Vocal Minority

Pic of the Day (2/28/10): NEW Global Warming Hockey Stick Revealed

Courtesy of the Zomblog:

In case anyone cares: My post on Al Gore’s AGW editorial in today’s NY Times (where else?) to follow.

Listen & Learn: Obama Says He's "An Ardent Believer in the Free Market." Mark Levin Disagrees (2/24/10)

Earlier this week, President Hope&Change made one of the (but not the only) most delusional statements uttered by a member of this administration: Trying to refute claims from his critics that he is a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool socialist, the president said this to a gathering of private-company CEO's:

Contrary to the claims of some of my critics—and some of the editorial pages—I am an ardent believer in the free market. ...

[G]overnment has a vital, if limited, role to play in fostering sustained economic growth and creating the foundations for you to succeed.

Responding in his trademark biting way is “The Great One” Mark Levin, in glorious mono. Keep this 15-minute clip handy the next time someone argues that Obama is not the authoritarian socialist he is:

[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and any other extraneous content]

Download here

Pic - and Video - of the Day (2/26/10): The Blair House Reject

Here's all you need to know about how things went at yesterday's bi-partisan ObamaCare meeting [h/t American Power blog]:

Charlie Rangel Gets Slap on Wrist; Networks Got His Back

If you get your news from network TV, this will probably be news to you: Charlie Rangel, New York Democrat Congressman and chair of the Ways and Means Committee, has been charged with an ethics violation for accepting corporate money for foreign trips. He may ultimately be censured, but we’ll see.

But not to worry, Charlie, the mainstream news stations got you covered: NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams ignored the story. So did ABC World News Tonight. The Rangel story was briefly mentioned by Katie Couric on CBS’s Evening News and Early Show, NBC’s Today, and ABC’s Good Morning America. However, missing from all five stories: Rangel’s political affiliation.

Must be so nice being a liberal Democrat.

Geoffrey Dickens at NewsBusters comments:

After the Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, Nancy Pelosi promised NBC’s Brian Williams that she would “drain the swamp” and “turn this Congress into the most honest and open Congress in history.” So when news broke that a House Ethics committee found that long time New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel accepted corporate money for trips to the Carribean one would think Williams would be all over the story—he wasn’t.

Of course Rangel be not “drained from the swamp” by Madam Speaker. He’s one of hers. No wonder why Congress currently has a 10% approval rating (less than half George W. Bush’s lowest rating—which was also incessantly reported by the MSM.)

Contrast this media treatment with that of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, Idaho Senator Larry Craig, or Nevada Senator John Ensign—all Republicans. When all three were in the spotlight for various personal indiscretions, were they ignored by evening news? Definitely not. Was their party affilation omitted? Nope; on the contrary, all three were used by the Brian Williams’ and Katie Couric’s as symbols of a morally embattled and politically vulnerable Republican Party.

Nope, no liberal media bias here!

Liberal Media Bias: Two Instances of Bias by Omission by the NY Times

Oh, that New York Times. I know several people who read it daily as devout Christians read the Bible. For one relative, in the newspaper business their whole life, it is the Source that sets the standard for all American news media in format and in content. In at least one of his books on media bias, Bernard Goldberg describes the “newspaper of record” the same way: Before they decide what’s newsworthy and what’s not, news outlets refer to the New York Times.

And that’s the problem. If the editors of the NY Times wants to transform a non-story into a huge story or a non-scandal into an über-scandal, they need do no more than place it on the top fold of the front page. On the flip side, what should very well be big news, the consumer of mainstream news will never know about if the nation’s information gatekeeper decides it’s not “fit to print.”

A powerful position to be in, for sure.

This week, at two separate righty websites, two different writers observed two blatant examples of media bias by the revered NY Times. Both are examples of the clever and barely detectable bias by omission.

First, in a Pajamas Media piece from over the weekend, Charlie Martin chronicles how the American mainstream media has virtually whitewashed from history the ClimateGate scandal and every other scandal—and there have been plenty!—suffered by the IPCC and climate alarmism movement since last fall.

This was a nationwide phenomenon—the WaPo and L.A. Times occasionally published uninformative morsels. But the biggest offender was the NY “All the news that’s fit to print” Times:

The New York Times — can we still say “paper of record” with a straight face? — hasn’t covered the recent developments at all.

After the London papers covered the collapsing credibility of the IPCC, after the LA Times made fun of [Republican Sen.] Inhofe’s igloo, after the Washington Post ran a story reassuring its readers that the climate science was still sound even if there were some procedural errors, the New York Times has run, apparently, nothing. What we do have is a piece in NY Times reporter Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth blog on February 12, taken from “a prolonged exchange of e-mail messages Thursday with a heap of authors from past and future reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, along with some stray experts” that gives a lot of space to a prolonged fantasy of what science historians might say in 2210 ...

But this was the first time the media reported that an entire community of scientists had been accused of actual dishonesty. Such claims, if directed for example at a politician on a matter of minor importance, would normally require serious investigation. But even in leading newspapers like the New York Times, critics with a long public record for animosity and exaggeration were quoted as experts. As we know, the repetition of allegations is sufficient to make them stick in the public’s mind, regardless of whether they are later shown (or could easily be shown at the time) to be untrue.

On February 10, we have the “Distracting Debate over Climate Certainty.” Quoting Andrew Kent:

I still have problems with this whole business of debating the levels of certainty associated with global warming science. My view is that ultimately it’s a waste of mental energy, since we’ve already got enough certainty to know that it’s a good idea to take out an insurance policy against the worst-case scenario — and by the time you’ve got the hindsight to have “no error bars,” it’s already too late to do anything about GHGs.

Are there any mentions of Professor Phil Jones’ admission in a BBC interview that he isn’t good at keeping records, that his notes were so disorganized that he couldn’t comply with the Freedom of Information requests, that there had indeed been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and that there was still significant uncertainty about the Medieval Warm Period and even about climate science in general?

Not that I can find.

I contacted all three papers — the LA Times, theWashington Post, and the New York Times — asking for comment, or for a pointer to the stories I had missed. Only one of the three replied, and they wouldn’t speak for attribution or on the record.

