Posts
CBS: Global Warming Science Sound, ClimateGate Just a PR Problem
On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric lamented the impact ClimateGate and other recent scandals involving fraudulent global warming data have had on the climate change debate: “Experts insist the overall conclusion remains the same, that climate change is real, but...such errors provide ammunition to skeptics.”
In a report that followed, correspondent Mark Phillips cited accusations of data tampering against Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann, but explained: “An academic board today cleared Mann, saying his science holds up, but the damage may have already been done.” Phillips went on to detail other data errors, including a false United Nations climate panel report on melting Himalayan glaciers and the ClimateGate scandal at Britain’s East Anglia University.
Phillips observed how the “series of gaffes by climate change scientists,” has created “a frustrating time for those who believe the basic science in global warming remains true.” A clip was then played of Imperial College London climatologist Brian Hoskins fretting: “it appears the whole edifice has been undermined by these couple of bricks that are flaking a bit.”
Phillips concluded his report by explaining the real problem facing global warming advocates: “The scientists may still believe they’re winning the scientific argument, but they’re in danger of losing the public relations war.”
Here is a full transcript of the segment:
6:47PM TEASE:
KATIE COURIC: When we come back, new doubts about climate change thanks to some sloppy work by scientists.
6:50PM SEGMENT:
KATIE COURIC: The U.N.’s climate chief admitted today scientists made mistakes in a major study of melting glaciers in the Himalayas. Experts insist the overall conclusion remains the same, that climate change is real, but as Mark Phillips tells us, such errors provide ammunition to skeptics.
MARK PHILLIPS: You know you’re in trouble when you’re being spoofed on YouTube.
PARODY SONG: Making up data the old hard way, fudging the numbers day by day.
PHILLIPS: The subject of the spoof is Michael Mann of Penn State University, who is accused of tampering with climate data to produce his famous hockey stick graph, which shows that the rise in manmade greenhouse gases corresponds to a rise in world temperatures. An academic board today cleared Mann, saying his science holds up, but the damage may have already been done.
SONG: Hide the decline.
PHILLIPS: The biggest splash these days in the global warming argument may not be caused by the world’s melting glaciers. It may be caused by a series of gaffes by climate change scientists. The latest one involves temperature data from weather stations in China used in global warming calculations. The problem is that where weather stations are matters. One located in the city will give a consistently higher temperature reading than one out in the country. The allegation is that the researchers used Chinese data when they didn’t really know where their weather stations were. It’s just a small part, they say, of a worldwide database, but it’s the little mistakes that matter. Mistakes like the line in the last report by the U.N. panel on climate change, which claimed glaciers in the Himalayas might disappear by the year 2035. The panel had to admit the claim was wrong and the climate change skeptics jumped in.
PATRICK MICHAELS [SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE]: Any scientist that read that 2035 figure just laughed because they knew it couldn’t be true. There’s no doubt the trust in the U.N. panel has been undermined.
PHILLIPS: Trust was already undermined by the series of leaked e-mails at Britain’s University of East Anglia, one of the world’s big climate science centers, would seem to show that inconvenient facts were being hidden. It’s a frustrating time for those who believe the basic science in global warming remains true.
BRIAN HOSKINS [PROFESSOR, IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON]: I am concerned that it appears the whole edifice has been undermined by these couple of bricks that are flaking a bit.
PHILLIPS: And that’s a danger, in your view?
HOSKINS: It is a danger. Oh, I totally agree.
PHILLIPS: The scientists may still believe they’re winning the scientific argument, but they’re in danger of losing the public relations war. Mark Phillips, CBS News, London.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Uganda Confronts “Loud-mouthed Homosexual Lobby”
Uganda Confronts “Loud-mouthed Homosexual Lobby”
AIM COLUMN | BY CLIFF KINCAID | FEBRUARY 3, 2010
...homosexual activists in the U.S. media such as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post have given impetus to what has now become a global campaign to isolate Uganda…
A leading pro-family activist in Uganda says that Christians in that East African country need help resisting the schemes of the international homosexual lobby. Charles Tuhaise tells AIM that he is also disturbed by the general silence of conservatives in the U.S. to stand up for Uganda and its emerging Christian culture.
The issue is consideration of a piece of legislation to discourage homosexual practices in Uganda.
