That didn't take long. The Labour Party in the UK selected old-style socialist Jeremy Corbyn as its leader just a few months ago, and now the party is splitting over whether or not to support the bombing of ISIS targets in Syria. Corbyn is opposed to the action, but most of the shadow cabinet supports it. Of course, the bombing was proposed by prime minister David Cameron whose Tory party hold the majority of the seats in Parliament, so the votes of the Labour MPs are not crucial to the approval of the plan. Nevertheless, it's interesting to watch the Labourites split into factions on this measure. Labour is demonstrating the British public that it cannot be trusted to lead on questions of national defense.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
I Think I Can Hear Them Laughing
A host of world leaders are about to gather in Paris to discuss climate change and perhaps come to some agreement on how to fight it. It such an important event, that many around the world are thrilled at the prospect.
We already know that China and India, two of the biggest polluters on the planet are happy to see the Paris conference proceed. China, for example, understands that any deal in Paris will put all sorts of restrictions on the economies of its main competitors while leaving China free to proceed as it wishes. Just think of the "historic" climate change agreement that president Obama got from the Chinese. Under that deal, America limits its emissions now and China does nothing for 15 years after which it "attempts" to reduce emissions. Translating that into English, China has no restrictions, the USA has many restrictions and Obama and the mainstream media pronounce that idiocy a "great success". The Chinese expect Paris to produce something very similar. India, while not as large an economy as China, expects even better treatment at Paris. Not only will the Indians do nothing, but they expect to get cash from the developed world to help the country deal with climate change.
Then there's underdeveloped countries in South America, Africa and Asia. They are almost giddy at the prospect of getting paid by the West for cooperating in the climate change battle which will require them to give lip service to the cause but do nothing real in the fight. It's a thrilling prospect for them.
Most of all, let's not forget ISIS and the various other radical Islamic terrorists. The world is coming together to discuss a problem and it is not how to deal with them. The terrorists understand how foolish it is for the world's leaders to try to control the weather. All the attention put on climate change just allows the terrorists more time to grow and spread.
The real truth is that as the West moves into the climate change conference trying to combat this "scourge", it may well be that we deserve all the troubles that the effort brings upon us. Sadly, though, those who will be hurt will be many more than just the "scientists" who push this false narrative and the "trendy" leaders who support that effort in order to satisfy the left and those who have been taken in by the story. The effort will hurt us all.
It's time for America, at least, to pull back from the climate change delusion. We can let the scientists continue to study what is happening with the weather, but unless and until they come back with something that is real and supported by actual UNADJUSTED data, our efforts ought be focused on keeping the country safe, growing the economy and helping individual Americans get the opportunity to lead productive, safe and happy lives.
We already know that China and India, two of the biggest polluters on the planet are happy to see the Paris conference proceed. China, for example, understands that any deal in Paris will put all sorts of restrictions on the economies of its main competitors while leaving China free to proceed as it wishes. Just think of the "historic" climate change agreement that president Obama got from the Chinese. Under that deal, America limits its emissions now and China does nothing for 15 years after which it "attempts" to reduce emissions. Translating that into English, China has no restrictions, the USA has many restrictions and Obama and the mainstream media pronounce that idiocy a "great success". The Chinese expect Paris to produce something very similar. India, while not as large an economy as China, expects even better treatment at Paris. Not only will the Indians do nothing, but they expect to get cash from the developed world to help the country deal with climate change.
Then there's underdeveloped countries in South America, Africa and Asia. They are almost giddy at the prospect of getting paid by the West for cooperating in the climate change battle which will require them to give lip service to the cause but do nothing real in the fight. It's a thrilling prospect for them.
Most of all, let's not forget ISIS and the various other radical Islamic terrorists. The world is coming together to discuss a problem and it is not how to deal with them. The terrorists understand how foolish it is for the world's leaders to try to control the weather. All the attention put on climate change just allows the terrorists more time to grow and spread.
The real truth is that as the West moves into the climate change conference trying to combat this "scourge", it may well be that we deserve all the troubles that the effort brings upon us. Sadly, though, those who will be hurt will be many more than just the "scientists" who push this false narrative and the "trendy" leaders who support that effort in order to satisfy the left and those who have been taken in by the story. The effort will hurt us all.
