Will Cain Quit?
Whether he has been unfairly maligned by David Axelrod's minions, or is truly a pervert, there will be celebrations tomorrow if Herman Cain steps down. Team Obama will benefit the most from the elimination of the one candidate that could have fragmented two vital coalitions necessary to re-elect the POTUS, and Republicans may have missed their best shot at the White House.
Leaving aside the arguments of how Conservative or capable Cain is, and considering only the strategic viability of a black Republican candidate, Cain may have stripped Obama of at least 20% of his support from the black community, and perhaps more from the "guilty white" crowd that voted for Obama for emotional and racial reasons.
Although the numbers seem pretty minor, the difference going into the general election would be huge, and here's why:
In the primary, the only people voting are those who already hold strong opinions on the candidates, but they will generally support whoever wins their primary. The 40% or so who make up the Rasmussen "strongly disapprove" rating have decided to support the Republican in 2012, and because it's an incumbent year, the 40% or so who at least "somewhat approve" will probably stick with Obama. That leaves approximately 20% of likely voters who don't know enough yet to have a strong opinion. They are not likely to vote in the primary, but they are the deciding factor in the general.
So, next fall, with Obama competing against any white Republican, both sides will go in with about 40% support. The rest of the election is going to be about grabbing the majority of the undecideds. Expect a very dirty fight, without any of the black coalition or the "guilty white" vote switching sides at the last minute.
The math changes with a black Republican candidate. If Cain wins the primary, it's reasonable to expect that many would see him as the guilt-free alternative; Cain is an authentic black man who is the polar opposite of Obama.
Every campaign manager works hard to break the other guy's hard won coalitions. 14% of those who voted for Obama were black, and if 25% defected to Cain, he could add 3% to his base. Assuming that "guilty whites" might similarly jump ship for a black pro-business jobs maker, he might add another 3%.
So Cain could conceivably enter the general election with solid support of 46%. Since the extra 6% is stolen from the base of Obama, the President would start the general with only 34% approval rating. It would be nearly impossible to gain the support of 17 out of every 20 undecideds.
By contrast, no white Republican in 2012 can break racially motivated coalitions. Obama is already arguing that he needs more time, and that racist Republicans stand in the way of reform. He desperately needs to run against a pasty-faced rich establishment guy who can be portrayed as an enemy of the middle class, and Romney, Gingrich or Perry fit the bill nicely.
Obama isn't concerned about the 40% who "strongly disapprove" in Rasmussen's poll numbers, because he knows his team is very good at appealing to those in the 20% undecided category.
Part of that appeal will be the accusation that Republicans can't stand the idea of a black man running for President even on their own team.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Where Small Towns Get the Money
Where Small Towns Get the Money
October 20, 2011
Publicly funded parks can be a precious component of life in the cities and suburbs of our country. For those not able to afford country escapes, these open spaces and verdant landscapes offer a welcome respite to noise, traffic and congested quarters.
This "pedestrian park" located in my decidedly middle class suburb, is located betwixt the busiest streets in town, and surrounded by a strip mall parking lot and its driveways. Apparently designed by someone who never lived near the 45th parallel, and openly mocked as the stupid useless arches with the ugly garbage sculpture, the entire silly little thing cost over half a million dollars. Your federal tax dollars at work.
October 20, 2011
Publicly funded parks can be a precious component of life in the cities and suburbs of our country. For those not able to afford country escapes, these open spaces and verdant landscapes offer a welcome respite to noise, traffic and congested quarters.
This "pedestrian park" located in my decidedly middle class suburb, is located betwixt the busiest streets in town, and surrounded by a strip mall parking lot and its driveways. Apparently designed by someone who never lived near the 45th parallel, and openly mocked as the stupid useless arches with the ugly garbage sculpture, the entire silly little thing cost over half a million dollars. Your federal tax dollars at work.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
My Apocalyptic Evening With Mark Steyn
Driving through foreboding fogginess Wednesday, I was struck with a creeping sense of lurking doom, which naturally put me in the perfect humor to hear Mark Steyn’s speech at Hillsdale College that evening. Luckily, he was in an “apocalyptic mood” and delivered on a promise to give listeners something to think on, or at least drink on, depending on individual preference. Introducing his topic, he said, “If you’re planning on drinking to forget, I’ll try to give you plenty you’ll want to forget.”
