Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Cruising the Web

These two maps show how ridiculous the objections are as they contrast the part of the proposed pipeline that Obama keeps postponing a decision on with all the pipelines that we already have in the United States.
Now do you get it? The Keystone Pipeline would represent a .04% increase in U.S. pipelines. That’s 4/100ths of 1%, a comparison identical to 2 feet versus 1 mile, or 1 teaspoon compared to 3 1/4 gallons.
I had no idea. It makes the objections even more ludicrous.

Sadly, American universities have imposed their own hegemony over views that are considered anathema to the liberal narrative. Ironically, criticizing the West for its hegemony over other cultures has become the preferred insult of such university thought police; they don't even realize how they are imposing their own hegemony of thought.
Harvard student Sandra Y.L. Korn recently proposed in The Harvard Crimson that academics should be stopped if their research is deemed oppressive. Arguing that “academic justice” should replace “academic freedom,” she writes: “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?”

In other words, Korn would have the university cease to be a forum for open debate and free inquiry in the name of justice, as defined by mainstream liberal academia.

Unfortunately, this is already a reality in most universities across America, where academics and university administrators alike are trying, often successfully, to discredit and prohibit certain ideas and ways of thinking. Particularly in the humanities, many ideas are no longer considered legitimate, and debate over them is de facto non-existent. In order to delegitimize researchers who are out of line, academics brand them with one of several terms that have emerged from social science theory.
Read the rest.

John Crudele details the ongoing "pattern of falsifying statistics" of the Census bureau particularly when it comes to the unemployment data. He's been writing about such fraud for months and now some official investigations have begun. If any of what he has heard from anonymous sources is borne out, it is a true scandal and Crudele should receive a Pulitzer.
The data fabrication takes a number of forms.
My Midwest source says it is not unusual in that region for 800 out of roughly 2,000 interviews for the Current Population Survey (which is used to get the unemployment rate) to be incomplete, called “refusals,” on the last day of the monthly collection period.
Then, magically, only 100 will be unfinished when results are turned in next day to headquarters, which surveys for the Labor Department. “It’s statistically impossible,” my source says, “to complete the number of refusals we have in the last few hours.”
So supervisors are either filling out the surveys themselves or lying that houses are vacant — which also counts as a completed survey. Either way, any kind of falsification would obviously give a misrepresentation as to whether or not people in the household have a job.
And in an obvious conflict of interest, the wives of two of the supervisors in this Midwest region, according to my source, have been hired to check the results.
Up to 25 percent of the thousands of surveys that go into the jobless report may be fake, this source estimates. Falsification practices, obviously, also include field representatives like Buckmon who fill out the whole survey themselves (called at Census “curbstoning”).
How peculiar is it that NBC hired a "psychological consultant" (or as the network now prefers after being ridiculed for this tidbit, a "brand consultant") to talk to David Gregory and
his family and friends to try to determine whether there is some reason why Gregory's control over Meet The Press has coincided with a steep ratings drop? Did their consultant's conversations with Gregory's family and friends reveal that Gregory often comes across as an arrogant ideologue? That might hurt his ratings, but such a finding would involve caring about what many conservatives think of Gregory, an opinion they didn't hold about Tim Russert.

Did you know that the U.S. border guards are protecting us from anyone bringing in a certain brand of chocolate Easter eggs?

Rick Moran warns us: "Forget 'You can keep your doctor': try finding one first."

Ed Morrissey highlights what he calls the "best campaign ad of the cycle."

Oh, the irony. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is warning that we and our allies may "adjust" the timing of installing antimissile systems in Europe. Of course, those are the systems that were developed from Ronald Reagan's SDI program, the one that was ridiculed as "Star Wars" because it would be impossible to construct.

Oh, the hypocrisy. After excoriating President Bush for signing statements, Obama keeps on making them, just as he did last week on the measure to prevent Iran's new UN ambassador from entering the U.S.

Ron Fournier compares Obama's handling of Russia to how he handles Republican lawmakers. Obama came into office thinking that he could craft a new partnership with Putin since it was obviously just Bush's ham-handedness in diplomacy that had blocked such a partnership. But now he's concluced that Putin is just not worthy of such a partnership.
The turnaround on Russia is no more remarkable than the pivot Obama took after the 2008 election, when he abandoned his post-partisan brand at the first sight of Republican intransigence and forced the Affordable Care Act through Congress without GOP backing. Once poisoned, the well went dry: The candidate who had the "audacity to hope" for a new kind of politics surrendered to the toxic culture he promised to change. Obama wrote off Republicans. He said House Speaker John Boehner can't or won't bargain on the budget, then wrapped the white flag of surrender around the debt, gun control, tax reform, immigration, and other issues. Obama stopped looking for compromises, and then expressed outrage when he couldn't find them.
Why would using chlorine gas on Syrian civilians not be considered a violation of the agreement that the Obama administration made with Assad's government last year to stop using chemical weapons against civilians? If it was a poison gas in World War One, why wouldn't it be one today? It says something about the value of that agreement that chlorine gas doesn't qualify.