If Mr. Obama is all about fairness, he should tell the late night comedians to bring the number of jokes about him up to parity with Senator McCain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story is below and the link to it is here.
A hilarious new study of late-night political jokes, due to be released later today, finds the network comedians clearly avoiding humor about Democratic candidate Barack Obama, while piling the jokes on President Bush and Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
The study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs finds that only cable's Comedy Central -- whose primary comedians, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, more closely follow the day's headlines, which have been dominated by Obama -- has slightly more jokes about the freshman Illinois senator.
Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert who's 44 years old and looks it
The study covered all jokes between Jan. 1 and July 31 in late-night monologues by Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, David Letterman, Stewart and Colbert.
Apparently, Jimmy Kimmel was not deemed funny enough to be included, which should give his writers some ammo for tonight's show.
The center found that the network shows broadcast only 169 jokes about Obama, compared with 428 about Bush. McCain drew 328 jokes. Hillary Clinton, who dropped out of the presidential race and much political news in early June, still drew more than twice as many attempted yuk lines (382) as Obama.
On Comedy Central, Obama and McCain were close, with 207 and 201, respectively, while Clinton and Bush nearly tied at 179 and 177, respectively.
Combining the laugh lines from all five shows, Bush was the ...
... most mocked, with 605; Clinton had 562; McCain got 549; and Obama trailed, with 382.
Letterman had the most fun at Clinton's expense, with 146 jokes about her and only 46 about Obama. Leno had the most Bush jokes (208), with Clinton right behind at 204.
Colbert worked McCain over the most, with 129 jokes, compared with 91 for Obama and 79 on Clinton. An example: "It's time the media started trumpeting McCain's exciting story. He's old, and no one likes him."
It'll come as a huge surprise to everyone that the main focus of jokes about Vietnam veteran McCain was his age, which is 71. "McCain was asked how he's going to conserve energy," said Leno, who is 58 and being forced to retire from NBC next year. "He said by taking three naps a day."
Obama's recent Mideast and European tour "may strike some as presumptuous," said Stewart, who's 45. "In fact, I joked that Obama would be stopping in Bethlehem to visit the manger where he was born."
Leno on 60-year-old Clinton: "Only in America could a woman who's married to a man from Hope go to a town called Unity and fake something called Sincerity."
The study did not explore why Obama got off so lightly on the network shows from New York and Burbank. So we'll all just have to guess: probably out of simple respect for Obama's long public service.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Black Republicans Versus Black Democrats
Obama inspires black Republicans to switch parties
The Associated Press
Thu, Aug 21, 2008 (11:18 a.m.)
Sen. Barack Obama isn't just inspiring black voters to register in large numbers as he gets closer to being the Democratic presidential nominee. Evidence indicates that he's motivating some black Republicans to switch parties.
The only three states that track voting registration by party and race show black Republican registration dropping slightly since the beginning of the year.
Florida has 81,512 more black Democrats compared to a loss of 784 black Republicans; Louisiana has 34,325 more black Democrats, while the number of black Republicans dropped by 907; North Carolina has 92,356 more black Democrats and 2,850 fewer black Republicans.
While the number of blacks who have left the GOP for the Democratic Party can't be pinpointed, it's not hard to find voters who have made the switch.
"That's happening in a lot of places," said Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland political scientist who tracks racial trends.
In Florida, it's happening at a time when the state Republican Party has made black voter recruitment a priority _ one that is more difficult with Obama's success.
Whitfield Jenkins of Ocala became a Republican nearly four decades ago, abandoning the Democrats out of anger when black voters helped elect a state lawmaker who later opposed a state holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. In 2006, Jenkins helped Republican Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign, but this year he switched back to the Democratic Party for one reason: Obama.
"Really early in his presidential campaign, when I got the opportunity to listen intently to his ideas and his platforms, I immediately said, 'This is beyond belief,'" Jenkins said. "I joined the effort and it became clear to me that I was better able to work in my community in a broad way and support this outstanding candidate as a Democrat."
