Quote

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

Friday, April 02, 2010

All I Want To Know Is ...

... did I contribute to the fund that sent those Radford University students up to the North Slope of Alaska to learn first-hand about the problems presented by melting polar ice?

I don't know what they learned, but it sure as hell wasn't about melting polar ice:
Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ‘normal’ – what will the news say?
By Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts

Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.

NSIDC puts out an article about once a month called the Sea Ice News. It generally highlights any bad news they can find about the disappearance of Arctic ice. Last month’s news led with this sentence.

"In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007."

But March brought good news for the Polar Bears, and bad news for the Catlin Expedition and any others looking for bad news. Instead of ice extent declining through March like it usually does, it continued to increase through the month and is now at the high (so far) for the year.

If it keeps this trend unabated, in a day or two it will likely cross the “normal” line. [link]
 The Arctic ice shelf is ... normal.  Who would have guessed that it would come to this?  Normal?

So what will those in the mainstream press have to say about this development?  Well, we'll never know how they'll respond behind closed doors, but you can bet there'll be no mention of this development on the evening television news or in print reports.  It just doesn't fit the narrative.  Thus, it's not news.

"Hi, I'm Katie Couric, and how 'bout them polar bears that are soon to be extinct?"

Not Since the Great Depression ...

Thank God Obama has been concentrating on job creation since he took office.

Oh.  What?  He hasn't been?  He's been working to provide the underemployed with free health care?

Isn't he getting the cart before the horse?


And those still trying to avoid being part of that statistic have just been handed a trillion dollar health care tax bill.

Whose side is this guy on anyway?

Can We Blame Bush?

Peace.  Harmony.  Reconciliation.  Obama.

That was so long ago, wasn't it?
Partisan Blood Sport
By Jeannie DeAngelis, American Thinker

While running for president, one central campaign promise Barack Obama focused on was the eradication of the type of political vitriol rampant within two-party systems. Candidate Obama vowed to singlehandedly rid the nation of the spirit of discord. When newly elected, the president's victory speech elevated the rhetoric above partisanship and condemned the type of separation responsible for "crippl[ing] Washington and turn[ing] national politics into a blood sport."

Obama appeared intent on bringing the nation together, saying, "In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that have poisoned our politics for so long." Disguised as a herald of unanimity, one year later, the president has emerged as an extreme partisan guilty of the type of combative political activity he originally condemned. Ascending to power, Barack Obama espoused ardent desire for bipartisan cooperation. What America failed to take seriously was a liberal senatorial voting record predisposing Barry to implement the agenda of "fundamental transformation" by way of strident partisan rule.

Maybe the nation's confusion is rooted in Barack Obama failing to adequately clarify his unique definition for bipartisanship as unanimous submission, unswerving obedience, and complete concurrence? [link]
Or maybe the guy was lying through his teeth when he was campaigning and didn't mean anything he was telling us at the time.  Some of us expected his "unanimous submission, unswerving obedience, and complete concurrence" approach.  Just not enough of us.

So now we are where we are.  Maybe the rest of you will pay attention next time.

What CAN'T The Federal Gov't Do?

 Jonathan Turley (in USA Today) makes an interesting argument that ObamaCare may not (should not?) be constitutional:
With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers. If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens. The ultimate question may not be how Congress can prevail, but how much of states' rights would be left if it prevailed. . . .

There is no question that being uninsured contributes to the national crisis in health care. If that 18-year-old has a car accident, it is the public that is likely to bear the costs of his care. However, if the failure to get insurance makes one the object of federal jurisdiction, it is hard to see the why other acts of omission will not be tied to national deficiencies in public health or education or family welfare.
The United States government has moved so far beyond this point that I don't see the constitutional argument prevailing in the courts (except on smaller matters). But it is interesting to note that an uninsured 18-year-old man can be viewed as an interstate commerce problem in this day and age.

How on earth did we get here? And what are the implications?

They Still Exist?

Who knew that CBS News and ABC News are still out there?

Not many, it appears:
Ratings Fall on Newscasts at 2 Networks
By Bill Carter, New York Times

With buyouts and layoffs in progress, the mood at ABC News cannot be good. It was probably not enhanced by the ratings report for the first quarter of the year showing that the network’s evening newscast, “World News,” had sunk to the lowest numbers the program has had in a first quarter since the People Meter was introduced by Nielsen in 1987.

The same situation prevailed at CBS, where the “Evening News” also hit a new low for the months of January through March.

Is this a signal that viewers are abandoning network newscasts in droves?

Not really. The number of viewers still watching the three shows together — more than 24 million in the first quarter — continue to dwarf any news program on cable.

But “World News” has had a falloff since Diane Sawyer took over for Charles Gibson. The show is down about 3 percent — 215,000 — from a year ago. [link]
I can't imagine being forced (except under rule of ObamaCare law) to sit and watch Dull Diane for half an hour.  I'd rather be having my teeth pulled.

And the chick on CBS Evening News is so boring in her delivery that I'd rather watch Days of Our Lives reruns.

So both shows are wasting away.  I wonder why.

We Can Thank ObamaCare

"Most Americans who get their coverage from their workplaces will see no major change ..."


"Insurance rates will begin to come down ..."
-- Roanoke Times editorial --

Those guys at the Times.  They're always right.

Take that guarantee, for example, that "most Americans ... will see no major change" in their coverage.  Tell it to the tens of thousands of Verizon retirees:
Verizon Sees $970 Million Cost From Health-Care Law
By Amy Thomson and Olga Kharif, Bloomberg

April 1 (Bloomberg) -- Verizon Communications Inc., the second-largest U.S. phone company, became the latest company to record a cost related to the U.S. health-care overhaul, saying it will incur a $970 million expense.

The one-time, non-cash cost will be taken in the first quarter, New York-based Verizon said late today in a regulatory filing.

Verizon follows AT&T Inc., the biggest U.S. carrier, Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and other companies in disclosing similar expenses after losing a tax benefit for retiree plans. The costs may reduce corporate profits by as much as $14 billion as companies account for the impact of the health-care reforms, according to benefits consulting firm Towers Watson.

“While it is a non-cash charge, it does reflect real value destruction, based on expected cash flows over the life of the company,” said Jonathan Schildkraut, an analyst at Jefferies & Co. in New York. [link]
It is anticipated that Verizon will respond by reducing its workforce and, possibly, throwing its retirees into the general Medicare pool.  The telecommunications giant may even be forced to raise phone rates to compensate for the huge new tax burden.

What was it again that the Roanoke Times was telling us about ObamaCare?