Displaying posts published in

January 2016

Politically Incorrect New Year’s Resolutions By Victor Davis Hanson

We live in an expanding culture of victimhood fueled by identity politics. Americans are supposedly saved from themselves by a new hipster generation of Silicon Valley zillionaires, socially aware techies, progressive government bureaucrats, crusading liberal journalists, and cranky, mostly irrelevant academics. So why do they not address the need for politically correct self-policing? Here are five examples of how postmodern do-gooders could help the nation in 2016.

iPhone-induced Mayhem

The left believes a corporation or business is ultimately financially responsible for the unanticipated consequences of using its product. Smoke too many cigarettes and the tobacco companies are sued for knowingly having tar and nicotine in their products. We go after fast food and super-sized drinks for inundating unaware Americans with trans fats and processed sugar. Design flaws earn auto companies billions of dollars in recalls and fines.

But why do we ignore smart-phone companies? Studies supposedly reveal that texting or net surfing while driving is a greater impairment than is driving while under the influence. How many of us have seen 20-ton semi-trucks weave down mountain passes, as a 20-something driver is glued to the opiate-like device on his lap? Doesn’t Apple know how its product is being misused and causing death and mayhem—or has it commissioned some secret study showing that its devices are as addictive as painkillers and therefore essential for expanding sales?

Shouldn’t a benevolent government agency in 2016—in the fashion that it regulates less-lethal handguns—go after iPhones to block their use while the user is in motion? Cannot Obama’s consumer protection bureaucrats put an “automatic motion shut-off app” on every smart phone? In one day last week, a vagrant with shopping cart walked into my bumper at a crosswalk while texting, a young woman slammed on her brakes in front of me during a bottleneck while texting, and a driver went off the road into the gravel. Again, all were texting. How about a microchip to turn these gadgets off once they are in motion? Wouldn’t that remedy be as humane and socially aware as trigger locks on new handguns? Could we register lethal iPhones?

A quick run-down of Donald Trump’s positions By Ed Straker

That is to say, his positions from within the past year, and no earlier.
ConservativeReview.com, which is edited by conservative talk show host Mark Levin, has emerged as a great ranking service for politicians. Recently the site ranked the positions of Donald Trump based on his public comments. Since everyone knows that Trump has spent most of his adult life as a liberal but has since recanted nearly all of his former positions, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and exclude any quotations over one year old. Everything you read below has come from Trump’s own plush lips in the past twelve month

Taxes: Trump wants to lower income taxes (though not as much as Ted Cruz), but he also wants to take a lot of voters off the tax rolls entirely, giving them incentive to vote for politicians who will vote to raise taxes and spending on the remaining people who do pay income taxes.

Free Trade: Trump will slap high tariffs on goods from China, Japan, and Mexico, which has the potential to create more jobs in America but also to radically raise the price of consumer goods here.

Guns: Trump currently supports Second Amendment gun rights, in contrast to his past support for gun control.

Abortion: Trump is against abortion. On August 3, he said he would defund Planned Parenthood, but on August 11, he changed his mind, saying he wants to continue funding Planned Parenthood, finding ways to finance the “good things” they do. Since all money is fungible, that would mean the continued indirect subsidy of abortions and sale of baby parts.

Coming soon: EPA to tackle ‘light pollution’ By Rick Moran

For thousands of years, man has sought to ward off the dark by using light to illuminate the night. Now, EPA chief Gina McCarthy and celebrity astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson want to take us back a few thousand years by giving the agency the ability to deal with “light pollution.”

The only way to deal with light pollution is to, well, turn off the lights. This will be a boon to astronomers like Tyson who will be able to see the stars and planets a lot better. But for the rest of us, not so good. Crime will rise, accidents will increase, and more people will die just so that Tyson can study the heavens.

Washington Examiner:

“So is there a day, is there some occasion, where I can add light pollution to your portfolio,” he asked McCarthy during a segment released for Sunday’s episode of “Star Talk,” a weekly late-night talk show he hosts on National Geographic.

