Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The “Palace-Guard Creeps” In The Media

3 Comments

Mark Steyn: “Get lost“:

As to whether he’s a Christian, have you asked him whether he has attended even semi-regularly any church other than that of Jeremiah (“God damn America”) Wright? A man is free to attend the Westboro Baptist Church but if he chooses to do so I’m not obligated to defend his Christianity. And frankly, whatever the President’s personal faith, there is no dispute that his leadership of the western world has been an utter catastrophe for Christians around the planet. Some of the oldest Christian communities on earth have been entirely extinguished on Obama’s watch: in Mosul, Iraq, which was an American protectorate on the day he took office, not a single Christian remains. Every single one of them is dead or fled. So, instead of jumping through your preposterous hoops and speaking up for the most powerful man in the world, I would rather speak up for the powerless – for the Nigerian schoolgirls, for the Yazidi, for the Copts in Egypt, and for all the other beleaguered Christian communities in the world this feckless president has set alight and watched burn.

No, Trump has no obligation to defend Barack Obama from charges of being a Muslim, or anything else. McCain was a fool to do so, and to be unwilling to hit him on Jeremiah Wright.

If I’d been in Trump’s position, my response to that guy would have been, “No we don’t have a problem with Muslims. But we do have a problem with Islam. to the degree that Muslims take their religion too devoutly, it becomes a problem, and it’s un-American. In this country, we have separation of church and state, a concept that is anathema to Islam.”

I agree with Ben Carson, too. Who in the world would advocate that a devout Muslim become president? Certainly no one who cares about the founding principles of the country, or the First Amendment.

[Update a while later]

I agree with Powerline‘s take on Carson’s comments (not to imply that I’m a big Carson guy).

History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Teaching History

2 Comments

America the not-so beautiful:

Initially, the progressive assault made some sense. Traditional “civics” education often presented American history in an overly airbrushed manner. Many of the nation’s worst abuses – the near-genocide of American Indians, slavery, discrimination against women, depredations against the working class and the environment – were often whitewashed. These shortcomings now have been substantially corrected in recent decades, from what I can see in my children’s textbooks.

Of course, the old attitudes still remain embedded, particularly among those mostly older, white middle- and working-class Americans who are attracted to Donald Trump’s call for America “to be great again.” This kind of unfocused nostalgia does seem likely to be consigned to – as Trotsky dubbed it – “the dustbin of history.”

But as progressive ideology has grown in influence, it has become ever more radicalized, often to the extent of downplaying, or even denying, the remarkable accomplishments of our civilization. It is now considered a “microaggression” on college campuses, notably, those of the University of California, to call America “the land of opportunity,” or celebrate the notion of the “melting pot.” This attitude ignores that America has provided succor and hope to many millions of people who left desperate conditions in places like southern Italy, Ireland, the slums of Lancashire, the shtetls of Russia, rural Japan, China, Central America, the Middle East and, increasingly, Africa…

And they continue to come, despite what an atrocious place it is.

Social Commentary

Jake Brewer, RIP

3 Comments

My deepest condolences to Mary Katherine on her terrible loss.

[Update a while later]

From her current timeline:

If you want to offer condolences, those links are probably a good place to do it.

[Monday-morning update]

Mary Katherine’s co-author Guy Benson has started a Go Fund Me page to take care of the family.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

“You Have Signed The Death Warrant For Science”

14 Comments

Thoughts from Judith Curry on the latest insanity in climate “science”:

What you have done with your letter is the worst kind of irresponsible advocacy, which is to attempt to silence scientists that disagree with you by invoking RICO. It is bad enough that politicians such as Whitehouse and Grijalvi are playing this sort of political game with science and scientists, but I regard it as highly unethical for scientists to support defeating scientists with whom you disagree by such methods. Since I was one of the scientists called out in Grijalvi’s witch hunts, I can only infer that I am one of the scientists you are seeking to silence.

[Late-afternoon update]

Mark Steyn: Twenty more disgraces to the profession.

[Bumped]

[Saturday-afternoon update]

Tim Ball’s thoughts on the Climate Monster over at WUWT:

Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries.

The RICO charge is a particularly nasty form of ad hominem attack. By applying it in the global warming case, it tries to make criminals out of people doing their job properly. The real criminal part of their enterprise is that skeptics are doing what scientists are supposed to do, that is disproving the AGW hypothesis. They accuse these properly named scientific skeptics of performing the scientific method, either through ignorance of the method or to silence them. The twenty, like the IPCC and its supporters, directly or indirectly thwart the scientific method by accepting the hypothesis as proven. They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections). They consistently refuse to consider the null hypothesis.

The attack is not surprising because the IPCC created a monster and were driven to keep it alive. Once you create the monster it becomes uncontrollable and even if it becomes a threat to society, the creator will resist its destruction; worse, you have to keep feeding the monster and will take extreme measures if necessary. This inevitability is the moral message of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

You know who needed a RICO investigation? Bill and Hillary Clinton in the nineties. Not people trying to do science, and trying to prevent awful policy based on shoddy science.

[Bumped again]

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!