It's time for America, at least, to pull back from the climate change delusion. We can let the scientists continue to study what is happening with the weather, but unless and until they come back with something that is real and supported by actual UNADJUSTED data, our efforts ought be focused on keeping the country safe, growing the economy and helping individual Americans get the opportunity to lead productive, safe and happy lives.
Friday, November 27, 2015
More Narrative Reporting From Mainstream Media
At this moment, there still is no resolution of the shootings in Colorado Springs. We know three police officers have been shot as well as some other people. Some reports say that the shooter has been contained while others do not. In other words, we know that there has been a shooting, but that's about all that's definite.
So how did the mainstream media report this? It was immediately pronounced a shooting at Planned Parenthood. That started the tweets about how the shooter was undoubtedly a right wing crazy. Then came the many expressions of hatred towards those who are pro-life and about how ironic it I for pro-lifers to take lives with guns. After an hour of this vitriol, the media changed the story to a more accurate one. It seems the shooting was not at Planned Parenthood, but rather NEAR Planned Parenthood and having nothing to do with that entity. Nevertheless, the tweets of ignorance continue to flow. And the truth is that right now, we don't know if Planned Parenthood was involved in any way in this mess.
It's really disgusting that the media decided to rely on their narrative in support of Planned Parenthood and abortion rather than on the facts.
So how did the mainstream media report this? It was immediately pronounced a shooting at Planned Parenthood. That started the tweets about how the shooter was undoubtedly a right wing crazy. Then came the many expressions of hatred towards those who are pro-life and about how ironic it I for pro-lifers to take lives with guns. After an hour of this vitriol, the media changed the story to a more accurate one. It seems the shooting was not at Planned Parenthood, but rather NEAR Planned Parenthood and having nothing to do with that entity. Nevertheless, the tweets of ignorance continue to flow. And the truth is that right now, we don't know if Planned Parenthood was involved in any way in this mess.
It's really disgusting that the media decided to rely on their narrative in support of Planned Parenthood and abortion rather than on the facts.
Shutting Down Chicago
There's a protest march underway in Chicago that has shut down Michigan Avenue, a principal shopping street downtown, on the busiest retail sales day of the year. One has to congratulate the protesters for taking action which will hurt thousands of retail sales employees across that city. After all, if shoppers are discouraged from going to the downtown stores for the Christmas gifts, the inevitable result will be that many of the temporary seasonal employees will be let go. The businesses downtown will also be hurt. On the other hand, the city and the police which are the targets of the demonstrators will not be hurt much at all.
The Danger of Alarmist Rhetoric
The redefinition of reality by the liberal Democrats is now a mass delusion. This morning, I read numerous articles discussing how president Obama is holding the line against the "alarmist rhetoric" coming from the GOP. According to these stories, the positions of the GOP candidates calling for a change to the American strategy against ISIS or calling for a pause in the arrival of Syrian refugees until a better system of vetting is put in place are nothing by unfounded rhetoric designed unnecessarily to upset and alarm the American people. According to these liberal mainstream media pundits and reporters, Obama's current policy is working just fine.
One has to wonder if the pundits voicing these views actually believe them or if these are simply the talking points put out by the White House on some new version of the journo-list which it formerly used to coordinate supposedly independent media coverage. There could always be one or two with this view, but to have so many simultaneously spout such nonsense requires so measure of coordination.
If you just take a quick glance at what these fellow travelers are saying about the subject, it quickly becomes clear that they have no concept of reality. Here are a few examples:
1. The pundits label calls for America not to admit inadequately vetted Syrian refugees as alarmist and bigoted. They portray Obama as bravely standing up to those calls. The actual facts are that ISIS has announced that it will use the flow of refugees to infiltrate its terrorists into the West. This has already happened with the recent Paris attacks. No sane person would say that admitting people who cannot be properly vetted is without major risk to the safety of Americans. Nevertheless, calls for the reasonable response are called alarmist.