Overall, Florida now has nearly 1.1 million black Democrats, compared to just under 64,000 black Republicans. Louisiana has about 704,000 black Democrats and 26,000 black Republicans, and North Carolina has more than 1 million black Democrats and just under 44,000 black Republicans.
Three other states _ Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina _ track voter registration by race, but voters don't register with parties. Each has seen large increases in black registration over recent seven-month periods, Georgia by almost 123,000, South Carolina by 43,198 Alabama by 20,844.
The biggest impact could be in Florida, where polls show a tight race between Obama and Republican John McCain. President Bush carried the state by only 537 votes in 2000. Democrats believe the result would have been different if not for problems in largely black precincts.
"If it's going to be a close election, it could be a huge factor," said Kevin Hill, a Florida International University political science professor. "Eighty-two thousand _ that's a lot of voters."
And while Bush won by a more comfortable 381,000 votes in 2004, the Obama campaign notes that 600,000 black voters stayed home. The campaign is also targeting nearly 600,000 black Floridians who aren't registered to vote.
"You're going to see some turnout like you've never seen before in the state of Florida," said Tony Hill, a black state senator from Jacksonville who is helping the Obama campaign.
Overall, Florida has about 4.4 million Democrats, 3.9 million Republicans and 2.3 million voters who aren't registered with either party.
Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer acknowledges that attracting more black Republicans has been difficult because of Obama's candidacy and says he doesn't expect a significant change in registration numbers this year despite party efforts to reach out to black voters.
"My goal here is that African-Americans who have voted Democratic their entire lives will begin to at least consider a Republican candidate," Greer said. "And then I'll move to the second goal of registration. But it is a slow process."
Some black Republicans say they're supporting Obama but not switching parties. They include former Florida Black Republican Council President Dorsey Miller, who helped former Republican Gov. Jeb Bush's campaigns and supports Crist.
Miller, though, said his support of Obama has nothing to do with race, but rather his dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and his concerns that McCain will continue President Bush's policies.
"It's a funny thing about Obama, but when I see him speak and see him on the stage, I don't see him as a black man, I just see a man. He symbolizes hope and we surely need hope," Miller said.
But he was quick to add that he could support another Republican for president.
"If he (Obama) stays eight years and then Jeb Bush says, 'I'm running,' I'm with Jeb."
The Associated Press
Thu, Aug 21, 2008 (11:18 a.m.)
Sen. Barack Obama isn't just inspiring black voters to register in large numbers as he gets closer to being the Democratic presidential nominee. Evidence indicates that he's motivating some black Republicans to switch parties.
The only three states that track voting registration by party and race show black Republican registration dropping slightly since the beginning of the year.
Florida has 81,512 more black Democrats compared to a loss of 784 black Republicans; Louisiana has 34,325 more black Democrats, while the number of black Republicans dropped by 907; North Carolina has 92,356 more black Democrats and 2,850 fewer black Republicans.
While the number of blacks who have left the GOP for the Democratic Party can't be pinpointed, it's not hard to find voters who have made the switch.
"That's happening in a lot of places," said Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland political scientist who tracks racial trends.
In Florida, it's happening at a time when the state Republican Party has made black voter recruitment a priority _ one that is more difficult with Obama's success.
Whitfield Jenkins of Ocala became a Republican nearly four decades ago, abandoning the Democrats out of anger when black voters helped elect a state lawmaker who later opposed a state holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. In 2006, Jenkins helped Republican Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign, but this year he switched back to the Democratic Party for one reason: Obama.
"Really early in his presidential campaign, when I got the opportunity to listen intently to his ideas and his platforms, I immediately said, 'This is beyond belief,'" Jenkins said. "I joined the effort and it became clear to me that I was better able to work in my community in a broad way and support this outstanding candidate as a Democrat."
Overall, Florida now has nearly 1.1 million black Democrats, compared to just under 64,000 black Republicans. Louisiana has about 704,000 black Democrats and 26,000 black Republicans, and North Carolina has more than 1 million black Democrats and just under 44,000 black Republicans.