It’s truly a puzzle. This is a story that affects the future of human civilization, if some of the believers are right. It ties financially to people right up to the top of American politics, as well as major industries throughout the U.S. and the world. What’s more, the story would seem to be all wrapped up, ready for aggressive investigative reporters with the resources of the Times to expose. Some of the perpetrators have even begun to confess. Why wouldn’t the Times cover it at all?

Are there any mentions of Professor Phil Jones’ admission in a BBC interview that he isn’t good at keeping records, that his notes were so disorganized that he couldn’t comply with the Freedom of information requests, that there had indeed been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and that there was still significant uncertainty about the Medieval Warm Period, and even about climate science in general?

Thanks to Gerard Vanderleun of the American Digest blog — and his link to Tom Nelson, one of my new favorite climate aggregators — we might have an answer. Nelson ran into this audio recording (warning: 105MB mp3 file) of the first Shorenstein Center/Belfer Center seminar on news coverage of climate change. One of the speakers was Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. Here’s part of what Revkin had to say, transcribed by Tom Nelson:

One thing that’s interesting to note … in this administration shift is that all the coverage that I did of all those obfuscations, editing, censorship and stuff that the Bush administration got involved in was a no-brainer getting that on the front page of the New York Times … Now, theoretically, should I be just as aggressively writing about these revelations? [nervous laugh]. There’s total … complete differences between what was going on then and some of the things you’ve heard about recently in terms of the scientific integrity of the IPCC … The bottom line is, there was a predisposition at my newspaper to say hey, that’s a great get; there’s a major front page story … when Phil Cooney … editing climate reports and all that stuff … it fit a very comfortable theme that all environmental stories for the longest period of time had, which is there’s bad guys and good guys. Shame on you, shame on you.

Could it possibly be that the Times would sit on a story of this magnitude simply because it doesn’t say “shame on you” to the right people?

Of course they would. For the same reason the L.A. Times to this day sits on a 2003 video of Barack Obama speaking at a party for anti-Israel pro-terrorism professor Rashid Khalidi, a video whose contents, no doubt, would have most likely lost him the 2008 presidential election and made Sarah Palin the first female vice president in U.S. history.

Next, Jeannie DeAngelis at American Thinker, notes that, ever since the reviled George W. Bush was succeeded by the heralded Barack H. Obama, the NY Times no longer updates its Casualties of War page:

… Every day readers were confronted with demographics, photographs and related links like, 2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark (October 26, 2005) and U.S. Death Toll in Iraq War Hits 4,000 (March 24, 2008). In addition, the NY Times online included a photo diary containing excerpts from e-mails and journals of six soldiers who died in Iraq.

In May of 2009, around the same time Obama decided a troop surge was necessary in Afghanistan,the NY Times death inventory came to an abrupt halt. To date, eight-months after the first major wave of new troops were ordered by Barack Obama into Afghanistan, Casualties of War has not been up-dated to include Afghan surge fatalities. Military victims of Obama’s Afghan war are missing from the Faces of the Dead section, which throughout Bush’s Iraqi war effort was refreshed on a daily basis. …

In the last eight months 600 dead has grown to nearly a thousand. If pertinent “facts” allow website viewers “to develop their own impressions and opinions,” which was the supposed purpose of Casualties of War, then the NY Times has an opportunity to actively reengage the public in forming independent opinion by monitoring and reporting in an interactive way the sharp increase in statistical military death related data.

For instance, readers may be interested to know that the seven years and four months preceding Obama’s eight-month surge, seven deaths per month took place. However, in eight months those figures grew to almost 39 deaths per month, which corresponds to a 450% increase in military lives lost. …

The uptick in war related Obama troop surge fatalities could provide the NY Times lots of vignette fodder, as well as many more photos of the president saluting flag draped coffins in the middle of the night. If the New York Times decides to chronicle the current combat obituary, if the last eight months are any indication of what’s ahead, The Obama Years: Casualties of War has the potential to be even more damaging to Obama’s presidency than the NY Times 7-year narrative on Bush in Iraq.

This last example of liberal media bias is particularly detestable because it proves the conjecture by many conservative pundits during the Bush years that this feature of the NY Times was just to score political points. The NY Times really didn’t give a crap about the war dead; they only used them as pawns to smear a president they hated. (I also recall a network news station that commemorated the war dead during the Bush years; I can’t remember which station it was though.)

And so, the newspaper that once gave us Walter Duranty and more recently gave us the non-scandal scandal called “Abu Ghraib” is now the paper that plays ostrich-in-the-sand with regard to the biggest scientific scandal in modern history and suddenly expresses no interest in our war dead now that the White House has a president whom they adore.

Nope, no liberal media bias here!

Liberal Lie #5: Conservatives Want to Impose their Religion on Us; Liberals Don't - Meatless Mondays

It’s bad enough when seemingly intelligent people believe the constantly crumbling fairy tale known as catastrophic man-made global warming climate change. It’s even worse—and all too prevelant—when such hysterics find themselves in leadership positions and use those positions to impose draconian rules on the public at large, constitutional protections be damned:

February 24, 2010 | American Spectator
Meatless Meatheads
By Aaron Goldstein

… Established by Cambridge City Council in May 2009, the Climate Congress has put forth a series of recommendations “to respond to the climate emergency” in Cambridge. According to the Congress, it is an emergency that has been “created by the growth of local greenhouse gas emissions.” These recommendations include the institution of a local carbon tax, the taxation of plastic and paper bags, and the elimination of street side parking. But the one recommendation that grabbed my attention was the establishment of “Meatless Mondays.” To be precise:

Asking/mandating that local restaurants and schools institute “Meatless or Vegan Mondays” to increase community awareness and reduce reliance on meat, dairy and eggs as food sources. …

… [A]ccording to a report issued by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in November 2006, livestock generates more greenhouse gas emissions than automobiles. The report also concluded that raising livestock is a major source of land and water degradation. In September 2008, Rajendra Pachuari, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called on people to refrain from eating meat one day a week in an effort to combat climate change. Last December, shortly before the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Pachuari was joined by Sir Paul McCartney in a presentation before the European Parliament to promote this idea with the slogan, “Less Meat=Less Heat.” Needless to say, eating fish fingers on Penny Lane is a distant memory for the ex-Beatle.