"Many Ugandans are shocked at the reaction to this bill and the extent to which homosexual activists can intimidate everyone to silence," Tuhaise said. "This is a bill written to control a problem that has largely gotten out of hand in western society and is now spreading tentacles worldwide. Perhaps Uganda has helped to highlight the danger that the homosexual movement poses to the world."
Tuhaise is chairman of the board of Agape Community Transformation (ACT), a Christian organization dedicated to improving the spiritual, physical, economic and societal conditions of their communities. He is familiar with the bill because he works at the Parliamentary Research Service at the Parliament of Uganda, where the bill is being considered for passage. It was introduced by legislator David Bahati.
"I am a Ugandan and I'm writing to thank you for your bravery," Tuhaise said in his message to AIM. "The articles you've written in support of the right of Ugandans to exercise self-determination on the issue of homosexuality have thrown fresh light on the American scene [and show] that not every American is scared of the loud-mouthed homosexual lobby."
He added, "Please continue to help Uganda by educating Americans about the bill and countering the lies. The American people should wake up and reclaim America from a dangerous subculture that is destroying their children and youth under the guise of liberty and human rights."
AIM received his message at about the same time that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were announcing their support for putting active and open homosexuals into the Armed Forces of the United States.
The AIM Report, Homosexual Media Target Christians, is our latest article in a series that examines how homosexual activists in the U.S. media such as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post have given impetus to what has now become a global campaign to isolate Uganda and even cut off aid to the poor country because of its stand against homosexuality.
Uganda not only suffered under the murderous dictator Idi Amin, but revolted against a homosexual pedophile King Mwanga in the 1800s, a period in the country's history that is not well-known. The result was the establishment of National Martyr's Day on June 3 in honor of the Christians tortured and killed by Mwanga.
Showing disdain for Uganda's sovereign right to chart its own course in domestic and foreign affairs, the "gay rights" lobby has mounted an aggressive strategy to undermine the government of Uganda and threaten the cut-off of foreign aid if the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda is passed. All of this may have something to do with the fact, as AIM has disclosed, that billionaire George Soros, a major financial backer of the Democratic Party and the "gay rights" movement, has been funding efforts to promote homosexuality and legalized prostitution in Uganda and throughout Africa. The Open Society Institute of Soros calls these activities "the rights of sexual minorities" and "sex work."
The current focus of "progressives," led in the Congress by lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, is to force the Obama Administration to do more to stop passage of the legislation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already been enlisted to make a telephone call to Uganda President Yoweri Museveni about the legislation. But he said that he told her that it was a response to the reported activities of foreign homosexuals targeting children in Uganda. Officially, the U.S. Government is supposed to oppose human trafficking for purposes of child abuse and sexual exploitation.
The latest phase of this campaign is an effort by the homosexual lobby to have President Obama openly denounce the bill at the February 5 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.
Alluding to the fact that American pastors such as Rick Warren have been pressured to denounce the bill, Tuhaise adds, "We are still puzzled why American conservatives will not stand up to homosexual intimidation. The homosexuals and their sympathizers have hijacked the media around the bill and gone out to every conservative leader or organization saying Uganda has written a 'Kill the Gays Bill.' This is far from true for anyone who has read the bill. Without checking, these so-called conservatives have issued statements critical of the bill, which homosexual lobbyists have used to create a false impression that America is united against the Bill."
While the homosexual lobby here and abroad has mobilized its resources to create that impression, Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College, a conservative Christian institution, has also been working with the "gay rights" movement to attack supporters of the legislation. In response, Peter LaBarbera of the group Americans for Truth about Homosexuality has asked, "What qualifies the United States to lecture Uganda about homosexuality?" LaBarbera says Throckmorton, once known as a conservative, has become a "fellow traveler" of the homosexual movement.
Referring to the controversial death penalty provision, which has gotten most of the media attention, Tuhaise told AIM: "The death penalty was included for the most severe homosexual offences where the offender would expose a victim to the risk of a dangerous disease like AIDS, which has no cure. If one willfully puts others (including innocent children in their care) at risk of death, then a deterrent penalty of death makes sense. And it has been a law for heterosexual abusers since 1997. So why is it causing so much fracas when it is applied to homosexual abusers?"
