Main Stream Media Should Be More Honest About Global Warming

In past posts about global warming, or climate change as some now call it, I have freely admitted that I am still not sure who to believe about the issue.  I have written repeatedly about the well-qualified scientists who have spoken out on all sides of the issue.  My primary complaint, however, is that the main stream media seems so wedded to promoting the idea that global warming is a certainty that they have not reported most of the contrary information being written by scientists with great credentials.

Just a few days ago, I wrote about a British article that indicates a group of so-called “heavyweight” US solar physicists say the Sun may be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity.  Because of this observation, these scientists are predicting that the earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age.  I have yet to see this reported by CBS, NBC or ABC.  I don’t have time to watch every news broadcast, but when I Google this information, I see no connection to a report from a mainstream media outlet in the United States

Now comes word that one of the leading scientific advocates of global warming, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, is being sued for profiting privately for his advocacy while still working for NASA, which is a violation of Federal policy.  Have you heard about the suit?  Well, if you look on the Internet long enough, you actually may find a story or two.

As you may recall, Al Gore, the godfather of global warming, has often said that any scientists who disagree with him have been compromised by money from carbon-based fuel companies, like oil companies and coal companies.  If you use the same standard Gore uses, hasn’t Dr. Hansen been compromised by the money he has received from environmental groups.

I don’t believe that this revelation automatically discredits Dr. Hansen’s research and conclusions, but it does put his advocacy into question.  What I want to know is where is the news coverage of this disclosure?

If we truly had journalists and communicators instead of media lapdogs and a never-ending parade of advocacy spin doctors, we could examine all the theories and educated guesses that are being made about global warming without setting up the advocates for condemnation if they happen to guess wrong.  Yes, there is a lot of research and other type of funding involved on both sides of the issues, but that does not automatically make the advocates deceptive and evil people.

Since I can’t read minds and hearts, I would like to suggest that we have many well-educated, highly experienced scientific experts who disagree, and only time will tell if they are guessing right or wrong.  Are some of them being co-opted by large sums of money?  Maybe, some are. Unfortunately, we do not, in my estimation, have the type of journalists in the media who will be open to examining all the new data and documentation as well as all the scientists releasing such information and treating it all equally instead of worrying about which advocacy position is being supported or debunked. 

Now Liberal Media Elitist Accuses John McCain of Fueling Racism

Early in the Obama Administration, Eric Holder, the Attorney General, said that the American people are cowards about having an open and honest discussion about race.  This is one of the few times I would agree with Mr. Holder, but I suspect we might still disagree on the reasons why.

In my opinion, Lee Hockstader, a member of the Washington Post’s editorial board, has provided a great example of why we can’t have an honest discussion about race or bigotry of any kind.  In a recent column he wrote, he accused Arizona Senator John McCain of fueling racial bigotry simply because McCain said what most people in Arizona know may be true.  McCain said that some the wild fires that are raging throughout the state may have been set by illegal immigrants.

McCain did not say that these illegal immigrants came to the state specifically or intentionally to set fires that would evolve into raging infernos responsible for extensive damage to forests and some homes.  He pointed out what many law enforcement officials have known for years, and that is some illegal immigrants set fires to stay warm at night or to use as a diversionary tactic to avoid law enforcement agencies.  Just ask some of the sheriffs of the border counties.

That doesn’t matter to Hockstader who used the statement of one U.S. Forest Service official who said the blaze was probably caused by an “escaped campfire,” and he went on to say that there was no reason to think illegal immigrants were behind it. Since no one has been arrested or even questioned for starting one of the several wild fires raging in the state, my questions is how does anyone know who’s behind it?  When I say anyone, I mean McCain, Hockstader, or the government official.

