JayStream

Professional journalists consider themselves professionals, although they are not licensed and can’t be charged with malpractice. Too bad, because malpractice was on display during President Obama’s 100th day press conference.

The president has just succeeded in enacting the largest budget and budget deficit in American history, one which will require us to print additional money for decades to come. Yet there was not one question about it, nor his outrageous stimulus package, during the press conference. The gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 6.1% in first quarter figures released several hours before the press conference, but none of the professional journalists asked the president about it.

President Obama again claimed in his scripted remarks – and was unchallenged in his assertion – that he has “saved or created” 150 thousand jobs. I guess he believes that every American who has not been laid off has had their job preserved by himself.

Clearly the president is dedicated to preserving the jobs of every union auto worker. He has dumped billions of taxpayers’ dollars into the failing auto companies, and addressed a question about Chrysler thusly: “Let me speak to Chrysler first because the clock is ticking on Chrysler coming up with a plan.” Really? Does anyone believe he went into the press conference not knowing his administration was going to force Chrysler into bankrupty the following morning?

With the president available to convince us he is not out to destroy the economic fabric of this country through overspending, a reporter for the New York Times came forth with another hard-hitting question: “During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving this in office… ”

I doubt that President Bush ever considered a prime time press conference “some enchanged evening.” But, feeling the love in the room, President Obama just might.

UPDATE, 4/30/09: How do other journalists view their performance at the press conference? Consider this line from a columnist at the Washington Post:

The questions put to Barack Obama at his news conference last night covered nearly every topic but the Craigslist Killer, and if that had come up, Obama probably would have answered it in stride.

Jay News, Television industry economy, journalism

The pictures and video were staggering. Rioters and troublemakers the media politely called “protesters” made a mess of central London, breaking windows, attacking policeman, and shutting down traffic because London was hosting a meeting of the world’s top economic nations. One guy caught in the mob was pushed down by a policeman, had a heart attack and died – so his family will probably sue the police. Ironic, since police trying to help the man did so despite being attacked by protesters.

The public no idea how staged these things are. In this country, special interest groups with respectable names collect dues from unsuspecting members, and then quietly funnel money to pay the protesters. The mainstream media simply does not report on the real sources of these rent-a-mobs’ power, portraying them as heroically concerned citizens.

Several years ago I was at an international conference in Geneva, Switzerland. I needed a cash machine, and was told the nearest one was down the street at the World Trade Organization building. I went there, but met a couple hundred quiet protesters standing outside the gate. I went up to a guard, told him I just needed to use the cash machine inside, and after carefully scrutinizing my passport and other documents he let me in. A moment later, the crowd started screaming and chanting – because cars containing television cameras had just pulled up. The photographers shot videotape of the seething throng as I passed through a metal detector and went inside to get my money.

Fifteen minutes later I came out of the building and it was dead silent. There was no one left except for the two guards at the gate. As I departed I asked where everyone went. They told me that the guys with TV cameras shot their video and took off – so the protesters left, too. Mission accomplished for the mob – they made the evening newscast. The comical thing is that news viewers probably though the protesters dedicated their entire day fighting for change, when in fact even the protesters found better things to do once no one was paying attention anymore. Wouldn’t it be great if the newscasts would stop paying attention to them altogether?

Jay News, Television industry Geneva, London, protest

Whenever a chunk of Antarctic ice breaks off, the national newscasts cover it. Whenever the ice in the Arctic thins out (especially if there is video of a forlorn polar bear), the national newscasts cover it. But when a fundamental part of the climate system that affects our weather and climate on a daily basis changes: crickets.

On April 1, NASA announced that – contrary to predictions – 2008′s “deep solar minimum” has continued into 2009. 344 of the past 456 days have been sunspot-free, which sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center calls it the “quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century.” Sunspots are created by magnetism on the sun’s surface, and seem to peak and decrease in cycles lasting approximately eleven years. While invisible to the naked eye, they are considered an indicator of solar activity. At the same time as announcing the continuation of the solar minimum, NASA also pointed out that during 2008 the earth received a 12 year low in solar irradiance; the sun’s brightness dropped by two one-hundredths of one percent at visible wavelengths since a previous solar minimum in 1996.

2008 also marked a 50 year low in solar wind pressure and a 55 year low in solar radio emissions.

What does the lack of sunspots and solar acvitiy mean to our weather and climate? It depends on who you talk to, and on which side of the climate change debate they stand. For the record, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has dismissed solar activity as a significant contributor to global temperature change. But IPCC opponents can show convincing graphs matching sunspots numbers and global temperature cycles. A conclusive causal link evades both sides.

Regardless, it would seem NASA’s announcement of unusually diminished sun should at least make network news on the internet. But since such information does not fit with the news divisions’ “runaway climate change” drumbeat, they haven’t posted the story on the websites at CBS, NBC, or ABC. And you certainly won’t see it on the evening television newscasts – unless they can work in a polar bear.