2. It's cute that the pundits think that Obama actually has a strategy for defeating ISIS. It's delusional for them to argue that the nonexistent strategy is working. In the last month, ISIS has hit terror targets in at least seven countries on three continents. There may be other attacks for which the perpetrators have not been identified. The reach of ISIS is growing, not shrinking. Obama's claim of containment is a joke. Indeed, that claim of containment was so wrong that the media redefined it immediately after the Paris attacks to have been a claim of containment only with regard to Syria and Iraq. Thank heavens for video recording. I've seen the entire interview in which Obama made the statement. There was no limitation to Iraq and Syria in the question, the answer or any other part of the interview. Even with the redefinition of Obama's statement, however, it is wrong. In Syria, ISIS is expanding mainly against the Sunni rebels who are under nearly constant bombardment by the Russians. Indeed, the Russian strategy seems clearly to be the elimination of all of the non-ISIS rebels fighting Assad, so that the world is presented with a choice between keeping Assad or watching ISIS control all of Syria. And Obama's response has been to welcome Russia to the fight against ISIS, a fight Russia has not joined.
Against this background, the pundits say that calls for a change in strategy (or more precisely the adoption of a coherent and rational strategy that promotes a result in America's interests) is alarmist rhetoric. It's delusional or intentionally misleading.
It's sad that we live in a country where so much of the media has decided that politics is more important than reality and the safety and interests of America.
One has to wonder if the pundits voicing these views actually believe them or if these are simply the talking points put out by the White House on some new version of the journo-list which it formerly used to coordinate supposedly independent media coverage. There could always be one or two with this view, but to have so many simultaneously spout such nonsense requires so measure of coordination.
If you just take a quick glance at what these fellow travelers are saying about the subject, it quickly becomes clear that they have no concept of reality. Here are a few examples:
1. The pundits label calls for America not to admit inadequately vetted Syrian refugees as alarmist and bigoted. They portray Obama as bravely standing up to those calls. The actual facts are that ISIS has announced that it will use the flow of refugees to infiltrate its terrorists into the West. This has already happened with the recent Paris attacks. No sane person would say that admitting people who cannot be properly vetted is without major risk to the safety of Americans. Nevertheless, calls for the reasonable response are called alarmist.
2. It's cute that the pundits think that Obama actually has a strategy for defeating ISIS. It's delusional for them to argue that the nonexistent strategy is working. In the last month, ISIS has hit terror targets in at least seven countries on three continents. There may be other attacks for which the perpetrators have not been identified. The reach of ISIS is growing, not shrinking. Obama's claim of containment is a joke. Indeed, that claim of containment was so wrong that the media redefined it immediately after the Paris attacks to have been a claim of containment only with regard to Syria and Iraq. Thank heavens for video recording. I've seen the entire interview in which Obama made the statement. There was no limitation to Iraq and Syria in the question, the answer or any other part of the interview. Even with the redefinition of Obama's statement, however, it is wrong. In Syria, ISIS is expanding mainly against the Sunni rebels who are under nearly constant bombardment by the Russians. Indeed, the Russian strategy seems clearly to be the elimination of all of the non-ISIS rebels fighting Assad, so that the world is presented with a choice between keeping Assad or watching ISIS control all of Syria. And Obama's response has been to welcome Russia to the fight against ISIS, a fight Russia has not joined.
Against this background, the pundits say that calls for a change in strategy (or more precisely the adoption of a coherent and rational strategy that promotes a result in America's interests) is alarmist rhetoric. It's delusional or intentionally misleading.
It's sad that we live in a country where so much of the media has decided that politics is more important than reality and the safety and interests of America.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
The End of Liberty and Freedom
The current crop of outrage by some students at many universities is something that poses a great danger to American liberty and freedom. One thing that has always separated America from many other countries is that each American is free to have his or her own ideas and to express those ideas freely. That right has sometimes been challenged, but it has always prevailed. Now, it is once again under challenge, and this time the challenge is coming from students and protesters, two groups who have always been among the chief beneficiaries of that right.