While sitting in his ivory tower in Washington, D.C, Hockstader has determined that no illegal immigrant is responsible for any of the fires in Arizona, and John McCain made the statement for political gain.  As I said, no one has been arrested for intentionally or accidentally starting any of the fires, and so the jury is still out on Hockstader’s first claim.  As for McCain saying what he said for political gain, let’s see now:  he is not running for President, and he was just re-elected to another six-year term in the Senate, which at his age is likely to be his last.  Logic would indicate that McCain no longer has a political motivation to say anything.

Hockstader’s accusation is particularly irrational considering McCain’s long record of support for comprehensive immigration reform.  McCain has paid a considerable price in conservative circles for advocating a policy that many on the right consider to be nothing more than another dressed-up amnesty plan.

Eric Holder desire for an honest discussion about the issue of race is not going to take place as long his friends in the liberal news media and the entertainment field use every opportunity to tag everyone they don’t agree with as racists or bigots. Unfortunately, it seems that it will always be in the best interest of these agenda-driven ideologues to keep doing so.

Anthony Trial Shows Legal System at Its Worst

I have written a post in the past about my frustrations with the legal system, and the Casey Anthony trial in Florida is proving to be one of the best example of why many people don’t trust lawyers or our legal system.

I covered trials as a reporter and was once a juror, having been voted to be the foreman of the jury by my fellow jurors.  It has been my observation that instead of being forums for determining the truth, trials often become nothing more than debate tournaments between opposing legal counsels.   

Sometimes, as has happened in the murder case of Casey Anthony, the attorneys, especially the defense attorney in this situation, puts on a spectacle that appears designed to get to anything but the truth.  Jose Baez, the defense attorney for Anthony has posed a premise that Casey did not kill her daughter, but panicked after her daughter drowned in the family pool and then engaged in a cover up.  As Baez said in his opening statement, “Casey may be guilty of not calling 911, but she is not guilty of murder.”

To refresh your memory, in July of 2008, Casey Anthony reported to police that her daughter had been missing a month.  Casey said she had nothing to do with the disappearance of her daughter, and when the body of two-year-old Caylee was eventually found in December 2008, Casey said she had nothing to do with her child’s death.

Now I understand that it is the duty of a defense attorney to help get a not-guilty verdict for the client.  That’s a fundamental right provided by the Constitution.  However, it is also my understanding that a defense attorney cannot concoct a totally false premise to gain an acquittal.  If an attorney does that, they are subject to legal and professional sanctions.

I’m not in the court room, and I haven’t read every news account on the Anthony trial, but it appears to me so far that Baez has created a totally false premise in an attempt to get Casey acquitted.  The autopsy of Caylee Anthony’s body shows no indication of a drowning.  What is more damning is that police have testified during the trial that they offered Casey a plea deal in which she could plead guilty to concealing an accidental death and was turned down.

After some of the jury decisions that have occurred during my lifetime, I wouldn’t dare predict the outcome of this trial.  However, if it turns out that Anthony’s defense turns out to be a total fraud, I hope the court does whatever it can to throw the book at defense attorney Jose Baez.

Now a Report Says We are Heading for a Mini Ice Age

Now comes word from a news report that a group of so-called “heavyweight” US solar physicists say the Sun may be entering a lengthy spell of low activity.  Because of this observation, these scientists are predicting that the earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age.

According to the report, three different analyses of the Sun’s activities indicate that the Sun is heading into a period of extremely low solar activity.  Scientists from the US National Solar Observatory and the US Air Force Research Laboratory suspect that the slowdown in sunspot activity may be a harbinger of a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots.  Some scientists believe that this period of solar inactivity could also correspond with a “Little Ice Age” when rivers that normally are ice-free tend to freeze over and snow fields can remain year-round in the areas closer to the north and south poles.

Where did I read this story?  Well, it wasn’t in The New York Time, but it did appear in a British newspaper called The Register.  Imagine that?  I had to read about the findings of prestigious US scientists in a British newspaper.  Why?  Is this just another indication that the liberal main stream media in the United States is so wedded to the concept of global warming and climate change that they would ignore these findings?

