Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

AUGUST 30,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:06 P.M. ET:

AL GORE WILL EXPLAIN – It turns out that a good part of Britain is suffering its coldest summer in almost two decades.  This, of course, is due to global warming.  And Hurricane Irene?  Global warming.  What we need is a Challenger-style commission, presided over by a retired scientist of impeccable reputation, to finally examine what the "science" of global warming is really telling us.  I suspect political forces will make such a commission impossible.  When Al Gore tells us that global-warming skeptics are the equivalent of racists, it's pretty hard to get a commission together to examine the issue.  The labels are already sewn on.

HOUSE GOP TARGETS UN – House Republicans have introduced legislation that would use America's substantial payments to the UN as a club to force changes in the ethically challenged world body.  Among other changes, the proposals would permit the U.S. to fund only programs that it supports.  It's unlikely the bill, even if passed by the House, would win in the Democratically controlled Senate.  The administration opposes the legislation, arguing that it favors reform at the UN, rather than punishment.  The left always says this, but there is never any reform. 

IRAN CLAIMS IT HELPED LIBYAN REBELS – An Iranian official claims that the Tehran regime has been in touch with rebel groups in Libya, and has sent aid to them.  There have been a number of reports of Iranian backing for some rebels, raising the same questions we face in Egypt:  Who are the revolutionaries?  What do they actually want?  President Obama's allies in the media are already claiming Libya as an Obama success, but other observers aren't so sure.  The New York Times reports major schisms among the rebels, with no clear indication of the kind of Libya that will emerge from the fighting.

SARAH'S TRAVEL PLANS – Sarah Palin will be in Iowa this weekend, and it's being reliably reported that she will immediately thereafter fly to New Hampshire.  There is speculation that she may announce her presidential candidacy in one of those two states.  Some pundits are saying that, if she enters the race, she could hurt Rick Perry, since both draw from the same constituency.  Rudy Giuliani meanwhile announced that he has yet to decide whether to run.  Earth to Rudy:  It's getting tiresome.

August 30, 2011       Permalink 

TRYING TO SELL A LEMON – NO SALE – AT 11:12 A.M. ET:  A new survey shows that support for Obamacare has reached an all-time low.  From the Washington Examiner: 

Americans' opinion of Obamacare has reached an all-time post-passage low according to the Kaiser Health Tracking poll. Only 39% of those surveyed have a favorable view of the law, two points below the previous nadir of 41% first set in May 2010. Forty-four percent of Americans have an unfavorable view.

While there continues to be a sharp partisan divide over the law, the Kaiser poll shows Americans' views converging. Democratic and Independent support for Obamacare has fallen to all-time lows of 60% and 33% respectively. But Republican support for the law is at an all-time 24% high.

A plurality of Americans, 47%, believe the law "won't make much difference" in their own lives while 31% believe it will help and 14% say it will hurt. Asked how the law would help, a respondent told Kaiser, "Coverage will be available to me and my family." A respondent who believed the law would hurt explained that the law is "going to increase taxes a whole lot and make it difficult to find a job and take more paperwork and take decisions out of doctors [hands]."

COMMENT:  There has been remarkably little discussion of Obamacare in the mainstream media since the law was passed.  And I have yet to see a full, graphic, factual, complete presentation of exactly what the law will do.  We get it in bits and pieces, consistent with modern journalism's demand for speed and summary. 

At the same time, Republicans have not come up with a convincing alternative, which is one of the problems they face in presenting themselves to voters – much criticsm of Obama, few specific alternatives.  Michael Barone has complained about this.  So have others on the right.  Paul Ryan's plan for the future of Medicare went nowhere because it placed too much power in the hands of the much-disliked insurance companies.

Health care is one of the most important issues before the electorate.  A convincing alternative is needed to make Obamacare part of history.

August 30, 2011     Permalink 

EXCUSE OUR IGNORANCE – AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  Please remember that we on our side must apologize each day for our ignorance, our anti-science attitudes and our general lack of appreciation for the intellectual establishment that has done so much to enhance our universities and our media. 

Not.