Yet nevertheless “Meatless Mondays” is beginning to catch on. Indeed, it was recently instituted in the Baltimore public school system. But the Cambridge Climate Congress wants to take it a step further and extend this policy beyond schools. It wants to include local restaurants. …

Now it is certainly possible that Cambridge City Council will be practical enough to recognize that imposing such a recommendation would be little more than chicken potpie in the sky. Would they compel McDonald’s on Massachusetts Avenue not to serve Big Macs on Mondays? Would they have Legal Sea Foods in Kendall Square stop serving New England Clam Chowder to the lunchtime crowd at the start of the workweek? [Don’t give them any ideas!] Unless you serve vegan fare, who in their right mind would want to open an eatery in Cambridge? Does Cambridge really want its meat lovers to go on the lamb to Somerville to satiate their carnivorous cravings? Why would Cambridge want to subject itself to such ridicule and ribbing?

Yet one can never underestimate the capacity of government to butt in places where it does not belong. If Cambridge should decide that restaurants must go meatless on Mondays, what is to prevent them from telling grocery stores they cannot sell meat on Tuesdays? Then, again, even if Cambridge went completely meatless somehow I don’t think it would stop the city’s pork barrel spending.

Global warming alarmism has been described by many as a religion. Given that comparison—which is valid, in my view—enforcing “meatless Mondays” would be no different from enforcing the Catholic rule of meatless Fridays. Except if Catholics actually tried that, the leftist meatheads in Cambridge or Baltimore would be first in line screaching “Separation of Church and State!” and “Don’t impose your religion on me!” 

The irony is wasted on such dangerous morons. And the hypocrisy is astounding.

If global warming hysterics want to practice their religion in private as protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, then they should enjoy. But make no mistake: The sanctimonious enforcement of their religious fanaticism upon all the citizens and businesses of Cambridge or upon public schools in Baltimore is imposing one’s religion on others.

Liberal Fascism: Ministry of Climate Propaganda's New Director

As if we didn’t have enough taxpayer dollars to throw down the rat hole, President Hope&Change’s new Ministry of Climate Propaganda—excuse me, Climate Change office, is up and running. Obama’s choice for director of this auspicious entity is a real devotee to hard science (wink wink):

Updated February 22, 2010
New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge
By Ed Barnes - FOXNews.com
Thomas Karl, the head of Obama’s new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

… Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.

Karl, who has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009. His name surfaced numerous times in leaked “climate-gate” e-mails from the University of East Anglia, but there was little in the e-mails that tied him to playing politics with climate data. Mostly, the e-mails show he was in the center of the politics of climate change decisions. …

This would be the same NOAA that has been exposed as being engaged in surface station manipulation, as reported last week by John Lott at Fox News [h/t James Heiser at The New American]:

... [T]he most damaging report [called “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?”] has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.

In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

D’Aleo and Watts show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.

Their report provides examples of how the systematic elimination of stations and unexplained adjustments in temperature data caused measured temperatures to rise for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Many adjustments change what would have been a drop in temperatures into an increase. Take New Zealand, where D’Aleo and Watts note: “About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming.”

Back to the Fox News article on Karl’s appointment:

According to a school biography published by Northern Illinois University, Karl shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other leading scientists based on his work at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was “one of the 10 most influential researchers of the 1990s who have formed or changed the course of research in a given area.” …

His appointment was hailed by both the Sierra Club and Duke Energy Company of North Carolina. Sierra Club President Carl Pope said, “As polluters and their allies continue to try to muddy the waters around climate science [typical politically-motivated straw-man argument], the Climate Service will provide easy, direct access to the valuable scientific research undertaken by government scientists and others.” And Duke Energy CEO Jin Rogers said the new office, under Karl, will “spark the consensus we need to move forward.”

But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past [see below], says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC’s most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes. …

“The unconstitutional global warming office and its new Web site climate.gov would be charged with propagandizing Americans with eco-alarmism,” wrote Alex Newman of the Liberty Sentinel of Gainesville, Fla.

On the popular skeptic site “Watts Up With That,” Anthony Watts called the climate.gov site a “waste of more taxpayer money” and charged that it is nothing more than a “fast track press release service.” He wrote that putting Karl in charge was an issue, because he had fabricated photos of “floods that didn’t happen” in an earlier NOAA report.

Unconstitutional is right. Through this agency, presumably with no Congressional oversight, we are probably looking forward to the regulation of your refrigerator, your thermostat, summertime water usage, or anything else they can dream up. Call it climate fascism.

Oh, and here’s an interesting tidbit alluded to in the above piece: Revelations about the NOAA’s “strategic” placement or ignoring of surface stations goes back at least to August, 2007, with the same climate scientists—D’Aleo, Watts, and Pielke—sounding the alarm. At that time, Karl would have been director at the NCDC for a full decade already.

Nearly 2½ years after those initial revelations were made, Karl not only kept his job at the NCDC, but in 2009 was promoted to lead all of the NOAA climate services in 2009. Now, even in light of the newest revelations, he gets yet another promotion from President Hope&Change to lead this untouchable new government black hole.

Welcome to the future, suckers.

Rite Blog Round-Up (2/22/10)

Haven’t done one of these in a while ...

Josh Fulton: 75 Reasons to Be Skeptical of “Global Warming” [h/t Greg at Rhymes With Right]

Roman Around: Happy Birthday, Father of our Country

Stand by Liberty: A New Law Takes Affect Today Permitting Concealed Carry of Firearms in National Parks – The Brady Campaign goes After Starbucks

Strata-Sphere: Obama’s God Complex Is His Achilles’ Heel

Sweetness & Light: AP: Obama Plan Won’t Increase Deficit

Start Thinking Right: Saul Alinsky And the Obama-SEIU Ideology

On a Totally Different Note ...

