People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, November 30, 2009

To Think ...

... they still consider themselves to be holier than thou.  And still above reproach:
Objective Journalism: Michael Gerson Defends a Profession That No Longer Exists
By John Nolte

Once again, from that familiar MSM perch where one can look down their nose at the great unwashed who just don’t understand the magnificent tradition of journalism they’re about to lose, Gerson blames We the People for no longer wanting to pay for our news and choosing partisan sources “that reinforce and exaggerate … political predispositions.”

How absurd.

A non-partisan, unbiased news media simply doesn’t exist anymore. All that remains of this once somewhat respectable profession are two kinds of media: those who lie about their agenda and those who don’t – and Mr. Gerson’s employer is one of the liars. Whether it’s Glenn Beck, Arianna Huffington, National Review or MSNBC, tell me your biases upfront and we can at least start a dialogue from an honest foundation. On the other hand, the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, Time, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and the like, have spent years making jerks out of us – lying to our faces. We knew this, there just wasn’t any alternative. But now that there is, their time is just about up.

Gerson doesn’t seem to want to face this truth – I don’t mean the truth that Big Media’s dying, that’s undeniable — but the truth that the death of this profession was a suicide. [link]
The "Gerson" to whom Nolte refers is Michael Gerson of the Washington Post. His whine can be found here.

The Seeds Of Their Own Destruction

Why leftists and the press will fight mightily to ignore the news - the facts - about Climategate,

The Anchoress:
In a nutshell, Climategate is a destroyer of world-views. As someone who has always maintained that the AGW [anthropogenic global warming] hype was a matter of politicians and grifters seizing an opportunity to use unsettled science as a means of getting filthy rich while imposing harsh measures against human freedom, I am very familiar with the world-view of the alarmists.

That’s basically it. The AGW/Climate Change question became a rigorous boondoggle that got out of control not because the scientist who first suggested a connection between human carbon emission and a change in climate were bad people, or that the question was not worth asking, but because bad people then took the uncertain hypothesis, put it on media-fueled steroids, demonized anyone who disagreed with them, made it political -so much so that even the scientists got caught up in the good/bad, smart/stupid, Gore/Bush, Left/Right identifiers- and found real power there; they allowed the AGW movement to become the dubious centering pole upholding the giant circus tent of their worldviews.

As such, it is not permitted to be shaken. Shake the centering pole, and everything could come tumbling down: Oh. My. Gawd! If the Gore-doubters were right about this, what else might they be right about? And if they’re all stupid, and I’m smart, but they’re right and I’m wrong . . .

Implosion. [link]
I remember being called neanderthal for doubting the global warming business.  They were smart, I was stupid, they were right, I was wrong ...

A Shot Across The Bow

Words have meaning.  And with the words "Commander in Chief" come a great deal of weighty responsibilities.  Obama's now finding that out.

But is he up to the task?
Will He Prove Them Wrong?
By Jennifer Rubin, Commentary magazine

The Washington Post’s editors are nervous about the president’s upcoming speech on Afghanistan ...

Here Obama has made his own job worse. By empowering the likes of Joe Biden and his domestic policy advisers to second-guess the recommendation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and to warn openly of the domestic consequences of embracing the only viable plan for victory, the president has signaled that he’s looking over his shoulder. The sole target of his concern has not been the enemy and the horrendous potential consequences of a halfhearted effort. Instead he’s been fixated on his left-wing base. He’s obsessed over an exit strategy, forgetting that his predecessor won a war without one and that George W. Bush’s wartime troubles stemmed not from failing to  promise an end date but from letting a losing strategy persist too long. Obama’s also muddied the waters on the identity of the enemy and whether we can achieve “victory,” a word never uttered but essential to leading a war effort.

Now, as the editors note, “Both Americans and Afghans wonder whether the president believes in the war and has the will to win it.” [link]
His enemies know full well that he has no interest in winning this war.  Even his friends will acknowledge that it's little more than a tedious campaign pledge that requires his occasional attention and propels his actions.  In either case, lives are going to be lost in Afghanistan for the worst of reasons.  We're there and we'll continue to be there.  Oh, well.

Our brave men and women who volunteered to go into harm's way deserved better.

It's Amazing ...

... how earth-shaking something seemingly as innocuous as a HARRY_READ_ME.txt file can be.

Earth-shaking in that the liberal movement to push the planet into one-world governance is in the process of crumbling to rubble.

I wonder if the man or woman who released that file to the world will be handed Al Gore's Nobel Prize some day.

Stop Them Before They Act

World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen next month to hammer out a plan to stop CO2 emissions from further warming the globe.  But it has become obvious to anyone who isn't eager to tax and regulate humans like never before that the reason for their meeting has been proven to be a complete fraud.  Yet they'll meet anyway.  And tax / regulate if they can get away with it.

What's wrong with this picture:
Global warming consensus: garbage in, garbage out
By Michael Barone, Washington Examiner

The Copenhagen climate summit was convened to get the leaders of nations to commit to sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions -- and thus sharp reductions in almost all energy usage, at huge economic cost -- in order to prevent disasters that supposedly were predicted with absolute certainty by a scientific consensus.

But that consensus was based in large part on CRU data that was, to take the charitable explanation, "complete rubbish" or, to take the more dire view, the product of deliberate fraud.

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is ... blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded date for independent examination."

For those of us who have long suspected that constructing scientific models of climate and weather is an enormously complex undertaking quite possibly beyond the capacity of current computer technology, the CRU e-mails are not so surprising.

Do we really suppose that anyone can construct a database of weather observations for the entire planet and its atmosphere adequate to make confident predictions of weather and climate 60 years from now? Predictions in which we have enough confidence to impose enormous costs on the American and world economies? [link]
Al Gore will tell you yes.  But Al Gore has demonstrated over the years that he's not very bright and is prone to delusion.

So we're going to alter our way of life for this?

I don't think so.

Tragedy In Lakewood, WA

Michelle Malkin has some valuable background information on that asshole who murdered four police officers out in Lakewood, Washington.  As is often the case, it's a matter of an extremely violent animal being given leniency over and over and over again by a disinterested government.  And now four of America's finest are dead.

My God.