Friday, January 08, 2016

Why we shouldn't believe in man made "Climate Change"

The first part of the post below was originally published  on 11/20/2008. The UPDATE below it is new.

Because the UN is telling us it is so.

The UN, the promoter of the worldwide Aids epidemic will shortly be reporting that their numbers are wildly wrong, according to the Washington Post today.

One of the reasons the numbers are so far off is:

"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." (emphasis added).

The same money driven agenda will be shown to be at work in the Global Warming Industry. It won't be long now. As Radar used to say in M.A.S.H. "Wait for it".

UPDATE 1/8/2016

A little more than 8 years later the hoax is both more and less effective.

More because so many people are making a good living from it. It has spawned entire new industries. Electric cars (subsidized by the government), solar panels (subsidized by the government), wind farms (subsidized by the government). Notice a trend there?

The bureaucrats and "scientists" employed in the effort to perpetuate the hoax are having a ball. Every year they have a global conference with themselves and various politicians and celebrities flying their private, gas guzzling, CO2 emitting airplanes to various exotic spots to eat, drink and play lavishly, all the while exhorting the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprints. The cognitive dissonance is lost on them, but not on us. "Climate change" is now very low on the priority list of most Americans, so low in fact, that it doesn't appear at all on this list http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx .



Labels: ,

Fundamental Matters

It seems that much of the problem in finding a way to peace in the Middle East is that both sides are telling the truth but only one side is being listened to.

Israel really wants to live in peace, in reasonable security and has no abiding antipathy towards Arabs.

The Arabs do not accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel and have a very vocal, visceral antipathy towards Jews.

For reasons best known to the non-Arab peace negotiators, including the Israelis, and most of the non-Arab public of the world they refuse to accept the Arabs at their vociferous word: We intend to destroy Israel and we intend to destroy the Jews.

They shout this from the rooftops of thousands of Mosques the world over. They shout this from every Arab Capitol . They shout this from every state run newspaper in the middle-east.

They don't just shout this occasionally. They shout it constantly. How is it that such a huge din goes unheard by so many?

Could it be the reluctance of so many to have the discussion that has to be had? Are we afraid to debate the legitimacy of the State of Israel? Are we afraid to point out, clearly, that the Arabs are a civilization bent on genocide?

That Israel is happy to live side by side in secure states isn't surprising. From the Arab point of view it is the same as having someone break into your house and offer to split it with you. A ridiculous proposition of course.

Until the Arabs are able to acknowledge that Jews have had a continuous presence in Israel from biblical times; that the Zionists bought and paid for their land and have a legitimate claim to it; and, that the 1948 partition was a legitimate exercise of political power by the Jews, there is little point to "peace talks".

If they can't acknowledge any or all of the above assertions the result will be perpetual war.

When the Zionist movement was slowly filling much of pre-Israel Palestine with Jews the Arabs demanded the British do something about it. They did but the Jews kept coming anyway. Here in the USA we are watching the Southwest fill up with illegal immigrants. We understand what the Arabs felt like.




Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Refugee "Women and Children"


Mr. Obama assures us in his customary condescending manner that we are ridiculous, not to mention cowardly, for expressing concern about these "women and children".

Migrants queue on a street to enter the compound outside the Berlin Office of Health and Social Affairs (LAGESO) for their registration process in Berlin, Germany
Migrants queue on a street to enter the compound outside the Berlin Office of Health and Social Affairs (LAGESO) for their registration process in Berlin, Germany Photo: REUTERS
Hmm. I have noticed that our language has deteriorated in the recent past although I doubt it has descended to such depths that even the most progressive of newspeak language architects would apply the description of "women and children" to those in the photo above.
Meanwhile, it seems a few "women and children" are unaccounted for in Germany.
"German authorities are reportedly searching for 12 people who entered the country illegally as refugees using fake Syrian passports and then disappeared."
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12064943/Germany-searching-for-migrants-who-entered-Germany-using-same-passports-as-Paris-attackers.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The story never does get around to declaring the genders and/or age of the missing.