Three other states _ Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina _ track voter registration by race, but voters don't register with parties. Each has seen large increases in black registration over recent seven-month periods, Georgia by almost 123,000, South Carolina by 43,198 Alabama by 20,844.
The biggest impact could be in Florida, where polls show a tight race between Obama and Republican John McCain. President Bush carried the state by only 537 votes in 2000. Democrats believe the result would have been different if not for problems in largely black precincts.
"If it's going to be a close election, it could be a huge factor," said Kevin Hill, a Florida International University political science professor. "Eighty-two thousand _ that's a lot of voters."
And while Bush won by a more comfortable 381,000 votes in 2004, the Obama campaign notes that 600,000 black voters stayed home. The campaign is also targeting nearly 600,000 black Floridians who aren't registered to vote.
"You're going to see some turnout like you've never seen before in the state of Florida," said Tony Hill, a black state senator from Jacksonville who is helping the Obama campaign.
Overall, Florida has about 4.4 million Democrats, 3.9 million Republicans and 2.3 million voters who aren't registered with either party.
Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer acknowledges that attracting more black Republicans has been difficult because of Obama's candidacy and says he doesn't expect a significant change in registration numbers this year despite party efforts to reach out to black voters.
"My goal here is that African-Americans who have voted Democratic their entire lives will begin to at least consider a Republican candidate," Greer said. "And then I'll move to the second goal of registration. But it is a slow process."
Some black Republicans say they're supporting Obama but not switching parties. They include former Florida Black Republican Council President Dorsey Miller, who helped former Republican Gov. Jeb Bush's campaigns and supports Crist.
Miller, though, said his support of Obama has nothing to do with race, but rather his dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and his concerns that McCain will continue President Bush's policies.
"It's a funny thing about Obama, but when I see him speak and see him on the stage, I don't see him as a black man, I just see a man. He symbolizes hope and we surely need hope," Miller said.
But he was quick to add that he could support another Republican for president.
"If he (Obama) stays eight years and then Jeb Bush says, 'I'm running,' I'm with Jeb."
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Senator Obama On Justice Thomas
Senator Obama has said that Justice Clarence Thomas did not have the legal and intellectual heft required for elevation to the United States Supreme Court. Senator Obama went on to say that he disagreed with Justices Thomas and Scalia on their legal reasoning, but Senator Obama did not question Scalia’s legal mind. Senator Obama was speaking on August 16 at a forum organized by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church of Lakeforest, CA.
When President Bush nominated Justice Thomas, Mr. Bush said Justice Thomas was the best qualified for the nomination. That statement became a running joke for many liberals who had opposed the nomination, but it should not have been. Qualification for the Supreme Court, as well as for a host of other government positions, now includes many factors. Among those factors are, race, sex, judicial philosophy, political affiliation, experience, age and intellect. When Clarence Thomas is examined over all those factors, he may well have been the most qualified for the nomination.
Senator Obama is not the first to have questioned the intellect of Justice Thomas, but if Senator Obama was not wedded to the misinformed beliefs of those who still oppose Justice Thomas, Mr. Obama's disposition towards Justice Thomas would would have been more enlightened.
If Justice Thomas was not intellectually qualified, where are his opponents waving poorly argued opinions while saying “we told you so”?
Over his years on the Court, opponents made the claim that Justice Thomas was simply following Justice Scalia. In her book, “Supreme Conflict”, Jan Crawford Greenburg addressed that point. What she found is that in many cases, it was Justice Scalia who was following Justice Thomas’s reasoning.
In an online discussion published on the New York Times website on July 14, 2008, former Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse, weighed in on the Thomas/Scalia relationship in response to a question: “….Although Justices Scalia and Thomas often agree on the bottom line, the jurisprudential paths they take to get there are often rather different. Justice Thomas is more the libertarian, and has explicitly called for overruling much of 20th-century constitutional law. Justice Scalia is much more wedded to precedent, even precedents of which he is highly critical. Neither takes marching orders from the other, as is obvious to close readers like yourself.”
