British Medical Journal: “Climate change is worse than Ebola!!”

October 2, 2014

panic button red

I never knew Chicken Little was the editor of one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals in the world:

Deaths from Ebola infection, tragic and frightening though they are, will pale into insignificance when compared with the mayhem we can expect for our children and grandchildren if the world does nothing to check its carbon emissions. And action is needed now.

So stand aside, you wretched deniers! This is for the children!!

Sigh. This is so typical of academic elites, yet still so distressing. Ebola is a real disease, currently ravaging Africa in a massive epidemic, and it has now appeared in the United States. People are suffering hideously and dying from it every day. It could easily get worse before it ever gets better.

Yet here we have Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ, asserting that, nope, you’re all wrong: global warming climate change is the far greater threat — an existential one. She declares this to be true, in spite of the fact that there has been no warming for 18 years; that the dread hot spot in the in the atmosphere, which was supposed to be a sure sign of catastrophic warming, has never appeared; that the atmosphere seems far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought; and that new glaciers are forming in Scotland. In spite of all the empirical evidence (1) that provides no support for the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change and plenty of support for the idea of natural cycles of warming and cooling, the head of a respected journal of medical science has decided her publication must take an anti-scientific stand.

I hope this isn’t indicative of the intellectual rigor of the medical articles she runs.

via James Delingpole


Excerpt of the Day: Russian paranoia department

September 2, 2014

 

satire tinfoilhat conspiracy

Hoo-boy. It never pays to underestimate Russian paranoia.

In an article at The Weekly Standard regarding Russian media reporting derangement over the conflict with Ukraine, Cathy Young writes:

The derangement extends beyond current events. EJ.ru’s media watch columnist Igor Yakovenko notes that TV commentary on the World War I anniversary was so heavy on rhetoric blaming the war on American machinations that the uninformed viewer could easily assume that the United States was Russia’s main adversary in that conflict. TV-1 also aired a “documentary” exploring the “alternative” theory that Archduke Ferdinand was actually killed by a British sniper acting at the behest of an international conspiracy of Freemasons bent on world domination, which later also engineered the Russian Revolution to prevent Russia from emerging as one of the war’s victors.

All you need is fine art and the Papacy and you have the makings of a Dan Brown novel. Something tells me we’re going to have a hard time convincing the Russian public that it’s in their best interests to pull out of Ukraine.

Not that their leader is big on realism, either.

(The article’s worth reading, by the way.)


Ministry of Truth: “illegal aliens” are now “informal workers”

September 2, 2014
"Even the monkey is embarrassed"

“Even the monkey is embarrassed”

Not that anyone in recent years has accused the Los Angeles Times of objectivity, but this descent into politically correct Newspeak is particularly risible:

Informal workers are growing part of California’s economy — a shift keenly felt in the construction industry, where 1 in 6 workers is either off the books or misreported, new research has found.

Do “formal workers” show up at the construction site in black tie and tails?

“Illegal aliens” is a perfectly good and accurate phrase, considering that a) these people are from other countries, making them alien to the United States, and b) they have entered the United States in violation of its laws. That is, “illegally.”

But, in the world of our progressive media elites, the phrase “illegal alien” is “insensitive” –a high crime in their book– and so we must find something soft and gauzy that obscures reality. Not only is “informal worker” more sensitive toward the feelings of those who broke the law to get here, but it also serves to lull the senses of readers who might otherwise react badly to illegality and demand something be done about it. Can’t have that.

Orwell’s Minitrue lives on at 202 West 1st street.

via Twitchy


Well, we tried to warn them…

August 24, 2014

NY Daily News Obama golf cover

We really did. In 2008 and 2012, we on the Right tried to tell America that Obama was an empty suit, a man unqualified for the presidency. Lulled by a largely fawning media, not enough of the nation listened at either time, but now the scales are finally starting to fall from the eyes of the MSM itself. To set the stage, here’s Michael Goodwin in the New York Post:

Sometimes a round of golf is just a round of golf. And sometimes it reveals the ­essence of a man.

President Obama’s decision to hit the links and yuk it up with pals immediately after speaking about the beheading of James ­Foley was no ordinary mistake. Nor was it a simple gaffe.

