Throughout history, great people have come and great people have gone. Like all people, they are born and they die. In the history of mankind, there have been countless people whom others have described as “great”. Greatness is a rather general concept, but the term is typically bestowed upon individuals that have made a positive impact upon the lives of large numbers of people.
Planet Healer Obama Calls It: In 2008, he declared his presidency would result in ‘the rise of the oceans beginning to slow’ — And By 2011, Sea Level Drops!
Sept 22, 2011President Barack Obama can take a bow. As Obama struggles with poor polling numbers, persistent high unemployment, the possibly of a primary challenge within his own party and a stagnant economy saddled with massive deficits and debts, one area where he can claim success is his prediction that he would slow sea level rise.
Obama declared in a June 8, 2008 speech, that his presidency will be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Obama’s prognostication occurred during his victory speech in St. Paul for the Democratic Party nomination.
Climate Depot can now announce it is official. Earlier this month, the European Space Agency’s Envisat monitoring, global sea level revealed a “two year long decline [in sea level] was continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.”
In August 2011, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was “a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.” See:NASA: ‘Global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer’
The global drop in sea level followed NASA’s announcement that sea level around the U.S. was declining in February 2011.
Most surprising, despite the fact that Obama only said he would only “slow” the rise of the oceans, his presidency has presided over what some scientists are terming an “historic decline” in global sea levels. Obama appears to have underestimated his own powers to alter sea level.
Even more impressive for President Obama is the fact that just six months into his presidency, sea level started its historic reversal. In July 2009, sea level was already showing a “slowdown and was “still flattening.” See: Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown & See: Global Sea Level Updated at UC – still flattening’
President Obama’s success in lowering sea level has not gone unnoticed. The skeptical website Real Science, made sarcastic note of Obama’s “healing of the climate” and his sea level accomplishment on June 3, 2011.
“No hurricanes have struck the US since Obama became president, temperatures and sea level have dropped, and we have had record snow,” Real Science noted. “Reservoirs are filling up – and all of the damage [President George W.] Bush did to the climate has been healed. Obama should declare ‘mission accomplished’ and take credit!” Real Science concluded.
[The August 2011 Hurricane Irene ruined Obama's perfect record when it comes to U.S. land falling hurricanes. Many scientistsquestion whether Irene should have been categorized as a hurricane. See: The Chosen One? Obama Presides Over A Hurricane Free Presidency: 'First president to have not had a hurricane make landfall on US soil' ]…………….
The book review does not withstand reasonable scrutiny.
First, Owens begins by describing the book as “a rehash of Confederate propaganda spiced up with touches of Marxist economic analysis.”
I think that someone has been watching Emeril.
Clearly, however, this is not a neutral or friendly review by Professor Owens. Ignoring the fact that one might accuse Owens of rehashing Northern propaganda (and spicing it up with touches of mercantilism and John Maynard Keynes), it is both highly amusing and distressing to see Owens accuse Tom DiLorenzo of applying “Marxist economic analysis” to the life of Lincoln.
Giving Owens the benefit of the doubt (and making his argument for him; generally, this is a no-no, but I am striving to be fair), it would appear that Owens refers to DiLorenzo as a “Marxist” because: (1) DiLorenzo (God forbid) considers the economic causes of the War Between the States; and (2) Marxists have considered the economic causes of the War Between the States. So DiLorenzo must be applying Marxist economic analysis.
No. Wrong. Such a charge of guilt by association fails to convince.
Worse, in making such a charge, Owens ignores the fact that DiLorenzo is a prominent expositor of free market economics, by which I mean genuine capitalist, laissez faire, free market economics, as opposed to the “free and regulated” baloney so common in the mainstream today, which is not free market economics at all.
Owens calling DiLorenzo a Marxist is like Owens calling Babe Ruth a figure skater. It is simply a silly characterization.
(By the way, in the last paragraph of the review, Owens mentions that DiLorenzo “writes from a libertarian perspective.” How this is supposed to fit with the earlier charge that DiLorenzo is a Marxist, Owens does not elucidate. And how convenient that the Marxist charge comes in the first paragraph, and the libertarian comment comes at the end).