Well … that Will is on this list does not surprise me. It’s the other two, publicly admitting the government can’t create jobs, nor can it turn the economy on again, now, that’s man bites dog stuff. Read more
Well … I think he’s right. Afterall, most of these speeches ultimatelty are “pep rallies”. But not just for the party in power, although that most assuredly is the biggest draw. But also for the American people. Still aren’t we past this? Read more
Why does it seem that whenever these Democrats accuse the Republicans of being dishonest and underhanded, it always seems to best describe themselves. Take Obama calling the Republicans snake oil salesmen for pushing a plan of tax cuts and spending cuts to revive the economy. It’s just another take on his “same old, same old campaign”. But Will always has a great way of seeing through the fog … with facts. Read more
George Will asked to comment on the BP $20 billion dollar contingency fund comes back with a classic answer. If you are not worried you should be. His biggest concern is the White House usurping the courts in terms of claims against BP and of course that it’s not exactly voluntary. The Chicago Way.
On This Week liberal stateist economist Robert Reich contends the reason we need health care (or is it health insurance?) reform is because the American people just don’t understand health insurance. That’s enough to set the normally calm George Will off. Read more
This is just a great piece of video. This Week’s round table discussing the lack of job creation despite the “stimulus”, something that even Ariana Huffington gets. But former “Clintonista” and big time lefty John Podesta clings desperately to the “It’s Bush’s fault” excuse. Read more
Rarely does an ombudsman column rate blogging. This one, by Andrew Alexander of the Washington Post, does.
The short form:
“Will’s Feb. 15 column, headlined “Dark Green Doomsayers,” ridiculed “eco-pessimists” and cited a string of “predicted planetary calamities” that Will said have never come to pass.
A key paragraph, aimed at those who believe in man-made global warming, asserted: “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”
The column triggered e-mails to The Post from hundreds of angry environmental activists and a few scientists, many asserting that the center had said exactly the opposite.”
Now, reasonable people can disagree on controversial topics and spinning facts is nothing new, particularly where global warming is concerned. However…
“The ruckus grew when I e-mailed readers who had inquired about the editing process for Will’s column. My comments accurately conveyed what I had been told by editorial page editor Fred Hiatt — that multiple editors had checked Will’s sources, including the reference to the Arctic Climate Research Center. Although I didn’t render a judgment, my response was understandably seen as an institutional defense and prompted an orchestrated e-mail campaign in which thousands demanded that The Post correct Will’s “falsehoods.” Like they say when the pro football rookie gets clobbered: “Welcome to the NFL.””
The kicker? These “outraged demands” were frequently identical in language and form, suggesting a lemming-like campaign, rather than honest outrage over an alleged mis-statement of fact. The debate was marked more with smug sniping than rational discourse, a hallmark of pretty much any debate over global cooling… global warming… climate change.
In the end, if one reads the source Will claimed, it was something of a push. While there has been some localized loss of ice in the Northern Hemisphere, the sea-ice levels on a global basis approximate the level of sea ice in 1979. A sharp practice, perhaps, but within the bounds of accuracy for a debate. Too bad the eco-extremists demand conformity to doctrine and eschew debate.
About thirty five years ago, the “climate Cassandras” preached the coming ice age. When that failed to materialize, the shifted global warming… which, looking out my window, may not necessarily come to fruition. Nowadays, however, they call it “climate change” and, when they acknowledge doubts, claim that the risk is sufficiently high that we should act as if it were a certainty, relying upon fear over fact to make their arguments.
Now *where* have we seen *that* before?