Being "anti-science" has now become the trendy charge launched at conservatives, or, indeed, at anyone who dares to question the accepted scientific truths of the political left.  Rich Lowry is having none of it.  Frankly it's about time our side started snapping back at the trendies who believe they have the intellectual high ground, which they've actually never even visited.  From NRO:

The last time Republicans were roundly condemned as anti-science, it was for their resistance to destroying human embryos for stem cells. Their crude religiosity supposedly blocked imminent leaps ahead in medical progress.

Then-vice-presidential candidate John Edwards went so far as to predict in 2004 that because of “the work we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair, and walk again.”

In other words, as a major figure in the self-styled party of science, Edwards made an outlandish assurance worthy of a faith healer. For the Left, science is as much a branding device and political bludgeon as a serious commitment. Edwards didn’t know the first thing about spinal-injury research and didn’t care — so long as he could sell demagogic flimflammery under the banner of glorious science.

Recall please that it took the National Enquirer to bring down John Edwards, a lowlife who'd made his fortune as an ambulance-chasing lawyer, using the worst of junk science in the courtroom.  But Edwards is a liberal, and so was never questioned on his shady past or bizarre present.

Lowry notes that Texas Governor Rick Perry "is portrayed as the worst threat to science since the Inquisition had a few words with Galileo, or as they say in Texas, 'treated him pretty ugly.'"

In no sense that the ordinary person would understand the term is Rick Perry “anti-science.” He hasn’t criticized the scientific method, or sent the Texas Rangers to chase out from the state anyone in a white lab coat. In fact, the opposite. His website touts his Emerging Technology Fund as an effort to bring “the best scientists and researchers to Texas.” The state has a booming health-care sector composed of people who presumably have a healthy appreciation for the dictates of science.

And...

An Al Gore makes it sound as if there is no scientific alternative to his policy preferences. They are believers wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of science while lacking all the care and dispassionate reasoning we associate with the practice of it.

COMMENT:  I've always believed that the climate-change skeptics are intensely pro science.  They're asking for real scientific proof, not theories and projections dressed up as "science."  They want to know whether the vast investments demanded by the climate-change lobby will actually produce any legitimate results.  For asking these questions they're branded as flat Earthers and even the equivalent of Holocaust deniers or racists.

This has happened before.  In the Dark Ages those who asked too many questions were burned at the stake.  Today the in-crowd ruins their reputations.  And people are indeed afraid.  Fortunately, the brave continue to speak out, on behalf of real science.

August 30, 2011       Permalink

ROMNEY PLOTS HIS STRATEGY – AT 8:59 A.M. ET:  Well, he'd better, because Rick Perry is having him for lunch, according to all the recent polls.  Romney apparently has a strategy to fight back.  From The Washington Post:

Romney has been criticized for refusing to engage Perry, but his campaign advisers see no need to do so now. They point out that the Democratic National Committee is going after Perry, hundreds of reporters hoping to make names for themselves are scouring his life and record, and other candidates that Perry has passed in the polls are determined to take him down. Why should Romney attack Perry directly when the Democrats, the liberal media and Michele Bachmann will do it for him? Romney’s strategists note that Perry will have to survive five debates in six weeks — ample opportunity for Bachmann to “rip his eyes out” (as she did to Tim Pawlenty) or for Perry to blow himself up.

If Perry fails to implode and continues to surge in the polls, Romney eventually will have to go on the attack — an assault his advisers say will commence “at a time of our choosing.” Romney strategists are quick to note that in his book, “Fed Up!,” Perry writes that “By any measure, Social Security is a failure” and calls the program “something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now” that was created “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.”

Look at what happened to Paul Ryan when he proposed a plan to save Medicare, they say. Romney’s campaign will argue that Perry is against the very idea of Social Security and Medicare, and that he will use Perry’s book to scare seniors in early-primary states with large retiree populations, such as Florida and South Carolina.

And...

The Romney campaign also plans to use immigration to drive a wedge between Perry and his conservative base, by highlighting Perry’s opposition to a border fence and legislation he signed in 2001 allowing the children of illegal immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition....Romney strategists believe the immigration issue will be devastating for Perry with Tea Party Republicans across the country — and especially in important primary states like Arizona.

And...

The Romney campaign will argue that Perry repels independents and can’t win in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — while Romney can.

COMMENT:  As a political strategy, that isn't bad at all.  If I were running against Perry, that's pretty much what I'd do.  The problem, of course, is one of time.  Perry, who excites elements of the GOP base, may be so far ahead of Romney by the time Romney fights back that the race will essentially be over. 