Tuhaise told AIM that Uganda needed the support of conservatives from the U.S. but that there is an obvious problem in America itself. He explained, "We sometimes wonder why Americans are not rising up to stop many shocking things happening there, like the predators who are luring children into dangerous sex rings and destroying their lives...In Africa we think of the welfare of the community and we care what is going on in the neighborhood, because whoever takes over your neighborhood has got your kid, too."
The Embassy of Uganda in the United States can be contacted here.
You can listen to my interview on this topic with Jan Michelson of WHO in Iowa here.
AIM COLUMN | BY CLIFF KINCAID | FEBRUARY 3, 2010
...homosexual activists in the U.S. media such as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post have given impetus to what has now become a global campaign to isolate Uganda…
A leading pro-family activist in Uganda says that Christians in that East African country need help resisting the schemes of the international homosexual lobby. Charles Tuhaise tells AIM that he is also disturbed by the general silence of conservatives in the U.S. to stand up for Uganda and its emerging Christian culture.
The issue is consideration of a piece of legislation to discourage homosexual practices in Uganda.
"Many Ugandans are shocked at the reaction to this bill and the extent to which homosexual activists can intimidate everyone to silence," Tuhaise said. "This is a bill written to control a problem that has largely gotten out of hand in western society and is now spreading tentacles worldwide. Perhaps Uganda has helped to highlight the danger that the homosexual movement poses to the world."
Tuhaise is chairman of the board of Agape Community Transformation (ACT), a Christian organization dedicated to improving the spiritual, physical, economic and societal conditions of their communities. He is familiar with the bill because he works at the Parliamentary Research Service at the Parliament of Uganda, where the bill is being considered for passage. It was introduced by legislator David Bahati.
"I am a Ugandan and I'm writing to thank you for your bravery," Tuhaise said in his message to AIM. "The articles you've written in support of the right of Ugandans to exercise self-determination on the issue of homosexuality have thrown fresh light on the American scene [and show] that not every American is scared of the loud-mouthed homosexual lobby."
He added, "Please continue to help Uganda by educating Americans about the bill and countering the lies. The American people should wake up and reclaim America from a dangerous subculture that is destroying their children and youth under the guise of liberty and human rights."
AIM received his message at about the same time that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were announcing their support for putting active and open homosexuals into the Armed Forces of the United States.
The AIM Report, Homosexual Media Target Christians, is our latest article in a series that examines how homosexual activists in the U.S. media such as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post have given impetus to what has now become a global campaign to isolate Uganda and even cut off aid to the poor country because of its stand against homosexuality.
Uganda not only suffered under the murderous dictator Idi Amin, but revolted against a homosexual pedophile King Mwanga in the 1800s, a period in the country's history that is not well-known. The result was the establishment of National Martyr's Day on June 3 in honor of the Christians tortured and killed by Mwanga.
Showing disdain for Uganda's sovereign right to chart its own course in domestic and foreign affairs, the "gay rights" lobby has mounted an aggressive strategy to undermine the government of Uganda and threaten the cut-off of foreign aid if the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda is passed. All of this may have something to do with the fact, as AIM has disclosed, that billionaire George Soros, a major financial backer of the Democratic Party and the "gay rights" movement, has been funding efforts to promote homosexuality and legalized prostitution in Uganda and throughout Africa. The Open Society Institute of Soros calls these activities "the rights of sexual minorities" and "sex work."
The current focus of "progressives," led in the Congress by lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, is to force the Obama Administration to do more to stop passage of the legislation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already been enlisted to make a telephone call to Uganda President Yoweri Museveni about the legislation. But he said that he told her that it was a response to the reported activities of foreign homosexuals targeting children in Uganda. Officially, the U.S. Government is supposed to oppose human trafficking for purposes of child abuse and sexual exploitation.
The latest phase of this campaign is an effort by the homosexual lobby to have President Obama openly denounce the bill at the February 5 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.
Alluding to the fact that American pastors such as Rick Warren have been pressured to denounce the bill, Tuhaise adds, "We are still puzzled why American conservatives will not stand up to homosexual intimidation. The homosexuals and their sympathizers have hijacked the media around the bill and gone out to every conservative leader or organization saying Uganda has written a 'Kill the Gays Bill.' This is far from true for anyone who has read the bill. Without checking, these so-called conservatives have issued statements critical of the bill, which homosexual lobbyists have used to create a false impression that America is united against the Bill."