Think about what is happening. Groups are adopting the mantle of victimhood. Then steps are demanded to protect the new victims. Anyone who speaks in opposition to those steps is immediately branded as evil and prevented from speaking. Indeed, any opposition is not just silenced, but erased. Even those who do not speak in opposition but who do not conform to the demands in rapid enough fashion are to be destroyed. The subject matter has sometimes been trivial. At one school, the firing of two professors was demanded when they wrote an email to students calling for a tolerant view of Halloween costumes that one group or another might call offensive. In essence, the view they expressed was that a student dressed in a Halloween costume as an Indian was not cause for upset. The maelstrom which followed all but destroyed those professors' careers. The campus left had spoken and it would not tolerate opposition or even discussion of that view.
This desire to silence and destroy all opposition is not limited to the campus left; it is a common thread for much of the left across America. The climate change debate is perhaps the best example. That debate began when some scientists posited the theory that increasing carbon dioxide resulting from human activity would cause the planet to warm significantly with all sort of disastrous effects. As cash from environmental groups and then governments poured into research on the subject, computer models were developed to show the full extent of the looming disaster. Many of the scientists who were the most vocal in support of the theory were not even climatologists, but that did not stop them. There were some voices that spoke in opposition to the theory, but they were few and far between. Then something important happened: the models on which the structure of the global warming theory was based proved to be incorrect. Actual data was collected by systems put in place to measure the extent of warming which showed that the climate was acting in a way that was inconsistent with the predictions of the models. In most scientific debates, the accumulation of statistically significant data which differed from the output predicted by the model would mean general agreement that the model was wrong. But global warming had moved from a scientific theory to part of the accepted dogma of the left. It was, after all, a scientific theory that permitted the left to blame a looming planetary disaster on the developed world and capitalistic economic development, one of their favorite subjects.
So what happened? The left did not engage in much debate about the validity of the global warming theory. Instead, they went with their impulse to try to destroy those who do not agree with them. People who spoke about the actual data and how it showed that global warming theory was wrong were labeled "deniers", something akin to holocaust deniers. They were made out to be cranks and crackpots. The mainstream media, usually in lockstep with the left, chose not to talk about the so called deniers, and instead it kept promoting the global warming theory. More and more data, however, kept coming in to show that the global warming theories and models were wrong. The polar ice was shown to be increasing rather than decreasing. The frequency of severe weather fell substantially over more than a decade despite global warming predictions of ever worsening storms. And the truth broke through to a large part of the American people. Oh, the left and its ally, the mainstream media, did not end their attack on their opponents. Instead, they intensified that attack. Lately, there have been persistent calls from the left to indict those who oppose global warming theory. Since the data does not support their views, the left wants to put their opponents in prison. People like Hillary Clinton also talk about investigating large companies like Exxon because they did not sufficiently warn about the ills of global warming, the same global warming that the data says does not exist. In other words, there is a full scale, government supported onslaught against those who dare to express opposition to the failed global warming theory.
In the latest manifestation of this authoritarian behavior on the left, we are getting outbursts in response to "microagressions" and also demands to expunge history with which the left disagrees. At Princeton, the demand has been made to expunge Woodrow Wilson from everything at that university. Wilson, you see, was a racist. Well that is no surprise to anyone who studies history. Wilson, indeed was many things: a racists, a Democrat, a progressive, and president of the United States. He was far from perfect. He gladly accepted the support of the Ku Klux Klan. He supported Margaret Sanger and the policies she promoted at Planned Parenthood to reduce the population of undesirables like African Americans and Asians. That, however, is not a reason to erase him from Princeton. He is, after all, part of the history of that institution. The protestors, however, don't care. they demand, DEMAND, that Wilson be erased. They will tolerate no opposing viewpoint.
For many years, this krypto-fascist behavior by the left has manifest itself on campuses. Just think how many stories you have read over the years about this or that speaker being shouted down when he or she attempted to speak to a campus group. The college left was not interested in debating ideas. They want only to prevent any expression of opposing views. Now imagine what would happen were the sides to be reversed. Imagine a speaker promoting a mainstream leftist viewpoint being interrupted by a vocal group of fraternity brothers who just shout and shout and prevent the speaker from being heard. Imagine the media coverage of that event. Imagine the reaction of the college administration to this assault on free speech. Imagine the outrage of all the liberal institutions were the same tactics used to silence one of their own.