The Romney people point out, correctly, that Perry is a very flawed candidate, easy to run against in a general election.  "Unelectable" will be the key word, and used often.  But parties regularly choose unelectable candidates when no one is strong enough to challenge them for the nomination.  The question is whether Romney, basically everyone's second choice for prom date, has that strength, and whether, indeed, he can convince people that a man like Perry, who's never lost an election, is unelectable.

August 30, 2011       Permalink

THE NEW DISGRACE – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  This administration has the word "failure" written all over it.  And one of the greatest failures may be in its handling of the American space program.

Did you ever think you'd see the day when Americans would have to depend on Russian rockets to get astronauts into space?  Well, that day has arrived with the retirement of our space shuttles, which have been hurried off to museums around the country.  And the Russian rockets?  Well, one unmanned model just blew up, placing the international space station in jeopardy.  It's hard to believe this is happening.   Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, has the infuriating story of American decline:

Will the International Space Station actually be abandoned this fall after $100 billion and 10 years?

That's one of the questions being pondered by NASA and Russian space experts following last week's failure of an unmanned Russian cargo rocket. The U.S. fleet of space shuttles is retired and the Obama administration has no American alternative coming online for years.

So, dubious Russian rockets are the only means of replacing the crew.

A computer detected an anomaly in the Russian rocket's third stage Wednesday and shut down the engine prematurely after barely five minutes of flight, dooming the orbital attempt. The vehicle and nearly three tons of supplies were incinerated in reentry and the crash in Kazakhstan.

With the U.S. space shuttles decommissioned, Russian rockets remain the only means to reach the space station orbiting at about 220 miles altitude with fresh crew members.

Officials said the six-man crew on the station now is not endangered, having sufficient supplies from the last shuttle delivery of Atlantis in July to make it to the next supply mission with a European rocket in early 2012

Two Soyuz spacecraft are docked at the station, enabling the international crew to return to Earth as their permissible limits in the weightlessness of space are reached.

However, arrival of new crew members is delayed indefinitely pending a Russian commission's investigation and resolution of last week's engine failure.

The fall's entire space schedule is now under review. And if new launches are delayed past mid-November, the huge orbiting complex could be abandoned for an indeterminate time.

COMMENT:  Maybe the administration should have extended its "cash for clunkers" program to Russian rockets.  It is embarrassing to this country that we've reached this moment.  Could we not have kept some capacity to get into space until the next generation of American rockets is ready?

We point out that one of the missions given NASA by the current administration was "Muslim outreach."  Maybe that mission can be put off for a bit in favor of something more, oh, nuts-and-bolts. 

One reason for our current predicament is budget cutting.  And it demonsrates that you can't just take an ax to the federal budget.  There are priorities.  Budgets should be cut, but carefully, and with common sense. 

August 30, 2011       Permalink 

AUGUST 29,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:23 P.M. ET:

PERRY ROMPS – A new poll more than confirms Rick Perry's status as GOP frontrunner.  A CNN poll has Perry at 32%, Mitt Romney at 18%, and Michele Bachmann at 12%.  At the same time, Perry's frontrunner status has gotten him some additional scrutiny, even by Republicans.  The Politico ran a piece called "Is Perry Dumb?"  Others are demanding more detailed answers and prescriptions from Perry.  The poll results are seen less as an endorsement of Perry than as a verdict on Mitt Romney's failure to ignite the GOP base.

GOP JOBS PLAN – The Republicans rolled out a modest jobs plan today, calling for decreased regulations and reduced taxes for small businesses.  I have no idea why anyone would roll out a plan at the end of August.  The plan won't get much attention, and is too narrowly focused to be called a national strategy.  I suppose it was rushed out to preempt President Obama's jobs plan, to be announced next week, unless a golf game intervenes.  The Republicans would do better by waiting, drawing up a truly comprehensive program, and presenting it to the American people in a big way, as Newt presented the Contract with America in the early 1990s. 

