Category Archives: Media Criticism

The Secret Obama Campaign Strategy

Andrew Klavan has the scoop:

LISTER: Well, the debt is a very serious problem, but by the same token, I think you have to agree that Mitt Romney drove for twelve hours with his dog in a crate on top of his car.

KOC: What?

LISTER: He’s been cited for cruelty by two different animal rights groups.

KOC: Well, okay, but, in his book Dreams From My Father, President Obama says he actually ate a dog!

LISTER: I don’t think we should be talking about dogs at a serious moment like this. Dogs are just a distraction.

KOC: Fine, let’s get back to the economy. Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are projected to consume all tax revenues within thirty years. Social Security could be operating at a deficit within only two years. Congressman Paul Ryan has put forward a serious and politically courageous plan to address entitlement reform. What will be the president’s approach?

LISTER: We’re on it. Even as we speak, we have hired an actor who looks like Congressman Ryan to pretend to push an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. I don’t see how the GOP can answer that, especially when you consider that Mitt Romney’s ancestors may have been bigamists.

KOC: Mitt Romney’s ancestors? Barack Obama’s father was a bigamist!

LISTER: I don’t think we should be talking about bigamy at a serious moment like this. Bigamy is just a distraction.

Actually, I’m not sure it’s that big a secret.

The Crucifier

…has resigned. But the damage has been done:

EPA was finally persuaded to drop its action against Range, probably out of concern that a federal court might strike down its statutory authority to crucify oil-and-gas companies altogether. That was wise, because EPA already got what it wanted from persecuting Range. The company had to spend $4.2 million defending itself against a totally arbitrary action that could have come down on virtually any oil or gas company. And the industry has taken note.

In fact, as a demonstration meant to instill fear in the oil-and-gas industry, the crucifixion of Range Resources worked precisely as Armendariz intended.

There has to be some kind of legal recourse against this kind of arbitrary action.

California Class Warfare

How elitists in Hollywood and Silicon Valley are destroying California’s middle class and business climate:

Progressives and many Occupy protesters mourned the death of high-tech innovator and multibillionaire Steve Jobs. They also tend to view social-networking firms like Facebook more as allies than as class enemies. This embrace of Silicon Valley is nearly as strange as the Occupy movement’s decision to target the ports of Los Angeles and Oakland—large employers of well-paid blue-collar workers. Activists portrayed the attempted port shutdowns as attempts to “disrupt the profits of the 1 percent,” but union workers largely saw them as impositions on their livelihood. As former San Francisco mayor and state assembly speaker Willie Brown wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle: “If the Occupy people really want to make a point about the 1 percent, then lay off Oakland and go for the real money down in Silicon Valley. The folks who work on the docks in Oakland or drive the trucks in and out of the port are all part of the 99 percent.”

The explanation for the progressives’ hypocritical friendliness to Silicon Valley is simple: money and politics. Venture capitalists and highly profitable, oligopolistic firms like Google (with its fleet of eight private jets) invest heavily in green companies; they were also among the primary bankrollers of the successful opposition to a 2010 ballot initiative aimed at reversing AB 32. The digital elite has become more and more involved in local politics, with executives from Facebook, Twitter, and gaming website Zynga contributing heavily to the recent campaign of San Francisco mayor Ed Lee, for example. Lee has, in turn, been extremely kind to the digerati, extending a payroll-tax break to Twitter and a stock-option break to Zynga and other firms that may soon go public.

Hollywood manages to outdo even Silicon Valley in its class hypocrisy. Former actor Schwarzenegger doesn’t let his green zealotry stop him from owning oversize houses and driving fuel-gorging cars. Canadian-born director James Cameron, who contents himself with a six-bedroom, $3.5 million, 8,300-square-foot Malibu mansion, talks about the need to “stop industrial growth” and applauds the idea of a permanent recession. “It’s so heretical to everybody trying to recover from a recession economy—‘we have to stimulate growth!’ ” says Cameron. “Well, yeah. Except that’s what’s gonna kill this planet.”

Insanity. And it continues.

As Jeff Greason says, you can have the regulations, or you can have the jobs, but you have to choose.

[Update a few minutes later]

Unfortunately, it’s not just California. Behold, the new reactionaries:

On matters of energy, Obama has regressed to the Earth Day mindset of the 1970s, when we were reaching “peak” oil, and untried wind and solar were soon to be the new-age remedy for soon-to-be-exhausted fossil fuels. Add up the anti-empirical quotes from Obama himself, Energy Secretary Chu, and Interior Secretary Salazar (inflate your tires, “tune up” your car, look to U.S. algae reserves, let energy prices “skyrocket,” hope gas rises to European levels, don’t open federal lands even if gas reaches $10 a gallon, etc.) and, in reactionary fashion, we are time-machined back to the campus quad of the 1970s. In this la la world of Van Jones, evil oil companies supposedly connived to stifle green energy and hook us on fossil fuels, inferior energies that have nothing to recommend them. It is as if the revolutions in horizontal drilling, fracking, and discoveries of vast new reserves never occurred, as if Exxon and Chevron dodge taxes in a manner that Google and Amazon never would, as if efficient smaller gas engines, clean gas blends, and pollution devices have not made the American car both clean-burning and economical beyond our imagination forty years ago. The Obamians, frozen in amber, really believe oil is about to run out, “tuned up” internal combustion engines powering underinflated tires pollute as they did in the 1920s, and Teapot Dome U.S. oil companies need to be “crucified”—as regional EPA director and Obama appointee Al Armendariz, in fact, boasted. So we borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize money-losing solar and wind plants, while putting federal lands rich in oil and gas off-limits to companies eager to pay royalties, hire thousands, and supply the U.S. with its own energy—and all for a regressive ideology. Few see that Solyndra really is the new Teapot Dome.

Let’s hope that enough do in November.

“I’m Not A Lawyer”

Sorry, but that’s not an excuse to be indifferent to the Constitution, particularly when you’ve taken an oath to uphold and defend it. As Jen Rubin says, the Dems are very selective about their concerns about “judicial activism.”

Obama, of course, doesn’t care one bit about deference to legislation passed by a democratically elected legislative body. He is concerned with outcomes, namely that the Supreme Court rubber-stamp his agenda. (Strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, uphold Obamacare, etc.) As do many on the left, he is convinced that whatever legislation he likes is constitutional and whatever he strongly objects to must offend some constitutional provision. This mind-set perfectly reflects the degree to which judicial review has become a matter of subjective preferences for the left.

Ironically, Obama’s appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to discern in the administration’s argument an overreach not consistent with federal principles of preemption. Kudos to her; she seems to not be operating, as she told law school gatherings once upon a time, as a “wise Latina” but as a justice responsible for determining the meaning of the Constitution and the laws that come before her.

For too many on the left, judicial philosophy approaches deconstructionism (or postmodernism, if you prefer) — the literary, interpretative fad that posits that words have no fixed or objective meaning. In the literary realm, all that is lost is intellectual rigor. Unfortunately, in the political realm such a viewpoint leads to the disintegration of the rule of law.

They don’t want the rule of law. They want the rule of them.