perhaps this is because the news media assumes that if the President seeks  

“someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory”

and values

” identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as (sic)  just decisions and outcomes”

as equal to the rule of law, the President will naturally place a big emphasis on race and gender.