Labels: ,

Friday, December 18, 2015

Indeed

"The whole system seems to have lost its mind. That there’s even a debate about whether security officials should be allowed to look at the social-media posts of immigrants is a sign that our bureaucrats have such open minds their brains have fallen out."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428712/terrorism-government-fails-americans

Saturday, October 10, 2015

The Black Lives Matter Foundation

A large majority of the black American population is facing an existential crisis. Dope, family disintegration, poor education and a lack of infrastructure have been plaguing these millions for years.

They have been the target of large scale attempts to improve their environment. Some of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs were targeted for black Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society). Then there was school busing and affirmative action and generous welfare regimes. The outcome is generally regarded to be a catastrophe with vast numbers of black Americans suffering from ever worsening drug, domestic, educational and infrastructure problems. 50+ years, countless billions of dollars and very little to show for it.

It seems obvious, given all that has been tried, that solutions which depend on conventional American policy preferences have failed miserably. Internecine  war is well underway and claiming new victims in black America every day.

During the period of time that has elapsed since the 1960's civil rights offensive  there has been another, parallel, development that has transformed a small but important part of the black community.

Racial barriers to success in sports and entertainment have been removed and declared dead. One noteworthy result of this development has been the accumulation of a vast amount of wealth by some black Americans.

  • It is reliably reported that there are about 35,000 black American millionaires as defined by the IRS; assets - liabilities - the value of one's primary residence (Dr. D. Kimbro, "The Wealth Choice"). 35,000 millionaires means that they hold, cumulatively, at least 35 billion dollars. That is not assets it is net worth. The remainder after deducting their liabilities.

  • We know that they hold a great deal more wealth than that. In fact, the ten wealthiest black Americans hold, between them, 14.6 billion dollars (http://www.techscio.com/richest-african-americans/), so the group of 35,000 can be said to have net worth of at least 49 billion dollars. If half of them have net worth of 10 million dollars and the rest net worth of 1 million dollars then the value of all their net worth would be at least 200 billion dollars. The total is likely closer to 350 billion dollars.

These black American millionaires and billionaires (there are only 2)  are easily identifiable. Many of the top 10 are household names; Oprah, MJ, Magic, Tiger and Bill Cosby. We can all name dozens of others; Charles Barclay, Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Shaq, Kobe, Chris Rock, Morgan Freeman, Barack Obama and so on. No doubt there is a mailing list that identifies them all.

They should create and fund The Black Lives Matter Foundation and proceed to attempt the rescue of their brethren from an existential crisis.

That neither federal, state nor local governments are capable of dealing with the problem is apparent. That there are more black Americans succeeding in less spectacular ways than the millionaires is not arguable. At least that has been accomplished. That many millions more are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and self-destruction is similarly not arguable.

There is precedent for the members of a community who have succeeded banding together to save those of their brethren who have not. Wealthy American Jews, that very small proportion of Jews who found great success, spent what had to be spent to save the rest of us. Government was no help. Antisemitism was rampant. Our benefactors built hospitals, schools, community centers, in other words, infrastructure. This was not accomplished overnight. But, as is obvious to anyone who cares to see it, it has been wildly successful.

It is, in my opinion, time for that newly minted class of extremely wealthy black Americans to coalesce, assert themselves and commit a portion of their vast wealth to saving their people, as ours were saved. The government has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that it is entirely incapable of ameliorating these problems. Some of the reasons government fails so badly at these efforts are baked into the nature of government and the motives of politicians. Government is not a philanthropic undertaking. Politicians are motivated differently than private philanthropists. There is no one else to rely on but yourselves.

Privately funded community centers based on the Jewish Community Center model could provide, free of charge (or otherwise depending on your preferences) supplemental education, job skills training, productive living training, day care services, legal services, drug treatment, food, shelter and an oasis of safety in otherwise turbulent neighborhoods.

No decent medical services in  the neighborhood? Build some, we did. You have vast and rapidly growing resources, use them and save your people.

I have no doubt that many of our black American millionaires are very charitable. I believe their charity is being largely wasted in a low-key scattershot approach to  solving a problem of immense proportion.

You can do it. It has been done before. In fact we built and generously support an entire country, Israel. You are fortunate to have a country. So build your neighborhoods.