As for me, I just look at this report as just another bit of information from a never ending litany of reports on future climate trends that predict all kind of outcomes.  It may have some validity, or it may involve a little exaggeration in order to get attention for the scientist's research.  I am not knowledgeable enough about weather and climate to know if these findings are a true barometer of things to come.

Over the course of my lifetime, I have heard all kind of predictions from very well-educated scientists.  Researchers with very impressive credentials are convinced we are heading for a global meltdown, while other researchers with equally impressive academic and professional portfolios are just as convinced that global warming is a scam.

No matter where you stand on the issue of global warming, or climate change as it is now called, there are certain facts you should consider.  The earth is believed to be approximately 4.5 billion years old.  The earliest records of temperature measured by thermometers are from Western Europe beginning in the late 17^th and early 18^th centuries. Given the earth is billions of years old, and we only have what we would consider accurate records to be less than 200 years old, how can even the most zealous advocate claim a definite trend?

So now we have a new report that says we are heading for a much colder period.  I have no idea if the research of the solar observers is legitimate.  However, if their predictions turn out to be accurate, then I am glad I live in the desert of Arizona instead of Chicago where I experienced enough brutally cold winters to last a lifetime.

Why Anthony Weiner Had to Resign While Bill Clinton Didn't

Since New York Congressman Anthony Weiner resigned yesterday, many conservatives I know are wondering why he had to resign when Bill Clinton engaged in far more egregious action during his Presidency and got away with it.

I believe the totally different media environment that exists now contributed greatly to the different results.  Back in 1998 when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke during the Clinton Administration, Fox News was still in its infancy and was not the media force it is today.  The Drudge Report had just started and didn’t have the credibility it has today.  In fact, it was Drudge breaking the Lewinsky story that gave the now famous Internet site its first big dose of credibility.  In addition, there were no big independent Internet news sites, like the one operated by Andrew Brietbart, to examine and report on the stories the liberal main stream media wants to avoid.

For those of you who have forgotten, in 1998 several reporters, including the very liberal reporter Michael Isikoff, had much of the information on the Lewinsky scandal before Drudge did, but they hid the information until it broke on Drudge.  Then, they had no choice but to report what they had already known for weeks.

None of this is surprising for those of us who have followed the news media for decades.  Many reporters from Ben Bradlee on have known about the philandering of politicians who they favor, but they kept quiet about it because they didn’t want to hurt their political careers.  Remember that the National Enquirer had all the information about John Edwards’s scandal long before the main stream media wanted to even admit Edwards had a problem.

Now the news media dynamic has changed considerably, but the Weiner scandal still indicates how far many in the main stream media will try to minimize any scandal that involves a liberal Democrat.  When Andrew Brietbart first broke the Weiner story, many in the main stream media, especially at MSNBC, did their best to discredit Breitbart.  It was only when the avalanche of evidence about Weiner was revealed that the main stream media had to acknowledge the New York Congressman’s culpability.

My guess is if back in 1998, Fox News and the Drudge Report were the media giants there are now, Bill Clinton would have had a far more difficult time staying in office.  Add an Andrew Brietbart to the mix digging for the information the Clinton-loving main stream media would be trying to avoid, and I figure Clinton might not have served out his final term.  Yes, there is a good case to be made that what Clinton did was far worse than what Weiner has done, but thanks to Fox News and Internet news sites, we now have a far more balanced news media.

Still No Media Outrage About Obama's Incursion in Libya

It’s time for another edition of “What if George Bush did what Barack Obama is doing now?”

I know the liberal main stream media was in the tank for Obama’s election in 2008, and it appears that they are gearing up to do everything they can do to see that he is re-elected in 2012.  However, even the most ardent Obama supporter should be at least a little upset about his continuing military operation against Libya without any congressional support.