See boys, you’re not a pervert after all!

Half of men look at boobs before face
Thu 18th Feb 2010

Melbourne, February 18: In a new survey, nearly half of British men confessed that they look at a woman’s breasts before they look at her face. …

The other half were either lying or gay.

To borrow the quip of a Free Republic reader, Glad the Brits are keeping abreast of the situation.

Liberal Media Bias: On Joe Stack, the "Blame Righty"® Campaign Continues

At the time I posted Part 1 of this story, only Time, WaPo, and “Hardball with Chris Matthews” were twisting themselves into pretzels attempting to label Joe Stack as a Tea-Party-associated rightwing extremist. By this afternoon, Newsweek and ABC News have gotten on board [h/t Liz Blaine at Front Page Mag’s NewsReal blog].

Newsweek surely didn’t mince words. Just hours after the plane crash an on-line headline blared:

Thursday, February 18, 2010 6:43 PM
Joseph Stack and Right-Wing Terror: Isolated Incidents or Worrying Trend?
David A. Graham

Thursday’s antitax domestic terror attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas, may reopen a debate that's been quiet since last summer: are violent incidents against the federal government on the rise?

The notion of far-right terror was much discussed following the June incident at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., in which white supremacist James von Brunn [who was also, the left-wing media doesn’t want to admit, not right-wing–he was a leftist] killed a security guard and injured two other people. …

At the end of this pathetic excuse for an article, Graham finally admits:

The tax protest movement has historically been linked to right-wing groups like the Sovereign Citizen movement, white supremacist groups, and militias. Stack mentions meetings with groups that meet that rubric, and his antigovernment rhetoric fits that mold too. But he also takes traditionally left-wing swipes at corporations for keeping the little guy down, and signs off, “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

Ohh, a traditionally left-wing swipe at corporations? Kind of what your magazine does every day, Mr. Graham?

What a hack this “journalist” is. Either he didn’t read Stack’s entire screed, or he didn’t want you, the reader, to be informed of the fact that in it Stack railed against the Catholic Church, big business, George W. Bush, and the Iraq War. Kind of like … Newsweek magazine!

Then network TV news got on the “Blame Righty” bandwagon. As Blaine reports, ABC News resurrects Janet Napolitano’s quickly retracted Depatment of Homeland Security April 2009 report citing,

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president [They have? Do you have any proof of this? Or are you just throwing out Democrat talking points for your diminishing viewership?], and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propoganda [sic], but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

Real classy there, ABC.

I am not going to say that Stack was a raving leftist, as Blaine does. But facts are facts, and according to Stack’s own words, he was far some a tea-partying “extremist” right-winger.

Nevertheless, the lib mainstream media continues to do what it only knows how to do: Deliver left-wing propaganda, and intellectually honest journalism be damned.

Not Another Black Tea Party Video [UPDATED]

If you’ve read my other posts and videos showing the existence of blacks and other minorities at Tea Parties, you might be asking, How long will I insist on posting more of them?

The answer is: Until the race-obsessed lefties like the clowns on MSNBC and on “The View” (thanks for nothing, Meghan McCain) stop perpetuating the lie that Tea Parties contain an undercurrent of racism.

Since they can’t win on the issues, calling the Tea Party movement racist is really all the left has. And so Rachel Maddow calls Tea Partiers racists in white hoods. The equally clueless Keith Olbermann calls them the “Tea Ku Klux Klan” who want to bring back Jim Crow Laws (If Olbermann actually read a history book other than Howard Zinn’s, he’d know that both the KKK and Jim Crow Laws are Democrat inventions) and ranting that Tea Partiers should come out and admit their racism. Chris Matthews characteristically makes up facts has he goes along, like “Every ‘teabagger’ is white.” And naturally, all the lefty websites and blogs have labelled the Tea Party movement “the new face of racism.”

So, as already done here, here, here and here, below is more footage of blacks and other minorities at Tea Parties. Not only attending them, but actually speaking at them as well. This montage was created by Randy Haddock, a Tea Partier from Brooklyn. On his blog Haddock writes:

Response to Olbermann: ‘People of color’ at Tea Parties

So last night that race-peddlin’ buffoon over at MSNBC… wait, that’s pretty much everyone on that network. Let me be more specific. OK, so, last night Keith Olbermann used his self-parodying Special Comment segment to ask the following question: Where are the people of color at the Tea Parties? Now, implying and outright saying that Tea Party protesters are racist is commonplace in the far left. No news there. But two things in particular bother me about his question:

First, his choice of words. People of color? Who are these colored people he’s referring to? What does that mean? It may be because I’m not a native English speaker, but I find this “people of color” business to be really bizarre. So as a Boricua, am I colored? I guess I’m olive but if I hit the beach on a sunny day I can be golden brown. Is he referring strictly to skin color? Culture? Ethnicity? I mean, I’m not that much darker than Mr. Olbermann himself. Do I fall into his “people of color” category?

Or, as I suspect, are “people of color” just code for those who deviate too much from the skin color which Olbermann seems to deem as the standard? I mean, come on, Olbermann has no color, right? He’s white. That ain’t no color. That’s just how it’s supposed to be, right? So, all I can think of is that he means “black.” Black people are colored, and everyone else is just normal and a-OK. Man, this race and colors stuff is difficult to understand!

And secondly, the question is stupid, the premise terribly moronic and the insinuation totally insulting. The Tea Party protesters aren’t racist. Are there a few kooks with nefarious motivations? Sure, every movement has them. It’s nice how, during the Bush years, the MSM did everything they could to whitewash the fringe elements of the antiwar movement, but I digress. What’s Olbermann’s evidence that Tea Parties are overwhelmingly racist? Apparently, that there are no “people of color” at these rallies. That is so blatantly false as to induce uncontrollable laughter. There are people of all backgrounds at the Tea Parties. But even if an event is dominated by a certain race group, what does that prove? Similar to what Glenn Reynolds said earlier this month, if you look at a group of white folks and the first thought that pops into your head is “racists!” then you have some serious issues.