Monday, September 07, 2015

Do Black Lives Matter?

Yes, of course. But that does not appear to be the actual question posed. The question being asked is "Do Black lives matter more than other lives?" The answer is no. Emphatically.

I grew up in Canada. There were never any Black slaves in Canada. Black people, as I grew up, were just that, black People. There were not a lot of black People in Canada and I encountered few in the 25 years I lived there. Among those few I encountered was Marion Cumberbatch, our housekeeper of long standing. So, anecdotally I suppose you could say that they occupied the lower levels of society, much as they did/do in the USA. On the other hand, there was the white Scottish housekeeper who worked for a neighbor's family, so who knows.

Being a Jew I benefit from a long tradition of sympathy with oppressed people (we can talk about the "Palestinians" some other time) but I find myself less and less sympathetic to American Blacks as they continue to take advantage of  unconstitutional, in my opinion, so-called Affirmative Action programs while rampaging here and there in protest of the unfair treatment they claim to be enduring at the hands of White Americans.

The reason for my lack of sympathy is the Alice in Wonderland nature of their campaign. Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were thugs who were killed in self-defense.

"Hands up, don't shoot" is a complete and ugly distortion of the facts.

As "presentism" (judging historical figures by today's moral standards) takes hold in America a lot of history is being revised or eliminated. Did you know that 268,000 mostly white Union soldiers died to liberate black slaves? Or that another 300,000 or so were wounded in the same pursuit? Or that more than 1.5 million mostly white men served in the Union armies? Did you know that those 1.5 million represented about 20% of the male population of the North? 1 out of 5 men served. Or that in 2015 dollars the Union spent $147,000,000,000 ($36,700 per slave of the 4,000,000 then in bondage) to liberate the slaves? Apparently even our hillbilly ancestors knew that "Black lives Matter". Too bad their sacrifice has been completely dishonored by the dreadful conduct of so much of the black community recently.

Did you know that the first president of the NAACP was White? Did you know that the chairman of the NAACP in 1914 was a Jew? No? I thought not. Can you think of a reason you don't know that? I know, you would rather not. Me too.

Here is some of the NAACP's history as it appears in Wikipedia:

The conference resulted in a more influential and diverse organization, where the leadership was predominantly white and heavily Jewish American. In fact, at its founding, the NAACP had only one African American on its executive board, Du Bois himself. It did not elect a black president until 1975, although executive directors had been African-American. The Jewish community contributed greatly to the NAACP's founding and continued financing. Jewish historian Howard Sachar writes in his book A History of Jews in America of how, "In 1914, Professor Emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University became chairman of the NAACP and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise."[19] Early Jewish-American co-founders included Julius Rosenwald, Lillian Wald, Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch and Wise.
According to Pbs.org "Over the years Jews have also expressed empathy (capability to share and understand another's emotion and feelings) with the plight of Blacks. In the early 20th century, Jewish newspapers drew parallels between the Black movement out of the South and the Jews' escape from Egypt, pointing out that both Blacks and Jews lived in ghettos, and calling anti-Black riots in the South "pogroms". Stressing the similarities rather than the differences between the Jewish and Black experience in America, Jewish leaders emphasized the idea that both groups would benefit the more America moved toward a society of merit, free of religious, ethnic and racial restrictions."[20] Pbs.org further states, "The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League were central to the campaign against racial prejudice. Jews made substantial financial contributions to many civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Urban League, the Congress of Racial Equality, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. About 50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during the 1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws."[20]
As a member of the Princeton chapter of the NAACP, Albert Einstein corresponded with Du Bois, and in 1946 Einstein called racism "America's worst disease".[21][22] Du Bois continued to play a pivotal role in the organization and served as editor of the association's magazine, The Crisis, which had a circulation of more than 30,000.
Moorfield Storey, who was white, was the president of the NAACP from its founding to 1915. Storey was a long-time classical liberal and Grover Cleveland Democrat who advocated laissez-faire free markets, the gold standard, and anti-imperialism. Storey consistently and aggressively championed civil rights, not only for blacks but also for Native Americans and immigrants (he opposed immigration restrictions).