The decision continues to cause an uproar because, like an X-ray, there is no escaping the image. It shows there is no there there.

With even his media praetorian guard appalled, the golf outing is sparking a wider understanding that Obama is hollow, empty of the routine qualities Americans expect from their president.

Simple decency and respect for Foley’s horrified parents should have been enough to sober him. If that didn’t do it, the realization that the Islamic State had declared war on America in the most gruesome fashion imaginable should have sounded a call of duty in his head.

Instead, Obama continued with his vacation and was photographed looking as if he didn’t have a care in the world. Suddenly, that megawatt smile that often charmed voters wasn’t so charming. It was vacuous.

He looked like an empty-headed frat boy, numb to the world.

Maybe that’s not just an appearance. Maybe it’s the truth. Maybe that’s all there is.

While Goodwin was never an Obama “true believer,” as I recall, what he wrote seems to be representative of a revelation taking place for journalists on the left (which is most), if the reactions of the liberal New York Daily News  (via) and MSNBC’s tingly Chris Matthews are any indication. It’s a shame it took nearly five years for the truth to finally start sinking in, however shallowly.

We tried to tell them.

h/t Power Line

PS: Yeah, I know. Give it a few days and they’ll be back to playing “praetorian guard” for Obama. And soon they’ll  transfer their ardor to another devotional object, in all likelihood Senator Elizabeth Warren. They never learn.


The ‘Gore effect’ turns ugly – CNN climate bias revealed

July 31, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

My goodness, but these climate cultists are sensitive types. I guess that’s what happens when all the empirical evidence turns against your preferred truth. Click through to see what I mean. (With the standard bad language warning.)

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

You know of the “Gore effect“, Wikiepedia describes it as  “…an informal and satirical term which alleges a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and global warming activism”, so it was appropriate to apply to the situation where the Gore’s Climate Reality Project group tried a political ploys that looked stupid: “I’m Too Hot” trucks and offers of free ice cream to this week’s Environmental Protection Agency hearings on power-plant emissions…when it was 58 degrees and raining. Obviously, CNN’s Bill Weir doesn’t understand satire, much less how to be a professional journalist.

From Mediaite:

It’s safe to say CNN anchor Bill Weir is not a fan of climate change deniers.

On Thursday, the Twitter account for Fox Nation, a blog run by Fox News, tweeted a link to a post headlined, “Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore’s Group’s Visit to Denver EPA Hearings.”

View original 208 more words


What about *your* gaffes, Hillary?

July 3, 2014

Yes, my friends, it’s time once again for one of our favorite games, “If it had been a Republican…”

Remember, how, back in the 2012 campaign, the press and the Democrat support groups (redundant, I know) hounded Republican nominee Mitt Romney over supposed misstatements and gaffes while on a foreign tour? I can recall one incident in particular, when Romney was in Poland and his campaign wanted to deal US foreign policy issues, a reporter chased after him shouting “What about your gaffes??” The purpose, of course, was to plant the idea with the public that Mitt’s minor faux pas showed he wasn’t qualified to be president.

In which case, I eagerly await Hillary being pestered about her foot-in-mouth moments:

The former Secretary of State, who’s been heavily promoting her new book “Hard Choices” in a likely precursor to running for president in 2016, appeared to state the Conservative and Tory Parties in Britain were rival political parties during a BBC interview.

“Tory” is in fact another name for the Conservative Party in Britain.

Asked by the host what she thought of the “Special Relationship” between the U.S. and Great Britain, Clinton declared it was “very special between our countries.”

“There’s not just a common language, but a common set of values that we can fall back on,” she said. “It doesn’t matter in our country whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat or frankly, in your country, whether it’s a Conservative or a Tory. There is a level of trust and understanding. That doesn’t mean we always agree because, of course, we don’t.”

As the article points out, Hillary was our Secretary of State, who had to deal with our close allies in the UK on a nearly daily basis, and yet she didn’t know “Tory” and “Conservative” were synonyms? It reminds me of the recent Obama ambassadorial appointee who didn’t know his soon-to-be host country, Norway, has a king and not a president.

For supposedly being so much smarter than everyone else and for all their claiming to know what’s best for us, progressives sure are ignorant of the wider world, no?

