When it comes to the way the MSM covers the news, sometimes it’s the little things that are the most annoying. The AP covered Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision to re-impose a six month  deep water drilling moratorium in predictable fashion, using most of the piece to emphasize the administration’s fear-mongering tactics as justification for a decision that will damage the economy of the Gulf states more than the oil spill. U.S. District Court Judge Milton Feldman’s reasons for overturning the ban aren’t addressed until the last two paragraphs of the piece, and even then not before the reader has been coached to dismiss Feldman’s opinion after reading this snarky observation:

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and has owned stock in a number of petroleum-related companies, sided with the plaintiffs.

Has owned stock in petroleum-related companies? Really? In a financial world full of 401Ks, IRAs and money market funds, how many people haven’t owned stock in “petroleum-related” companies? More to the point, what does the person who appointed him or what investments he made have to do with Feldman’s opinion, or with the many good arguments that suggest the moratorium is a very bad idea?

The AP does a great job of recounting the death toll from the initial explosion and the magnitude of the subsequent spill. I’m not quite sure why, since I doubt if there’s anyone left on the planet who doesn’t have a pretty good idea about how bad things are in the gulf, but if they want to repeat those stats, fine. How about some other statistics though? There are statistics one rarely sees in MSM coverage of the spill on the deep water drilling moratorium, statistics the administration doesn’t like to talk about: (more…)

Every time you think that the left’s bizarre obsession with Sarah Palin’s personal life couldn’t get any weirder, they manage to step it up a notch. From fretting about the price of her wardrobe during the campaign through stalker Joe McGinniss decision to move in next door, the liberal press’ determination to intrude on Palin’s privacy makes the paparazzi seem tame by comparison.

But now that liberal blogger Wonkette has broken the “boobgate” story, we can officially abandon the use of the word “bizarre” to describe Palin Derangement Syndrome and move on to “ludicrous, ridiculous, embarrassing, unprofessional and outright insane.”

Yet, in the spirit of friendly competition, I couldn’t help but wonder: how difficult would it be to find pictures of Democrats of the fairer sex that also suggest breast-enhancement? It has been my humble experience that the apparent dimensions of most any gal’s – (ahem) “attributes” – can vary significantly depending on choices in clothing and undergarments. This is, I believe, the reason that Victoria’s Secret exists. But, what do I know? I’m a guy and, being a gal, Wonkette surely has more intimate (apparel) knowledge to draw upon here. Accordingly, I hope some gals will weigh in, but if we apply the left’s Palin test, the following famous libs appear to have had a little work done too.

Note to MMFA hacks and non-entities: what follows is called “satire,” which is a form of “humor,” which in turn is designed to elicit a kind of “human emotion” that is commonly known as “laughter.” (more…)

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are just plain embarrassing. In a June 8 Op-Ed published in the New York Times, Stanford University professor Jon A. Krosnick postulated that the vast majority of Americans believe that global warming is both real and man-made, and – ergo – Senators would be well-advised to vote against the Murkowski Resolution when it comes to a vote today.

It’s pretty obvious that Krosnick, a professor of communication, political science and psychology, doesn’t actually understand the subject matter or what the Murkowski resolution is about. He starts his Op-Ed by declaring:

On Thursday, the Senate will vote on a resolution proposed by Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, that would scuttle the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to limit emissions of greenhouse gases by American businesses.

And he closes with this piece of advice:

When senators vote on emissions limits on Thursday, there is one other number they might want to keep in mind: 72 percent of Americans think that most business leaders do not want the federal government to take steps to stop global warming. A vote to eliminate greenhouse gas regulation is likely to be perceived by the nation as a vote for industry, and against the will of the people.

(more…)

Hey Mainstream Media, before you dismiss legitimate scientists who disagree with your global warming meme as “deniers,” how about listening to an actual, open-minded scientist who agrees with you?

One of the most electrifying moments of the Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Climate Change Conference was when Professor Scott Denning of Colorado State University asked to speak to the crowd during the close of the conference. Listen to what Dr. Denning, a climatologist who doesn’t agree with skeptics, who believes that AGW is a problem, has to say and listen to the reaction from crowd of about 700 “skeptics.”

Heartland invites all the leading climate scientists to its conferences. Very few believers in AGW accept that invitation. Denning deserves our respect and admiration for not only showing up, not only listening to other views, but for calling out his colleagues:

It’s really too bad that more of my colleagues from the scientific community didn’t attend this.