When President Bush nominated Justice Thomas, Mr. Bush said Justice Thomas was the best qualified for the nomination. That statement became a running joke for many liberals who had opposed the nomination, but it should not have been. Qualification for the Supreme Court, as well as for a host of other government positions, now includes many factors. Among those factors are, race, sex, judicial philosophy, political affiliation, experience, age and intellect. When Clarence Thomas is examined over all those factors, he may well have been the most qualified for the nomination.
Senator Obama is not the first to have questioned the intellect of Justice Thomas, but if Senator Obama was not wedded to the misinformed beliefs of those who still oppose Justice Thomas, Mr. Obama's disposition towards Justice Thomas would would have been more enlightened.
If Justice Thomas was not intellectually qualified, where are his opponents waving poorly argued opinions while saying “we told you so”?
Over his years on the Court, opponents made the claim that Justice Thomas was simply following Justice Scalia. In her book, “Supreme Conflict”, Jan Crawford Greenburg addressed that point. What she found is that in many cases, it was Justice Scalia who was following Justice Thomas’s reasoning.
In an online discussion published on the New York Times website on July 14, 2008, former Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse, weighed in on the Thomas/Scalia relationship in response to a question: “….Although Justices Scalia and Thomas often agree on the bottom line, the jurisprudential paths they take to get there are often rather different. Justice Thomas is more the libertarian, and has explicitly called for overruling much of 20th-century constitutional law. Justice Scalia is much more wedded to precedent, even precedents of which he is highly critical. Neither takes marching orders from the other, as is obvious to close readers like yourself.”
Russia In Georgia
There seems to be little doubt Russia would like to see a reconstituted Soviet Union. Russia’s invasion of Georgia appears to be the first step in testing the will and the resolve of the western powers. History has examples in which bullying nations were allowed to grow in strength, because other nations resorted to appeasement in attempts to maintain the peace.
Russia is now conducting a test to see how much, if anything, the world has learned from history. In order to prevent yet another repeat of the past, all western powers should make it clear to Russia that if it does not withdraw from Georgia voluntarily, it will be ejected.
Russia has made a calculation that the US is in no position to use its military, and that other western nations would much rather beat their chests than form a coalition willing to use force.
Russia must be shown to be wrong, so that peace can be achieved now at a lower cost, rather than later, at a much higher cost.
Russia is now conducting a test to see how much, if anything, the world has learned from history. In order to prevent yet another repeat of the past, all western powers should make it clear to Russia that if it does not withdraw from Georgia voluntarily, it will be ejected.
Russia has made a calculation that the US is in no position to use its military, and that other western nations would much rather beat their chests than form a coalition willing to use force.
Russia must be shown to be wrong, so that peace can be achieved now at a lower cost, rather than later, at a much higher cost.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Senator Obama Beats Senator McCain In Media Coverage
washingtonpost.com
Obama's Edge in the Coverage Race
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, August 17, 2008; B06
Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.
In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages. Fifteen stories featured both candidates and were about polls or issues such as terrorism, Social Security and the candidates' agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan.
This dovetails with Obama's dominance in photos, which I pointed out two weeks ago. At that time, it was 122 for Obama and 78 for McCain. Two weeks later, it's 143 to 100, almost the same gap, because editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9.
This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.
Obama's dominance on Page 1 is partly due to stories about his winning the bruising primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton and his trip overseas in July. The coverage of June 4, 5, 6 and 7 led to six Page 1 stories in The Post, including Obama's nomination victory, his strategy, elation among African Americans over the historic nature of his win and his fundraising advantage. Then he made an appearance at Nissan Pavilion with Virginia's Gov. Timothy Kaine and Sen. James Webb, and it became a local Page 1 story. During those few days, there was one Page 1 reference to an inside-page story about McCain going after Clinton's disgruntled supporters.
When Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe, the coverage dwarfed that of McCain -- six Page 1 stories from July 19 to July 27, plus an earlier front-page story announcing the trip. McCain managed one Page 1 story and one Page 1 reference; the July 25 story said he might pick a vice presidential candidate soon, but that didn't happen. While there was no front-page story about Obama on July 25, it seemed wrong not to count that day because a photo of him in Berlin dominated the front page. I also counted a story about a Post-ABC News poll concerning racism and its potential impact on the election; 3 in 10 of those polled acknowledged racial bias.
Not all Page 1 coverage has been favorable. Obama was hit right away with two Page 1 stories about Washington insider James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae CEO, who was criticized for mortgage deals and then withdrew from vetting Obama's potential running mates. A story about Obama's former Chicago church reminded readers of the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. There were also stories with a favorable cast -- about his patriotism, his first appearance with Clinton and the coverage from his foreign trip.
McCain's Page 1 stories were a mix -- a story about the flap over former senator Phil Gramm's comment about a "nation of whiners" over the economy and a story about conservatives wanting to battle McCain on the party platform. But there also were stories about plans to make the federal government more environmentally responsible and McCain's proposal for offshore drilling.
The single most revealing story about McCain -- and one of the best Post stories on either candidate -- was a top-of-the-front-page look at McCain's intellect. The story, by veteran reporter and editor Robert G. Kaiser, was the kind of analysis that tells readers something they didn't know. It was neither positive nor negative, just revealing and insightful.
Another favorite was by Business reporter Lori Montgomery on how both candidates will have trouble lowering the deficit with their spending plans. A Style & Arts change of pace was movie critic Stephen Hunter's look at McCain and Obama as film icons-- McCain as John Wayne and Obama as Will Smith.
Page 1 coverage isn't all that counts, but it is the most visible. Certainly there were many stories on the Politics page and elsewhere in the paper. (I'm not counting opinion columns.) The Trail, The Post's politics blog, had dozens of short items about both candidates, all interesting to political junkies. Post inside coverage has been a mix of horse-race coverage -- stories about endorsements, advisers, who can win where -- and issues stories.
Style stories have dealt with the Internet, voters and volunteers, and the cultural aspects of the campaigns. Cindy McCain was featured in a big Style spread and Michelle Obama in a Metro story about her recent visit to Virginia.
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, thinks that I'm wrong to put weight on numbers. "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard.
"The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time."
Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.
Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or atombudsman@washpost.com.
Obama's Edge in the Coverage Race
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, August 17, 2008; B06
Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.
In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages. Fifteen stories featured both candidates and were about polls or issues such as terrorism, Social Security and the candidates' agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan.
This dovetails with Obama's dominance in photos, which I pointed out two weeks ago. At that time, it was 122 for Obama and 78 for McCain. Two weeks later, it's 143 to 100, almost the same gap, because editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9.
This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.
Obama's dominance on Page 1 is partly due to stories about his winning the bruising primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton and his trip overseas in July. The coverage of June 4, 5, 6 and 7 led to six Page 1 stories in The Post, including Obama's nomination victory, his strategy, elation among African Americans over the historic nature of his win and his fundraising advantage. Then he made an appearance at Nissan Pavilion with Virginia's Gov. Timothy Kaine and Sen. James Webb, and it became a local Page 1 story. During those few days, there was one Page 1 reference to an inside-page story about McCain going after Clinton's disgruntled supporters.
When Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe, the coverage dwarfed that of McCain -- six Page 1 stories from July 19 to July 27, plus an earlier front-page story announcing the trip. McCain managed one Page 1 story and one Page 1 reference; the July 25 story said he might pick a vice presidential candidate soon, but that didn't happen. While there was no front-page story about Obama on July 25, it seemed wrong not to count that day because a photo of him in Berlin dominated the front page. I also counted a story about a Post-ABC News poll concerning racism and its potential impact on the election; 3 in 10 of those polled acknowledged racial bias.
Not all Page 1 coverage has been favorable. Obama was hit right away with two Page 1 stories about Washington insider James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae CEO, who was criticized for mortgage deals and then withdrew from vetting Obama's potential running mates. A story about Obama's former Chicago church reminded readers of the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. There were also stories with a favorable cast -- about his patriotism, his first appearance with Clinton and the coverage from his foreign trip.