There is now a bi-partisan group in Congress suing the President over his commitment of the United States military to action in Libya without their support, and their action is getting some coverage to some extent. One of the problems is that nobody really knows what Obama is doing.  Is this a war?  Is it a police action?  Is it just a limited military excursion as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney once described it?  Who know?  It would be nice if Obama followed the Constitution he swore to defend and actually explain to Congress what he is doing in Libya and get their support for his action.

The War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973, requires the President to gain congressional approval within 60 days of commencing any military action.  Just to refresh your memory, the military action in Libya with U.S. Troops participating, began March 18.  We are well past the 60-day limit.  A President can get an extra 30-day extension, but only if the President can prove to Congress in writing that military action is crucial to the safety of the United States.  Well….I haven’t seen any Libyan jets flying over Phoenix.  Has anyone seen Libyan jets flying over any other part of the country?

I understand why the main stream media is downplaying Obama’s end run around the Constitution, but where are those anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan?  When her son was killed during the Iraq War, Sheehan went on a national crusade to discredit then President George W. Bush for staging what she claimed was an illegal war.  Sheehan would often camp outside Bush’s home in Texas or demonstrate in front of the White House.

Where are you, Cindy?  Why aren’t you and the women at Code Pink holding demonstrations against Obama’s clearly illegal military action in Libya?  You know where the White House is.  I can also tell you that Obama’s Chicago home is in the Hyde Park-Kenwood neighborhood, near the University of Chicago, just off South Lake Shore Drive.  You can’t miss it.  There is a big police presence in front of his home.

As I have said in previous posts, Presidents of both parties have ignored the Constitution since World War II when deciding to send our military into action.  Despite that, the Supreme Court has done nothing to stop this abuse of executive power.  Why do we have a Constitution if nobody is going to honor it?

I do have one proposal for a new national military policy that I believe would get overwhelming public support.  Do not commit our troops to any action without a Constitutional declaration of war from Congress.  Once you have the full faith and support of the American Congress, do not saddle our military with rules of engagement that would appease The New York Times editorial board.  I think the American public would go for that.

Liberal Media Attack on Palin Appears to Have Backfired

As I wrote yesterday, several news organizations from what is known as our wonderful main stream media has been pouring over thousands of e-mails from Sarah Palin when she was governor of Alaska.  Unfortunately for these news organizations, their fishing expedition to find something embarrassing to tag Palin appears to have backfired.

One of the best stories about this foolish endeavor has been written by Toby Harden, the U.S. editor for The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper.  His story indicates that the e-mails tend to characterize Palin as an “idealistic, conscientious, humorous and humane woman slightly bemused by the world or politics.”  Harden believes that the effort to embarrass Palin has failed and that her reputation will actually be enhanced if the main stream media is fair about releasing the information found in the documents.  He noted that the communications from her family demonstrate how loving and close the Palin family truly appears to be.

Nevertheless, the lack of embarrassing information in the e-mails did not keep one main stream media pundit from taking a shot at Palin.  Michael Gerson of the Washington Post admits that the e-mails paint a very positive picture of Palin.  He acknowledged that the documents paint her as a person who was kind to her staff, responsive to her constituents and protective of her state.  Yet Gerson insists on proclaiming that Palin has now morphed into a sad ideological caricature.

Excuse me, Mr. Gerson, but here is my interpretation of your scenario.  The e-mails and other documents that the liberal media uncovered reveal the reality of who Sarah Palin is.  It shows a very pragmatic governor who has a strong political philosophy that she did not let get in the way of doing the right thing for Alaska.  The documents also show she has a few flaws, just like the rest of us mere mortals.

The caricature you talk about, Mr. Gerson, is one created by you and the rest of your friends in the main stream media.  Now you are disappointed that the reality of who she really is contradicts just about every negative thing you so-called journalists claimed was true about her.  Don’t worry, Mr. Gerson, now that the facts about Palin don’t conform to the template you’ve created about her, you can do what you and most of the political pundits in mainstream media do best….make something up.