So I put together this video response to Olbermann’s burning question. Here are his “people of color” he’s been inquiring about:

Oh my goodness, look at all those racists cheering for these black speakers! Look at all the colored people walking freely among Tea Partiers without being beaten up, strung up on a tree, or dragged behind a pick-up truck! The cognitive dissonance! What do we do? 

Please understand, by showing this I don’t expect to change the minds of lefties like the MSNBC crowd. They don’t know I exist. Plus, they are not capable of changing; extremist ideologues usually aren’t. What I do expect to do is to inform and educate you, dear reader, that each and every one of these charges of “racism” is patently false. The Left knows that history is not on their side, and that in the arena of ideas they are losers with a capital L. So, as with every other issue, they resort to what they know best: name-calling.

UPDATE: Someone who goes by the moniker “Davidandbroliath” posted yet another response to Olbermann’s “Where are all the black people?” question. This video is awesome:

Liberal Media Bias: Underwear Bomber and Ft. Hoot Shooter vs. Joe Stack

On December 23 of last year, Time magazine published a story recapping the biggest incidents of domestic terrorism of the year. The piece by Bobby Ghosh began:

Domestic-Terrorism Incidents Hit a Peak in 2009
By Bobby Ghosh / Washington Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009

You may not have noticed, because most of the plots were foiled, but 2009 saw an unprecedented surge in terrorism events on U.S. soil. When analysts tally these events, they refer to anything from a disrupted plot to U.S. citizens traveling abroad to seek terrorism training or a lone gunman running amok in the U.S. And by the calculations of Rand Corp. expert Brian Jenkins, more terrorist threats were uncovered in the U.S. in 2009 than in any year since 2001.

"There appears to be an increase in [terrorist] activity in the U.S.," warns Jenkins, who calculates that there have been 32 terrorism-related events on these shores since 9/11 and that 12 of them occurred in 2009.

Notice a particular word missing from this intro? “Islam” or “Muslim”.

Ghosh then lists nine incidents that happened in 2009. (If the story had been written two days later (i.e., Christmas Day), he would have had ten incidents to list.) The perpetrators’ religion is not mentioned unless they had a non-Muslim name. These such individuals, WaPo informs us casually, happened to be converts to Islam.

Terrorism experts and Muslim-community leaders caution that the spurt in such events doesn’t necessarily add up to a trend. For one thing, the cases are unconnected. “Each case has its own special circumstances,” says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Nor is there likely to be wide-scale extremism in the American Muslim community. Jenkins points out that there’s “no underground network and no deep reservoir of resentment.” Hooper notes that the problem “is not coming from rhetoric within the community. It’s not the case that young men are being radicalized in American mosques.”

Ghosh then goes on to cover for the American Muslim community by explaining how young Muslim men are being radicalized via the internet by radical movements abroad. I will not corroborate or deny those claims; the point is that despite the fact that all nine major attempted or successful terrorist attacks in 2009, the Time article drives home the point that there is no trend for Americans to be concerned with. (To its credit, Time published a cover story on November 23 focusing on Hasan and his Muslim background.)

What about Christmas Day “underwear bomber” Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab? In its initial article, Time does mention “Muslim” a handful of times. However, it is never with respect to Abdulmutallab himself, but within the context of his home country of Nigeria, which is sharply divided between Muslims and Christians.

Let’s now look at how the Washington Post covered both the Ft. Hood shooting and Christmas Day attempted plane-bombing.

On November 6, 2009, the day after the Ft. Hood shooting by Muslim Nidal Hasan, the Washington Post’s news report did not mention the word Muslim until paragraph 16. The only other time Muslim or Islam(ic) is mentioned in the article is further down, in the context of a public statement from CAIR. Yet, even despite this single mention that Hasan was Muslim, the story stressed that it was yet unknown what Hasan’s motives were. They, like the rest of the mainstream media, obstinately stuck to that view for days.

Less than two months later, the WaPo outdid itself. In its initial news article about the Christmas Day attempted “underwear bombing” by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the word Muslim, Islam, or even al Qaeda did not appear once.

We all know the rest of the story. When the mainstream media finally admitted to the radical Islamic background and motivations of these perpetrators, we were always cautioned like little schoolchildren not to get carried away and jump to conclusions. The media was concerned of a backlash against Muslims from the “far right.”

Well now look who’s getting carried away, jumping to conclusions, and creating the backlash against conservatives: Mainstream media outlets like Washington Post and Time Magazine.

Just hours after an I.R.S. building is struck by a private plane, its deranged suicidal pilot Joe Stack is associated—without a single shred of proof—with the right wing, specifically the Tea Party movement.

Time doesn’t mention “Tea Party” in its article, but interjects it oh-so-subtly as a news advertisement in between paragraphs [h/t Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters]:

 

 Coincidence? You be the judge.

Next, at the WaPo’s “Post Partisan” opinion blog [also h/t NS @ NB], Jonathan Capehart writes:

There’s no information yet on whether he was involved in any anti-government groups or whether he was a lone wolf. But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we’re hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.

Get it? A radical Muslim terrorist shouts Allahu Akbar from the mountains before shooting or blowing up the place, and the lib media goes: “Shhh, we mustn’t jump to conclusions now.” But a deranged lunatic tired of running the big government-big business rat race slams his plane into a government building, immediately it’s: “He’s like the whole Tea Party movement!”

What causes libs to make this connection between Joe Stack and any conservative movement? That he was pissed at the government? That he was tired of being taxed and regulated to death. Right now you have a record number of independents who feel that way. They went to the voting booth in deep blue New Jersey in November and deep blue Massachusetts in January.

If you read this lunatic’s six-page suicide note, as did NewsBusters reader metaphorsbwithu, you will see that, in addition to big government and taxes, he was railing against:

• the Catholic Church, 
• Wall Street, 
• banks, 
• sleazy executives, 
• Big health, 
• Big pharm, 
• Big insurance, 
• cronyism, and 
• profits.

Also from this kook’s manifesto [h/t Free Republic reader krogers58]:

The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government.

*     *     *     *     *

Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

How in G0d’s name can any same person consider this guy a right-winger? He actually sounds a lot like ... Chris Matthews.