EXITING HOME SALES DECLINE – Sales of existing homes fell in July for the first time in three months.  Even lower prices and borrowing costs couldn't prevent the decline.  We are still coming out the housing bubble, with no end to the declines in sight.  We are constantly told by the administration that there is a recovery underway, just as America was told by Herbert Hoover that prosperity was just around the corner.  But the "recovery" seems to have touched very few people.   Many Americans are trapped in homes that are "underwater," meaning that more is owed on the mortgage than the home is worth.  Not a good time.

IT'S ABOUT TIME – The state of New Mexico is looking into its program of providing financial incentives to moviemakers to shoot in the state.  Many states and localities have such incentives, but questions are increasingly being raised as to how much these programs actually benefit the people of the area.  New Mexico, under severe economic strain already, paid $102-million to moviemakers in the last year.  The state's governor, Susanna Martinez, is often mentioned as a possible vice presidential possibility on the Republican ticket.  Maybe she can figure these programs out, and explain Hollywood accounting.  If she can, she should be president.  In fact, if she can, she should be queen.

August 29, 2011       Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 10:50 P.M. ET:  Norah O'Donnell, the new CBS White House correspondent, and someone who makes Katie Couric look politically neutral, gives her assessment of President Obama's response to Hurricane Irene, as reported by RealClearPolitics:

CBS White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell said President Obama displayed his engagement to the federal government's response to Hurricane Irene by returning a day early from vacation and meeting with the head of FEMA. O'Donnell says the administration wanted to make sure no comparison to the government's handling of Katrina was made.

"I think it's important to note too that the Obama administration was really determined to avoid any comparisons to the failed federal government response to Hurricane Katrina. So, President Obama made a very public display of his engagement on this issue. He returned from his vacation a day early. Yesterday, he went to the headquarters of FEMA where he talked not only with the head of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, but also all the Governors and state and local officials. So, that was key certainly for this President," O'Donnell reported.

COMMENT:  That is a classic example of what too often happens in "journalism" – a reporter reports in accordance with an approved "narrative" that becomes fact regardless of the truth.  We see it most dramatically in foreign-affairs reporting that casually mentions the United States "losing" the Vietnam War, which was simply not the case.  We withdrew because of domestic political pressure.  We never lost one battle in Vietnam.

In O'Donnell's case she accepts the "narrative" of a "failed federal government response" to Katrina.  It has become the accepted party line of the mainstream media.  In fact, it was a far more complex picture.  Most of the failure was at the local and state level.  The federal response, especially in its early stages, was remarkably good.  The projected death toll in Katrina was about 10,000.  The actual death toll was about 1,100.  Yet, not a single reporter, to the best of my knowledge, has investigated that gap.  The low death toll was largely due to the fact that President Bush ordered federal assets to New Orleans as soon as Katrina became a major threat to the city.  Most of those assets were in the form of the Coast Guard, which did remarkable lifesaving work.  Yet, you never hear of it. 

FEMA came in for severe criticism after Katrina, some of it deserved.  But that very same FEMA, just a year before, had handled five hurricanes in Florida and acquitted itself quite well.  The difference?  Florida had a real governor in Jeb Bush.  Louisiana had an inadequate governor in Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans had a borderline clown named Ray Nagin as mayor. 

The approved narrative is wrong.  It won't be changed. 

August 29, 2011        Permalink

THE RIGHT SNAPS BACK ON DEFENSE SPENDING – AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  We've been a bit concerned here about the lax response of some conservatives (and national-defense Democrats) to reported plans to slash the defense budget irresponsibly.  Now the grown-ups are getting organized and fighting back against the cuts-at-any-price crowd.  From The Hill:

Conservative lawmakers and analysts are seizing on the Pentagon’s finding that China is “closing the gap” with other militaries to criticize the Obama administration’s plans to pare U.S defense spending.

The critics say the president does not fully grasp the Asian giant’s global ambitions.

No surprise there.

“The [Pentagon’s] China military power report acknowledges China's insatiable desire to become a 'world class economic and military power' as it advances toward transforming its military into a dominant regional force by 2020 and an unrivaled international power by 2050,” House Armed Services Readiness subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said.

Forbes then turned his sights, in a veiled way, on plans to trim at least $350 billion from U.S. military budgets between 2013 and 2023.

“There is no question that China is rapidly closing the technology gap and striving to challenge the United States' military prowess — there is a question, though, of whether the United States will simply cede its global and military leadership role to a nation with uncertain intentions, but known disregard for human rights, basic freedoms, and democratic institutions,” Forbes said in a statement.

