Irony from John Miller at the Corner:

Obama administration policy:

• Revoke the ban on photos of coffins of America’s dead soldiers.
• Withhold photos of the dead Osama bin Laden.

Evidence that we are moving beyond moral equivalence.

Power Line tells the story of a killer let out of jail because of the media hype surrounding the supposed sudden acceleration of Toyotas. The driver who plowed into traffic at high speed got a new trial based on the possibility that Toyotas really do just suddenly run away with their drivers. The prosecution eventually dropped the charges.

Only now are we learning of data being withheld by the government that tends to refute the theory.  That information also shows that Toyotas are not involved in a significant percentage of allegations of sudden acceleration.

The media are willing to promote most any theory as science if it fits the anti-business narrative. It remains to be seen what role the government played, if any, in running down the reputation of a strong competitor to GM.

I said in the middle of the “sudden acceleration” hysteria that I wanted a Toyota.  Sad to say I did not get one.  The news now is that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will release findings that point to driver error.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has analyzed dozens of data recorders from Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles involved in accidents blamed on sudden acceleration and found that the throttles were wide open and the brakes weren’t engaged at the time of the crash, people familiar with the findings said.

The early results suggest that some drivers who said their Toyotas and Lexuses surged out of control were mistakenly flooring the accelerator when they intended to jam on the brakes.

The media were quick to buy into the story of runaway machines.  Of course, the idea of man’s inventions run amok has long been a popular theme (e.g. Frankenstein and Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey), and news organizations will readily amplify any popular theme they find interesting.

The NHTSA report will be sad news among the plaintiffs bar, but it will probably merit little more than a footnote in the mass media.  The popular theme will be back in some other guise soon enough.

Whether unemployment goes up or down, whether the statistic is for the U.S. or overseas, whether it repeats a pattern or reverses direction, there is one unifying factor in the headlines. A modest sampling:

“New Unemployment Claims Rise Unexpectedly to 627,000” – FoxNews (AP), June 25, 2009

“German Unemployment Unexpectedly Declined in October” – Bloomberg, Oct. 29, 2009

“New unemployment claims fall unexpectedly for fifth straight week” – NY Daily News, Dec. 3, 2009

“U.S. unemployment unexpectedly drops in November” – KGW.com, Dec. 4, 2009

“U.K. Unemployment Unexpectedly Falls for First Time Since February 2008” – Daily FX, Dec. 16, 2009.

“Unemployment claims rise unexpectedly” – CNNMoney, Dec. 17, 2009

“Treasury prices fall as unemployment claims fall unexpectedly” – AP, Dec. 31, 2009

“Unemployment Claims Fall Unexpectedly” – Los Angeles Times, Jan. 1, 2010

“New jobless claims rise unexpectedly” – MSNBC, Jan. 21, 2010

“Initial unemployment claims rose unexpectedly last week” – AP, Feb. 4, 2010

And today we learn from the AP: “First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly.” Yes, that’s a shocker.

But at least we can certain about the weather in 2050.

The demise of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a McCain-Feingold) is cause for celebration. Flimsily justified as a means of preventing corruption, McCain-Feingold gave established media outlets a near monopoly on political speech in advance of elections – precisely when such speech is most likely to persuade. The law constituted the most odious and cynical use of government censorship to protect incumbent elected officials.

As its title suggests, the law was passed in bipartisan fashion (an excellent example of the limited value of bipartisanship) and was signed into law by President Bush. It represented in my opinion the worst decision of his presidency as he simply kicked the constitutional can down the road, leaving it for the courts to decide. All branches of government, however, have an equal responsibility to safeguard the Bill of Rights. McCain-Feingold represented the best and an entirely sufficient reason to oppose McCain’s presidential bid (unfortunately counter-balanced by even more compelling reasons to oppose Obama’s).

The Supreme Court has finally reached the right conclusion, years later and with the barest majority. A good synopsis of the ruling can be found here. Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion says many of the right things. For example:

[T]he FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.

* * *

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

* * *

Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. . . . The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.”

* * *

The First Amendment’s protections do not depend on the “financial ability to engage in public discussion.”

* * *

When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful.

On the other hand, the opinion does not go far enough. Justice Thomas provided the lone voice in pointing out the increasing dangers of disclosure requirements in the Internet age. Donors are discovered immediately and targeted by opponents. As experience proves in the wake of California’s Proposition 8, taking sides can cost you your job, your business, and your physical safety. Thomas concludes:

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’”

Precisely, just as I (as a lawyer) have to think seriously about the consequences of contributing to a judicial candidate. Do I really want to be on the list of contributors to a candidate running against a judge who will decide my case? Disclosure is a sure recipe for the kind of corruption McCain-Feingold claimed to prevent – a roadmap for favors and retaliation.

Count on the established media and the politicians favored by the established media to mount a concerted effort to reclaim their favored position by equally unconstitutional means.