Steyn disclosed the brutal truth of America in decline; the insatiable appetites of activist bureaucracy, moronic budgetary philosophy, an insouciant attitude toward debt and credit, the divorce of social conservatism from fiscal conservatism, and the unpalatable fact that we choose this reality freely. He also revealed a brief glimpse of that most rare of public Steynian moods, optimism.
Reanimating the “death panel” provision of Obamacare framed Steyn’s discussion of the monstrous growth of bureaucracy, and the onerous rules pertaining to every facet of our lives. Kathleen Sebelius, he said, “didn’t consult anyone” when she put the provision for end of life counseling back into Obamacare after it had been stripped out. With hundreds of references in the law handing her the power to make rules, “..the Secretary may and shall determine pretty much anything she wants, plucked at random from the Obamacare law.” Steyn said. Bureaucratic rule making is supplanting the people’s law making process in the legislature.
“It starts with the money, it always does.” Using examples like The Cowboy Poetry Festival, The Great lakes Restoration Initiative, and NPR, Steyn mocked the spending impulses of the government, with the attendant debt burden, and warned, “America is sending a consistent and very dangerous message to the world;... its governing mechanisms and political culture do not allow for meaningful course correction. And without meaningful course correction, America is doomed.”
Fiscal conservatives often don’t understand that easy credit and irresponsible debt burdens are not just accounting issues, said Steyn, “There’s nothing virtuous about caring, compassionate progressives demonstrating how caring and compassionate they are by spending money yet to be earned by generations yet to be born.” It’s a moral issue revolving around the relationship of trust and responsibility.
Steyn notes that the effect of shoveling money at people without burdening them with responsibility for their actions yields a culture devoid of self-reliance and liberty. He insisted that the issues of fiscal conservatism and morality cannot be separated, “Entire new categories of crime have arisen in the wake of familial collapse. Millions and millions of American children are raised in transient households and moral vacuums that make just not social mobility, but even elemental character formation all but impossible.”
Decline is not a foregone conclusion, he said, even when the political class and too many people have chosen it; when everyone in Europe was rioting and demanding more government money and government programs as, “insulation from the realities of life, this was the only country in the developed world where millions and millions of people took to the streets to say, ‘No! We could do just fine, if you, the government, would get out of our pockets, get out of our lives...and stay out!’ That’s the America that has a fighting chance.”
After the speech, I scampered to the reception, where Mark was entertaining a constantly rotating knot of fans. He graciously took the time to sign books, pose for photos and expand upon his earlier remarks, as well as answer all kinds of questions. Chatting with him, I’m always struck by his generous good humor and kindness toward others. Burdened with the tasks of a cultural Cassandra, he keeps us alert to the disaster we’d rather ignore. Thank you for all that, Mr. Steyn, and I’ll see you next year.
Driving through foreboding fogginess Wednesday, I was struck with a creeping sense of lurking doom, which naturally put me in the perfect humor to hear Mark Steyn’s speech at Hillsdale College that evening. Luckily, he was in an “apocalyptic mood” and delivered on a promise to give listeners something to think on, or at least drink on, depending on individual preference. Introducing his topic, he said, “If you’re planning on drinking to forget, I’ll try to give you plenty you’ll want to forget.”
Steyn disclosed the brutal truth of America in decline; the insatiable appetites of activist bureaucracy, moronic budgetary philosophy, an insouciant attitude toward debt and credit, the divorce of social conservatism from fiscal conservatism, and the unpalatable fact that we choose this reality freely. He also revealed a brief glimpse of that most rare of public Steynian moods, optimism.