The truth is that as Americans were need to protect our liberties and freedoms. If we permit leftist thugs to shut down the free expression of ideas in one place, our freedom is limited in all places. We need to speak up as a nation and tell the left that we will not accept their descent into authoritarianism. America has fought wars to prevent that from happening on a global scale; we are not about to accept it happening here in our own country.
Think about what is happening. Groups are adopting the mantle of victimhood. Then steps are demanded to protect the new victims. Anyone who speaks in opposition to those steps is immediately branded as evil and prevented from speaking. Indeed, any opposition is not just silenced, but erased. Even those who do not speak in opposition but who do not conform to the demands in rapid enough fashion are to be destroyed. The subject matter has sometimes been trivial. At one school, the firing of two professors was demanded when they wrote an email to students calling for a tolerant view of Halloween costumes that one group or another might call offensive. In essence, the view they expressed was that a student dressed in a Halloween costume as an Indian was not cause for upset. The maelstrom which followed all but destroyed those professors' careers. The campus left had spoken and it would not tolerate opposition or even discussion of that view.
This desire to silence and destroy all opposition is not limited to the campus left; it is a common thread for much of the left across America. The climate change debate is perhaps the best example. That debate began when some scientists posited the theory that increasing carbon dioxide resulting from human activity would cause the planet to warm significantly with all sort of disastrous effects. As cash from environmental groups and then governments poured into research on the subject, computer models were developed to show the full extent of the looming disaster. Many of the scientists who were the most vocal in support of the theory were not even climatologists, but that did not stop them. There were some voices that spoke in opposition to the theory, but they were few and far between. Then something important happened: the models on which the structure of the global warming theory was based proved to be incorrect. Actual data was collected by systems put in place to measure the extent of warming which showed that the climate was acting in a way that was inconsistent with the predictions of the models. In most scientific debates, the accumulation of statistically significant data which differed from the output predicted by the model would mean general agreement that the model was wrong. But global warming had moved from a scientific theory to part of the accepted dogma of the left. It was, after all, a scientific theory that permitted the left to blame a looming planetary disaster on the developed world and capitalistic economic development, one of their favorite subjects.
So what happened? The left did not engage in much debate about the validity of the global warming theory. Instead, they went with their impulse to try to destroy those who do not agree with them. People who spoke about the actual data and how it showed that global warming theory was wrong were labeled "deniers", something akin to holocaust deniers. They were made out to be cranks and crackpots. The mainstream media, usually in lockstep with the left, chose not to talk about the so called deniers, and instead it kept promoting the global warming theory. More and more data, however, kept coming in to show that the global warming theories and models were wrong. The polar ice was shown to be increasing rather than decreasing. The frequency of severe weather fell substantially over more than a decade despite global warming predictions of ever worsening storms. And the truth broke through to a large part of the American people. Oh, the left and its ally, the mainstream media, did not end their attack on their opponents. Instead, they intensified that attack. Lately, there have been persistent calls from the left to indict those who oppose global warming theory. Since the data does not support their views, the left wants to put their opponents in prison. People like Hillary Clinton also talk about investigating large companies like Exxon because they did not sufficiently warn about the ills of global warming, the same global warming that the data says does not exist. In other words, there is a full scale, government supported onslaught against those who dare to express opposition to the failed global warming theory.
In the latest manifestation of this authoritarian behavior on the left, we are getting outbursts in response to "microagressions" and also demands to expunge history with which the left disagrees. At Princeton, the demand has been made to expunge Woodrow Wilson from everything at that university. Wilson, you see, was a racist. Well that is no surprise to anyone who studies history. Wilson, indeed was many things: a racists, a Democrat, a progressive, and president of the United States. He was far from perfect. He gladly accepted the support of the Ku Klux Klan. He supported Margaret Sanger and the policies she promoted at Planned Parenthood to reduce the population of undesirables like African Americans and Asians. That, however, is not a reason to erase him from Princeton. He is, after all, part of the history of that institution. The protestors, however, don't care. they demand, DEMAND, that Wilson be erased. They will tolerate no opposing viewpoint.
