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…)

The recent flap about Israel supposedly insulting the United States by announcing plans to build 1,600 new housing units within the sovereign territory of Israel is remarkable on many levels. First, it’s a non-story. There is nothing new about Israel developing new housing in East Jerusalem, for Israel has never pledged not to do so.

Second, despite the Obama administration’s repeated assurances that it will continue to stand behind America’s only reliable ally in the middle east, comments by key administration officials make it clear that our commitment to Israel is now conditional on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “good behavior.”

Finally, this incident signals a clear shift in American policy. Under Barack Obama, the United States now officially accepts that there is a justifiable link between jihadist attacks on the United States and Israeli behavior.

Yet, to hear the tired old mainstream media tell the story, Israel is completely out of control, deliberately antagonizing the United States of America. Consider this lead from CNN: (more…)

The irony would be amusing, were the stakes not so serious. The very day that the United States Congress passed sweeping legislation that will undermine the economy, increase debt and send tax rates soaring, a leading liberal media outlet criticized the elected officials who have been in charge of the president’s home state for repeatedly passing legislation that has: undermined Illinois’ economy, increased Illinois’ debt and sent Illinois tax rates soaring, thus poisoning the business environment and employment prospects in the state. It appears that government’s mission isn’t to tax and spend. Who knew?

It will be hard to believe, but when Illinois Democrats passed all of the legislation that got Illinois into this cesspool of a fiscal crisis, both they and the MSM assured voters that the there was nothing to worry about. These great new programs, they said, will actually make the state more prosperous and, if you disagreed with that proposition, then you were obviously a crabby conservative trying make political hay at the expense of what was obviously the best thing for the people of the state of Illinois. Sound familiar? (more…)

Nobody has to read the 2,310 pages of the health care bill to know why it will ruin health care in America. You don’t have to go any further than page 49, which marks the end of Subtitle E, “Governance,” to understand what’s coming. Subtitle E creates the office of the “Health Choices Commissioner,” the person charged with putting into effect all of the wonderful regulatory mechanisms that H.R. 4872 demands. But, in the regulatory sense, the Commissioner is not a person. The Commissioner is rather an institution, one that will have powers and responsibilities unprecedented in American history.

Even if Obamacare immediately did all of the things that the president claims it will (which I don’t for a minute believe); even if lowered the deficit, reduced the cost of health care, improved the quality of that care and increased access to it, does anyone who has ever dealt with any of today’s bloated, creeping, undead regulatory agencies of government actually believe that such a happy situation would last? If there is one thing that those of us who deal with government bureaucracy know, it is this: government bureaucracy never gets better, never increases in efficiency and never costs less. Never.

In my business, the environmental industry, the EPA has a position analogous to Health Choices Commissioner: EPA Administrator. Practically everything that the EPA does, on the federal and state levels, flows down from the power granted to the EPA Administrator. A president can appoint a marvelous Administrator, or a terrible one (Obama’s choice, Lisa Jackson, falls into the latter category) but it really doesn’t matter. The choice of the figurehead sitting on top of the pyramid is merely the difference between the thousands of thousands of bureaucrats on the bottom – the people who actually interact with the regulated community – creating a pile of obstacles the size of Mt. Everest to obstruct industry, or a pile the size of Mt. McKinley. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter, because you can’t get over, around, under or through the obstructions. (more…)

Let us forget, for a moment, that “Earth Hour” is a pointless exercise serving only to make environmentalists feel better about themselves by marginally reducing electrical demand for 0.01% of the year. Let us disregard, for a moment, that the basic reason for having an “Earth Hour” in the first place is fatuous, because global warming alarmism has as much to do with actual science as alchemy does. Instead, as the MSM pushes this stupidity down our gullets once again, let us consider the effects of “Earth Hour,” in terms of power production and that environment. Indeed, a sober analysis suggests that “Earth Hour” doesn’t do anything to save a planet that doesn’t need saving and that it may in fact rather increase air pollution instead of reducing it.