And speaking of which: As I complete this post, a guest on Chris Matthews’ “Hardball” on MSNBC just associated Stack with “the radical right.” [h/t Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters]

By the way, on both the WaPo blog and “Hardball” the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was dredged up. And we all know who the libs blamed for that.

You folks in the lib mainstream media are pathetic, you know that?

P.S. Just so there’s no confusion, I am not excusing the cowardly murderous act perpetrated by Joe Stack this afternoon. He should burn in hell like the rest of ’em.

Pic of the Day (2/18/10): Latest Billboard

Last week it was a billboard of George W. Bush waving with the caption "Miss me yet?" Today this one mysteriously appeared, this time in Cedar Rapids, Iowa [h/t Gateway Pundit]:

 

 Congratulations, President Obama. You did create jobs: Billboard sign makers.

Quote of the Day (2/18/10)

[T]he Tea Party movement is hardly a movement of old people. They’re now an important part of our political landscape precisely because they cross-cut age, race, and sex. She wouldn’t know that, because she lives in an LA-bubble of liberals who pat her on the head and tell her what a good little girl she is for undermining her dad’s supposed principles.

But then again, McCain isn’t really about intelligent commentary—she’s about attention. She’s the Paris Hilton of politics, a non-entity who exploits her family to raise her profile. The media demonstrates its own massive bias by giving her any legitimacy at all.

—Ben Shapiro on Meghan McCain, followeing her appearance on “The View,” where she smeared the Tea Party movement as a bunch of racist old people.

  

 
 

Christie Ruffling Feathers in Dem-Dominated NJ, Part 2

[Part 1 here]

I love my new governor. Love him.

New Jersey’s Chris Christie has been in office for only one month and he’s already kicking ass and taking names.

Our state, which has the highest property taxes in the nation and among the highest auto insurance, has a $2.2 billion budget deficit. And Christie is intent on fixing that right away. Late last week he proposed a spending freeze, effective immediately, on $1.6 of yet unspent funds currently in the budget.

One report read:

In an executive order and speech to both houses of the Legislature, Christie said he would close a $2.2 billion budget hole, saying New Jersey is on “the edge of bankruptcy.” He revoked funds from local school districts, hospitals and NJ Transit and declared a “state of fiscal emergency,” forcing more than 500 school districts to spend their surpluses in place of state aid.

The governor slashed programs labeled wasteful and worthwhile, cut aid to colleges and universities and killed the Department of the Public Advocate. He urged pension and benefit cuts for all public employees, and mocked their unions by comparing their objections to his 9-year-old son’s cry of “unfair.” He called opponents of his plans defenders of “the old ways.”

“Now is the time when we all must resist the traditional, selfish call to protect your own turf at the cost of our state,” the Republican governor said. “We chose to confront the problem head on by reforming our spending habits, and laying the groundwork for reform. We have set out in a new direction, a direction dictated by the votes of the people of New Jersey, and I do not intend to turn back.”

Good for him!

Naturally, Garden State Democrats and their union-heavy supporters are pissed and are going to try to block this decision. Some are kvetching that teachers will have to be laid off and that property taxes will have to rise. Others worry that after-school programs will have to be dropped.

With regard to teacher lay-offs, here’s my suggestion: Fire some of the excess administrators or state bureaucrat instead. New Jersey’s educational system is notoriously too top-heavy. Get rid of the busybodies who take up space for six figures a year, and then millions in pension once they retire. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’ll bet you can pay two teachers with the salary of one administrator, three teachers with the salary of a state bureaucrat.

Property taxes rising? Not if the citizenry doesn’t vote for it. Despite my own “nay” votes on election days, my own town has gotten enough votes to increase local education funding. So yes, I understand this is a risk. But it’s a risk I’m willing to take. Besides, Christie’s message was clear: School districts are going to have to do more with less. I’ve had experience in public and private school classroom, and I can teach a class of kids with $0 dollars. All I need is my salary. In 2008, New Jersey paid a ridiculous amount of $12,750 per student. If spending truly equaled success, then every NJ public school student should be f**king Einsteins! But they’re not, are they? No, far from it. So, enough with the “We don’t have enough funding!” complaint. It’s B.S.

Shannon Bell at Right Pundits feels similarly:

… Within the New Jersey spending freeze, Christie even had the audacity to cut money to school districts which enjoy surpluses. One whiney democrat said that the districts would be forced to raise property taxes to make up for the shortfall in state aid. I suppose the terms “budget crisis” and “financial emergency” don’t resonate if you have a D beside your name, no matter where you’re from.

Another cut came at the expense of New Jersey transit; Governor Christie cut subsidies saying that the system needs to be fiscally efficient. Democrats played the environment card on that one saying that Christie’s decision would hurt the environment and the economy because people needed the transit system to get to work.

Anybody else see a pattern here? The Democrats complete argument is that every system, whether it be public transit, schools, or healthcare is completely dependent on government to operate. Governor Christie is living up to a campaign promise to fix New Jersey’s budget problem. Most with common sense would agree, the first step in fixing a budget shortfall is to stop spending. No matter what the argument against doing so is.

Christie said that he doesn’t think schools will cut jobs or programs right now, but he also promised that the spending cuts would likely continue in next year’s budget. One thing that really rubbed the democrats the wrong way was the way in which Chris Christie initiated the spending freeze in New Jersey. He did it by executive order; not wasting time with a bunch of democrats who wouldn’t have went along with a spending freeze regardless.

When Chris Christie beat Jon Corzine in January’s election, he ran on a platform promising “fiscal reform.” I’d say that a complete and total spending freeze New Jersey style is the first step in the right direction to accomplish just that. If only other conservative Governor’s and lawmakers would take such measures. When will the Democratic Party understand that spending money isn’t the answer to every problem and more often than not causes more?

Exactly.