The peerless climate-science community kept criticism at bay by forming a clique that excluded all dissenting voices. Those who doubted the AGW line were labeled as quacks whose writing was not “peer-reviewed.” The media of course bought this hook, line, and sinker. In fact, the clique hid the data precisely to prevent their own shoddy work from being reviewed by their peers.

It’s all a question of how you define your peers.

Today we are learning about that threatened meltdown of Himalayan glaciers. The vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said those glaciers would likely disappear by 2035.

The peer-reviewed science behind that finding goes like this:

1. Unknown scientist in India speculates while talking to reporter.
2. Reporter writes that glaciers will melt by 2035.
3. IPCC reads newspaper.

Yes, I’d say this is a fine example of peer review. An unknown scientist with no supporting data speculates that the glaciers will melt, getting his name in the press and a career boost. A reporter with no sense of curiosity about the science speculates that the scientist is correct and spreads the opinion as fact. There could be a Pulitzer in this. The IPCC figures if it’s in the newspaper, it must be true, and besides, gullible governments will throw money at this and ensure the continuation of their little bureaucracy.

They are all peers in promoting junk science at the expense of the rest of us.

But the public is fed junk across the board and seems to prefer it to anything more rigorous. We have a “pop” version of everything, from music to economics, from education to the Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t science be admitted to the peer group?

Why would NPR be distributing childish videos criticizing the tea-bag movement?

Oh . . . right.

In the ongoing effort to normalize the public display of everything sexual, Adam Lambert has caused people to pause (probably only briefly) to consider whether this is a necessary or even good thing.

Lambert argues that he is subject to a double standard since same-sex kisses and other displays of intimacy among female entertainers have been broadcast by the TV networks.

Reuters reports that ABC received 1,500 complaints from Lambert’s recent antics – a pitifully small number. That may reflect the size of the audience, but it probably says more about the nature of the audience. A vast swath of normal people from almost every demographic has surely tired of the increasingly feckless efforts of the entertainment industry to shock us.

Long ago broadcasters stopped giving us any reason to tune in, and they are now running out of ways to convince their dwindling audience to tune out.

Lambert says he didn’t mean to offend anyone by sticking his co-performers’ heads in his crotch. And his protestation rings true to an extent. He wants his own peculiar amusements to be perceived not as offensive, but as normal.

On the other hand, when the public display of such things becomes truly normal, entertainers may have to rediscover art as a means of attracting and holding an audience. And therein lies Lambert’s problem. Is he an artist or just a queer? Can he offer his audience something they value, or is it all about him?

In short, do Lambert’s talents extend to music? People who happened to be homosexual have made tremendous contributions to the arts. Their art is widely celebrated; their homosexuality is celebrated only in college classrooms.

On a somewhat related topic, I was intrigued by the ironic title of Mary Eberstadt’s recent article in First Things: “How Pedophilia Lost its Cool.” The article demonstrates, however, that the title is not ironic at all. In fact, pedophilia was recently making a play for mainstream acceptance among self-appointed sophisticates. For example:

In 1998 the prestigious Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association, printed a subsequently notorious study called “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.” In it, three researchers took issue with “the common belief that child sexual abuse causes intense harm, regardless of gender.” The authors further criticized the use of conventional terms such as victim and perpetrator and recommended that “a willing encounter with positive reactions” be labeled “simply adult–child sex.”

Roman Polanski’s arrest pushed this issue to the forefront and highlighted the isolation of those who jumped to Polanski’s defense. Only Hollywood, it seems, failed to understand that art is not a defense to child abuse.

So there is something to be thankful for on this Thanksgiving Day. We can hope that the world took a look a pedophilia and indeed decided that it was not cool. We can hope that the entertainment industry, despite having an enormous megaphone for its opinions, truly is out of touch with society.

We can hope that Adam Lambert will either discover aesthetics and find an audience, or be largely forgotten – merely a social commentator with nothing much to say.

Michael Goldfarb notes the rich irony of the New York Times declining to publish the Climategate emails.  Never mind that the people writing the emails have had an inordinate influence on environmental policies around the world, created a global industry, and bamboozled millions with false data.  It just wouldn’t be fair to report the fraud that they didn’t intend to make public.

Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation’s paper of record. But in this case — the documents were “never intended for the public eye,” so the New York Times will take a pass.

Bill Ayers confirmed rumors that he helped Obama with his book Dreams From My Father. How? By writing it.

No, not editing or contributing or co-authoring. According to Dennis Byrne:

In a chance meeting with conservative blogger Anne Leary, Bill Ayers makes a stunning claim that he wrote–not just edited–President Barack Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from my Father.

Now go back and read what FactCheck.org had to say during the campaign:

Obama never said Ayers was “just” a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. . . .

Instead, Obama said this:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. . . .

So, I guess Obama didn’t even collaborate with Ayers on Dreams From My Father.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.

FactCheck.org concluded with this:

Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former “terrorist,” he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.

“More than a terrorist”? Wow. There’s an accolade. Nice work FactCheck.org.