Jay News, Television industry, Weather ABC, arctic ice, CBS, climate change, IPCC, NBC, solar activity, sunspot

It was only a matter of time. The former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin, today had his home vandalized. Someone broke out the windows of his home and his Mercedes. An e-mail claim of responsibility has been made by a group calling itself “Bank bosses are criminals.” The group also made a threat: “This is just the beginning.”

Goodwin left his job at RBS last October with a pension of 700,000 pounds (about one million dollars). When the UK government bailed out RBS, they asked Goodwin to give back the pension he earned after eight years creating one of the world’s largest companies, he refused. His wife has been yelled at, and his children have been bullied.

Last week in America, the news media somewhat gleefully reported on a bus tour of wealthy AIG executives’ homes. About twenty mostly-jobless people – followed a horde of national and international media – went to the homes of two AIG execs demanding “their” money back. The media gathered sound bites from the protesters, identifying each person by their name, and the name of the company they used to work for.

CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN all reported the story. They were clearly duplicitous in trying to embarrass the homeowners – even though, ironically, the people whose homes were targeted had already agreed to give the money back. There was no concern over the deliberate attempt to smear private citizens who have only received money they were legally and contractually entitled to.

One of the first rules learned in journalism is to “follow the money”, but the news reports in the “mainstream media” clearly did not do so in this case. Reporters either did not ask, or did not care to report, who paid for the protest, stating only that the tour was organized by the Connecticut Working Families Party.

What is the “Connecticut Working Families Party”? It is an activist group jointly founded by ACORN, according to a newspaper editorial posted on the CWFP’s own website. Fox News commentator Glenn Beck investigated further, revealing that the tour bus and the protestors were actually paid for by ACORN.

The same ACORN that President Obama worked for. The same ACORN that has been involved in civil disobedience against home foreclosures. The same ACORN that gets money in the Obama stimulus plan. The same ACORN that will be involved in the government’s 2010 census count, which will realign congressional seats, voting districts, and funding distribution. ACORN is the activist organization that the national news media sanctions – by not reporting on its mob-mentality of activism.

About Sir Fred Goodwin: He is said to be considering a move so South Africa. No surprise – when news of his home vandalism was carried by the left-wing Huffington Post, the first reader comment was, “They shoulda been more clever like leave some mercury on the floor and put some toxic mold in the walls. Breaking glass is so yesterday.”

Jay News, Television industry acorn, aig, banker, Fred Goodwin, mob mentality, RBS

Great Britain has an official government position of Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, a post which is currently held by John Beddington. Professor Beddington is a distinguished biologist, and his job description is to be “responsible to the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the quality of scientific advice within Government.”

Yesterday at the Sustainable Development UK Conference in London, Professor Beddington delivered a Nostradamus-quality forecast of doom.

He predicts that by 2030, the world will face a “perfect storm” of shortages of food, energy, and water – leading to a crisis of unprecedented proportions. Beddington suggested it would lead to war, unrest, and mass migration. Beddington’s speech received front page coverage in Britain’s national newspapers, and probably conjured up visions of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Besides being struck by yet another rhetorical use of the phrase “perfect storm” (I thought we were already in an economic “perfect storm”?), I was reminded about other well-respected scientists who boldly and confidently predicted catastrophe. There was former presidential science advisor Paul Ehrlich, who wrote a book in 1968 called “The Population Bomb.” It predicted hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation in the 1970s and 1980s as population outgrew food supplies.

A worldwide environmental disaster was predicted by famed astronomer Carl Sagan. He suggested in 1991 that if Kuwaiti oil wells were torched, the resulting fires would pollute the atmosphere and plunge the planet into wintry cold. He erroneously discounted the ability of man to extinguish the fires, and the atmosphere to cleanse itself.

The current US administration has promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” Britain’s Beddington suggests European governments involve independent scientists in policymaking. As something of a scientist myself, I thought I knew what science is and what scientists do. I’m not sure I know anymore.

admin News Carl Sagan, John Beddington, Nostradamus, Science

With few in government or media prepared or able to stand in the way, it looks like full speed ahead for President Obama’s proposed cap and trade program. In fact, the program is likely to be locked into place when the United States agrees to an international climate change treaty later this year. Cap and trade is designed to lower industrial emissions by making it expensive for American industries to release carbon dioxide into the air. Industries will be required to pay a carbon tax to the government, the cost of which would certainly be passed along to consumers.

Contained in the President’s proposed 2009 budget is a forecast that industries will pay the government $79 billion in 2012 alone for permission to emit carbon dioxide into the air. How will that affect our pocketbooks?

According to Point Carbon, a European consultancy which analyzes carbon trading schemes, the initial cost for energy industries will be about 14 dollars per metric ton of carbon emitted. That would result in an increase of 12 cents per gallon of gasoline, and a 7 percent price hike in the cost of electricity.

For consumers, the sacrifice does not end there. Businesses will have to pay those additional energy costs, which will lead to trickle down price hikes on everything that is bought and sold. Again, the consumer will pay the penalty.

Remember – this is only the initial cost. The president’s projection is that by 2019, the carbon tax on industries will reach $646 billion, and the cost to consumers will rise accordingly.