Let us begin with a question: why is “Earth Hour” scheduled for the evening hours?  Answer: you couldn’t do it during daylight with any credibility. Electric demand is highest during the daytime hours, therefore it’s only then that peaking units (generation assets that only operate during times of high demand) kick in to fill the gap. If “Earth Hour” were held when the sun was out, utilities would respond to the drop in demand by kicking the most expensive generating assets off of the grid. This would surely include one of our more expensive sources of power: wind turbines. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA, a part of the Department of Energy) the cost of wind power is about 50% to 100% more than the cost of coal-fired electricity. It’s obvious that, in times of peak demand, a responsible public utility looking out for consumers’ pocketbooks (and their own profits) will shut down a wind farm in deference to a more efficient, less expensive coal plant. (more…)

Is the Obama administration trying to ban sport fishing? Not at this time. Is the Obama administration setting up structures and processes that could, and probably will, eventually result in more regulatory restrictions on sport fishing? You betcha. But, with all due respect to anglers, that’s not the biggest problem with the “Interim Framework For Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning” issued by the Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce (latest version dated December 9, 2009). Government goes after industry long before it dares to subtly, oh-so-subtly, impose new restrictions on individuals. The framework, which we will now shorthand as “CMSP,” will affect off-shore drilling operations, commercial fishing and commercial shipping first and foremost.

Some conservative bloggers erupted in outrage when the report came to light, saying that – as Gateway Pundit put it – “Obama’s latest assault on your rights – he wants to ban sport fishing.” That was an overreaction, but an understandable one given the aggressive nature of this administration when it comes to environmental issues and the fact that the CMSP report specifically lists “recreational fishing” as an activity that needs to be “better managed” (page two of the report). Perhaps “better managed” translates into “leave them alone,” but one may be forgiven for thinking not.

On the other end of the spectrum, George Soros’ steno pool declared that worries about a sport fishing ban were “absurd,” as though nothing in the CMSP report could possibly have an impact on recreational fishing, even though the report itself kicked that particular door wide open. That is not to say that a ban on recreational fishing is in our immediate future, but it’s terribly naïve to believe that the CMSP framework won’t create the regulatory environment that will result in painful restrictions on the sport in the future. What does it all mean? Sit back, relax and let Dr. Environment break it down for you kids. (OK, so I don’t have an actual PhD, but seeing as how the University of Tennessee is awarding Al Gore an honorary doctorate, I’m sure that my degree just has to be in the mail).

The CMSP framework is another classic, benevolent big-government gambit. It sounds great, appears to encompass everyone’s concerns and the end results of the exhaustive process proposed are supposedly the epitome of noble. Consider a few features of the program: (more…)

Here’s my problem with NBC political correspondent Chuck Todd’s blast against “Drudge driven journalism:” the alternative that Todd attempts to defend isn’t actually journalism. If Chuck Todd’s network and the rest of the MSM really had been practicing journalism all along, there would never have been a vacuum for people like Matt Drudge, Andrew Breitbart, etc. to fill.

Many people would like to define the term “journalism” as the unbiased dissemination of information, but it’s never been that. For a very long time publications made no secret of their political points of view. Historically, America had Whig newspapers, Republican newspapers and Democratic newspapers. All of them spun the news in a particular direction and readers knew it. The situation has not changed, except that the legacy media desperately and unconvincingly clings to the notion that it is detached from any ideology and therefore the sole arbiter of truth. No matter where they fall on the the political spectrum, Americans know better. That’s the reason the Drudge Report, Breitbart’s “Big” sites and, to put a point on it, liberal outlets like Huff Po and the Daily Kos thrive.

