Category Archives: Media Criticism

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Conflict Oil

3 Comments

…versus ethical oil. Jim Bennett, who sent me the link, notes:

I also love the way the Globe’n’Mail thinks that Velshi’s rather obvious conclusions are “notions.”

“Alykhan Velshi’s eye-popping ads are premised on the notion that oil exports ultimately underwrite the values of those states that produce them. ‘Conflict oil’ funds ‘dictatorship’ and ‘terrorism’ and results in ‘women stoned to death,’ according to the ads…”

Ya think?

Velshi must be one of those Islamophobic Muslims, obviously.

Obviously. Why, that notion of oil funding woman stoning is just crazy talk.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Who Are You Going To Believe?

37 Comments

The climate models, or the lying empirical evidence?

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

But let’s not let a little pesky science get in the way of social justice.

[Update a while later]

Gee, whaddaya know? A “climate researcher” who implied that our SUVs were drowning polar bears is being investigated for “integrity issues.”

It’s just the ninety percent of them who make the rest look bad.

[Update late afternoon]

Weep not for the polar bears: James Delingpole piles on.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Today’s Questions For The President

56 Comments

I hope someone asks Jay Carney this:

You, Treasury Secretary Geithner, and other members of your administration have warned that failure to raise the debt ceiling by August 2 will have far-ranging, “catastrophic” effects, including plunging the United States economy into a depression. Nonetheless, you insist that Congress should pass only a debt-ceiling increase that extends beyond the 2012 presidential election; yesterday, you released a statement saying that your senior advisers had counseled you to veto a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. This despite the fact that short-term debt-ceiling increases (i.e., less than a year) are common, having been enacted dozens of times just since the Reagan administration.

Why is a short-term debt-ceiling increase unacceptable now when they’ve been routine and unremarkable in the past?

Presuming for a moment that your veto threat is sincere, shouldn’t Americans logically conclude that you consider winning reelection more important than forestalling an economic catastrophe and throwing millions more Americans out of work?

Do you expect most congressional Republicans to fall for your veto threat and cave? If so, will you please join my Thursday night poker games and bring those Republicans with you?

P.S. I’m glad I’m not Jay Carney. But then, if I were Jay Carney, I’d have never accepted such a fool’s errand as to be spokeshole for this president.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Obama Was Right

28 Comments

He was bluffing:

After numerous attempts to take his case to the American people, Obama may be chagrined to find that no one’s buying it. That’s what happens when bluffs get called.

I like the comment: “Bluffy the Job Slayer.” Heh.

Has the president ever convinced the American people on anything with his endless speechifying, other than to elect him? He failed on health care, on stimulus, on Libya, and now on this. But they keep doing it, because it’s all they have. As with Clinton, the presidency is an endless campaign to them.

[Update later afternoon]

Is the White House press corps finally catching on to Bluffy?

And so, at long last, we reach the bitterly logical conclusion of O’s debt-ceiling-as-reelection-strategy gambit: Six agonizing minutes of his paid flack playing dumb while reporters ask why, at the eleventh hour and after months of negotiations, the “adult in the room” still hasn’t produced his own formal, score-able proposal. The answer, of course, is that the more he publicly commits to a plan, the easier it is for the GOP to use it against him next year. So he’s doing what any “adult” supervising a group of unruly children would do. He’s sitting back and staying quiet to protect his own precious ass while they fight it out.

I think it’s time for a timeout. And a dunce cap.

Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Technology and Society, War Commentary

From Norway To Hell

27 Comments

Walter Russell Mead is channeling Bill Joy:

The inescapable reality is that the very forces creating our affluent, modern and democratic world also generate violent antagonism. Breivik, like Al-Qaeda and like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, is the shadow of progress. When conditions are right, the lone psychopath becomes a cult leader; in a perfect storm when everything breaks his way, the psychopath becomes Fuehrer.

That would be bad enough, but there’s one more turn of the screw. The same technological progress that helps create violent alienation and rage also empowers individuals and groups. 200 years ago a Breivik could not have done so much damage. 100 years ago Al-Qaeda could not have hijacked a plane. Modern society is more vulnerable than ever before to acts of terror, and developments in weaponry place ever greater power in the hands of ever smaller numbers of people.

This is still in early stages. Fortunately Breivik was a traditionalist and relatively low tech mass murderer; he did not hack vital computer systems to wreak murderous havoc with a rail or air traffic control system. He did not poison the reservoirs with weaponized biologicals. He did not even pump poison gas into a subway system.

We can be reasonably confident that an increasingly chaotic and stressful 21st century will generate more bitter nutjobs and place more destructive power in their hands. Democracy and affluence won’t cure it; the same forces that raise those golden arches build bombs to knock them down.

I have to say that Breivik and McVeigh are in an entirely different category than bin Laden. The latter is part of a totalitarian religious movement, with the support of millions, while no one is cheering the former in the streets, and in fact they are being roundly condemned by their own group members (that is, those with whom they share a genetic heritage). I am particularly disgusted by the media’s attempts to paint both as “Christians” when I’ve seen no evidence that either is, and McVeigh actively disavowed a belief in God. But they have to do so to feed the moral relativistic narrative in defense of Islam.

But here’s where I just don’t get his argument at all:

The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that human beings are stuck in a condition of radical uncertainty. Something big and earth shaking is going on around us, but the information we have does not allow us to predict where it all goes.

In my view, this is one of the reasons that belief in a transcendent power beyond the human mind is intellectually necessary to grapple successfully with the realities of our time. When the determinist progressives threw God under the bus, they threw away the possibility of an integrated world view that has room both for scientific and rational analysis on the one hand and a honest, unsparing appraisal of the radical uncertainty around us on the other.

We still live in the Age of Apocalypse that opened in World War Two when Hiroshima and the Holocaust delineated the essential problems of the new and possibly last era of human civilization. Mankind has long had the potential for radical, desolating evil; today we still have that potential among us, and we have united it to the power to end all life on earth. We live with one foot in the shadows and another on the high and sunny uplands of democratic and affluent society. We have one foot in Norway and the other in Hell and nobody knows where we step next.

One of the reasons to bother God in our century is the hope that in turn he will bother about us. Whatever is coming, we will face it more honestly and live it more richly with him.

This presupposes that he exists, but that we are just ignoring him. Well, that may be, but I have no sense of it, which is why I’m a non-believer, and furthermore, I feel no need for him for me to intellectually grasp what’s happening. While I admire Professor Mead, I think that he is projecting his own apparent intellectual inadequacies on the rest of us.