And for acknowledging a basic truth:

We have much more in common than our differences.

(more…)

You would think that a conference that features some of the world’s leading scientists talking about a hot-button issue like global warming would attract a bit of old media attention. The Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, currently being held in Chicago, features distinguished scientists like the University of Colorado’s Dr. William Gray, Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, MIT atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen, former astronaut and United States Senator Dr. Harrison Schmitt and the guy who broke the hockey stick, Steve McIntyre. But, while there are a number of bloggers here, while Pajamas Media is here, while the European press is here – including the BBC – and while I’m here, the MSM is nowhere to be found.

What are they so afraid of – that they might learn something? It’s not like everyone is singing in chorus. For example, on Sunday night Steve McIntyre told the fascinating story of how and why Michael Mann and his cohorts “hid the decline,” complete with the relevant e-mails and published charts that irrefutably show how Mann, Jones and the rest of the climategate gang consciously discarded relevant data and then tried to cover their actions up.

The mainstream media meme, with regards to hiding the decline, is that while that this revelation was regrettable, it does nothing to disprove the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming. Guess what? McIntyre agrees. In fact, he went out of his way to say that he’s not your “go to” guy with respect to carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate. There are others who have that particular expertise. But, anyone who listens to McIntyre recount this story of scientific malpractice could not help but be deeply troubled and wonder: what else have they been hiding? (more…)

If ignorance is truly bliss, then green-blogger Brendan DeMelle has got to be one the happiest people on the face of the earth. Attempting to ridicule the Heartland Institutes’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, set to kick off in Chicago this Sunday, DeMelle relied on tired arguments that might otherwise be persuasive if they were either: a) relevant, or b) accurate. The following pretty much sums up DeMelle’s take:

…this denial-a-palooza fest is dripping with oil money and represents a blatant industry effort to greenwash oil and coal while simultaneously attacking the credibility of climate scientists.

The entire conference can therefore be dismissed out of hand. Nothing to see here except a bunch of posers on the take, right? Had he been blogging during the Renaissance, no doubt DeMelle would have advanced the same kind of argument to defend the accepted version of “settled science” back then:

Pay no attention of that fraud Galileo. You know he’s part of the Accademia dei Lincei, right? And you know that group is funded by that rich aristocrat Federico Cesi, right? How can you believe a guy with those connections? How can the Pope and all those Cardinals possibly be wrong?

(more…)

In case you’ve been in a coma over the last few weeks, we’ve had a bit of problem on the Gulf Coast. While the oil leak that developed after the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up is indeed a disaster, this tragic event is unprecedented and its causes complex. As is usually the case when it comes to a complex issues, the MSM has spent a lot of time finger-pointing without much of an idea what they’re pointing at.

For example, a May 6 AP story entitled “Feds let BP avoid filing blowout plan for Gulf rig” featured this lede:

Petrochemical giant BP didn’t file a plan to specifically handle a major oil spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project because the federal agency that regulates offshore rigs changed its rules two years ago to exempt certain projects in the central Gulf region, according to an Associated Press review of official records.

Sounds ominous, and while those carefully chosen words are perhaps technically true, they are also meaningless. (more…)

Hard as it to imagine, a recent government report was so ridiculously hysterical that even the New York Times noticed. The President’s Cancer Panel’s released a report entitled “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk,” which led to this Times’ headline:

U.S. Panel Criticized as Overstating Cancer Risks.

The verb “overstating” doesn’t go half far enough, but coming from theTimes that’s still pretty damning. The report was a collection of conjecture, unrelated factoids and, more than anything, a shrill call for more: more government, more studies and, of course, more money. Even the American Cancer Society found it a bit over the top. From the Times:

Dr. Michael Thun, an epidemiologist from the cancer society, said in an online statement that the report was “unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer,” and had presented an unproven theory — that environmentally caused cases are grossly underestimated — as if it were a fact.

(more…)

We hear a lot about the tea party movement’s supposed potential to inspire violence an awful lot from the left and their allies in the lamestream media. It’s a predictable response to a powerful grass-roots movement that they aren’t capable of understanding: crank up the fear machine boys! If bogus charges of racism won’t stick and if the tea parties themselves are peaceful – if  passionate – protests, then you have to find some theme with which to frighten independent middle-America away from a movement to which they would otherwise instinctively sympathize with.

