JayStream

My weather colleague and friend Francis Wilson, of Sky News in London, defines English summer as “three fine days and a thunderstorm.” In my experience this description is accurate, including a recent layover at Heathrow airport. One fine August day – overcast and 63 degrees.

  

I do enjoy flying British Airways. Their seats are leather, and have a width appropriate for the average adult body. BA also serves proper airline snacks – cookies with coffee, or proper sized bag of nuts, even on a short flight. That is much better than the mini-bags of pretzels we are subjected to in the US.

 

But even better than that was the midday fare on the KLM City Hopper from Geneva to Amsterdam.

We had a cheese sandwich, a chicken salad sandwich, and a choice of beverage (wine or beer included). Keep in mind, Americans, it was only a one hour and fifteen minute flight – and I was in coach. There were only two flight attendants on board, and they had no trouble serving lunch and getting everything picked up before we landed.

Compare that to my one hour flight from Minneapolis to Sioux Falls on Northwest/Delta. When we took off, the two flight attendants announced that – due to the short duration of the flight – we would not have any beverage service in the “main cabin.”

 

Cheapskates.

Jay News, Travel

So how do things work at a big international conference? Mainly lots and lots of writing, re-writing, and finalizing of written statements that can be agreed upon by all. Based upon the World Climate Conference-3 in Geneva, this is my impression of how it happens.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Jay News, Science, Weather climate change, Geneva, video podcast, WCC-3

From the World Climate Service-3 conference in Geneva, a big international meeting setting the stage for what will be a major climate change treaty to be ratified in Copenhagen in December. Judging by what we have seen here, one would suspect the nations of the world will have to make some serious compromises in the negotiations ahead.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

admin News, Weather

The climate change debate came to a rocky perch in western South Dakota the other day. Eleven activists representing Greenpeace slipped into a restricted area, climbed over the top of Mount Rushmore, and unfurled a huge banner containing President Obama’s picture, challenging him with the statement, “America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming.”

While the activists generated publicity, they evoked no sympathy. Park visitors jeered the eleven as they were taken away in handcuffs. One tourist yelled, “Put them in jail.” Another called it degrading, saying “They’re just idiots for doing stuff like this and ruining something that means something to other people.”

In retrospect, one wonders why Greenpeace would overplay a winning hand. President Obama is on the same side of the climate change issue, so why embarrass him by demanding even stronger, more aggressive political action? The president’s sweeping cap and trade climate change bill passed the House, but will be fiercely fought in the Senate. So why pull off a stunt that antagonized onlookers (and voters) for no apparent reason?

Accounts of the incident were carried in newspapers nationally and internationally. The environmental website therenewableplanet.com headlined, “Mount Rushmore ‘Defaced’ by Greenpeace.” The website of the Chronicle newspaper in San Francisco (where four of the arrested activists are from) seemed to excuse the act, which it said “included an apt, and symbolically powerful, message.”

San Francisco aside – even those who favor climate change legislation have to be shaking their heads at Greenpeace. Hijacking a national monument does nothing to change minds or attract converts to the green side of the climate change debate.

Jay News climate change, Greenpeace

Three years ago, while attending a conference in eastern Europe, I was invited to an evening social gathering hosted by the local British ambassador. At one point, the ambassador asked if I thought it was possible to get the Kyoto treaty ratified in America.

Kyoto was an international agreement under which industrialized countries (as a whole) were to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gasses to 5.2 percent below what they were in 1990. It was legislation aimed at curbing manmade climate change identified by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Most of Europe and the rest of the world approved.

I replied to the Ambassador that I did not think it was possible to get the Kyoto treaty ratified in America. I did not see how my country would agree to self-cripple  industries and transportation systems. Besides, as recently as 1997, the US Senate passed a resolution stating opposition to the Kyoto treaty – and passed it by a 95-0 vote.

Since then, climate change has become a hot issue, with substantial funds spent to burn the fires of discourse. But, cue the fire extinguisher – there is no point in debating any further.

The US House passed President Obama’s Cap and Trade Act. No one in Congress is sure about everything in it (it is 1500 pages long), but they do know it will strictly limit greenhouse gas emissions in America. The same principles opposed unanimously in the Senate twelve years ago have now been approved 219-212 in the House.

President Obama and his administration have been masterful in reversing a tide of opposition into a groundswell of support in the halls of Congress.

Jay News, Weather

Journalists tend to rate the state of journalism based upon the number of media jobs that have been slashed during the current cycle. Let us rate the state of journalism on a different measure, whether journalists are meeting Webster’s definition of “gathering, writing, editing, and publishing or disseminating news.”

President Obama held a news conference on Tuesday. Breaking from tradition, Obama followed the AP opener by choosing his questioner from the “new media”, picking Nico Pitney from the left-wing website Huffington Post over prominent old-media representatives. The Washington Times hailed the selection of a blogger as “recognizing the power of new technology.”

But for what an old-fashioned journalist used to call “the rest of the story,” we need to read a “break from the pack” account from reporter Dana Milbank of the Washington Post:

White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. “I know that there may actually be questions from people inIran who are communicating through the Internet,” Obama went on. “Do you have a question?” Pitney recognized his prompt. “That’s right,” he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.” Pitney asked his arranged question.

Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

One would suspect that the lord correspondents from the networks would have been more than amazed. Surely this bit of information, that there had been a planted question at a White House news conference, would have been included in the network news reports. “Full disclosure,” as they say.