In its annual report to Congress, released Wednesday, the Pentagon acknowledged that China’s military is "steadily closing the technological gap with modern armed forces."

Speaking to reporters that afternoon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of defense for East Asia Michael Schiffer said Beijing’s buildup could end up being a “destabilizing” force in the Asia-Pacific region.

You think?

COMMENT:  Our concern with radical Islam centers on terrorism, including, potentially, nuclear terrorism.  It also focuses on attempts to infiltrate and change Western nations.

China, on the other hand, represents a classic military challenge.  China is able to field large land armies, and will soon have a threatening naval force that could challenge the United States for control of the seas.  And yet, we remain curiously unconcerned. 

I suspect we'll get a surprise ten years down the road.  That's usually what it takes to wake up democracies.  In the meantime, our side has to work every day to maintain adequate defense spending, and not make the mistakes we made in the 20th century.  During that recent century the United States experienced four major defense drawdowns...and lived to regret every one of them.

August 29, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:56 A.M. ET: 

From the Times of London, via the Australian:  BARACK Obama's long-lost "Uncle Omar" has been arrested for alleged drunk-driving outside Boston and detained as an illegal immigrant, The Times can reveal.  The arrest ends a mystery over the fate of a relative that the US President wrote in his memoir had moved to America from Kenya in the 1960s, although the circumstances of his discovery may now prove to be an embarrassment for the White House.  Official records say Onyango Obama, 67, was picked up outside the Chicken Bone Saloon in Framingham, Massachusetts, at 7.10pm on August 24. Police say he nearly crashed his Mitsubishi 4x4 into a patrol car, and then insisted that the officer should have given way to him.

Outrageous.  Obvious discrimination.  It's clearly time for another beer summit at the White House.  Oh, wait.  Drunk driving?  Make that an apple juice summit.  Or, as an alternative, just throw Uncle Omar under the bus parked outside the White House.  He can have a long redemptive talk with Rev. Wright. 

PERRY'S GAMBLE – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  Social Security has often been called the "third rail" of American politics – touch it and you die.  And yet, Rick Perry is taking the risk, an enormous risk, that his attacks on the Social Security system will pay off.  Look, he may be right.  From The Hill:

Republican presidential contender and Texas Gov. Rick Perry continued his criticisms of Social Security calling the program a "monstrous lie" reports the Houston Chronicle.

"It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they're working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie," Perry said at a campaign stop in Ottumwa, Iowa. "It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can't do that to them."

In his anti-Washington book "Fed Up!" published in 2011 Perry had harsh words for Social Security, criticisms he has reiterated on the campaign trail.

Campaigning in Iowa Perry also suggested a willingness to means-test Social Security benefits. "Does Warren Buffett need to get Social Security?  Maybe not," said Perry.

COMMENT:  Perry is known to have a very sharp political team.  And he has never lost an election.  But attacks on any aspect of Social Security get a candidate into the "soon to be history" risk area.  What Perry must do is show how he'll strengthen Social Security, the most popular government program in existence, by putting it on a firmer financial footing.  If he doesn't, he opens himself to the "he'll rob mom and dad" kind of attacks in which liberals specialize, and which will doom his campaign.

There'll be a new GOP candidates' debate in a few week, the first one in which Perry will participate.  He'll no doubt be challenged on Social Security.  He'd better have a good answer, one that goes beyond simple criticism of the current system.  Right now Perry is doing very well among seniors in political polls.  Maybe that's because they don't know him very well.  Seniors vote in massive numbers.  Perry's introduction to them in the next few weeks had better take account of political reality.

August 29, 2011        Permalink 

IS IT FINALLY HAPPENING? – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  Is it possible that even some economic writers for liberal papers are getting disgusted by the behavior of the "environmental movement"?  We certainly hope so.

Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post has written a "must read" column about the struggle to get approval for the Keystone Pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to refineries on our Texas coast.  For people with brains, this is a no-brainer.  For people who live their lives according to an ideological script, it's all kinds of anguish.  Samuelson:

When it comes to energy, America is lucky to be next to Canada, whose proven oil reserves are estimated by Oil and Gas Journal at 175 billion barrels. This ranks just behind Saudi Arabia (260 billion) and Venezuela (211 billion) and ahead of Iran (137 billion) and Iraq (115 billion). True, about 97 percent of Canada’s reserves consist of Alberta’s controversial oil sands, but new technologies and high oil prices have made them economically viable. Expanded production can provide the U.S. market with a growing source of secure oil for decades.

We would be crazy to turn our back on this. In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters — and where government-owned oil companies control development of about three-quarters of known reserves — having dependable suppliers is no mean feat. We already import about half of our oil, and Canada is our largest supplier, with about 25 percent of imports. But its conventional fields are declining. Only oil sands can fill the gap.

Oh, oh, Mr. Samuelson, you're forgetting the destruction of the Earth, which surely would follow any development of oil sands.  All humankind would stop, and Hurricane Irene would be reborn.  I mean, the greenhouse gases!

If Obama rejects the pipeline, he would — perversely — increase greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has made clear that it will proceed with oil sands development regardless of the American decision. If the United States doesn’t want the oil, China and other Asian countries do. Pipelines would be built to the West Coast. Transporting the oil by tanker to Asia would almost certainly create more emissions than moving it by pipeline to closer U.S. markets...

...By all logic, the administration’s Keystone decision — overseen by the State Department, which issued a final environmental impact statement last week — should be a snap. Obama wants job creation. Well, TransCanada, the pipeline’s sponsor, says the project should result in 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs. Most would be American, because 80 percent of the 1,661-mile pipeline would be in the United States. Continued development of oil sands would also help the U.S. economy; hundreds of American companies sell oil services in Canada. Finally, production technologies are gradually reducing environmental side effects, including greenhouse emissions.

COMMENT:  That is great stuff, and I encourage you both to read the Samuelson column and to circulate it. 

What will Obama decide?  Well, the left wing of his party is becoming hysterical over the issue, but the arguments for Keystone are overwhelming.  I don't know what he'll decide, or whether he'll move to put off his decision until after the election. 

I know what a Republican president would decide, which is one reason why next year's election is so important.

August 29, 2011       Permalink

NOW THEY TELL US – AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  Look, this is the slowest news week of the year.  It's the week when a politician makes announcements he doesn't want anyone to hear, like confirming a police report that he abused his wife or stole his grandma's Social Security checks. 

So we shouldn't be shocked by the appearance of stories like this, from The New York Times, acknowledging what we already know, that there was something rotten about the reporting of Not-quite-a-hurricane Irene:

It began as something far off and dangerous — a monster storm, a Category 3 hurricane that packed winds of 115 miles an hour as it buzz-sawed through the Caribbean last week, causing more than a billion dollars of destruction in the Bahamas alone.

But when Hurricane Irene finally chugged into the New York area on Sunday, it was like an overweight jogger just holding on at the end of a run. Its winds had diminished to barely hurricane strength, and the threat from its storm surge, which officials had once worried might turn Manhattan into Atlantis, was epitomized by television news reports showing small waves lapping over reporters’ feet.

All hurricanes evolve, and most weaken, as they track northward, their size and strength affected by water, wind and terrain. And all hurricanes eventually die — a relatively quick downgrade to a tropical storm in the case of those, like Irene, that travel inland, a more lingering demise for those that trail out to the colder waters of the higher latitudes.

But Irene’s fall — from potential storm of the century to an also-ran in hurricane lore — was greater than most.

COMMENT:  Some experts were indeed warning, as the storm moved north, that it was mostly hype.  I must modestly point out that I started noticing a discrepancy between the hype and the actual statistics from the storm on Thursday night. 

Our national and state nannies will tell us that it's better to be safe than sorry, and that is true.  But it's better still to tell the whole truth.  As we've pointed out here, there've been a number of these over-hyped storm reports, and the danger is that people will just start tuning out.  Indeed, it happened in New York over this last weekend. 

They should rename Irene as Hurricane Duracell, for the chief beneficiary of the storm.  The networks might also consider charging politicians for the air time in the future.  Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was on TV so much, I thought it was a telethon.  I wanted to make a pledge.

Media critic Howard Kurtz has a solid assessment of the journalistic hype here.

Oh, there are reports of locusts...

August 29, 2011     Permalink