My own field of expertise provides an object lesson in why legacy journalism is fading into irrelevance as “Drudge-driven journalism” fills the void in a world hungry for knowledge. The MSM’s coverage of science in general and environmental issues in particular has been abysmal for years. Journalists are, by training and inclination, generalists. How many times have members of the old media tried to explain away slanted coverage of the non-existent global warming crisis by declaring that they of course are not scientists and can not be therefore expected to personally understand the issue? Instead, they insist that they must rely on experts and if you have a problem with the way they’re covering the issue, go talk to the experts. (more…)

The atmosphere over at Democratic National Committee headquarters has to be pretty gloomy these days. Their party’s prospects in November have progressed from dismal to disastrous and there’s no telling how much worse it can get. Over at the Dem’s website, nobody has bothered to update news about their famed “50 State Strategy” since September of last year. Perhaps, had they employed a “57-State Strategy” instead, the future might look a little brighter for them.

Let it not be said that conservatives and libertarians are without empathy. We’ve been there. We know how disheartening it is when your party of choice is about to get clobbered and worse, when that happens because party leaders refuse to heed your message. We can only hope that  Democrats won’t get sidetracked by the so-called “pragmatists” within the party trying to lead the party astray by deviating from the progressive agenda. It would be a damned shame if somebody was successful in convincing this administration to pull a Clintonesque pivot toward the middle.

Maintaining one’s focus is important and one can only visit the Daily Kos so many times before the amount of bile there starts eating through your skin and destroying your soul. So, as a public service, I’ve taken the liberty of designing a few motivational posters that will help our Democrat friends stay on point as we approach the November elections. No charge Dems – feel free to print them out, use them as screen-savers, whatever. We’re here to help.

Enjoy: (more…)

There are only two choices: either Attorney General Eric Holder has nothing to hide, or he is trying to hide something. If the former is true, why does Holder refuse to put names to the seven anonymous Department of Justice attorneys whom he admits once represented terrorist detainees before joining the Obama administration? If the latter is the case, why is the old media ignoring the story?

Responding to an inquiry from Senator Charles Grassley, Holder admitted that nine DOJ attorneys had previously been involved defending detainees:

“To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees,” Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18. “Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.”

Who are these attorneys? How deeply were they committed to protecting the “rights” of irregular troops bent on destruction of western civilization? (more…)

Two years ago today, William F. Buckley moved on to the great Firing Line in the Sky where he is, no doubt, still debating the wisdom of turning over the Panama Canal with the Gipper. Buckley’s legacy lives on, not only in the remarkable generation of writers that he spawned after he first dared to stand athwart history and yell stop but, in an odd sort of way, in the manner in which some of the liberals he defied over the course of five decades seem to pine for the great man’s genteel ways.

On a personal note, Buckley was one of the two great influences in the creative life of this particular – not particularly humble – correspondent. The other was that irascible Chicago newspaperman/Everyman: Mike Royko. It’s difficult to imagine an odder couple, but Buckley and Royko shared at least a couple of common characteristics. One took them on at one’s peril (and very few ever successfully did so) and neither could be neatly constrained within an ideological box. Royko was classically liberal, but he openly scorned the liberal elite. Buckley became the symbol of the conservative movement, but he refused to let the movement define him, cutting his own path through the ideological jungle when necessary, most famously when he argued for the legalization of many illegal drugs. Agree or disagree, both Royko and Buckley were thinkers, and honest thinkers to boot, who had a knack for expressing their thoughts with the kind of panache that left their readers breathless in awe. (more…)

If you live in a coal state, make no mistake about it: Barack Obama and the Administrator of his USEPA, Lisa Jackson, are looking to take you down, by any means – direct or indirect – at their disposal. Among the schemes in the pipeline is this: a proposal that would make burning coal to produce power a much more expensive proposition, by attaching billions of dollars more costs before the residue of the coal-burning process could be reused or disposed of. Ironically, Obama and Jackson are on the threshold of making an ill-considered decision that would undermine one of the most successful recycling programs in the history of the nation.

USEPA is deciding whether or not to declare the ash that remains after burning coal a hazardous waste. The agency began considering reclassification following a disastrous release of 1.7 million cubic yards of fly ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston plant, a large coal-fired power station located east of Knoxville, Tennessee, in December 2008. That release, caused by the failure of an earthen retention wall, caused many environmental groups to renew their call for the USEPA to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste.