“Well, this is another thing that’s been called to our attention for satellites,” McCarthy answered. “The imagery of the United States at night shows all those flares from oil and gas in places that are in the middle of nowhere. It is startling to me, to see the change in the night sky.”

“Go in the big world and see how vast it is, and get a sense of yourself in it,” she added. “It changes your perspective forever. And you’re absolutely right. That’s one of the reasons why we have to be worried about light pollution. It’s in our portfolio, and we’re thinking about it and there are steps we can take, but it needs to be on everybody’s mind because the way in which we disconnect ourselves from the natural world means that my job gets harder and harder.”

Another ‘Scientific Consensus’ Bites the Dust By Jonathan F. Keiler

The favorite cudgel of leftist climate change fear mongers is the appeal to authority, as in that there is “a scientific consensus” that the earth is warming and that changes over the last century are due to human activity. The problem with appeals to authority on extremely broad scientific topics is that they are not subject to easy proof by experimentation, and are quite often wrong. Here’s a list of ten popular theories ultimately proven false, and it omits some major howlers, like therapeutically bleeding people or the geocentric theory of the solar system. Now we can add to that list the “scientific consensus” that diets rich in processed foods and fats lead to heart disease. This idea, which has dominated medical thinking for at least the last half-century, and led to all manner of government policy making, regulation and just plain tsuris over finishing the brisket, is now in doubt.

New studies of pre-modern humans, dating back many millennia, demonstrate that arteriosclerosis (the hardening of the arterial blood vessels that causes blockages and heart attacks) afflicted people who (by necessity and not choice) followed that most rigid of diet and exercise regimens — hunting and gathering. The mummified remains of Neolithic era humans from around the globe demonstrate that arterial disease was about as commonplace in those ancient populations as it is today. Despite the fact that these people had diets low on saturated fats, high in proteins, vegetables and fruits, and engaged in regular and strenuous exercise, they still suffered from heart disease as they aged at about the same rates as modern humans.

The global warming consensus that isn’t By Thomas Lifson

At last, we have a peer-reviewed paper that accurately surveys how much support there is for anthropogenic global warming among relevant scientists. And the news isn’t good for Al Gore, nor for Barack Obama, who sees climate change as our number one national security threat.

The widely cited figure of 97% of scientists supporting man made global warming theory has always been a fraud:

…a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 – 3% of respondents “explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming,” and that there was “no agreement with a catastrophic view.”

“These ‘consensus’ surveys appear to be used as a ‘social proof,'” says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. “Just because a science paper includes the words ‘global climate change’ this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases.”

The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a “remarkable lack of disagreement” by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.

U.S. Begins Immigration Crackdown on Central Americans Move follows a surge in migrants arriving at the Southwest border in recent months By Miriam Jordan

The Obama administration this weekend began detaining Central Americans who have evaded deportation orders, launching a crackdown on people illegally in the country amid an increase in migrants trying to cross the southwest border.

Just before Christmas, government officials confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security was planning a clampdown on Central American migrants in January that would include women and children. The operation began in Georgia and Texas, immigration attorneys and advocates said Sunday.

Representatives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Georgia and Texas declined to comment, saying the Homeland Security agency doesn’t discuss ongoing operations. It was unclear Sunday how many people had been taken into custody.

If the raids spread across the country, they would mark the first large-scale operation mounted specifically against Central Americans.

“We are expecting these raids to occur on a national level” since “these families are all over the country,” said Michelle Mendez, a lawyer with Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., a national immigrant-rights organization.

Obama’s Mideast Plan Faces a New Hurdle U.S. officials concerned that Iran-Saudi conflict could undermine broader efforts in Middle East By Jay Solomon

The sudden upheaval that shattered ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the weekend also saddled the Obama administration with unexpected complications in what already was a long-shot bid to ease the crises of the Middle East.

Administration officials voiced rising concern that the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia could undermine their broader regional efforts—in particular ending the Syrian civil war.

Secretary of State John Kerry had been pressing Tehran and Riyadh for months to establish a direct diplomatic channel to address the Syria conflict.