To wit: OK, maybe the tea-partiers themselves aren’t violent, but by expressing their anger with regard to big government, they will surely inspire some fringe nut-job to violence!

Bill Clinton, in his  recent New York Times Op-Ed said that it’s fair to draw “…parallels to the time running up to Oklahoma City and a lot of the political discord that exists in our country today.” ABC News dutifully picked up on the theme:

“Watch your words,” warned ABC News, reporting that Clinton “weighed in on the angry anti-government rhetoric, ringing out from talk radio to Tea Party rallies.”

Got all that? Millions of Americans can band together to peacefully protest the incursions of swelling bureaucracies into their private lives and their government’s assumption of crippling debt, but they’re – by definition – dangerous, because they might inspire some lunatic into an act of violence. If that’s truly the issue, why doesn’t the MSM apply the same standard when it comes to another wildly-popular movement that, despite the fact that the vast majority of its adherents are peaceful activists, inspires violence not in theory, but in fact? (more…)

When it comes to environmental topics, the biggest failing of the lazy, old media is not what they tell you, but what they leave unsaid. Yesterday’s release of the American Lung Association’s State of the Air 2010 report provides textbook examples of how mainstream journalists can’t, or won’t, take the time to do their jobs. Most MSM stories covering the ALA report read like slightly modified versions of an ALA press release, which, one suspects, was probably the case. Consider this talking point that the ALA kindly provided:

The report finds that unhealthy air posed a threat to the lives and health of more than 175 million people—roughly 58 percent of the population.

Forbes’ Tim Kiladze dutifully regurgitated this misleading talking point back to readers:

The ALA found that over 175 million Americans, or 58% of the population, live in counties with unhealthy levels of either ozone or particle pollution.

That sounds pretty authoritative, doesn’t it? Downright scary too. Fifty-eight per cent of the population is at risk? But, having been trained in the sciences rather than journalism, when I read something like that, I can’t help but wonder: why aren’t people dropping in the streets if things are so bad? Or, put another way, what does a subjective term like “unhealthy air” actually mean? (more…)

If Newsweek is right, we won’t have to worry about corrupt Chicago politics much longer because, according to the magazine’s recent, rather hysterical tribute to global warming hysteria, the Windy City won’t be around much longer. Entitled “100 Places to Remember Before They Disappear,” the limited edition, “special feature” issue of the magazine is Newsweek’s latest and greatest venture into what I like to think of as environmental porn; stories and pictures designed to make tree-huggers quiver over the righteousness of their cause.

Global-warming is responsible for this supposed disappearing act of course, for a variety of contradictory reasons. In Chicago’s case, heat waves and flooding will destroy my hometown, which is pretty remarkable considering that the city is over 650 feet above sea level. When the deluge comes, perhaps we could move from the Windy City to a picturesque Italian village like, say – Principato di Lucedio? Let me check… (more…)

Sitting through a Rachel Maddow commentary is difficult enough in the best of circumstances. Listening to her tortured logic (employing the word loosely) as she tried to expose the “perfidy” of lobbyist Rick Berman and Big Government editor-in-chief Michael Flynn was enough to make one’s ears bleed. Either unable or unwilling to discuss the merit of Berman’s and Flynn’s positions with regard to any particulars, Maddow relied upon a classic liberal theme song to make her point: whatever government or so-called public interests groups want to do is both altruistic and good and whatever conservatives and corporations want to do is selfish and evil.

No doubt this background music, which permeated her latest sneering rant, resonated like a symphony when heard by MSNBC’s enraptured audience of a couple dozen or so of the leftist faithful. For the rest of America, growing ever more disenchanted with the munificence of big government, it was just more liberal static.

But, once again, we must ponder the ultimately-unanswerable question: What’s the most annoying thing about Rachel Maddow?  Is it the condescendingly arrogant way in which she delivers her message, or is it the appalling ignorance that forms the foundation of her message? In this particular case, I lean toward the latter. (more…)

The mythical figure of the war correspondent has a special place in the history of American journalism. The images are indelibly etched in memory: Edward R. Murrow broadcasting live while Nazi planes showered London with bombs; Ernie Pyle telling the personal stories of life in the trenches and ultimately paying for those stories with his life; and in today’s war with the jihadists, Michael Yon’s amazing reports from Afghanistan. This kind of fearless reporting made for journalist-heroes: courageous men and women that all Americans could admire.