Reanimating the “death panel” provision of Obamacare framed Steyn’s discussion of the monstrous growth of bureaucracy, and the onerous rules pertaining to every facet of our lives. Kathleen Sebelius, he said, “didn’t consult anyone” when she put the provision for end of life counseling back into Obamacare after it had been stripped out. With hundreds of references in the law handing her the power to make rules, “..the Secretary may and shall determine pretty much anything she wants, plucked at random from the Obamacare law.” Steyn said. Bureaucratic rule making is supplanting the people’s law making process in the legislature.
“It starts with the money, it always does.” Using examples like The Cowboy Poetry Festival, The Great lakes Restoration Initiative, and NPR, Steyn mocked the spending impulses of the government, with the attendant debt burden, and warned, “America is sending a consistent and very dangerous message to the world;... its governing mechanisms and political culture do not allow for meaningful course correction. And without meaningful course correction, America is doomed.”
Fiscal conservatives often don’t understand that easy credit and irresponsible debt burdens are not just accounting issues, said Steyn, “There’s nothing virtuous about caring, compassionate progressives demonstrating how caring and compassionate they are by spending money yet to be earned by generations yet to be born.” It’s a moral issue revolving around the relationship of trust and responsibility.
Decline is not a foregone conclusion, he said, even when the political class and too many people have chosen it; when everyone in Europe was rioting and demanding more government money and government programs as, “insulation from the realities of life, this was the only country in the developed world where millions and millions of people took to the streets to say, ‘No! We could do just fine, if you, the government, would get out of our pockets, get out of our lives...and stay out!’ That’s the America that has a fighting chance.”
After the speech, I scampered to the reception, where Mark was entertaining a constantly rotating knot of fans. He graciously took the time to sign books, pose for photos and expand upon his earlier remarks, as well as answer all kinds of questions. Chatting with him, I’m always struck by his generous good humor and kindness toward others. Burdened with the tasks of a cultural Cassandra, he keeps us alert to the disaster we’d rather ignore. Thank you for all that, Mr. Steyn, and I’ll see you next year.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Playing the Odds, or The Art of Being NICE
Need access to a family-practice physician, and want to move to tiny Norwood, Ontario? Don’t expect to see a family physician unless you feel lucky, because Norwood has instituted a lottery to pick who will get to see the town’s only doctor. Winners are chosen each month by the town counsel, which provides off-the-book incentives to the only physician willing to stay and take on 4 new patients a month. Losers lose out. Welcome to Canadian health care in an otherwise lovely small town. Government market distortions forced the town to apply this peculiar form of rationing, and demonstrates how socialized medicine does not reward winners as much as it chooses losers.
The United Kingdom’s program for early detection of cancer is like playing Russian roulette with your doctor; 3 out of 4 “win”, and are diagnosed correctly, but 25% of people with cancer are sent home with a pain pill. Those who accept their first diagnoses become unhappy statistics of a lower cure rate. If you play the U.K. lottery system of health care, your chance of dying from breast cancer is 88% higher in the U.K. than the U.S.. Not surprising, when the doctors miss it 25% of the time.
The creators of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have always seen this as a marketing problem, hence the syrupy acronym NICE to describe a tough system that routinely denies care. Nobody flies to the U.K. for their wonderful dentistry, clean hospitals, and 27% death rate from cancer out of all deaths, but if you’re stuck living there you don’t have a choice, so they may as well sell you on a slick concept.
According to marketing professionals, contests with high odds of winning are counter productive because too many customers feel like losers; nobody likes to scratch off 100 tickets with “Sorry! Try Again!” written on them. The trick is to find the sweet spot where people perceive their chances are good enough to take the trouble to scratch, and not feel too disappointed when they lose. If you have a 1 out of 4 chance of getting a small prize like a free cola or 15% off your next purchase, you actually look forward to the game ticket, but if it’s your health at stake, the “Sorry! Try Again!” card can really make you mad, especially when you’re forced to play over and over. Most patients prefer the 99.9% win rate in health care, but up till now, patients were probably not aware of the small print usually found at the bottom of the game piece which states how much time you can expect to lose playing the game without reward.
