10 janvier 2011

Ça monte Économie En Chiffres États-Unis

Évolution du prix de l’essence durant les 2 premières années de la présidence de Bush et d’Obama:


Chaque fois que le prix de l’essence a monté durant la présidence de Bush, les médias ont abondamment écrit sur le sujet allant même jusqu’à dire qu’il était responsable de la situation.  Pour Obama, les médias restent silencieux…  Pourtant, vu le climat économique actuel, on aurait pu s’attendre à ce que les prix restent bas.

Heritage Foundation
Gas Prices Under President Obama in Pictures

10 janvier 2011

Les avantages Économie Environnement

Subvention AgricoleD’ici 2070, on estime que le niveau de CO2 dans l’atmosphère pourrait augmenter de 300 PPM.  Si l’on parle beaucoup des possibles désavantages associés avec cette augmentation, soit le supposé réchauffement climatique, on parle très peu des avantages qui en découleraient.  En voici quelques-uns:

Selon les données recueillies par 20 études, une augmentation de 300 PPM de CO2 augmenterait le rendement des cultures de maïs de 21,3%.

Selon les données recueillies par 235 études, une augmentation de 300 PPM de CO2 augmenterait le rendement des cultures de blé de 32,1%.

Selon les données recueillies par 182 études, une augmentation de 300 PPM de CO2 augmenterait le rendement des cultures de riz de 34,4%.

Selon les données recueillies par 179 études, une augmentation de 300 PPM de CO2 augmenterait le rendement des cultures de soya de 46,5%.

Plus la population de la planète augmente, plus la quantité de CO2 rejeté dans l’atmosphère augmente ce qui permet un meilleur rendement agricole et donc, la possibilité de nourrir plus de gens.  Un joli mécanisme d’autorégulation !

10 janvier 2011

La politisation d’un drame États-Unis Revue de presse Terrorisme

« Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don’t help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder. »

Wall Street Journal
The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

Shortly after November’s electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews’s TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday’s tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner’s killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a « climate of hate. »

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors— »lock and load »—and talked about « targeting » opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts « bullseyed » for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, « If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun »—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting « Allahu Akhbar! » the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. « Where, » asked Mr. York, « was that caution after the shootings in Arizona? »

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill.

So as the usual talking heads begin their « have you no decency? » routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo (« proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do »), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on « rhetoric » and a « climate of hate » to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the « rhetoric » of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the « rhetoric » and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?

Mr. Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee.

Autres lectures pertinentes à propos de ce drame: