CNN's hot new talk show, "Parker Spitzer" debuted in last place on Monday. Even Nancy Grace had more viewers than Whatshername and Love Client No. 9.
A Baltimore Sun columnist said it best, "CNN's 'Parker Spitzer' finally debuted Monday night, and what a load of obnoxious, self important noise it is."
I particularly liked this slam, "So while I guess you could call it counterprogramming, who does CNN get to go head to head with Fox's O'Reilly at 8 but a former politician and poster boy for hypocrisy -- a one-time prosecutor who prosecuted prostitutes even as he was paying excessive amounts of money to them for sex. And then he lied about it and tried to cover it up. Eliot Spitzer: Someone we can all believe in."
According to the EPA new controls on CO2 could slow new construction for years. And on top of that the benefit in terms of global temperatures will be a whopping .0015 celsius. And don't put away your shorts and tee shirts just yet, we won't see all that reduced warming for 90 years. So the next time some warmist tells you about sea level rise that will be occurring over the next century, or polar ice cap melts or whatever the horror story--ask them what it is that they are proposing that will prevent it from happening. Here's what the EPA concluded:
(D)uring this time, tens of thousands of sources each year would be
prevented from constructing or modifying...In
fact, it is reasonable to assume that many of those sources will be
forced to abandon altogether plans to construct or modify. As a result, a
literal application (of the permit requirement) to GHG (greenhouse gas)
sources would slow construction nationwide for years, with all of the
adverse effects that this would have on economic development.
The EPA goes on to conclude that:
Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2
concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm
[parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is
estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 ˚C by 2100.
“We see two main scenarios,” analysts led by Jan Hatzius, the New York-based chief U.S. economist at the company [Goldman Sachs], wrote in an e-mail to clients. “A fairly bad one in which the economy grows at a 1 1/2 percent to 2 percent rate through the middle of next year and the unemployment rate rises moderately to 10 percent, and a very bad one in which the economy returns to an outright recession.”
Got that? The economy will be somewhere between fairly bad and very bad over the next six to nine months.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against an organization for allegedly firing someone based on her obesity. According to the EEOC, this would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since, according to them, obesity would be considered a disability. It should be noted that the EEOC has claimed in the past that obesity is a disability.
There has been a significant question regarding whether obesity is a disability under the ADA. A lot may depend on whether an individual is morbidly obese and therefore is substantially limited in performing major life activities, as opposed to someone who is just overweight.
After passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which made it much easier to prove disabilities, there may be little question that obesity is in fact a disability.
A key question is what does it mean for a physical or mental condition to "substantially limit" a major life activity?
The United States Supreme Court in a case called Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky v. Williams, interpreted “substantially limits” to mean “prevents or severely restricts." In other words, the Court interpreted the law properly by looking at the plain language of the statute.
Congress didn't like this (among other things) and wanted to water down the requirements of the ADA. In the 2008 legislation, Congress expressly rejected the Court's standard and included a vague provision in the bill indicating that "The term `substantially limits' shall be interpreted consistently with
the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008."
Courts will be struggling to come up with any coherent and consistent guidance on the meaning of the term because Congress failed to provide any clarity. Regardless, the definition of "substantially limits" is less stringent that it used to be.
Businesses should expect more ADA lawsuits and a greater need to reasonably accommodate individuals due to their "disabilities" as defined under the ADA. The ADA case law that had developed for nearly two decades is in some respects out the window as courts grapple with the new and poorly drafted ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
Guilford County commissioners are trying again this fall to convince voters to support raising $11.6 million through a sales tax hike.
Voters have rejected the idea twice before, and John Locke Foundation researchers have identified good reasons for them to reject the idea again. You'll find details here and in Michael Sanera's comments below.
Great Britain’s leading scientific body has issued an
updated guide to climate change. In the guide it acknowledges uncertainties in
the science regarding global warming and that it is impossible to know how the
earth’s climate will change in the future. This is according to a news story in
the London Daily Mail.
The importance of this cannot be overstated. If future climate
change cannot be predicted then neither can the future consequences of that
change, whatever they may be. All predictions of future catastrophe are based
on specific predictions of future warming. This also means that all cost
analysis that is based on these predictions are just a meaningless. As reported
in the Daily Mail article, the guide states that :
Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their
impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected…There is currently
insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice
sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of
sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given
As the News & Observerpointed out, "Goldman stressed that the vote doesn't mean a return to the old student assignment policy that gave weight to diversity and reaffirmed her commitment to community-based schools."
The disagreements between Goldman and Tedesco amount to competing visions of student assignment, visions that do not include forced busing.
One more thing. John Tedesco owes Debra Goldman an apology. Disagreements are inevitable but name-calling is unacceptable.
Michael Barone explores one cause of the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans in his latest column for the Washington Examiner:
So why are Democrats less enthusiastic? And why has "the progressive donor base," as Democratic consultant Jim Jordans reports, "stopped writing checks"?
I don't think it's just because the economy remains sour or that President Obama failed to jam a public option in the health care bill.
I find a more convincing explanation in an offhand phrase in a subordinate clause in a brief article by Adam Serwer of the Center for American Progress on the Washington Post's opinion pages. "There's no question," Serwer writes, defying anyone to disagree, "that Obama has completely reversed on his promises to roll back Bush-era national security policies."
For it is not economics but foreign policy that has motivated the left half of the Democratic Party over the last decade.
When Howard Dean's supporters were declaring that they wanted to "take our country back" in 2003 and 2004, they weren't talking about repealing the Bush tax cuts. They were talking about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and taking a more conciliatory and respectful stance to the leaders of Old Europe and revolutionary Iran.
Similarly, Obama's refusal in 2007 and 2008 to admit that there was even a smidgen of success to George W. Bush's surge strategy in Iraq -- even today he will only hint that the surge worked -- cannot be chalked up to an intellectual incapacity to assimilate the facts.
It can only be explained as an unwillingness to rile the base of the Democratic Party whose concerns, as we know from Bob Woodward's account of the president's conduct of deliberations over what to do in Afghanistan, are never far from his mind.
Nevertheless, he has left these Democrats disappointed.
The proof is in the upending of the Wake County School Board's plans to restore neighborhood school choices in lieu of the academically unsuccessful current school busing situation. Thanks to school board member Debra Goldman (Raleigh News & Observer). corrected
Sharon Begley practices a little pop psychology in the latest Newsweek, explaining that voters’ anger is stopping them from embracing such worthwhile government policies as bailouts and federal health care reform:
While anxious voters seek out many sources of information, angry ones “want to rally round their convictions,” says Marcus. “They’re not interested in objective information, but only in the kind that reinforces what they believe.” Democrats can therefore bombard talk shows and op-ed pages and blogs with studies showing that TARP prevented a financial implosion or that the health-care-reform law will save billions of dollars, but many of the voters they need to reach aren’t hearing it.
I wonder if this means Begley is angry about the climate. Perhaps that’s the reason she clings to global warming alarmism despite all the evidence against it.
If you want to create jobs, your best bet is to hand out tax breaks or cash grants to established companies that have the name recognition and resources to woo state Commerce Department officials and state lawmakers, right?
If you’re interested in job creation—and who isn’t these days?—you should talk to someone like Morris Panner. In 1999, Panner and some others started a Boston software company called OpenAir. By 2008 they sold it for $31 million. The firm had then grown to about 50 workers. It turns out that entrepreneurship (essentially, the founding of new companies) is crucial to job creation. But as Panner’s experience suggests, success is often a slog.
What’s frustrating and perplexing about the present job dearth is that the U.S. economy has long been a phenomenal employment machine. Here’s the record: 83 million jobs added from 1960 to 2007, with only six years of declines (1961, 1975, 1982, 1991, 2002, 2003). Conventional analysis blames today’s poor performance (jobs are 7.6 million below their pre-recession peak) on weak demand. Because people aren’t buying, businesses aren’t hiring. Though true, this omits the vital role of entrepreneurship.
Since entrepreneurs are so important, it makes sense to avoid government policies that place too many barriers in their way, as Joe Coletti explains:
It's no wonder prudent business owners and entrepreneurs are thinking twice before hiring new workers, Coletti said. "We have to remember that business owners weigh the benefits and costs of hiring new workers," he said. "That's an impossible task when the costs are unclear. Some businesses know for certain that they need new workers. Others aren't so sure. Rather than risk hiring someone who will be too costly to keep on board because of new government mandates, many business are making due with the staffing levels they have now."