With regard to after-school programs being cancelled? Since I’m a parent, I believe I have a perfect right to say this: Let parents pay for their own f**king after-school care! I pay out of my pocket for child care until 6:30 at night. Why should my tax dollars pay for theirs as well!? That’s part why our state is in such a hole. Too many people have this sense of entitlement! If you can’t afford after-school care for your child, don’t have them. It’s called “personal responsibility.” Used to be an American value, I think.

Too mean-spirited? To vitriolic? Tough sh*t. It’s the pure unadulterated truth.

So you go get ‘em, Governor Christie. Keep rustling the feathers of the status quo Democrat-union complex. New Jersey conservatives were a bit worried we were voting for a “McCain Republican” with you. So far, you have pleasantly surprised this one.

An ObamaCare Opponent Offers Her Own Plan

President Hope&Change said he welcomed opponents’ ideas? Well, now he’s got one. Here is a well thought-out piece about health care reform, written by a physician.

Oh, don’t bother to accuse this author of racism for being anti-ObamaCare, dear liberals/Democrats; she’s black herself.

February 18, 2010 | Big Government
Changing the Healthcare Paradigm: A Physician And Patient Centered Approach
by Dr. Elaina George

… We are at a crossroads.

As a practicing physician, I am really concerned about the state of our healthcare system if the Congressional reform bill gets passed. Even if it is an amalgam of both the House and Senate bill, there are so many negatives that the basic tenets that are good, like coverage for pre-existing conditions and not being dropped from an insurance plan, will not make any significant difference in our healthcare overall.

Some have said that the reform effort is a stepping stone to a single payer system and I agree that is possible. What physician would want to enter a system where their freedom to practice medicine is controlled by government task forces, and where the final medical decision is made by a government administrator who will be all about cost savings, and NOT what is best for the individual patient?

The healthcare system in Massachusetts is a look into the future. They have a high number of medical residents that leave the state when they graduate, practicing physicians are also leaving, because of the physician shortage people have to wait to be seen by a doctor, and healthcare costs have gone up significantly since they instituted universal coverage. The physicians who do remain in practice MUST accept all health insurance since getting and renewing their license is contingent upon them doing so. I believe that a government law mandating that all physicians must take health insurance in order to obtain and maintain their license to practice medicine would be the only way to capture enough physicians to help implement this system.

I have a problem with this as someone who was trained that medicine is an art as well as a science. I also have a problem as a professional with being told 1) who I can see; 2) what tools I can use to diagnose; 3) what therapeutic treatment options I can use, and 4) how much my time and expertise are worth. Wouldn’t anyone?

It’s time to change the paradigm. In my opinion neither the government nor the health insurance industry is the answer to the problems of healthcare costs. They are actually part of the problem. The government’s intrusion into healthcare via Medicare has set the reimbursements without regard to real world costs. Because they are so low and continue to get lower, it leads to cost shifting from those who cannot pay to those who can. This is compounded by the for profit private insurance industry that has injected a new layer of costs that are designed to make sure that they get paid no matter what. They have devised ever more novel ways to increase revenue by 1) increasing the premiums to patients; 2) increasing patient out of pocket expenses via deductibles and co-insurance; 3) decreasing reimbursement rates to physicians; and 4) adding other methods to reduce payments like multiple procedure discounts(e.g., if a procedure has two sides you get paid 50% or less for the second side), and global surgical days (i.e., a physician will see a patient postoperatively for up to 90 days with no charge and may not charge for supplies ,or anything related to the surgery).

Enough, we are on a path that is unsustainable. Yes, cost is one aspect, but so is the medical workforce. The system will NOT run without enough qualified doctors, nurses and other health professionals.

These are some of the things I would do:

1. Get rid of insurance companies anti-trust exemption to promote real competition

2. Tort reform that includes a mandatory payment of legal fees for the losing litigant. This could even the playing field for lawyers who take cases based oncontingency and decrease the number of frivolous law suits which estimates place as high as 40%.

3. Change the way health insurance companies pay benefits. Since health insurance is unlike any other type of insurance, mandate that a percentage of the yearly premium be used to provide patient care after this amount is met; the patient pays the percentage as set forth by the insurance company. For example, if a yearly premium is 23,000 then 30% needs to be available to be used for whatever medical treatment or therapy the patient needs (as determined by the patient NOT the insurance company). After the $6900 is met then the patient is responsible for the 30%-40% or whatever is mandated by the insurance company.

• This would encourage the patient to seek medical care before a medical condition became more advanced. It would also encourage patients to shop for the most cost effective treatment. In short, market forces would be engaged in a positive way without limiting patient access.
  
• The patient would also be encouraged to purchase insurance because they would be getting real value. As it stands now, if a patient never sees a physician they merely pay money to the insurance company without any hope of getting it back. In addition, the increased deductibles and co-insurance have increased the out of pocket expenses and that has also limited patient access.
  
• Institute a rollover of the unused portion allowed for medical expenses. This would also benefit the patient because if they didn’t use it, the additional money would potentially add value to the insurance plan. It would encourage people to maintain coverage no matter their age or underlying health.
  

4. Encourage incentives for adopting a healthy lifestyle in the form of premium reductions or possible tax credits

5. Allow patient to write off their medical expenses 

from the first dollar instead of almost 7,000.

6. Allow physicians to write off bad debt. 

They would be encouraged to see more indigent people for free, and would also not need to go after and potentially ruin the credit of those patients who owe money. Currently, if a patient or insurance company does not pay, the physician is forced to write it off. …

I basically agree with Dr. George’s suggestions, especially points #1 and #2. I also agree with the viewpoint that we are at a crossroads. Despite the Democrats’ kvetching about being 

“paralyzed by partisanship” and 

claiming their government-run health care plans would be passed were it not for the 

“

Party of No,” it is Democrats within their own party who have done the obstructing. Until the death of Ted Kennedy, they had the seats to put the bill through. 

But enough Congressional Democrats knew the truth: The American people by and large do not want this unconstitutional and ultra-authoritarian health “care” bill. The American people have drawn the line in the sand, and in a week we will find out whether President Hope&Change and his hopey-changey Congress are going to step over that line.