This all brings to mind, “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson; a short story about a small town that chooses a single loser each year in order to sacrifice him/her to ensure a good crops. The chances of dying in this lottery is one in 300, and, oddly enough, it’s death by stoning. Sort of a Shariah style death panel.
Except for the kindly acronyms, what's the difference between various capricious lottery systems that end up killing people for lack of care, and holding a yearly contest to decide who to stone to death?
February 17, 2011
Thoughts from CPAC:
The astonishing Ayann Hirsi Ali was selling signed copies of her books to support her cause, the AHA Foundation, which aims to protect the rights of western women against the onslaught of militant Islamism. Serene and ethereal, all rustling, coughing and whispered conversation ceased abruptly whenever Ali spoke.
Panels on pop culture and the war on conservative values-I was amazed at how many wanna-be conservative filmmakers kept asking about conservative opportunities in the film industry-as if you could go to Hollywood and join the “Conservative Movie Guild” to get your heavy handed conservative films made. The panelists seemed to have a hard time convincing some folks of the value of just being a good storyteller. Once you have a reputation, you can make films that reflect conservatism.
Andrew Brietbart. Hero of the revolution in thinking about the left. My husband says the difference between Ann Coulter and Andrew Brietbart is that Ann has very funny, clever lines. Andrew, who is also very smart, is just plain funny. His rambling narrative, perfectly timed for laughs, describes his method for turning the left’s tools on itself. He encourages everyone to buy a camera, and ask questions. (Note to Andrew: I saw you like, 5 times in the lobby, but I was not stalking you)
Libertarian presence. Of course Ron Paul won; a huge proportion of the straw poll was libertarian. Mostly a bunch of fired up young men, libertarian audiences at Ron and Rand Paul speeches were by far the most raucous, screaming “End the Fed!” over and over. In addition I found libertarians are totally convinced of their political ascendancy. Christopher Malagisi has a excellent article on this.
Mark Steyn’s non-presence. Sigh. Basically all the women, and most of the men at CPAC would have loved to have heard him speak. No one knows why he hasn’t been there in a while, (Is it because of Marriott’s ban of SteynOnline?) but most agreed he would have been a bang-up keynoter. Two women in particular said that they were "extremely saddened" by his absence. Maybe next year?
GoProud. A non-issue for me, especially since Ann Coulter claims to have gotten them to drop the gay marriage issue from their plank. To me, nothing could be more stupid than to throw away a coalition that’s with us on 90% of the issues. Conservatives need groups that have splintered away from the left.
Overall, a great conference with terrific speeches, spiced up with a pinch of controversy to keep things interesting. Some of my friends didn’t attend because of a perception that CPAC is drifting away from it’s conservative roots. I saw it as an opportunity to sharpen skills in something more than an echo chamber. Check it all out online.
Update: Smart funnyguy, and MC, Steven Crowder posed with me for a photograph; he is absolutely drop-dead gorgeous, and my teenage daughter nearly died of jealousy.
Update #2: Giddy with joy, I've just noticed that Mark Steyn has posted my tweet on his "Reader of the Day" feature.
Thank you, Mark!
February 1, 2011
Snowpocalypse
It’s been a long time since Lansing*, Michigan has had a really big snowstorm. Most local folks under the age of 25 have never experienced an authentic blizzard; the kind that drops more than a foot of snow and blows drifts that bury automobiles, mailboxes, and even buildings. Tonight we may be visited by a “beast” of a storm that is roaring across the Midwest, has dumped 21” in Tulsa, and is sucking up moisture over the big lake before clobbering us.
Predictions for mid Michigan range from 10” to 18” over the next 24 hours, with lots and lots of drifting. For those of us growing up in the sixties, it marks a return to winter’s business as usual, and the thought of how I forgot to get the primer button fixed on the snow blower is foremost on my mind. Fortunately, I planned waaaay ahead, and am now in possession of two hulking teenage boys who understand the connection between helping Mom, and using the new PS3.