McCain's Page 1 stories were a mix -- a story about the flap over former senator Phil Gramm's comment about a "nation of whiners" over the economy and a story about conservatives wanting to battle McCain on the party platform. But there also were stories about plans to make the federal government more environmentally responsible and McCain's proposal for offshore drilling.
The single most revealing story about McCain -- and one of the best Post stories on either candidate -- was a top-of-the-front-page look at McCain's intellect. The story, by veteran reporter and editor Robert G. Kaiser, was the kind of analysis that tells readers something they didn't know. It was neither positive nor negative, just revealing and insightful.
Another favorite was by Business reporter Lori Montgomery on how both candidates will have trouble lowering the deficit with their spending plans. A Style & Arts change of pace was movie critic Stephen Hunter's look at McCain and Obama as film icons-- McCain as John Wayne and Obama as Will Smith.
Page 1 coverage isn't all that counts, but it is the most visible. Certainly there were many stories on the Politics page and elsewhere in the paper. (I'm not counting opinion columns.) The Trail, The Post's politics blog, had dozens of short items about both candidates, all interesting to political junkies. Post inside coverage has been a mix of horse-race coverage -- stories about endorsements, advisers, who can win where -- and issues stories.
Style stories have dealt with the Internet, voters and volunteers, and the cultural aspects of the campaigns. Cindy McCain was featured in a big Style spread and Michelle Obama in a Metro story about her recent visit to Virginia.
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, thinks that I'm wrong to put weight on numbers. "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard.
"The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time."
Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.
Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or atombudsman@washpost.com.
Senator Obama In Syc With His Least Favorite Justice (Justice Thomas)
 |  |
 |
Doubting Thomas
What exactly is Barack Obama’s problem with Clarence Thomas?
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
Asked to pick his least favorite Supreme Court justice on Saturday, Barack Obama named Clarence Thomas.
Rick Warren, pastor of the evangelical Saddleback Church, asked, “which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?”
Obama responded: “I don’t think he was an exp . . . ” — he then caught himself — “a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”
Although a choice sure to fire up his Left base, it was a curious answer, if you consider the record — even beyond the fact that Obama didn’t believe Thomas was qualified to be one of nine in the Supreme Court when Obama’s not quite uber-experienced to be one of one in the White House.
Was it that Barack Obama didn’t like Justice Thomas’s vote on the recent child-rapist case, Kennedy v. Louisiana? No, that couldn’t be it. Barack Obama agreed with Thomas on that decision. Justice Ginsburg, meanwhile — a liberal favorite on the Court, whom John McCain listed as one of his least favorite justices during the same forum — opposed giving child rapists the death penalty. So what’s so wrong about Thomas and so right about, say, Ginsberg, Senator Obama? Explain the logic. He can’t, of course, and still win an election — which is why he agreed with Thomas.
Was it that Barack Obama didn’t like Justice Thomas’s vote on the recent D.C. gun-ban case? Nope; that couldn’t be it either. Barack Obama wound up ultimately agreeing with Thomas and the majority on that one too.
Justice Ginsburg, on the other hand, had issues with the Second Amendment in that case. But you would nominate Justice Ginsburg, Senator Obama?
Did Obama disagree with Justice Thomas on the recent cross-burning case, Virginia v. Black? Obama’s favorite justice, Justice Ginsburg, wrote that cross-burning bans are constitutionally suspect. Justice Thomas disagreed and wrote a passionate dissent. During oral arguments he said: “There’s no other purpose to the cross, no communication, no particular message. . . . [It] was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population.” Does Obama take issue with the impassioned Thomas dissent?
If only left-wing Supreme Court Enemy #1 Justice Thomas were more open to legislating from the judicial bench. Perhaps if he were comfortable with the judicial branch making up laws establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage or legal rights for partial-birth abortion or for foreign terrorists he would be the ideal justice for a Barack Obama administration.