The Sierra Club, and other environmental groups, maintain that this action is necessary because coal ash contains, among other things:”…arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, boron, thallium, and aluminum – toxic heavy metals that have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders, and which clearly threaten nearby communities and ecosystems.” (more…)

In the wake of yesterday’s tragedy in Austin, it’s certainly worthwhile to ask what caused troubled software engineer Joe Stack to crash a plane into an office building that housed 200 Internal Revenue Service employees. But will the media get the story right? Perhaps, just perhaps, I’ll be blessedly wrong about this, but I don’t think so.

We know how these stories seem to go. The “unbiased” journalists from the old media working in the field first develop the story, establish the “factual record” and – once that job is done – the would-be opinion makers move on, using that “factual” docket to make their pious cases. The narrative has begun, as this AP story demonstrates. Joe Stack hated the IRS, felt that this oft-criticized agency had done him wrong and – the conclusion is easy to see – was therefore another right-wing nut job who went over the edge. He was a victim, if you will, of the hatred and fury that festers within the conservative and libertarian movements. His friends, the AP tells us, never saw it coming:

They never heard Stack talk about politics, about taxes, about the government — the sources of pain that Stack claims drove him to his death.

But, nowhere in this story does the AP drill down any further. If you read Stack’s 3,000+ word on-line suicide note, it’s clear that he didn’t hate the IRS because he despised big-government per se. He hated the IRS because he believed that the agency was in collusion with the ultimate enemy: big business. A few telling examples from Stack’s manifesto: (more…)

We finally have proof that life exists beyond the confines of planet earth, although not necessarily intelligent life. How else can one explain Joe Biden other than to postulate that he comes from another planet, if not an alternate universe? The Vice President’s stunning observation about Iraq last certainly defied any form of earthly logic:

“I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

Of which administration? Of the administration led by the fellow who, as the junior Senator from Illinois, opposed the surge that turned the war around? That administration? Let us time travel back to 2007, when then-Senator Barack Obama offered his sage opinion about the surge:

We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops – I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

(more…)

A few weeks ago, Lord Christopher Monckton told me a distressing story about a visit to Haiti. He said that poverty in that troubled nation is so pervasive that many of its inhabitants have been reduced to eating mud pies. The term “mud pies” is not slang for a local staple made from locally-grown cereal crops. We’re talking about people reduced to eating actual dirt. Monckton watched Haitians form mud into the shape of pies, mixing in a sprinkling of whatever nutritional foodstuffs might be available (like oil and salt) and then “cooking” the mud pies in the sun.

Sounds like further evidence of the devastating effects that the January 12 earthquake had on Haiti, right? Not really. Oh, did I forget to mention? This was the situation in Haiti before the earthquake hit, as this 2008 story that appeared in National Geographic documents.

Between 2000 and 2010 the World Food Price Index, the inflation-adjusted measure of how expensive food is across the globe, almost doubled. In 2000 the index sat at a value of 90. As of January 2010, the index had risen to a value of 172. That a 91% increase in the cost of food over the course of a decade.

While Americans and citizens of other industrialized nations may be able to absorb that kind of price increase, the poor living in the Third World cannot. Tragic cases of starvation like the ones Monckton witnessed in pre-earthquake Haiti are hardly unique. Dwindling, more expensive food supplies have led to an increasing number of food riots around the world. More and more people are dying, simply because they can not afford basic sustenance. How could this happen? (more…)

As we celebrate Presidents Day today, we may observe that there have been no shortage of people attempting to link themselves to the legacy of the greatest President of these United States. This includes the current President of the United States, who commented on Honest Abe’s example in a February 12, 2009 AP story:

Lincoln “could have sought revenge,” Obama said, but he insisted that no Confederate troops be punished.

“All Lincoln wanted was for Confederate troops to go back home and return to work on their farms and in their shops,” Obama said. “That was the only way, Lincoln knew, to repair the rifts that had torn this country apart. It was the only way to begin the healing that our nation so desperately needed.”