Of course, it could easily have been a simple slip of the tongue on Hillary’s part, saying “Conservative and Tory” when she meant “Conservative and Labor,” the kind of mental backfire we’re all subject to from time to time.

But not all of us are (probably) running for president, an office that has almost sole control over US foreign affairs, including relations with one of our closest allies.

And so I expect the MSM to grill Hillary mercilessly over this gaffe, hounding her incessantly with questions about her competence and knowledge

Just as soon as she becomes a Republican.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Brutal: NY Daily News on #Bergdahl deal — “Surrender without honor”

June 4, 2014

NYDN cover

Mind you, this is from one of the liberal newspapers in New York City:

President Obama betrayed the highest obligation of his office — safeguarding national security — in trading five hard-core Taliban for the American serviceman who appears to have deserted in Afghanistan.

The five sworn enemies of the United States are now in the Gulf state of Qatar, where they are free to come and go as they like, beyond the watch of American agents. In just one year, they will be free to return to Afghanistan to fight there and stage terror attacks far beyond that country’s borders.

These facts were known to Obama when he made the deal, and yet he went ahead in irresponsible disregard for lives he has endangered. As the facts have emerged — and more surely will — it has become ever clearer that he lost his presidential compass in the Taliban swap.

In retrospect, his Rose Garden announcement that he was bringing home an American POW appears to have been a cynical act of theater.

In other words, a dog and pony show to distract from the VA fiasco. I can believe that.

Then, after dismissing Obama’s assurances about “keeping on eye” on these barbarians while they’re in Qatar, the NYDN delivers the killing blow:

Finally, Obama provided insight into the actual reason for the deal by placing it in the context of his drive to pull out of Afghanistan.

“This is what happens at the end of wars,” Obama said. “That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that’s been true of every combat situation — that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back.”

In other words, he wants out so badly that he accepted the Taliban’s terms, regardless of the threat to American security.

He is surrendering without honor.

Remember, this is from a major regional paper that’s generally on The One’s side. Can’t dismiss this one as “Faux News.”

What’s going on here, I think, is that even center-left outlets (1) are having trouble coloring this as anything other than a major “dereliction of duty” on the part of the president. They find themselves nodding in agreement with former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy at center-right PJM:

Is that the end of the matter? Not by a long shot. As I’ve also contended, the president’s failure to comply with a dubious statute is a mere footnote to his truly egregious offense: replenishing enemy forces at a time when the enemy is still conducting offensive terrorist operations against our armed forces. It would be difficult to fathom a more outrageous dereliction of duty by the commander-in-chief.

Moreover, if you want to fret over statutory violations, I would spend less time on the 30-day notice law and more on the federal criminal law that makes material support to terrorists a serious felony. The president has knowingly provided personnel—key, experienced, highly effective jihadists—to terrorist organizations that are still very much at war with the United States. That is material support to terrorism.

What Obama did was the equivalent of Eisenhower capturing senior North Korean and Chinese generals and then returning them while the fighting in Korea was still going on. If Ike were an idiot, that is, which he wasn’t.

In New York City, a metropolis that’s been the victim of catastrophic terrorism, even a paper as reliably liberal as the Daily News can’t help but scream “What in God’s name do you think you’re doing??”

If Team Unicorn expected any kudos for this “deal,” they must be gravely disappointed.

via Bryan Preston

PS: Jim Geraghty, from whom I took the graphic, has an interesting article on impressions confirmed and disproved by the Bergdahl deal. Also via Jim, is Obama so sick of being president that he’s dropping hints he may resign if the Republicans win the Senate in November? Check this out:

Obama tells anxious Democrats that there is only so much he can do beyond fundraising and better implementing the health-care law. But he also has told allies that losing the Senate to Republicans would make his last two years in office unbearable . . .

“I don’t really care to be president without the Senate,” Obama said, according to attendees, signaling that he knew the health care debacle created resentment among Democrats and that he wanted to make amends.

As Allahpundit likes to say, “Hmmm….”

Footnote:
(1) Other than MSNBC, which will be the network of Obama lickspittles until the End of Days.

UPDATE: At The Federalist, Robert Tracinski asks a darned fine question — “Why Are We Releasing Terrorists Who Kill Girls Because They Go To School?”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,521 other followers