While the homosexual lobby here and abroad has mobilized its resources to create that impression, Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College, a conservative Christian institution, has also been working with the "gay rights" movement to attack supporters of the legislation. In response, Peter LaBarbera of the group Americans for Truth about Homosexuality has asked, "What qualifies the United States to lecture Uganda about homosexuality?" LaBarbera says Throckmorton, once known as a conservative, has become a "fellow traveler" of the homosexual movement.
Referring to the controversial death penalty provision, which has gotten most of the media attention, Tuhaise told AIM: "The death penalty was included for the most severe homosexual offences where the offender would expose a victim to the risk of a dangerous disease like AIDS, which has no cure. If one willfully puts others (including innocent children in their care) at risk of death, then a deterrent penalty of death makes sense. And it has been a law for heterosexual abusers since 1997. So why is it causing so much fracas when it is applied to homosexual abusers?"
Tuhaise told AIM that Uganda needed the support of conservatives from the U.S. but that there is an obvious problem in America itself. He explained, "We sometimes wonder why Americans are not rising up to stop many shocking things happening there, like the predators who are luring children into dangerous sex rings and destroying their lives...In Africa we think of the welfare of the community and we care what is going on in the neighborhood, because whoever takes over your neighborhood has got your kid, too."
The Embassy of Uganda in the United States can be contacted here.
You can listen to my interview on this topic with Jan Michelson of WHO in Iowa here.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Old and New Environmental Myths
Old and New Environmental Myths
Article by FREE
(1 Day Ago) in Society / Environment
It's fascinating to observe the path of many contentious environmental problems. They attract national attention, the future is seen as foreboding, and then, years later, they have been solved, ameliorated, or forgotten. Acid rain and fluorocarbons exemplify this path. Regulations may solve the projected problems, and we sometimes find that the alleged problem is less consequential than initially supposed. Here's an example.
Twenty years ago the National Center for Policy Analysis commissioned Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation to write a policy report, "A Consumer's Guide to Environmental Myths and Realities." It began with the observation that Americans are besieged with admonitions and advice on being good environmentalists. The focus was on what to buy and how to act.
The study demonstrated that much of this counsel was flawed and driven by special interest. Yet, even today, this well researched and crafted 40-page study is worth reading for several reasons.
First, it demonstrates pervasive and substantial progress; nine of the ten concerns that preoccupied Greens two decades ago have eroded if not fully evaporated. When did you last hear "America is running out of landfill space" listed as an environmental problem? Twenty years ago it was myth #1.
Nine of the ten myths focused on the consequences of consumer behavior. They included: Americans are especially wasteful (We weren't.); packaging, plastics, and disposables are inherently bad (They weren't.); recycling is unambiguously good (It isn't.); and biodegradable is best, while solid waste is necessarily dangerous (Not necessarily.).
These simple rules, even when they are myths, economize on information. However, they are sometimes inappropriate, even dangerous, in a complex world. Essentially, over time we've moved up the learning curve in dealing with the physical consequences of consumption in a more responsible manner. Practice may not make perfect, but it has surely led to substantial improvements. Hence, the vexing problems of 1990 have not disappeared but they have dissipated.
At twenty years removed, the Green naiveté underlying these myths seems really quite remarkable. It may also give rise to optimism; if nine of the ten problems have been discounted to near irrelevance in a mere two decades, might today's problems likewise diminish with time?
But perhaps, this time really is different.
What about myth #10: "We are running out of resources." Well, aren't we? Non-renewables are just that; we really are using up things like copper, cadmium, and cobalt. I¹ll return to that issue below but first ask the reader to contemplate the implications of one uncontestable fact, the bronze age didn't end due to a shortage of bronze, nor did the iron age end due to a paucity of iron. In both cases ingenuity produced superior substitutes.
Today's Environmental Problems
Those committed to environmental protest as an essential part of their zeitgeist may find one logical reason why the problems of two decades have receded into insignificance; today's are so much worse. Today's cancer makes yesterday's cold a trivial annoyance. Chewing gum and passing notes in class were once punishable offenses. In retrospect, those were surely the good days. The severity of problems depends on context.