Contrast Murrow, Pyle, et al with the cowards populating today’s mainstream media outlets. Everyone in the media today – whether new or old – is a war correspondent, in fact if not in name. The war is here, around the globe and most of all within our borders, courtesy of bullies and thugs who have spent the better part of thirteen centuries killing non-believers and trying to force a backward, hateful ideology cloaked in the robes of religion upon the world. Yet, though this war includes not only body counts, but ultimately threatens the existence of the free press itself, the mainstream media meekly cowers as the foundations of free speech and a free society are worn away by Islamic gangsters. (more…)

As a scientist, I try to maintain a relatively respectful tone when discussing the lamentable state of journalism vis-à-vis environmental and scientific issues, though I may pepper in the occasional wisecrack designed to spice things up. But when Science correspondent Eli Kintisch’s Op-Ed piece that recently ran in the Los Angeles Times was brought to my attention, I threw up repeatedly. In this case, nothing but a rant will do.

Kintisch collected a few salient facts, but he just couldn’t seem to put them together. It was like playing Pictionary with your disturbingly dimwitted cousin. You draw a creature with big, floppy ears and a fluffy tail and you trace a series of arcs that indicate hopping, but after cousin Dave peers intently at the picture for half a minute, he turns to you and ventures: “Is it a horse?”

In much the same way, Eli Kintisch observes a world in which air pollution emissions have been drastically reduced over the past forty years, duly considers the state of the planet and then concludes: we need more air pollution!

You’re likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there’s a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That’s right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution — caused primarily by burning coal — climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they’ve been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

And why do we need more air pollution, pray tell? To combat the myth of global warming, of course. (more…)

The slogan attached to NPR gabber Diane Rehm’s show is “one of her guests is always you.” Based on Rehm’s interview of Elise Labott, senior State Department producer for CNN, reality isn’t quite as welcome as you are. Consider this exchange between Rehm and Labott:

Rehm: “We do wonder whether there’s human involvement in all of these eruptions, earthquakes, storms –“

Labbot: “And how much global warming has a role in it. You know we’ve seen a lot of wacky weather but that’s just a microcosm for what’s happening around the world and how much climate change is contributing to earthquakes and volcanic ash – it’s a really good question.”

Actually, that’s the opposite of a good question. It’s an idiotic question. It’s a question that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that mainstream media personalities are about as qualified to opine on scientific topics as Roman Polanski is to weigh in on sex education programs. (more…)

If you want to know what “progressive” policies will do to America in the long run, look no farther than the president’s home state. According to the MSM narrative, the economic disaster in Illinois is Rod Blagojevich’s fault. That’s true to some extent, but there’s much more to the story than the incompetence of one man. Despite the recession, there is no good reason that Illinois should be bleeding jobs and that its state budget should be on life support.

The Prairie State – my state – sits atop the transportation crossroads of America, has a rich, diversified economic base and a multi-talented workforce. Less than a decade ago, the state had money in the bank, unemployment was low and the outlook was bright. Illinois even managed to shrug off the mini-recession that followed 9-11 with barely a pause. Then, in 2003, Democrats took over complete control of state government, brimming with progressive policies that – cross their hearts and hope to die – wouldn’t hurt the state’s budget or damage its economy one little bit. Happy days, the bedazzled citizens of Illinois were told, were here again.

Seven years later, the Illinois’ economy is lies in smoldering ruins thanks to the progressive policies foisted upon its citizens by a cabal of Democrats that included then-state senator Barack H. Obama. Illinois ranks forty eighth in the nation in job loss, with over 200,000 jobs lost in 2009 alone and unemployment over eleven per cent. Our leading exports used to be corn and soybeans. Today, our number one export is college graduates, because young adults can’t find jobs in the state that gave them their education. In 2000, Illinois debt basically matched revenues. Now, the state’s total debt totals over $100 billion, almost four times annual revenue. (more…)

Tariq Ramadan returned to the United States, six years after his visa was revoked by the Bush administration, in order to either a) continue to his vitally important work as a leading voice of Muslim moderation, or b) continue his vitally important work as a stealth jihadist. You can probably figure out which of these two messages resonates with the MSM.

