The New Haven Firefighters

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on July 2, 2009 by jamesqwon

The liberal media, led by the New York Times, have been crying foul at the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling {Ricci v. DeStefano} in favor of the white New Haven firefighters whose careers have been unfairly harmed by the officially sanctioned policies of reverse discrimination practiced by their department and many others like it throughout the country. The Times went so far as to call the decision “a blow to diversity in the American workplace,” although if anything it was a blow for equality in the American workplace–i.e., all individuals deserve fair and equal treatment under the law.

In a lame attempt to defend the faulty reasoning and radical agenda of Judge Sonia Sotomayor (who wrote the lower court decision that the Supremes overturned), the Times tried to spin her desire to treat white people like second-class citizens as a form of conservative jurisprudence: “On another point, the ruling underscored the emptiness of the ‘judicial activist’ label that Republicans like to use in debates over nominees to the federal courts, including Judge Sotomayor. In the firefighters’ case, she actually refused to second-guess the city’s decision — an act of judicial restraint. It was the court’s conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted to overturn the decision of an elected government.”

However, as columnist Ann Coulter pointed out in rebutting a similar defense of Sotomayor’s reasoning:


Concerned that Sotomayor’s famed “empathy” might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming — as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC — that she was merely applying “precedent” to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.

This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.

To be sure, there is “precedent” for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.

Corrupt Self-dealing at the NYTimes

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on June 28, 2009 by jamesqwon

From Fascinated Curiously:

Bioimage Lynn G DolnickSeveral blogs we follow have been howling about sleazy behavior at the oh-so-high-brow New York Times Book Review. Lynn Dolnick, a member of the ruling Sulzberger family and a director of the Times corporate board, appears to be receiving more than her share of deference from the supposedly independent editors of the book review. They’ve gone into overdrive promoting a mediocre biography of an art forger by Lynn’s husband Edward Dolnick, even though everyone from The Chicago Tribune to the New Yorker says that another new book on the same subject–totally unmentioned by the Times’ book reviewers–is far better. Gawker, which is the real newspaper of record as far as we’re concerned, seems to have broken the story first, but it’s also gotten play in the NY Post, Galleycat, Litopia, etc. The story has even made it into 2nd Life, where a totally hot virtual-reality avatar named Lillie Yifu has read both books and weighed in against the Times nepo-tome. Personally, we’re always willing to take a book recommendation from a slinky cartoon girl with a truly banging bod.

Cap and trade vote today, complete with AP spin

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on June 28, 2009 by jamesqwon

From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

In pre-Norman England, King Canute once had his bearers carry him to the sea, where he ordered the ocean to recede. Often this story is told to indict Canute for having delusions of grandeur, but historians usually agree that Canute intended to teach a lesson to his court, whose profuse flattery had annoyed the king to distraction. Why does Canute come to mind today? For some reason, I thought of it when I read the AP’s lead to their coverage of the cap-and-trade bill coming to the House floor for a vote:

A handful of undecided Democrats hold the key to whether the House will confront global warming and begin a shift away from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy.

Well, that’s not biased coverage at all, is it? “Whether the House will confront global warming” implies that all debate has ceased on the subject, while in truth it has intensified. Kim Strassel notes the increasing skepticism in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Of course, the AP reports on this as part of its coverage, too. This comes in paragarph … er … oh, wait, it doesn’t appear at all. The AP does report on opposition to the bill on its fiscal insanity, but waters that down considerably:

Everyone agrees that under this “cap-and-trade” system the cost of energy is expected to increase as electricity producers and industrial plants pay for increased efficiency, move toward greater use of renewable energy, pay for ways to capture carbon emissions or purchase pollution allowances.

They disagree, however, on how much of the added cost would be passed onto consumers. Democrats argue that much of the cost increase could be offset by other provisions in the bill.

All of the increase will get passed to consumers. Democrats hope to buffer that through targeted subsidies, but the AP neglects to mention that mechanism — because that money also comes from consumers. Business costs always get passed to the purchaser in the form of higher prices, and anyone who argues that they don’t either have no understanding of business and pricing or has a desire to sell snake oil to the gullible.

Cap-and-trade is a tax, one imposed through an artificial scarcity model onto an industry that drives the economy. The AP reports the CBO and EPA cost estimates without mentioning that those predictions only cover the actual mechanical costs of cap-and-trade. They do not predict the economic impact on American families from the loss of economic power as energy becomes more scarce and expensive. This bill will lose the US 2.5% of its GDP each and every year in the years after the first decade of implementation.

King Canute knew better than to believe his advisers when they told him that he was powerful enough to affect ocean levels. Unfortunately, this administration and the Democratic Party don’t have the sense Canute did.

Call your Representative today to tell them not to strangle the American economy. Michelle has the numbers and names to call.

Update: Before today, the bill ran a little over 1,000 pages. Early this morning,Waxman dropped a 300-page amendment into it. Be sure to ask your Representatives if they plan to read either of these before voting on the bill. (viaMary Katharine Ham)

Update II: Greenpeace has come out in opposition to Waxman-Markey, too. However, conservatives should temper their enthusiasm:

“Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbysists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form. We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it. Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest, and shows the significant limitations of what this Congress believes is possible.

“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak. “

In other words, Greenpeace is angry that it doesn’t get more confiscatory and economically suicidal. It makes Waxman-Markey look moderate, which is a bigger problem than a boon for conservatives.