Consider the "population explosion." This surely remains a huge problem in the pathologically troubled Third World. In developed economies, however, the major problem is population implosion, a dearth of births. Japan and Western Europe are producing children at far less than the replacement rate of 2.2 children per woman.
This poses huge problems in the next few decades. And for this there is no easy, if any, fix. Demography holds few surprises and evidence is obvious. Yet, people will adjust as expectations change.
Endangered species surely exemplify major problems involving culture and political economy. It seems important to me that the snow leopard or white rhinoceros avoid extinction. However, that potential loss has little if any impact on the material state of human wellbeing.
Climate change may indeed be a huge environmental problem, or it may not. It surely presents a major set of ethical problems and fantastic opportunities for politicians.
In contrast, running out of material resources has yet to be a problem when property rights are secure and the market process is permitted to foster discovery, substitution, and conservation. Scarcity has never won a race against creativity when marketable commodities are at issue.
When considering policies designed to deal with environmental threats, we are well advised to always ask the ecologists' question: "And then what?" What are the predictable consequences of the proposed policies? We often find them wasteful, detrimental, or useless at best.
Comments (1) | (1) | Flag This
Article by FREE
(1 Day Ago) in Society / Environment
It's fascinating to observe the path of many contentious environmental problems. They attract national attention, the future is seen as foreboding, and then, years later, they have been solved, ameliorated, or forgotten. Acid rain and fluorocarbons exemplify this path. Regulations may solve the projected problems, and we sometimes find that the alleged problem is less consequential than initially supposed. Here's an example.
Twenty years ago the National Center for Policy Analysis commissioned Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation to write a policy report, "A Consumer's Guide to Environmental Myths and Realities." It began with the observation that Americans are besieged with admonitions and advice on being good environmentalists. The focus was on what to buy and how to act.
The study demonstrated that much of this counsel was flawed and driven by special interest. Yet, even today, this well researched and crafted 40-page study is worth reading for several reasons.
First, it demonstrates pervasive and substantial progress; nine of the ten concerns that preoccupied Greens two decades ago have eroded if not fully evaporated. When did you last hear "America is running out of landfill space" listed as an environmental problem? Twenty years ago it was myth #1.
Nine of the ten myths focused on the consequences of consumer behavior. They included: Americans are especially wasteful (We weren't.); packaging, plastics, and disposables are inherently bad (They weren't.); recycling is unambiguously good (It isn't.); and biodegradable is best, while solid waste is necessarily dangerous (Not necessarily.).
These simple rules, even when they are myths, economize on information. However, they are sometimes inappropriate, even dangerous, in a complex world. Essentially, over time we've moved up the learning curve in dealing with the physical consequences of consumption in a more responsible manner. Practice may not make perfect, but it has surely led to substantial improvements. Hence, the vexing problems of 1990 have not disappeared but they have dissipated.
At twenty years removed, the Green naiveté underlying these myths seems really quite remarkable. It may also give rise to optimism; if nine of the ten problems have been discounted to near irrelevance in a mere two decades, might today's problems likewise diminish with time?
But perhaps, this time really is different.
What about myth #10: "We are running out of resources." Well, aren't we? Non-renewables are just that; we really are using up things like copper, cadmium, and cobalt. I¹ll return to that issue below but first ask the reader to contemplate the implications of one uncontestable fact, the bronze age didn't end due to a shortage of bronze, nor did the iron age end due to a paucity of iron. In both cases ingenuity produced superior substitutes.
Today's Environmental Problems
Those committed to environmental protest as an essential part of their zeitgeist may find one logical reason why the problems of two decades have receded into insignificance; today's are so much worse. Today's cancer makes yesterday's cold a trivial annoyance. Chewing gum and passing notes in class were once punishable offenses. In retrospect, those were surely the good days. The severity of problems depends on context.
Consider the "population explosion." This surely remains a huge problem in the pathologically troubled Third World. In developed economies, however, the major problem is population implosion, a dearth of births. Japan and Western Europe are producing children at far less than the replacement rate of 2.2 children per woman.
This poses huge problems in the next few decades. And for this there is no easy, if any, fix. Demography holds few surprises and evidence is obvious. Yet, people will adjust as expectations change.