Liberal Media Bias: Reuters on the Resignation of U.N. Climate Chief

Well well well. This intriguing story was at the top of Drudge this morning:

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer to step down in July
Reuters Thursday, February 18, 2010; 6:44 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - The U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer has resigned to join a consultancy group as an adviser, the U.N. climate secretariat said on Thursday, two months after a disappointing Copenhagen summit.

De Boer will step down on July 1 to join KPMG, the U.N. framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) said in a statement. He has led the agency since 2006.

“It was a difficult decision to make, but I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new challenge, working on climate and sustainability with the private sector and academia,” de Boer said in the statement.

“Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms, but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen,” he added.

(Reporting by Michael Szabo and Gerard Wynn, Editing by Alison Williams)

At first glance, this appears to be a straight objective news story (with the possible exception of the use of the word “disappointing”). 

Here’s the problem: there’s a lot left out. First and foremost, there’s no mention at all of the scandals that have plagued the U.N. IPCC over the past several months. Do the writers of this piece actually expect readers to believe that this influenced de Boer’s decision to jump off his sinking ship while he had the chance? Surely that would be water-cooler material.

The piece also doesn’t say much about de Boer himself. As I coincidentally posted the other day, on November 12, 2007 he said: 

Failing to recognize the urgency of [catastrophic man-made global warming] and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible.

Now that the “science” of AGW is melting faster than a Himalayan glacier, I wonder if de Boer is worried about being held criminally irresponsible for something … But the writers of this Reuters piece sure don’t. 

You think if this were the right-leaning leader of a right-leaning organization, such juicy—but essential—details would be left out of a news story? Me neither.

This is what you call media bias by omission.

Quote of the Day (2/17/10)

A CBS/New York Times poll last week found that only six percent of Americans believe the Democrats’ “stimulus” spending spree has created jobs.

To put that six percent figure into perspective, according to a CBS poll conducted on the 25th anniversary of Elvis Presley’s death in 2002, more Americans - seven percent - believe that Elvis Presley is still alive.

Yet the Democrat spin continues.

- Connie Hair, HumanEvents.com

Related reading:
Why Defend the Failed Stimulus? (IBD Editorials)
Obama’s Stimulus One Year Out: Employment Falls, Deficits Grow (NewsMax)
The Redistribution of Your Income: Stimulus Anniversary (The Patriot Post)

Things I Think (Part 1)

    [Here’s the latest “Weekly Roar” from guest blogger Loud Lion]

I think you should never get into or go near Vice President Biden’s motorcade.

I think that if people want to be taken seriously, they need to admit they fudged the data, and try to reform instead of saying “Yeah, we lied, but we did it because you wouldn’t believe us if we didn’t.” That does not work with my nine year-old, and it surely does not work with “world renowned” scientist.

I think the Olympics are cool, just to see the jingoistic nature of it. (Just curious: Does the rest of the world love us more now that we are winning gold medals, or do they hate us just as much as four years ago?)

I think that Mark Levin should become a larger voice of the Conservative Movement, more so then Glen Beck, or Bill “I really love Obama” Reilly.

I think it is an abomination that Madonna is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Rush isn’t.

I think I will never think of buying a GM or Chrysler car (even though the Camero really does look cool).

I think that my elected representatives should remember that they are there by the graces of the electorate.

I think I want to see my President less on TV and more dealing with the real issues that confront our country.

I think that the world as we know it is on the verge of a massive confrontation, which sadly may mean the end of the world as we know it.

I think any religion that glorifies death cannot be defeated.

I think that leaders need to lead more, and worry about how they look doing it less.

I think people hate Sarah Palin because she represents all that is great in this country, and when people look at her they see their own failures.

I think that Al Gore owes people a big apology.

I think I like this better than trying to come up with a new slant on old topics.

I think that government agencies, that have no electoral weight, need to be curtailed, and would make the framers pissed as H. E. double-hockey-sticks.

I think the Courts need to be reminded what their powers really are.

I think it is O.K. to be proud of your country, and want to see it succeed.

I think that Peyton Manning is still one of the greatest quarterbacks.

I think the thought of baseball makes me both excited and queasy (I am a Mets fan).

I think that when President Obama is lumped in with Jimmy Carter, it will be labeled racism.

I think that both Bushes need a little more respect and admiration.

I think some people on TV think they are way smarter than they appear.

I think if MSNBC disappeared from my selection of channels, I would not notice at all.

I think people are smarter than politicians and pundits give them credit for.

I think dogs are more fun than cats, but cats are just cool like that.

I think Lady Gaga is certifiable.

I think that as I get older, my musical tastes expand to things I would never would have given a second or first listen to as a teen.

I think that I am addicted to Rock Band on the iPHONE, and cannot get up the courage to sing.

I think that you want me to stop.

I think you will need to let me know if I should do this again.

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin on the Melting of AGW Scare (2/15/10)

Here is a taste of the head-spinning week of the collapsing man-made global warming scam:

Feb. 12, 2010 (Updated: Feb. 16, 2010) | O.C. Register
What to say to a global warming alarmist
Mark Landsbaum

ClimateGate … FOIGate … ChinaGate … HimalayaGate … PachauriGate … PachauriGate II … SternGate … SternGate II … AmazonGate … PeerReviewGate … RussiaGate … Russia-Gate II … U.S.Gate … IceGate … ResearchGate … ReefGate … AfricaGate … DutchGate … AlaskaGate …

14th February 2010 | Daily Mail (U.K.)
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

• Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
• There has been no global warming since 1995
• Warming periods have happened before—but NOT due to man-made changes …

15th February 2010 | The Register (U.K.)
Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned
By Andrew Orlowski

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported. …

February 14, 2010 | (London) Times Online
World may not be warming, say scientists
Jonathan Leake

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. …

As you might have noticed, with the single exception of the Orange County (Calif.) Register, all the reporting comes from non-U.S. news sources. What’s the matter, NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc.? The truth too depressing to report about?

Listen to the next 20 minutes as “The Great One” Mark Levin reads the above articles and provides his trademark biting commentary. These clips are from yesterday's show (Feb. 15), Hour 1:

[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]

Download Pt1

Download Pt2