That’s great and it obviously speaks to the “let’s forget about ideologies and principles and just all get along” message that is a central theme of the Obama administration. Nothing would please the President more than for us crabby conservatives to shut up and go back, both figuratively and literally, to our farms and shops. (more…)

As the east coast recovers from Snowpocalypse, some global warming alarmists have said that we shouldn’t read too much into the blizzards. We can’t draw broad conclusions about climate change based on particular storms or regional weather trends. You know what? They’re right.

Now there is irony in the fact that the blizzards hit just as the President announced the formation of the Climate Service, charged with managing and coordinating the effects of “climate change.” But that’s all it is: irony. Snowpocalypse neither proves nor disproves the theory that human activities are disastrously effecting earth’s climate, but it did provide an opportunity for several conservative commentators, like Limbaugh and Hannity, to crack wise at the expense of the alarmists.

Chris Matthews wagged his finger at such jocularity, piously declaring that “…the average global temperature last year was the second highest on record…” and that “…cold weather in one area over several days doesn’t change the reality of what’s happening to this planet…” You know what? He’s right too. Well, Chris was right as far as he goes.

Unfortunately, Matthews stopped short of explaining the whole story, which this scientist finds rather disappointing coming from a fellow who, like me, boasts a Jesuit university as an alma mater. Perhaps Chris missed those critical thinking lessons that the Jesuits try to impart on eager young students. (more…)

When even the New York Times finally picks up the pungent aroma of a scandal, you’ve gotta figure that the stench is overwhelming. Recently, the Times decided this bit of news was finally fit to repeat: that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been playing fast and loose with scientific data regarding “climate change.” That story has only been buzzing about the blogosphere for weeks now, so hats off to the “newspaper of record” for taking notice of the situation with such alacrity.

This is a milestone of sorts. The Times has – finally – chosen to publish a story about global warming that did not primarily consist of Andrew Revkin’s fawning assurances that alarmists were the guardians of holy writ and skeptics are alchemists in the employ of Exxon-Mobil. Prior to this happy event, I thought the chances of the Senate passing a cap and trade bill were slim, but that the possibility still existed. Now that the New York Times has finally acknowledged that global warming skeptics may have a point or two after all, we may administer last rites to Waxman-Markey. Good riddance.

But how did we get here? Al Gore’s hucksterism and that silly movie of his, which any legitimate scientist – even among the alarmist crowd – has to laugh at, deserve a lot of the blame. But the biggest problem was the way that the old media and policy makers embraced the collectivist agenda of the IPCC. This shameful episode has been an object lesson of what happens when we follow Obama’s doctrine of following the lead of the would-be global government crowd, rather than letting America and her allies lead the globe toward a bright future. (more…)

Dear 111^th Congress,

I know that you are very busy these days pondering new ways to screw up health care and figuring out exactly how much money you need to spend in order to reduce the deficit, but you might want to take a moment to examine what’s going on at the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

You remember USEPA, right? Your predecessors created it and gave it the authority to ensure that America has clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. The Agency has been pretty darn successful at fulfilling that mission and it employs armies of scientists, attorneys, technicians and other professionals to accomplish the tasks assigned to it. Paying all of those troops is expensive, as in several billion dollars worth of expensive, but seeing as how new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has inflated the Agency’s budget by almost 50%, there would seem to be little reason for USEPA to outsource its authority. Yet, that’s exactly what has been going on, and I thought that someone should bring the situation to your attention.

Now as we all know, George W. Bush was the worst environmental President in history. Unfortunately, this assertion is complicated by the embarrassing fact that the amount of pollutants in the nation’s air was reduced to the lowest levels that we have ever seen since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. It therefore behooves USEPA and the current administration to redefine the term “clean air” by redefining the standards that determine what is clean and what is dirty. Administrator Jackson has tackled this problem, publishing a new standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and proposing new standards for ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO₂). (more…)