The two countries reluctantly agreed late in 2015 to join a multinational peace process. That led to a United Nations plan for a cease-fire and peace talks, but the latest developments raise questions about its viability.

The conflict is also exposing deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia under President Barack Obama. Saudi officials have repeatedly pressed the White House to take more-aggressive steps to check what they say is Iran’s regionwide efforts to destabilize Arab countries.

Saudi officials have warned that the nuclear agreement reached in July between world powers and Iran would significantly strengthen Iran’s finances while only scaling back its nuclear capabilities for a few years.

Who Lost the Saudis? Iran and Russia have an interest in toppling the House of Saud.

That headline question may seem premature, but it’s worth asking if only to reduce the odds that the Saudis are lost as we enter the last perilous year of the Obama Presidency. Iran and Russia have an interest in toppling the House of Saud, and they may be calculating whether President Obama would do anything to stop them.

This comes to mind watching the furious reaction by Iran and its allies to Saudi Arabia’s New Year execution of 47 men for terrorism. Most of the condemned were Sunnis, including members of al Qaeda, but the Saudis also executed prominent Shiite cleric Nemer al-Nemer, who had led a Shiite uprising in 2011.

“The divine hand of revenge will come back on the tyrants who took his life,” said Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday, among many other denunciations across the Shiite Middle East. Protesters ransacked and set fire to the Saudi Embassy in Tehran before police belatedly stopped them. The Saudis responded by cutting off diplomatic relations with Iran.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Iranian ally and former Prime Minister of Iraq, put regime change on the table by saying the execution “will topple the Saudi regime as the crime of executing the martyr al-Sadr did to Saddam” Hussein. He was referring to the death of another prominent Shiite cleric in Iraq in 1980.

The West Should Stop Apologizing for the Middle East By David Isaac

If there is one proposition on which there is a consensus among Middle East experts—from academia to the media, and to politicians who echo them both—it is that the “root cause” of present problems in the region are the Western imperialists who imposed their will on its hapless indigenous peoples. According to this narrative, Western powers had been nibbling at the margins of the Ottoman Empire and seized on the opportunity offered by its siding with Germany in World War I. Secret agreements between imperialist powers determined new political boundaries without regard to the needs or interests of those who lived in the region, or to any promises made in the past.

The Tail Wags the Dog: International Politics and the Middle EastAug 11, 2015

by Efraim Karsh

As he did in his 1999 Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in Middle East (written with his wife Inari), Efraim Karsh, professor emeritus of Middle East Studies at Kings College, London and currently professor at Bar Ilan University, again turns the conventional wisdom on its head. He writes that Britain, France, and Russia begged the Ottoman Empire to stay out of World War I, promising to ensure the Empire’s survival if it did. Moreover, Karsh insists “the depiction of Muslims as hapless victims of the aggressive encroachments of others, too dim to be accountable for their own fate, is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth.”

DISPATCHES FROM TOM GROSS

MEDIA IGNORE THE FACT THAT AN ARAB JUDGE SENTENCED EX-ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER OLMERT

When international media reported at some length last week on the sentencing of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to 18 months in prison by Israel’s Supreme Court, almost no foreign journalist mentioned that the judge who announced the verdict, Justice Salim Joubran, from Haifa, is an Israeli-Arab member of Israel’s Supreme Court.

To mention this would, of course, draw attention to the fact that the “Israeli Apartheid” myth that many of their colleagues in the media promote, is just that – a myth.

Olmert is the first Israeli prime minister to be convicted of a crime. A lower Israeli court had sentenced him to six years in jail for two counts of bribery, but the Supreme Court overturned one of the convictions on appeal last week. (Olmert was found guilty of accepting a relatively small sum in bribes – certainly small compared to the bribery and corruption rife throughout much of the world, and even in some EU countries.)

A correspondent for the Israeli daily Haaretz wrote “Israel is the only country in the world where a president and a prime minister have both been sent to prison by a court, without a coup or revolution.”