The Media's Credibility Gap

Today, the New York Times asks the question, "Why is good news being received with such doubt?"  Like the boy who cried wolf, the Times and other mainstream media outlets have been gushing praises of President Obama's economic policies and looking for the silver lining in every new unemployment report.  Hilariously, in the very same article, Mr. Norris unintentionally gives us an example of this phenomenon.

The employment report for March, released a week ago, was a milestone that has been little noted.  The household survey, from which the unemployment rate is calculated, showed a gain during the first quarter of this year of 1.1 million jobs, the best performance since the spring of 2005.

True, the more widely reported numbers from the survey of employers are not as good.  But those numbers are subject to heavy revision as better data becomes available.  At the turning points for employment after the last two downturns, those numbers turned out to be far better than was reported at the time.

To hear the Times tell it, we should be optimistic because even though the unemployment numbers are still really bad, they will ultimately be revised by a few tenths of a point.  This must be very reassuring to the millions of unemployed Americans.  By repeating dubious assurances that recovery is just around the corner over the past year, the New York Times has earned a reputation as nothing more than a fatuous tool of the Obama Administration.  It is little wonder that the public remains skeptical.

Share

In Case of Emergency: Blame Bush

The Washington Post reports today that the tragic mine disaster in West Virginia earlier this week could have been avoided.  Management repeatedly ignored government inspections which revealed major safety problems with the mine's ventilation systems.  This is a deplorable revelation which only increases the horror of the terrible loss of life.  However, near the end of the article, the Washington Post tries to place blame elsewhere.

Former federal officials and others who know mining said that [Bush administration mine safety administrator, David] Lauriski initially scaled back mine-safety regulation and that, under the Bush administration, 17 of 26 regulations proposed by the Clinton administration were dropped or withdrawn.

"Lax is not nearly a strong enough word to describe how mine safety was handled in the first part of the Bush administration," said Phil Smith, a spokesman for the United Mine Workers of America.  "It became a lot less about enforcing rules and regulations and more of a touchy-feely thing: It's bad what you are doing, and you need to do better."

Had it not already become a cliché long ago, we might be horrified that the Washington Post is using the suffering of others to score cheap political points.  Still, in this case it is rather surprising given that the government inspectors had done their jobs by issuing citations for the safety violations.  Only the most bitterly partisan liberal could hold the government responsible, and still more so George W. Bush as a private citizen.

Share

You Can't Hug With Nuclear Arms

The Associated Press reports that President Obama has announced a grand new strategy which would, "lessen the role nuclear weapons play in America's defense planning."  This should not be terribly surprising, because Obama campaigned on an anti-nuclear platform, but upon closer inspection, his new policy is truly shocking.

Under the new plan, the U.S. promises not to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't have them.  The policy would not apply to states like North Korea and Iran, however, because of their refusal to cooperate with the international community on nonproliferation standards.

President Obama's idealism is nothing less than breathtaking.  The world has enjoyed more than 50 years of relative peace because we have the deterrent power of nuclear weapons.  The article observes that Obama is departing from the policies of his predecessor, but America's nuclear policy has been unchanged going back to Truman.  We have always held out the option to use nukes.

Consequently, only a few despots have been crazy enough to invade their neighbors, and although the United States has always responded to such incidents with conventional force, the threat of nuclear annihilation makes most world leaders think twice.  Moreover, many of our allies rely on the protection of the American "nuclear umbrella."  If Japan and Germany can no longer rely on our nuclear arsenal for protection, how long will it be before they start to build their own weapons?

America already has a credibility problem on the world stage.  After the fiasco of backing the wrong side in Honduras, encouraging Argentina to re-invade the Falklands, and publicly snubbing Israel's Prime Minister, one could be forgiven for thinking that it couldn't possibly get any worse.  President Obama thrives on making headlines, but he does so at the expense of American influence in world affairs.  More and more, the headlines are becoming a terrible joke.

Share

A Sticky Situation

Today's Washington Post reports that the United States Government, majority stakeholder in Chrysler and General Motors (or should we say Government Motors), will be seeking the maximum civil penalty against Toyota Motor Company for failing to inform regulators of the so-called "sticky pedal" defect.

"We now have proof that Toyota failed to live up to its legal obligations," LaHood said.  "Worse yet, they knowingly hid a dangerous defect for months from U.S. officials and did not take action to protect millions of drivers and their families.  For those reasons, we are seeking the maximum penalty possible under current laws."

As of six o'clock today, a quick Google search for the phrases "federal government" and "maximum civil penalty" and the word "Toyota" turned up more than 3,750 results.  Running the same search with "Chrysler" instead of "Toyota" returned only 52 unique results.  Running the same search with "General Motors" instead of "Toyota" returned only 33 unique results.  In the latter two cases, the results do not actually mention any time when the government has sought such penalties against the American automakers.

One has to wonder whether the government is playing favorites.

Share

Don't You Feel Safer Now?

The Washington Post reports that the Transportation Security Agency will be implementing new airport security measures, not to strengthen what is already in place, but apparently as a response to criticism of the blanket screening of all passengers originating from the 14 countries which have known or suspected government ties to terrorism.

After the attempted bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight on Christmas Day, U.S. officials hastily decided that passengers from or traveling through 14 specified countries would be subjected to secondary searches.  Critics have since called the measures discriminatory and overly burdensome, and the administration has faced pressure to refine its approach.

Under the new system, screeners will stop passengers for additional security if they match certain pieces of known intelligence. The system will be "much more intel-based," a senior administration official said, "as opposed to blunt force."

This seems a little dubious.  Our intelligence services had been warned by no less than his own father that the Christmas Day underpants bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had developed ties to a terrorist organization.  He had also recently traveled to Yemen.  Are we really supposed to believe that he would have been stopped if these new measures were in place in December?

The real problem here is not airport security.  If denied at airports, terrorists will attack elsewhere.  The battle against terrorism will be won or lost long before a terrorist reaches the security checkpoint.  Rather, everything depends on the quality of intelligence and our ability to act upon it.  In his rush to vilify the CIA for harsh interrogation tactics, President Obama has blunted our greatest weapon against terror.

Share

Your Government in Action, Part 4

While searching for something else entirely, I came across this article from The Wall Street Journal about a $500,000 junket by several members of Congress to "study global warming" back in 2008:

It's tough to calculate the travel bills racked up by members of Congress, but one thing's for sure: They use a lot of airplanes.  In recent days, House of Representatives members allocated $550 million to upgrade the fleet of luxury Air Force jets used for trips like these -- even though the Defense Department says it doesn't need all the planes.

Your tax dollars at work!

Share

Your Government in Action, Part 3

The Washington Post reports that millions of doses of swine flu vaccine will go unused:

Despite months of dire warnings and millions in taxpayer dollars, less than half of the 229 million doses of H1N1 vaccine the government bought to fight the pandemic have been administered -- leaving an estimated 71.5 million doses that must be discarded if they are not used before they expire.

Your tax dollars at work!

Share