Barack Obama’s answer to Rick Warren’s Supreme Court question was telling. Elections matter. As one politico with experience on Supreme Court fights put it Saturday night, “regardless of what Obama might say about particular decisions, Obama’s justices would not only presumably make up these new rights — they would strip us of our Second Amendment rights while giving child rapists more rights and taking away the rights of the people through their legislators to make these important decisions.” But don’t expect Barack Obama to address any of those actual details.
In his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, Clarence Thomas wrote: “I knew that in Washington, what matters is not what you do but what people can be made to think you’ve done.” Barack Obama is at least experienced enough to know that.
— Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The State Of Oil
Thursday, August 14, 2008
by Richard W. Rahn
If you had to bet whether the price of oil would be higher or lower 10 years in the future, what would you say?
Some argue that the world is running out of low-cost oil and that oil prices will get higher and higher. Others argue that the current high price of oil will cause a flood of new oil, much of it from nonconventional sources; hence, prices will fall significantly (provided the political class in Washington, D.C., does not continue its energy and environmental death march policies).
The case for much lower oil prices is as follows. There are hundreds of years of oil supplies (at present and projected consumption levels) if oil in oil sands and shale is properly included in reserves. In some places, such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, there is still much low-cost oil ($15 a barrel or even less) that can be produced for decades, but not in an amount sufficient to meet the world's demand; hence, much higher-cost oil is also pumped. This higher-cost oil includes much of the offshore oil (the huge cost of the mammoth drilling rigs has to be amortized over each barrel of oil produced) and on-shore oil in hard-to-reach places and/or produced from low-production wells.
Oil reserves are largely a function of price. Global proven reserves of conventional oil obtainable at prices of less than $40 per barrel are estimated at more than 1.3 trillion barrels, with much of it concentrated in the Middle East. Additionally, reserves of so called "heavy oil," the largest reserves of which are in Venezuela's Orinoco area, are estimated at 1.2 trillion barrels, and most of this could probably be recovered for less than $50 per barrel.
The reserves of oil sands, which are actively being mined in Canada's Alberta Province, are estimated to be 1.8 trillion barrels. Experts estimate that much of this can be produced for $45 per barrel or less. Global reserves of oil shale are estimated at more than 3.3 trillion barrels, with 70 percent in the United States (primarily in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming).
Shell Oil Co. last year announced it has developed a process for extracting the oil from the shale, without mining, at a price of roughly $35 per barrel. The United States also has the world's largest reserves of coal - enough for hundreds of years of production at present levels. Coal also can be turned into liquid petroleum (as the Germans and South Africans proved decades ago). Current estimates of the conversion cost are as low as $35 per barrel.
Does it seem a bit odd that the current price of oil is more than twice the cost of producing all the oil the world presently needs and will need long into the future? The reason the price is so high is that the supply has been artificially constrained by governments. Most (88 percent) of the conventional oil reserves are owned by governments, and these governments have underinvested in new production. As is well-known, the U.S. government has restricted offshore and onshore drilling, shale development, and coal conversion.
Some politicians argue, even if the U.S. government started to allow increased production, that it would be seven to 10 years or more before there would be additional output. This is nonsense. Oil wells can be drilled at an average rate of 1,000 feet or so per day, which means that the average U.S. well can be drilled in a week. It does take a few weeks to set up the pump and install the separation tanks, etc., but new land wells can be producing within months, even if the product has to be trucked rather than piped away.
Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska would not take all that long for some production to get started. Politicians often confuse the time it takes to get peak production from a field as compared to some production - each additional well takes time, plus the necessary new piping collection infrastructure for each additional well.
Offshore wells do take a lot longer, but most of the time involved is the government permitting process, not the physical production of the rigs, drilling and so forth. If the government gave a full green light to production of oil shale in the Rocky Mountains, it might take several decades to reach full production, but some production would be accomplished in the next couple of years.
