Honesty from the Post

Now that the media’s candidate has been elected, they are free to do some soul-searching about fairness. The Post’s Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, has written a second piece about Washington Post‘s left-wing bias. She writes:

But some of the conservatives’ complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo.

Journalists bristle at the thought of their coverage being viewed as unfair or unbalanced; they believe their decisions are journalistically reasonable and that their politics do not affect how they cover and display stories.

Journalists may bristle, but bristling doesn’t make their reporting fair or balanced. And at time the reporting may be completely fair, but what is unfair is which stories are covered and which are not. For example, the media did precious little investigative journalism about Obama. That said, unlike a lot of the Post’s coverage, Howell’s article is fair.

And at least the Post’s zeal for Obama didn’t go as far as others, such as Rolling Stone’s deification of the man.

Thanks to Nate posting the link to this article in the comments.

The Uninformed for Obama

Today the BBC World Service ran a story where they interviewed a woman in Arizona who supported Obama. The interviewee complained about the price of bread and the price of gas and said that by “focusing on the middle class” instead of given tax cuts to the rich, Obama is going to bring down the price of bread and gasoline. It’s too bad that this woman is misinformed because the programs Obama supports directly lead to higher gasoline prices and higher bread prices.

Obama believes that we should increase the price of energy to fight global warming (that’s the entire point of the cap-and-trade programs Obama supports) and he does not support increasing oil supplies by using American resources. Increasing the price of oil and limiting supply will only make oil more expensive, not less. In other words, Obama supports increasing the price of energy.

Obama supports the biofuel mandates. The biofuel made has driven up the price of commodities like wheat and corn. The mandates causes farmers to plant more corn and then, instead of using the corn to feed people, they are using the corn to make ethanol. In other words, the policies that Obama supports (and President Bush pushed) are making wheat (and hence bread) more expensive.

To vote for Obama because the he talks about helping the middle class is pure foolishness. What matters is looking at the outcome of the policies he supports. If Obama becomes President, he will push for policies that will make energy even more expensive and he will push for policies that make food more expensive.

The Silliest Commentary about Sarah Pallin

Paul Begala, former Clinton strategist writes:

In choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate he is not thinking “outside the box,” as some have said. More like out of his mind.

Palin a first-term governor of a state with more reindeer than people, will have to put on a few pounds just to be a lightweight. Her personal story is impressive: former fisherman, mother of five. But that hardly qualifies her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Really? So what exactly makes Barak Obama more qualified for the presidency? Palin, at least, has been a chief executive. That’s something that Obama, Biden, and McCain have not been. If I were Obama’s people, I’d stay clear of talking about Palin’s lack of experience because it only highlights that Obama is a lightweight.

I have little respect for Obama

Here something he said yesterday about energy:

Like George Bush and Dick Cheney before him, [John McCain] sees more drilling as the answer to all of our energy problems, and like them, he’s found a receptive audience in the very same oil companies that have blocked our progress for so long.

I could respect Barack Obama if he complained about oil companies with an argument that makes sense. How exactly have oil companies “blocked out progress for so long”? Have they sold gasoline that was too cheap so other sources of oil didn’t develop? Did they sell a product that was so beguiling that people bought trillions of dollars worth of it?

What exactly are these nefarious oil companies doing?

Obama and Private Schools

From Andrew Coulson:

After telling a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers that he opposes school voucher programs over the weekend, Senator Obama added that: “We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”

Senator Obama sends his own two daughters to the private “Lab School” founded by John Dewey in 1896, which charged $20,000 in tuition at the middle school level last year. Though he says “we” should not be “throwing up our hands and walking away” from public schools, he has done precisely that.

That is his right, and, as a wealthy man, it is his prerogative under the current system of American education, which allows only the wealthy to easily choose between private and government schools. But instead of offering to extend that same choice to all families, Senator Obama wants the poor to wait for the public school system to be “fixed.”

I could editorialize about this, but I really don’t see the need. Readers of this blog are perfectly capable of drawing the obvious conclusions.

Obama Energy Promises–Cheap Magic Energy for Everyone!

Barak Obama, and to only a slightly lesser extent, John McCain, are on the campaign trail promising cheap, magic energy for all. From the National Post:

Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed he would break America’s addiction to “dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive” oil if he is elected U.S. president — and one of his first targets might well be Canada’s oil sands.

A senior adviser to Mr. Obama’s campaign told reporters it’s an “open question” whether oil produced from northern Alberta’s oilsands fits with the Democratic candidate’s plan to shift the U.S. sharply away from consumption of carbon-intensive fossil fuels.

“The possibilities of renewable energy are limitless,” Mr. Obama said in an energy policy speech Tuesday in Las Vegas. “We’ve heard promises about it in every State of the Union [speech] for the last three decades. But each and every year, we become more, not less, addicted to oil — a 19th-century fossil fuel that is dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive.”

While it’s true that there is less oil today than yesterday, it is not dwindling. There are more oil resources in North America, in the form of oil sands and oil shale, than there is in Saudi Arabia. We also have vast supplies of oil and natural gas on the outer continental shelf, but Mr. Obama and his friends have fought to restrict access to those domestic resources. Unsurprisingly after years of constraining our supply, we now have tight supply and high prices. Thank you Mr. Obama. The policies you support are the very ones driving up the price of energy.

Oil might be dirtier than natural gas, but it is also less expensive for personal transportation. Does Obama not support personal transportation? Oil emits less greenhouse gases than current biofuel technology, so you can argue that it is cleaner than biofuel. And oil is cheaper than biofuel, allowing lower income people to afford to buy and use it.

In opposition to oil, but does Obama support?  Biofuel of course. Unsurprisingly the NY Times reports that Obama is in the pocket of Big Ethanol. If Obama were thoughtful, if Obama were for real change, he would be concerned about the outcomes of the policies he supports. Some people rightly call biofuel a “crime against humanity.” Others say that it is increasing poverty.

The possibilities of renewable energy, like the possibilities of absolutely anything are limitless. When I want to drive my car I don’t want it to be a mere possibility the the station will have gas. I want there to be a high probability the station will have gas.

Someday renewables might make sense, but today we are throwing money away and making people poorer as a result. When will Obama support real change and end this tragic waste?