These guys grew up during a mini Global Warming Period, with mild winters and falling lake levels, long summers, and Al Gore. I’ve been regaling them with stories from the great blizzard of 1967, when the snow paralyzed everything, and we had a week long vacation from school. A full two feet feet fell, and remains the record. However, today’s newspaper states the snowfall during the 1967 blast was 15.4”. That number appears to have been picked from an early report during the blizzard. It’s curious that current researchers chose an understatement of the snow depth. I do wonder why. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110201/LANSING01/302010012
From the internet version of the Lansing State Journal:
Record snowfalls in Lansing
15.4 inches, Jan. 26, 1967 • 15.1 inches, Jan. 26, 1978 • 14.5 inches, Dec. 11, 2000 • 13.9 inches, March 17, 1973 • 12.6 inches, Jan. 22, 2005 • 10.3 inches, Jan. 13, 1979 • 10.2 inches, April 1, 1970 • 9.9 inches, April 2, 1975 • 8.9 inches, Dec. 11, 1970 • 8.8 inches, Jan. 13, 1976
Not to be dramatic, but didn't this kind of data massaging bring on Climategate?
Since weather forecasters are predicting as much as 18”, it seems as if the reporter hopes we achieve a new record tonight. Of course, news sells papers, but this kind of news also sells bad ideas, and I’ve lost count of how many references I’ve heard today of Global Climate Change, and how this “massive storm” is directly related to it.
My husband, who continues to surprise me, announced that he had kept the newspaper clippings from the snowstorm of 1967, and triumphantly retrieved them tonight. I was aware of his collection of the moon landing, and the assassination of JFK, but now I actually appreciate his peculiar obsession.
Pictured at right, a street scene shows cars nearly buried in snow.
Note the headline of the Apollo disaster. A few days later, another stated that because of that horrible fire, NASA's moon shot program was endangered.
Pictured below is one of many collapsed roofs.
Of course, in 1967 we weren't yet worried about Global Warming, because it didn't yet exist. The backwards notion of the day was that the world was doomed to repeat a long overdue ice-age; with increasingly vicious snow storms, shorter summers, and much colder weather, which culminated in the winter of 1976-77. In the whole month of January 1977, the thermometer never once topped 0 degrees Fahrenheit.
Now, we know better; the current colder temperatures, heavier snowfall, and general change in the weather from day to day is caused by Global Warming, or rather the more fashionable term, Global Climate Change. Indeed, no matter what happens in the swirling dark tonight, the same people who accuse Rush Limbaugh. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin of scare-mongering, will hurry to press in the morning with the latest bleak predictions of doom.
*My original essay omitted the word Lansing, which is where I grew up. Several folks wrote angry letters claiming I knew nothing about the State of Michigan, since it's common for lake effect snow to be measured in feet; the Upper Peninsula basically gets completely buried every year, and digs tunnels to get around. All I can say is, I'm sorry. The story is about Lansing, the flat, industrialized capital city whose lucky residents hardly ever experience really bad weather, but nonetheless is home to a dense population of pampered liberals who panic at the vicissitudes of daily living.
Need access to a family-practice physician, and want to move to tiny Norwood, Ontario? Don’t expect to see a family physician unless you feel lucky, because Norwood has instituted a lottery to pick who will get to see the town’s only doctor. Winners are chosen each month by the town counsel, which provides off-the-book incentives to the only physician willing to stay and take on 4 new patients a month. Losers lose out. Welcome to Canadian health care in an otherwise lovely small town. Government market distortions forced the town to apply this peculiar form of rationing, and demonstrates how socialized medicine does not reward winners as much as it chooses losers.
The United Kingdom’s program for early detection of cancer is like playing Russian roulette with your doctor; 3 out of 4 “win”, and are diagnosed correctly, but 25% of people with cancer are sent home with a pain pill. Those who accept their first diagnoses become unhappy statistics of a lower cure rate. If you play the U.K. lottery system of health care, your chance of dying from breast cancer is 88% higher in the U.K. than the U.S.. Not surprising, when the doctors miss it 25% of the time.