Endangered species surely exemplify major problems involving culture and political economy. It seems important to me that the snow leopard or white rhinoceros avoid extinction. However, that potential loss has little if any impact on the material state of human wellbeing.
Climate change may indeed be a huge environmental problem, or it may not. It surely presents a major set of ethical problems and fantastic opportunities for politicians.
In contrast, running out of material resources has yet to be a problem when property rights are secure and the market process is permitted to foster discovery, substitution, and conservation. Scarcity has never won a race against creativity when marketable commodities are at issue.
When considering policies designed to deal with environmental threats, we are well advised to always ask the ecologists' question: "And then what?" What are the predictable consequences of the proposed policies? We often find them wasteful, detrimental, or useless at best.
Comments (1) | (1) | Flag This
Obama Fails to Mention Fort Hood Heroes in Speech
ewsmax
Obama Fails to Mention Fort Hood Heroes in Speech
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 12:25 PM
By: Edward I. Koch
I thought President Obama's State of the Union speech was rock solid and superbly delivered.
I was surprised, therefore, when I heard the speech criticized by both liberal and conservative friends, who found fault with the substance.
None criticized the delivery. However, the president's presentation the following day at the Republican Party's conclave in Baltimore was perceived even by his critics as a tour de force, reflecting an incredible breadth of knowledge.
President Obama is a natural when it comes to public speaking. He uses a conversational tone even at the State of the Union. He conveys that he is talking to you and you alone, asking that you take a walk in the park with him, listen to him as a friend, and provide him with your support and advice.
Most important, there is nothing pedantic about him. He appears humble and occasionally, but always appropriately, funny.
At the State of the Union, the president missed one opportunity. Sitting in the gallery with first lady Michelle Obama, who now rivals Jackie Kennedy in cult status, were two police officers: one, white and female, the other African-American and male.
They were the two officers who at the Fort Hood massacre perpetrated by the Islamist terrorist and American traitor, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 fellow American soldiers and injured 30 others, ran to interdict and capture him.
Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who was first on the scene, was herself shot by Hasan. and Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, who followed, was able to shoot Hasan and bring him down.
Now to my observation. The president did not introduce these two heroes.
Had he at the end of his speech turned to the audience in the chamber and those watching on television and said, "Let us close these proceedings by recognizing our two heroes, Sgt. Kimberly Munley and Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, who saved the lives of American soldiers at Ft. Hood," there would have been unanimous and extended applause from both sides of the aisle, and from ocean to ocean.
There are those who will say that it would have been inappropriate for the president to comment on the guilt or innocence of anyone, including Major Hasan. Baloney.
The presumption of innocence is often misunderstood by those raising it. That presumption applies only in the courtroom, where the government has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
It does not apply in the court of public opinion. I hope some enterprising reporter asks the president why he did not publicly identify the Fort Hood heroes.
The president's triumphant appearance before the Republicans at their event was reminiscent of the British Questions Time where, on regularly stated occasions, the British prime minister answers questions from members of the House of Commons on both sides of the aisle.
The questions are submitted in advance so that the prime minister can prepare his response based on the facts as the government believes them to be.
When I was a member of the city council in 1966 through 1968, I proposed to the Lindsay administration that it adopt Questions Time as a city council procedure. My then law partner, John Lankanau, suggested I do so.
The Lindsey administration declined. Years later, when I became mayor, I should have sought to achieve that same goal. Why I did not, I can't explain.
I probably wanted to avoid any embarrassment. I know I would have enjoyed it, and I'm not half the skilled debater that President Obama is.
In any event, my advice to him now is to propose to either the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or to the majority leader of the Senate, or both, that they explore with the president the possibility of adding Questions Time to the legislative process.
I have no doubt a huge audience will tune in. I certainly will.
Obama Fails to Mention Fort Hood Heroes in Speech
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 12:25 PM
By: Edward I. Koch
I thought President Obama's State of the Union speech was rock solid and superbly delivered.
I was surprised, therefore, when I heard the speech criticized by both liberal and conservative friends, who found fault with the substance.
None criticized the delivery. However, the president's presentation the following day at the Republican Party's conclave in Baltimore was perceived even by his critics as a tour de force, reflecting an incredible breadth of knowledge.