The very same politicians who claim we cannot increase oil production quickly are often the same ones who tell us we need to move to alternative forms - windmills and solar, etc. - without seeming to understand these desirable technologies will take far more time to meet the goals of "energy independence" than ramping up oil production. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she would not allow a vote on more drilling because she wanted "to save the planet," without seeming to understand, if increased oil production does not take place in the United States with all its environmental safeguards, it will take place where U.S. environmental law cannot be enforced - and that is not healthy for the planet.
Fortunately, the people are beginning to understand they are paying twice more for a gallon of gasoline than is necessary, and the global environment is not benefiting. Less expensive energy and a cleaner environment are most likely to be achieved quickly not with alternative energy sources but with an alternative set of congressional leaders.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Friday, August 15, 2008
A Peek Behind Openinng Night At 2008 Summer Olympics
Olympic artists angry
The Kung Fu pupils in the opening ceremony of the Olympics have spent the last year cooped up in a military camp outside Beijing. Conditions have been bad. "They weren't even given enough food," says their trainer. This news adds to the criticism of the Beijing Organizing Committee. Pupils from the Shaolin Centre in central China go to one of the best Kung Fu academies in the world. This is why they were chosen to take part in the opening ceremony at the Olympics. Their living conditions over the past year have been bad. PHOTO: KRISTOFFER RØNNEBERG | |
Viewers from around the globe marvelled at the Opening Ceremony last Friday. One of the most spectacular features was the martial arts display by 2008 pupils from the famous Shaolin Centre in Henan province. With coordinated movements, they showed the Tai Chi variant of Kung Fu; a popular way to relax for many Chinese people.
The skilful and well-executed show took a severe toll on many of the participants; both those who took part and the performers who were held in reserve.
Many of the martial arts performers feel abused and ignored by the Olympic organizers. For the last year, they have been housed 50 to a room, more than 70 kilometres from the ‘Bird’s Nest’ National arena. This is where they have slept, eaten and spent all their time.
Leaving the compound around the barracks was strictly forbidden. The dormitories are crammed with bunk beds. Between 30 and 50 of the teenagers spent the night in each room. Only a few of the showers work and the toilet facilities have been bad. The winter was icy and in summer, the pupils had to battle against mosquitoes and the heat.
"After repeated complaints they finally installed air-conditioning in the sleeping quarters. However, most of the equipment was so old that it didn't work," says one of the pupils.
Most of the 2500 performers have been sent home after the opening ceremony. The few that remain in order to take part in the closing ceremony are extremely angry about the treatment they have received from the Olympic organizers.
"The food is the worst thing. We’ve had the same two courses for dinner for a year. Sometimes there hasn't been enough for everyone. Those who have arrived last haven't got anything to eat," says a pupil.
He adds that he "wants to throw up," when the food is served.
"We never get noodles or dumplings. All we get is rice," he says.
Another pupil describes his disappointment as he arrived in Beijing last year. "We were proud at being chosen to take part. We all had great dreams about what we were going to do, what we were going to see and what big stars we would become, but all we've seen is the inside of this military camp. The only thing we dream of now is going home," he says.
Conditions have been so bad that their trainer, Kung Fu master Liu Haike, has sent a series of complaints to the Olympic organizers. The complaints did have some effect.
"In the end, the pupils got enough to eat, even if the diet was extremely monotonous," he says to daily newspaper Aftenposten.
Liu describes pressure from the organizers as extreme. Everything had to be perfect. As result the performers had to practice up to 16 hours a day. "The test performance of the opening ceremony was worst of all. The pupils had to remain in the stadium for 51 hours. They were hardly fed. There was nowhere to sleep. Some managed to sleep on the seats, but they didn't get more than a couple of hours at most," says Liu.
He adds that several of the pupils got heatstroke, but their physical training meant that they got better again relatively quickly. Liu says that he felt very sorry for his pupils and the way that they were treated.
"But the organizers have promised them an Olympic certificate thanking them for their effort. They will not receive pay. Nevertheless I think that the majority will think that it was good to do what they did for the Olympics and their country," says Liu.
Kristoffer Rønneberg
This is an article from www.aftenposten.no.
Updated: 14. august 2008 kl.14:39
It can be found at this address: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/sports/article2592984.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)