Starting with the New York Times’s April 13 editorial:

Claiming that it was part of the fight against terrorism, the George W. Bush administration revived the loathsome cold war practice of denying visas to foreign intellectuals, artists and others because of their views.

In January, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton lifted the ban on two prominent scholars: Adam Habib, deputy vice chancellor of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa, and Prof. Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University. She needs to go further and renounce ideological exclusion.

Moving on to the Los Angeles Times: (more…)

The question didn’t seem all that difficult. Washington Nationals broadcaster Bob Carpenter asked a certain “White Sox fan” who moved from Chicago to much nicer digs in Washington D.C. last year to name his favorite Pale Hose player. President Obama danced around the question, said that he actually followed the Oakland A’s growing up in Hawaii, declared that the Cubs had some good players too and ultimately let the subject drop uncomfortably. Perhaps this was just another example of our perpetually tongue-tied president trying to work without a teleprompter net, but one rather doubts it.

As someone born and raised on the south side of Chicago, I’ve been a White Sox fan since my father first bounced me on his knee in the left-field bleachers in the 1960s and let me steal a sip of his beer when mom wasn’t looking. I’ve been a die-hard White Sox fan ever since. But I went to games at the old Comiskey Park, while the president apparently sat in the stands at someplace called “Kaminskey Park,” wherever that is. Presumably the teams that played there weren’t all that memorable.

Baseball fans argue endlessly about the best players to hit the diamond for their club. Nobody who has followed a team, even casually, has a problem rattling off a long list of favorites. The biggest difficulty involves narrowing the list down to one. The president lived in Chicago from 1991 through 2008. In that time, the White Sox roster included: Frank Thomas, the greatest hitter in team history; current manager Ozzie Guillen; perennial all-star third baseman Robin Ventura; Cy Young award winner Jack McDowell; the always reliable Paul Konerko; World Series MVP Jermaine Dye; control artist extraordinaire Mark Buehrle (to whom Obama spoke on the telephone after Buehrle’s perfect game last year!); and our incorrigible backstop, A. J. Pierzynski. Those are merely the names that happen to roll off the top of my head. The most famous White Sox fan in America couldn’t come up with one – just one? (more…)

Global warming skeptics like me are often asked how the mainstream media could have been so wrong about the “climate change” issue for so long. The answer is that the MSM’s fascination with global warming alarmism is nothing out the ordinary; it’s part of a decades-old pattern. The old media has been consistently, often laughably, wrong when it comes to covering environmental topics because they invariably stick to the green narrative: anyone associated with industry is ill-informed at best, or –- more often –-  just plain lying. On the other hand, the environmental movement is, in their world, the only reliable source of information.

An example of this phenomenon came to my attention recently. In a March 21 story the Chicago Tribune and the paper’s chief industry hit-man, environmental reporter Michael Hawthorne, slammed a small business located in a poor Chicago suburb over supposed ecological transgressions that make the plant sound like the second-coming of Chernobyl. For the benefit of those of you who are not fellow technological weenies, I’ll limit this summation to a couple of the broad themes. But, should you be a fellow propeller-head, a few scientific details will follow as well.

Hawthorne attacked Geneva Energy, a small power plant located in Ford Heights, which is, as he admits, “one of the poorest suburbs in the U.S.” The plant burns old tires and, while recovering energy from worn-out rubber might seem like a pretty good idea to you and me, it represents a grave threat to the citizens of Ford Heights and mother earth as far as Hawthorne and the environmental groups he champions are concerned. The supposed “problems” fit into two broad categories: (more…)

Recent revelations about the way that president Obama’s plan to weatherize U.S. homes has gotten off to a less than stellar start symbolize what’s wrong with so-called “green jobs.” Green job programs depend on government subsidies and mandates, require government oversight and, as a result of those two factors, are slightly less efficient than your average Rube Goldberg machine.

One year into the $5 billion program, the government has weatherized five per cent of the target number of homes overall, and less than fifty per cent of what was expected for 2009. The problem? Government rules, believe it or not. Gosh, who could have possibly foreseen that glitch in the plan? But, it seems that it’s difficult to figure out how much to pay contractors, how to protect historic homes and how to solve the nuances of a host of other problems for which government needs to formulate policies and procedures.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a system in which some responsible party – say, the homeowner for example – could make those decisions and save the United States the time, expense and trouble of having to do so? Wait, I seem to remember that we used to have a system something like that. It was called “capitalism,” or some such. (more…)