For many years, this krypto-fascist behavior by the left has manifest itself on campuses. Just think how many stories you have read over the years about this or that speaker being shouted down when he or she attempted to speak to a campus group. The college left was not interested in debating ideas. They want only to prevent any expression of opposing views. Now imagine what would happen were the sides to be reversed. Imagine a speaker promoting a mainstream leftist viewpoint being interrupted by a vocal group of fraternity brothers who just shout and shout and prevent the speaker from being heard. Imagine the media coverage of that event. Imagine the reaction of the college administration to this assault on free speech. Imagine the outrage of all the liberal institutions were the same tactics used to silence one of their own.
The truth is that as Americans were need to protect our liberties and freedoms. If we permit leftist thugs to shut down the free expression of ideas in one place, our freedom is limited in all places. We need to speak up as a nation and tell the left that we will not accept their descent into authoritarianism. America has fought wars to prevent that from happening on a global scale; we are not about to accept it happening here in our own country.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Words Not To Be Missed
President Obama made a short statement focused on terrorism today to the American people. Here are his words which ought not be missed:
“Americans are asking each other whether it is safe here, whether it is safe to fly or gather. And I know that families have discussed their fears about the threat of terrorism around the dinner table, and many for the first time since September 11th, and it is understandable that people worry if something similar could happen here.”
Obama then said the latest intelligence suggests there is no “specific, credible” threat against the United States. If there is one, he said, “we will let you know.”
“As we are going into Thanksgiving weekend, I want the American people to know that we are taking every possible step to keep our homeland safe.”
How could Obama actually say this? Does he believe that most Americans have not talked about terrorism over the last 14 years since the 9-11 attacks? No one mentioned the Boston Marathon bombings? No one mentioned the Fort Hood massacre (you know the one where the Islamic terrorist committed "workplace violence")? No one mentioned the Times Square bomber? No one mentioned the underwear bomber? No one mentioned the London attacks that killed so many? No one mentioned the ongoing terror attacks in Israel? No one mentioned the Madrid bombings or the mass murder by ISIS or the beheadings on video or the mass kidnapping and killings in Africa? What sort of people missed all these events?
The reality is that Obama wants to portray the message that we have been so safe that no one has needed to be concerned until now. What a liar!
Americans are rightly concerned about the threat of terrorism. Just because the president does not care about it, it doesn't lessen the concern of the American people. Indeed, one of the reason so many are now so concerned is that our president cares more about climate change or political fights with Republicans than about keeping the American people safe.
“Americans are asking each other whether it is safe here, whether it is safe to fly or gather. And I know that families have discussed their fears about the threat of terrorism around the dinner table, and many for the first time since September 11th, and it is understandable that people worry if something similar could happen here.”
Obama then said the latest intelligence suggests there is no “specific, credible” threat against the United States. If there is one, he said, “we will let you know.”
“As we are going into Thanksgiving weekend, I want the American people to know that we are taking every possible step to keep our homeland safe.”
How could Obama actually say this? Does he believe that most Americans have not talked about terrorism over the last 14 years since the 9-11 attacks? No one mentioned the Boston Marathon bombings? No one mentioned the Fort Hood massacre (you know the one where the Islamic terrorist committed "workplace violence")? No one mentioned the Times Square bomber? No one mentioned the underwear bomber? No one mentioned the London attacks that killed so many? No one mentioned the ongoing terror attacks in Israel? No one mentioned the Madrid bombings or the mass murder by ISIS or the beheadings on video or the mass kidnapping and killings in Africa? What sort of people missed all these events?
The reality is that Obama wants to portray the message that we have been so safe that no one has needed to be concerned until now. What a liar!
Americans are rightly concerned about the threat of terrorism. Just because the president does not care about it, it doesn't lessen the concern of the American people. Indeed, one of the reason so many are now so concerned is that our president cares more about climate change or political fights with Republicans than about keeping the American people safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)