The creators of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have always seen this as a marketing problem, hence the syrupy acronym NICE to describe a tough system that routinely denies care. Nobody flies to the U.K. for their wonderful dentistry, clean hospitals, and 27% death rate from cancer out of all deaths, but if you’re stuck living there you don’t have a choice, so they may as well sell you on a slick concept.
According to marketing professionals, contests with high odds of winning are counter productive because too many customers feel like losers; nobody likes to scratch off 100 tickets with “Sorry! Try Again!” written on them. The trick is to find the sweet spot where people perceive their chances are good enough to take the trouble to scratch, and not feel too disappointed when they lose. If you have a 1 out of 4 chance of getting a small prize like a free cola or 15% off your next purchase, you actually look forward to the game ticket, but if it’s your health at stake, the “Sorry! Try Again!” card can really make you mad, especially when you’re forced to play over and over. Most patients prefer the 99.9% win rate in health care, but up till now, patients were probably not aware of the small print usually found at the bottom of the game piece which states how much time you can expect to lose playing the game without reward.
This all brings to mind, “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson; a short story about a small town that chooses a single loser each year in order to sacrifice him/her to ensure a good crops. The chances of dying in this lottery is one in 300, and, oddly enough, it’s death by stoning. Sort of a Shariah style death panel.
Except for the kindly acronyms, what's the difference between various capricious lottery systems that end up killing people for lack of care, and holding a yearly contest to decide who to stone to death?
February 17, 2011
Thoughts from CPAC:
The astonishing Ayann Hirsi Ali was selling signed copies of her books to support her cause, the AHA Foundation, which aims to protect the rights of western women against the onslaught of militant Islamism. Serene and ethereal, all rustling, coughing and whispered conversation ceased abruptly whenever Ali spoke.
Panels on pop culture and the war on conservative values-I was amazed at how many wanna-be conservative filmmakers kept asking about conservative opportunities in the film industry-as if you could go to Hollywood and join the “Conservative Movie Guild” to get your heavy handed conservative films made. The panelists seemed to have a hard time convincing some folks of the value of just being a good storyteller. Once you have a reputation, you can make films that reflect conservatism.
Andrew Brietbart. Hero of the revolution in thinking about the left. My husband says the difference between Ann Coulter and Andrew Brietbart is that Ann has very funny, clever lines. Andrew, who is also very smart, is just plain funny. His rambling narrative, perfectly timed for laughs, describes his method for turning the left’s tools on itself. He encourages everyone to buy a camera, and ask questions. (Note to Andrew: I saw you like, 5 times in the lobby, but I was not stalking you)
Libertarian presence. Of course Ron Paul won; a huge proportion of the straw poll was libertarian. Mostly a bunch of fired up young men, libertarian audiences at Ron and Rand Paul speeches were by far the most raucous, screaming “End the Fed!” over and over. In addition I found libertarians are totally convinced of their political ascendancy. Christopher Malagisi has a excellent article on this.
Mark Steyn’s non-presence. Sigh. Basically all the women, and most of the men at CPAC would have loved to have heard him speak. No one knows why he hasn’t been there in a while, (Is it because of Marriott’s ban of SteynOnline?) but most agreed he would have been a bang-up keynoter. Two women in particular said that they were "extremely saddened" by his absence. Maybe next year?
GoProud. A non-issue for me, especially since Ann Coulter claims to have gotten them to drop the gay marriage issue from their plank. To me, nothing could be more stupid than to throw away a coalition that’s with us on 90% of the issues. Conservatives need groups that have splintered away from the left.
Overall, a great conference with terrific speeches, spiced up with a pinch of controversy to keep things interesting. Some of my friends didn’t attend because of a perception that CPAC is drifting away from it’s conservative roots. I saw it as an opportunity to sharpen skills in something more than an echo chamber. Check it all out online.
Update: Smart funnyguy, and MC, Steven Crowder posed with me for a photograph; he is absolutely drop-dead gorgeous, and my teenage daughter nearly died of jealousy.
Update #2: Giddy with joy, I've just noticed that Mark Steyn has posted my tweet on his "Reader of the Day" feature.