Never mind the 2009 economic stimulus package and how much federal debt is being accumulated on the backs of future generations. Even before we have figured out how to get out of the current economic crisis, the seeds are quietly being sown for a green attack on the American economy three years from now.
If the American people wish to increase their cost of living to benefit a global initiative, so be it. But shouldn’t cap and trade receive a thorough debate and up or down vote in Congress before the executive branch quietly makes it the law of the land?

UPDATE, 3/18/09 – At least eight Senate Democrats have joined with two dozen Republicans opposing the president’s plan to sneak cap and trade into the annual budget bill, according to an Associated Press report.

Jay News cap and trade, carbon dioxide, climate change

The current economy seems bad, horribly bad to most folks. It’s so bad that the media has run out of words to describe it, since it already accepted and repeated Barack Obama’s claim we were in the “worst economic crisis since the Depression” last year – just as it accepted and repeated the claim of candidate Bill Clinton that his opponent had the “worst economic record in 50 years” sixteen years ago. To reporters it may feel like the worst economy they have ever known – if they weren’t alive or don’t care to recall 1971. Unemployment was at 6% and inflation was at 4%. Both would be somewhat manageable numbers today, but in 1971 they were enough to create a crisis mentality, and the public demanded drastic action by the federal government.

I was barely a teenager, but I clearly remember. Prices and wages were spiralling out of control, with the value of a dollar shrinking in freefall. Price tags seemed to change in the stores every day, and everyone was concerned about the runaway cost of living. On the night of August 15, 1971, President Nixon addressed the nation in a (back then) rare, live television appearance. Barack Obama and FDR notwithstanding, he made what – to me – is the single most sweeping economic statement ever made in a presidential speech:

I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States for a period of 90 days.

I did not see the speech live, because I was at a grocery store shopping with my father. But I saw the effects of Nixon’s order as an economic lesson played out before my eyes. The grocery store manager, who had been continually raising prices due to runaway costs, suddenly feared that Nixon’s order might drive him out of business. He called in all of his employees to work that night, and they frantically grabbed grease pencils and label machines and set about the task of marking up the price of every item in the store. Since this was before the age of computers, the cost of our groceries was literally going up while we were shopping. There was panic, there was fear, and it became the night our economy nearly collapsed.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Ultimately, the wage and price freeze did not work. There were shortages of some items in stores because they simply could not be produced and sold at a price that was fixed for three months. A deep recession ensued, and inflation reached 10% when Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon as president. One term later, during Jimmy Carter’s term, inflation peaked at 13.5% and unemployment hit 7%. (I use the presidents’ names here only for historical reference, because everyone but journalists know that presidents receive too much credit and too much blame for economic conditions.)

When government takes bold action in an attempt to fix an economy, it doesn’t really know if the cure will work. Often the action is something of a gamble, a bet that no one in Las Vegas would take. Sometimes, as I saw in my teenage years, government can only make things worse.

Expecting governments to fix economies is ludicrous, because in the free market it is only business and consumer confidence that drives recovery. The public puts its faith in the wrong place during economic downturns when it demands government “just do something.”

Jay News economy, inflation, nixon, price freeze

A few years ago while visiting Europe, I was privileged to attend a public forum on climate change. Several prominent scientists answered questions from informed citizens on the topic of what individuals could do about global warming. One recurring theme was whether people in that country should bother reducing carbon emissions if the United States continued to ignore international climate change efforts. To be honest, I felt a little embarrassed – although over the years I have often seen global warming used as an issue with which to bash America.

Today, London’s The Independent newspaper kicked off a series of news articles previewing the Copenhagen conference to be held in December. The conference is expected to produce a Kyoto-like treaty that will impose limits on emissions of carbon dioxide. Unlike Kyoto, this time America is very likely to sign agreement to the treaty. President Obama’s goal is to lower US carbon emissions by 2020 -  the same level of emissions we had in 1990.

But the article contained two statistics that have received little or no attention. One is that the United States is no longer the world’s top carbon polluter. China currently emits 6.018 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, surpassing America’s 5.903 billion metric tons. It is interesting that if the 2001 Kyoto accord been adopted by the United States, this country would have been working under restrictive regulations for the past several years – while China was expanding its economy at will. The Kyoto treaty mostly exempted China because it was considered a developing nation.

I am certain many critics would respond that China has 1.3 billion people; so it might be justified in emitting more carbon dioxide than the United States, which has only 304 million people. But before we start to feel guilt for our prosperity, we should think about the second key statistic in the article.

When you compare nations based upon the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per person, the United States again comes in second. Australia emits 20.58 metric tons of CO2 per person, followed by the US at 19.78 metric tons per person, and Canada and Saudia Arabia at 18.81 and 15.7 metric tons per capita respectively.

While I truly respect and cherish other countries, I wish they would stop blaming all the world’s carbon pollution on the United States. Despite their “green” rhetoric, when other industrialized nations point fingers at us for global CO2 concentrations – we could point a finger back.

Jay News carbon dioxide, China, climate change, Copenhagen, emissions, Kyoto