Yes, American slavery was an abomination. Yes,  there continues to be identifiable racism in the USA. There always will be. Just as there will always be anti-semites, anti-Irish, anti-fat, anti ugly and so on. Most of us keep fighting to make these anti's as marginal as possible.

Ugly, racialist movements like "Black Lives Matter" only serve to make those of us who believed in the fight for equality cringe and stand down. Apparently nothing is enough so why bother.




Thursday, September 03, 2015

The Gay Marriage Fight Continues/Updated 9-6-15

I have written before about my opposition to gay marriage. It is, in my view, as simply impossible for two people of the same gender to "marry" as it is for Bruce Jenner to "be" a woman. He can never '"be" a woman. He is a man, now and forever.

That he wishes to imitate being a woman is fine with me. If gay people wish to imitate being married that is also fine with me. They cannot ever "be married" in any traditional way.

Which brings me to the kerfuffle in Kentucky. Kim Davis, Rowan County, KY clerk of courts is probably going to jail for refusing to marry gay people in defiance of the Supreme Court and a contempt citation from a local Federal Magistrate.

This is what happens when 9 people in robes decide to make policy rather than interpret the law. See Roe v Wade. 40+ years of controversy still going strong.

There is an interesting side note to this wee circus.

Those of us on the right have long been playing a game that has come to be called, "Name that Party". It stems from our almost universal observation that the main stream press, when dealing with malfeasance of Republicans, immediately mentions their party affiliation. When dealing with malfeasance by Democrats, well, not so much.

In this story  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/ and many others covering the controversy, the political affiliation of Ms. Davis is never mentioned. Name that party? Why, Democrat, of course. http://www.dallasvoice.com/county-clerk-kim-davis-democrat-related-stuff-10203184.html

Given the nature of her objection the MSM gets a bonus by not naming her affiliation.
 Based on the subject matter of the controversy, not naming her party affiliation allows most people to default to the position that she must be a Republican.

After all who else could possibly be mean and stupid enough to oppose gay marriage. A two-fer.

UPDATE: This is just too precious. One of the NYTimes editors fell for their own ruse. This correction appears today:

Screen Shot 2015-09-06 at 9.26.09 AM

Saturday, June 13, 2015

All Men are Created Equal

It came to my attention during a discussion not long ago that the context of the phrase may have been lost.

The person I was speaking to, not an American, pointed out the obvious: All men are not created equal. Her example was that the son of a prostitute was not at all equal to the son of a doctor. True, except in one regard; we are all created with unalienable rights given to us by our Creator (see previous post for my use of Creator).

At the time that the Founders proclaimed our independence the civil rights regime of every society that I know of was based on God's direct relationship with the various monarchs extant then. The religion practiced by the monarch did not appear to matter. The structure was always the same.You have heard, I am sure, of the Divine Right of Kings. Further, the rights of his subjects were mostly comprised of the rights he chose to confer on them. For the most part they could be given and taken away at the whim of the monarch. (Until after WWII for example, the Emperor of Japan was believed to be the son of god.) There were some exceptions, the Magna Carta, for example, but not many.

For the first time, as far as I know, the American system disengaged the monarch and put the people, all of them, in direct relationship with their civil rights. The first time, ever.
In this respect, and this respect only, were the Founders asserting the equality of men. This was an incredibly revolutionary assertion.

The then existing institution of slavery does not, in my opinion, invalidate their assertion. At that time those who condoned the practice did not consider slaves human. That they were wrong is beside the point. At that time women were generally not considered the equal of men. That they were wrong is also beside the point.

In their context, in their time, the views they held were commonplace. That they were not as enlightened as we are today is entirely predictable and irrelevant. In case it has gone unnoticed, we evolve. Were it otherwise our creation would have been accompanied by the invention of cars, planes, telephones, modern medicine and personal computers. 10's of billions of us lived and died during the thousands of years that humans were such slaves to our needs and environments that there was no time for meaningful innovation.

When did that state of being change dramatically? The Industrial Revolution and the soon to follow establishment of the United States of America, where all men are created equal and a reliable rule of law, not the whim of monarchs, governs. At the time, the only such place on Earth.