President Obama is a natural when it comes to public speaking. He uses a conversational tone even at the State of the Union. He conveys that he is talking to you and you alone, asking that you take a walk in the park with him, listen to him as a friend, and provide him with your support and advice.
Most important, there is nothing pedantic about him. He appears humble and occasionally, but always appropriately, funny.
At the State of the Union, the president missed one opportunity. Sitting in the gallery with first lady Michelle Obama, who now rivals Jackie Kennedy in cult status, were two police officers: one, white and female, the other African-American and male.
They were the two officers who at the Fort Hood massacre perpetrated by the Islamist terrorist and American traitor, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 fellow American soldiers and injured 30 others, ran to interdict and capture him.
Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who was first on the scene, was herself shot by Hasan. and Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, who followed, was able to shoot Hasan and bring him down.
Now to my observation. The president did not introduce these two heroes.
Had he at the end of his speech turned to the audience in the chamber and those watching on television and said, "Let us close these proceedings by recognizing our two heroes, Sgt. Kimberly Munley and Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, who saved the lives of American soldiers at Ft. Hood," there would have been unanimous and extended applause from both sides of the aisle, and from ocean to ocean.
There are those who will say that it would have been inappropriate for the president to comment on the guilt or innocence of anyone, including Major Hasan. Baloney.
The presumption of innocence is often misunderstood by those raising it. That presumption applies only in the courtroom, where the government has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
It does not apply in the court of public opinion. I hope some enterprising reporter asks the president why he did not publicly identify the Fort Hood heroes.
The president's triumphant appearance before the Republicans at their event was reminiscent of the British Questions Time where, on regularly stated occasions, the British prime minister answers questions from members of the House of Commons on both sides of the aisle.
The questions are submitted in advance so that the prime minister can prepare his response based on the facts as the government believes them to be.
When I was a member of the city council in 1966 through 1968, I proposed to the Lindsay administration that it adopt Questions Time as a city council procedure. My then law partner, John Lankanau, suggested I do so.
The Lindsey administration declined. Years later, when I became mayor, I should have sought to achieve that same goal. Why I did not, I can't explain.
I probably wanted to avoid any embarrassment. I know I would have enjoyed it, and I'm not half the skilled debater that President Obama is.
In any event, my advice to him now is to propose to either the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or to the majority leader of the Senate, or both, that they explore with the president the possibility of adding Questions Time to the legislative process.
I have no doubt a huge audience will tune in. I certainly will.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Countdowning the Days for Olbermann
Countdowning the Days for Olbermann
Blog - Don Irvine | By Don | February 3, 2010
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann aka 'The Mad Ranter' has hit a bit of a rough patch now that Obamamania has faded away and Americans anger has turned from Bush to Obama.
From the Los Angeles Times
Remember Keith Olbermann?
He was the one-time must-see anti-Bush ranter who helped rescue MSNBC (yes, it's still on at night) from even worse oblivion years ago.
Well, quietly last month while no one was looking, hardly anyone was watching Keith Olbermann anymore.
The guy, who's even apparently tried to get some Sarah Palin-like eyeglasses, is now forced to leap over-the-top on ex-state senators like Scott Brown and Tuesday's worst person, Fox News' Glenn Beck. Beck is the successful talker with the perfect haircut for radio. Like most Americans, he wasn't watching Keith.
There are a couple of reasons for KO's frustration and anger and volume and core meltdown over the Massachusetts election outcome, among other issues of galactic import. For one, lots more ranters around nowadays on all sides, including that colleague of Keith's with the hugest head in TV. Please, no 3-D for him!
Also, Olbermann's showboat is sinking. Listing in you-know-which direction.
It's as if he thinks talking LOUDER will keep his low cell battery from dying.
Worst, Olbermann's network president, Phil Griffin, is publicly praising him, always an ominous sign in television. While referring to his host almost in the past tense. "Keith has been our tentpole," Griffin says, adding later, "I'm pleased with where we are."
Where they are, as Jeff Bercovici points out over at Daily Finance, is way behind the big boys over at Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and gang. In fact, Keith is so far behind Bill, he can't even make out the state of the license plate, let alone the numbers. Bercovici thinks Americans may be outgrowing Olbermann's schtick.
