New York Times rejects McCain op-ed
Another example of the media being totally in the tank for Obama is presented by a newspaper long under a cloud for its prejudice and bias.
Having just run an op-ed for Obama, the Times demands McCain provide a specific time table for withdrawal from Iraq. Did the Times also dictate the content and insight of Obama too?
Providing a specific withdrawal timetable is an irresponsible act and one that only those who have no honest understanding of military reality would suggest. The NY Times embarrasses itself again.
This week has underscored liberal corruption of American journalism as never before...network news stars in the Obama parade, and the NY Times attempt to dictate what McCain can write --- but what else is new?
http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm
Jesse Jackson and his seething jealousy of Obama’s political success
Jackson’s slip of the tongue obscenities about what he proposes to do to Obama and its real implications, has raised other questions and has provided a source for many punch lines for comedians..
Jesse Jackson created a career manipulating circumstances he claimed were racist, and then constantly used such manipulations to intimidate American business – gathering millions in his brazen scam.
Jackson now faces becoming a back-of- the bus-Civil Right’s leader – one whose time has past and who others have begun ignoring.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668579909472083.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Jimmy Carter -- a failed president’s failed legacy
Seeming bitter over how many Americans see his administration, Carter is taking more and more outrageous position in more and more outrageous ways.
Carters’ ghost haunts Obama and his campaign – Carter is hardly a point of pride for Democrats now, then, and in the future.
As age overtakes him, Carter reveals a bitter inner-self, one that often hints at anti American positions and beliefs.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/48675/
Opinion:
The growing desperation of Al Gore
Gore works hard trying to be relevant – and fails.
In recent times, a Gore traveling show has even taken him to the Middle East and speeches that condemn his own country…a flailing about of a politicians long ago dismissed by public opinion.
Increasingly, his “Global Warming” scam has been effectively assaulted and confronted by scientists who really know and understand reality. The Earth moves through climactic cycles – warming, heating, then warming again. It happens whether Americans drive to work or take a bus.
Gore has never recovered from the Florida vote in 2000. Of course, had the Panhandle area not been disenfranchised by a liberal-leaning vote counting network news system, the election would have never been close enough to have allowed a recount.
No matter, a plethora of recounts sponsored by liberal news organizations, universally proved Gore lost the actual vote. No real questions of the outcome existed…only in Gore’s mind.
Gore can hardly be blamed – his formative years were those of a pampered youth, living in Washington Hotels, and the son of a powerful US Senator. His father’s being soundly defeated by Bill Brock back in 1970, forever warped the view and judgment of Gore. Having to serve as Clinton’s Vice President did nothing to help such resentment.
Gore was spotlighted in the Clinton years, for questionable campaign fund raising.
Now Gore scrambles to be important again. However, his call for limited carbon and other pollutant usage within a decade, rings quite hollow – given the Gore mansion which leaks energy gluttony, and his infamous use of limousines, private jets, and the like. Such excess leads enemies to charge Gore is a big time hypocrite.
“As America's leading peddler of both doom and salvation, Mr. Gore has moved beyond the constraints and obligations of reality. His job is to serve as a Prophet of Truth”
Gore has ambitions of leading a massive crusade – but fewer and fewer Americans have an interest in following his lead. His banner carries no message of “Excelsior” – in fact its quite blank.
Buddy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668313890771925.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Al Gore's Doomsday Clock
By BRET STEPHENS
Al Gore gave a speech last week "challenging" America to run "on 100% zero-carbon electricity in 10 years" -- though that's just the first step on his road to "ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Serious people understand this is absurd. Maybe other people will start drawing the same conclusion about the man proposing it.
The former vice president has also recently disavowed any intention of returning to politics. This is wise. As America's leading peddler of both doom and salvation, Mr. Gore has moved beyond the constraints and obligations of reality. His job is to serve as a Prophet of Truth.
In Mr. Gore's prophesy, a transition to carbon-free electricity generation in a decade is "achievable, affordable and transformative." He believes that the goal can be achieved almost entirely through the use of "renewables" alone, meaning solar, geothermal, wind power and biofuels.
And he doesn't think we really have any other good options: "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," he says, with his usual gift for understatement. "And even more -- if more should be required -- the future of human civilization is at stake."
What manner the catastrophe might take isn't yet clear, but the scenarios are grim: The climate crisis is getting worse faster than anticipated; global warming will cause refugee crises and destabilize entire nations; an "energy tsunami" is headed our way. And so on.
Here, however, is an inconvenient fact.
In 1995, the U.S. got about 2.2% of its net electricity generation from "renewable" sources, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2000, the last full year of the Clinton administration, that percentage had dropped to 2.1%. By contrast, the combined share of coal, petroleum and natural gas rose to 70% from 68% during the same time frame.
Now the share of renewables is up slightly, to about 2.3% as of 2006 (the latest year for which the EIA provides figures). The EIA thinks the use of renewables (minus hydropower) could rise to 201 billion kilowatt hours per year in 2018 from the current 65 billion. But the EIA also projects total net generation in 2018 to be 4.4 trillion kilowatt hours per year. That would put the total share of renewables at just over four percent of our electricity needs.
Mr. Gore's argument would be helped if he were also willing to propose huge investments in nuclear power, which emits no carbon dioxide and currently supplies about one-fifth of U.S. electricity needs, and about three-quarters of France's. Britain has just approved eight new nuclear plants, and the German government of Angela Merkel is working to do away with a plan by the previous government to go nuclear-free.
But Mr. Gore makes no mention of nuclear power in his speech, nor of the equally carbon-free hydroelectric power. These are proven technologies -- and useful reminders of what happens when environmentalists get what they wished for.
Mr. Gore's case would also be helped if our experience of renewable sources were a positive one. It isn't.
In his useful book "Gusher of Lies," Robert Bryce notes that "in July 2006, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10% of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17% of their rated capacity."
Like wind power, solar power also suffers from the problem of intermittency, which means that it has to be backed up by conventional sources in order to avoid disruptions. This is especially true of hot summers when the wind doesn't blow and cold winters when the sun doesn't shine.
And then there are biofuels, whose recent vogue, the World Bank believes, may have been responsible for up to 75% of the recent rise in world food prices. Save the planet; starve the poor.
None of this seems to trouble Mr. Gore. He thinks that simply by declaring an emergency he can help achieve Stakhanovite results. He might recall what the Stakhanovite myth (about the man who mined 14 times his quota of coal in six hours) actually did to the Soviet economy.
A more interesting question is why Mr. Gore remains believable. Perhaps people think that facts ought not to count against a man whose task is to raise our sights, or play Cassandra to unbelieving mortals.
Or maybe he is believed simply because people want something in which to believe.
"The readiness for self-sacrifice," wrote Eric Hoffer in "The True Believer," "is contingent on an imperviousness to the realities of life. . . . All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth nor certitude outside it. . . . To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible."
Comments