But who was going to call the all-powerful president on this bit of media manipulation? A journalist from ABC, the network that wins the lap dog award for extensive programming promoting the president’s health care agenda? A journalist from NBC, whose network recently did a flattering “day at the White House” documentary? Maybe a journalist from CBS, which might be irked that the network only received a morning show interview with the president?

None of the network journalists spoke up – even though this was a situation that demonstrates to the world that the free press in America is no longer what it used to be. It was left to the blogosphere for further dissemination of the Post’s report on White House chicanery. It seems that journalists in 2009 are “gathering, writing, editing, and publishing or disseminating” whatever the White House wants them to.

Jay News, Television industry blogger, blogosphere, journalist, network, white house

Tucked away in the “Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights” approved by Congress is a clause aimed at protecting those who act irresponsibly at the expense of those who follow the rules. Actually, most of the bill does that. But here I am talking about the bill’s crackdown on credit extended to teenagers and young adults.

 

Consumers under the age of 21 will be required to have a co-signor, or be able to prove they have independent means of paying their bills. It also limits prescreened offers of credit to young consumers, and places limits on credit card marketing to students.

 

The bill is clearly intended to strike back at evil credit card companies and banks, which apparently can’t make a profit despite their predatory practices. By restricting the ability to do business with those under 21, credit companies will find it even harder to return to the black.

 

But the bill is also an insult to college students, the nation’s best and brightest, who are now being told by Congress that they aren’t smart enough to be trusted with a Visa card. Those who are old enough to drive, live on their own, or serve in the military aren’t considered mature enough to say, “charge it.” Responsible young people will be penalized because of the actions of others who used credit irresponsibly.

 

We all know stories about college students running up bills by over-charging on newly acquired plastic. I suspect those so pre-disposed would have demonstrated poor spending habits later in life anyway.

 

For me, the acquisition of credit was a valuable lesson I was fortunate to receive. Like many boys, I had a paper route, necessitating a checking account at the age of ten. When I was fourteen, I applied for and received a Dayton/Target credit card. The account had a fifty dollar limit, which I often maxed out. But it taught me how to spend wisely and pay my bills on time, with the dreaded interest rate experience included for good measure.

 

A couple of years later, I received a Sears credit card. This one had a whopping two hundred dollar limit, which I handled with care. During college I worked at Sears briefly and found I was the only employee in the catalog department who actually had a Sears card. I was told Sears was very selective about who received credit, and even the assistant manager had been deemed unworthy by the Sears credit people.

 

That was a long time ago, and I no longer have a Dayton’s or Sears credit card. But I am still proud to have a credit history dating back to my teenage years. I wish more of today’s youth could have that experience. But Congress has just deemed them untrustworthy.

Jay News Congress, credit card

President Obama’s background in community activism has apparently set the standard for his administration’s behavior. Two months ago, cabinet level officials participated in a conference that promoted civil disobedience. It was yet another significant story that the media chose or neglected to cover in any great detail. American media, that is.

The BBC has a continuing series called “The Ethical Man,” featuring quirky reporter Justin Rowlatt. He is roaming around the United States, collecting views about climate change from the perspective of the common man. This week, BBC Newsnight aired an installment in the series in which Rowlatt attended the Power Shift ‘09 conference in Washington February 27-March 2. Rowlatt elicited a level of candor about climate initiatives unlike anything revealed on newscasts in the US.

Power Shift is an organization which defines itself in a stated “demand“:

We want politicians to stand up to the dirty energy lobby and pass the energy and climate policies we truly need. We expect the politicians we elected in November to listen to what science is telling us and act immediately to reduce emissions, create jobs and re-engage globally to tackle the climate and economic crises.

The Power Shift ‘09 conference received only passing coverage in the national media, except for the attention garnered with a post-conference protest at a power plant. But Rowlatt put more effort into it, and came away with an amazingly candid view of radical environmentalism now promoted to the mainstream thanks to the election of Barack Obama.

Rowlatt’s story can be viewed by following this link. The whole story runs more than 14 minutes, but you can fast forward to the 6:25 mark to start with the conference.

The administration’s level of support of the conference and its attendees (described by Rowlatt as “what many people would consider a rabble of green radicals and student activists”) played out. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar told the group, “You are the engines of change… I am here for Barack Obama, because he is the agent of change.” EPA administrator Lisa Jackson also spoke, after being introduced to the throng as “one of us.”

Powerful government officials showed up at that conference, lending the credibility and support of the administration, presumably helping to recruit environmental activists. Down the hall from the speeches a class on civil disobedience was taught, teaching protesters how to chant and link arms and resist arrest.

Rowlatt pointed out that if Congress fails to pass climate change legislation, the administration is planning an end run using the regulatory powers of the EPA to impose a carbon cap on the nation. Rowlatt confronted administrator Jackson on the subject, and she told him that the EPA had begun to “wake up its regulatory machine” and was there to “backstop the President.” After the conference, on April 17, the EPA declared carbon dioxide and five other gasses “pollutants that threaten public health and welfare” – subjecting them to government control.

The protest tactics taught to those who attended the conference were later employed in an attempt to shut down a nearby coal-fired power plant. Never mind that the plant operates legally under laws passed by our Congress. But neither the power plant nor the US Congress matters any more, because the federal government is now run by environmentalists who support mob mentality, and have the power to circumvent existing laws to impose their own agenda. No one can stop them.

Jay News, Weather