Thank you, Mark!
February 1, 2011
Snowpocalypse
It’s been a long time since Lansing*, Michigan has had a really big snowstorm. Most local folks under the age of 25 have never experienced an authentic blizzard; the kind that drops more than a foot of snow and blows drifts that bury automobiles, mailboxes, and even buildings. Tonight we may be visited by a “beast” of a storm that is roaring across the Midwest, has dumped 21” in Tulsa, and is sucking up moisture over the big lake before clobbering us.
Predictions for mid Michigan range from 10” to 18” over the next 24 hours, with lots and lots of drifting. For those of us growing up in the sixties, it marks a return to winter’s business as usual, and the thought of how I forgot to get the primer button fixed on the snow blower is foremost on my mind. Fortunately, I planned waaaay ahead, and am now in possession of two hulking teenage boys who understand the connection between helping Mom, and using the new PS3.
These guys grew up during a mini Global Warming Period, with mild winters and falling lake levels, long summers, and Al Gore. I’ve been regaling them with stories from the great blizzard of 1967, when the snow paralyzed everything, and we had a week long vacation from school. A full two feet feet fell, and remains the record. However, today’s newspaper states the snowfall during the 1967 blast was 15.4”. That number appears to have been picked from an early report during the blizzard. It’s curious that current researchers chose an understatement of the snow depth. I do wonder why. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110201/LANSING01/302010012
From the internet version of the Lansing State Journal:
Record snowfalls in Lansing
15.4 inches, Jan. 26, 1967 • 15.1 inches, Jan. 26, 1978 • 14.5 inches, Dec. 11, 2000 • 13.9 inches, March 17, 1973 • 12.6 inches, Jan. 22, 2005 • 10.3 inches, Jan. 13, 1979 • 10.2 inches, April 1, 1970 • 9.9 inches, April 2, 1975 • 8.9 inches, Dec. 11, 1970 • 8.8 inches, Jan. 13, 1976
Not to be dramatic, but didn't this kind of data massaging bring on Climategate?
Since weather forecasters are predicting as much as 18”, it seems as if the reporter hopes we achieve a new record tonight. Of course, news sells papers, but this kind of news also sells bad ideas, and I’ve lost count of how many references I’ve heard today of Global Climate Change, and how this “massive storm” is directly related to it.
My husband, who continues to surprise me, announced that he had kept the newspaper clippings from the snowstorm of 1967, and triumphantly retrieved them tonight. I was aware of his collection of the moon landing, and the assassination of JFK, but now I actually appreciate his peculiar obsession.
Pictured at right, a street scene shows cars nearly buried in snow.
Note the headline of the Apollo disaster. A few days later, another stated that because of that horrible fire, NASA's moon shot program was endangered.
Pictured below is one of many collapsed roofs.
Of course, in 1967 we weren't yet worried about Global Warming, because it didn't yet exist. The backwards notion of the day was that the world was doomed to repeat a long overdue ice-age; with increasingly vicious snow storms, shorter summers, and much colder weather, which culminated in the winter of 1976-77. In the whole month of January 1977, the thermometer never once topped 0 degrees Fahrenheit.
Now, we know better; the current colder temperatures, heavier snowfall, and general change in the weather from day to day is caused by Global Warming, or rather the more fashionable term, Global Climate Change. Indeed, no matter what happens in the swirling dark tonight, the same people who accuse Rush Limbaugh. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin of scare-mongering, will hurry to press in the morning with the latest bleak predictions of doom.
*My original essay omitted the word Lansing, which is where I grew up. Several folks wrote angry letters claiming I knew nothing about the State of Michigan, since it's common for lake effect snow to be measured in feet; the Upper Peninsula basically gets completely buried every year, and digs tunnels to get around. All I can say is, I'm sorry. The story is about Lansing, the flat, industrialized capital city whose lucky residents hardly ever experience really bad weather, but nonetheless is home to a dense population of pampered liberals who panic at the vicissitudes of daily living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)