In the most desirable TV demographic of 25-54, which Keith will soon outgrow himself, "Countdown" lost 44% of its audience from the beginning of President Obama's term until this year. It could have been worse -- say, 45%.
Olbermann averaged 268,000 viewers last month in that sector. That's just several thousand sets of those eyes more than Campbell Brown over on CNN. According to one count, Keith even finished in that time slow behind Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace!
And she's on Headline News, Headline News, the repetitious TV channel the repetitious TV channel inflicted on all U.S. airline travelers within any boarding area around the clock so that when, at least an hour late, each person is finally crammed into plane seats between professional wrestlers, they actually feel relieved.
On the bright side, which everyone knows KO is fond of spotting, his MSNBC audience was only 696,000 viewers 24-54 behind O'Reilly, whose audience has grown 55%, according to Bercovici. Of course, it might be worse this month.
In the immortal words of Edward J. Smith, captain of the Titanic, "What iceberg?"
-- Andrew Malcolm
The brass at MSNBC put up with Olbermann's rants as long as he was building an audience but with the steep dropoff it will become increasingly harder to justifyy keeping him on the air.
Nothing like getting your clock cleaned by Bill-O.
Maybe it's time for a new segment for Keith. The Worst Ratings in the World.
Blog - Don Irvine | By Don | February 3, 2010
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann aka 'The Mad Ranter' has hit a bit of a rough patch now that Obamamania has faded away and Americans anger has turned from Bush to Obama.
From the Los Angeles Times
Remember Keith Olbermann?
He was the one-time must-see anti-Bush ranter who helped rescue MSNBC (yes, it's still on at night) from even worse oblivion years ago.
Well, quietly last month while no one was looking, hardly anyone was watching Keith Olbermann anymore.
The guy, who's even apparently tried to get some Sarah Palin-like eyeglasses, is now forced to leap over-the-top on ex-state senators like Scott Brown and Tuesday's worst person, Fox News' Glenn Beck. Beck is the successful talker with the perfect haircut for radio. Like most Americans, he wasn't watching Keith.
There are a couple of reasons for KO's frustration and anger and volume and core meltdown over the Massachusetts election outcome, among other issues of galactic import. For one, lots more ranters around nowadays on all sides, including that colleague of Keith's with the hugest head in TV. Please, no 3-D for him!
Also, Olbermann's showboat is sinking. Listing in you-know-which direction.
It's as if he thinks talking LOUDER will keep his low cell battery from dying.
Worst, Olbermann's network president, Phil Griffin, is publicly praising him, always an ominous sign in television. While referring to his host almost in the past tense. "Keith has been our tentpole," Griffin says, adding later, "I'm pleased with where we are."
Where they are, as Jeff Bercovici points out over at Daily Finance, is way behind the big boys over at Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and gang. In fact, Keith is so far behind Bill, he can't even make out the state of the license plate, let alone the numbers. Bercovici thinks Americans may be outgrowing Olbermann's schtick.
In the most desirable TV demographic of 25-54, which Keith will soon outgrow himself, "Countdown" lost 44% of its audience from the beginning of President Obama's term until this year. It could have been worse -- say, 45%.
Olbermann averaged 268,000 viewers last month in that sector. That's just several thousand sets of those eyes more than Campbell Brown over on CNN. According to one count, Keith even finished in that time slow behind Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace!
And she's on Headline News, Headline News, the repetitious TV channel the repetitious TV channel inflicted on all U.S. airline travelers within any boarding area around the clock so that when, at least an hour late, each person is finally crammed into plane seats between professional wrestlers, they actually feel relieved.
On the bright side, which everyone knows KO is fond of spotting, his MSNBC audience was only 696,000 viewers 24-54 behind O'Reilly, whose audience has grown 55%, according to Bercovici. Of course, it might be worse this month.
In the immortal words of Edward J. Smith, captain of the Titanic, "What iceberg?"
-- Andrew Malcolm
The brass at MSNBC put up with Olbermann's rants as long as he was building an audience but with the steep dropoff it will become increasingly harder to justifyy keeping him on the air.
Nothing like getting your clock cleaned by Bill-O.
Maybe it's time for a new segment for Keith. The Worst Ratings in the World.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)