Contrary to legend, Galileo never spent a day of his life in a prison cell.

Click — And Pass It On

Send this to someone who might know where it’s needed. Here is a clarification of the statistic quoted in the video; a tip of the hat goes to reader JY for that.

Obama Reconsidered

Introductory

Commentary in past numbers of this newsletter — all of which are available on request — has attempted to limn the character, principles, motives and capabilities of the president. Those efforts might be summed up as the observation that the man is an empty suit.

That unflattering remark is partly due to Obama’s reluctance to spell out his political-philosophical orientation and grand design. He has chosen instead to deal with individual issues, preaching reforms designed to ease the electorate’s burdens. By avoiding identifying himself with any -ism or school of thought, he has been able to present himself as a pure pragmatist, free to resolve each distinct issue while not subject to stereotyping, categorization, and partisan sniping.

This veiled demeanor borders on deceit. Obama’s voting records as both state and federal senator are available, so observers can reasonably refer to the president as a “progressive”, a “left-winger”, or a “liberal”. In fact that has not happened, for the press has been more than willing to avoid placing labels on the president, and the overwhelming majority of the public has followed suit. Obama is “a Democrat”, or simply “Obama”.

The neutral way the president is typically characterized by the news media is seldom noted, but it offers the president virtual immunity from the decidedly negative aspects of labels. “Progressives” and collectivists (there is a technical distinction, though they are — to strain the metaphor a bit — ideological fraternal twins) typically use labels and slogans freely, and to great advantage; recall Hillary’s bitter denunciation of her husband’s political opponents as simply a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. (When have you heard a public figure who aspires to high office refer to a “vast left-wing conspiracy”? It would be a politically suicidal outburst.) Then there is the Tea Party, a group frequently described as “white”, “out there”, “bat-shit crazy”, and “racist”.

Labels can be extremely effective, and when they are applied to the opponents of collectivist politics, they are not just well received, but frequently repeated.

Of course the reverse is not true. Recall, for example, the author who identified Woodrow Wilson as a fascist: in spite of having presented voluminous evidence of the accuracy of the label, the historian was savaged for stating the truth (see the book review in Number 273).

Indeed, labels matter. But are they justified? Is it responsible and ethical to refer to a collectivist as “a collectivist”, or label a Castroite “a tool of tyranny”? Could you compose your own label, and voluntarily identify your location on the political spectrum by using that descriptive word or phrase?

Obama, like all politicians, has core beliefs, principles, and visions of a better society. What are those dreams, and can they be rationally and ethically characterized by descriptive labels?

What follows is an attempt to describe Obama by inferring his unstated, unadmitted and esoteric ideology from his statements and actions. Of course this effort will include errors of various degrees, as well as omit undetected verities. When confronted by a public figure as fastidiously esoteric as Obama, one does what one can — which is to say, slips ‘twixt cup and lip are to be expected.

The fundamentals

1. The president is determined to end “American exceptionalism”. (Note, please, that “American” refers to the entire western hemisphere, though the term has been appropriated by those in the USA. It will be replaced here by “US”.)

Obama is not an unalloyed product of the USA; he is more like a foreigner who studied there, and observed the natives with a mixture of puzzlement, astonishment, contempt, and envy. He is irritated by the smug superiority of many US citizens, for he views a significant fraction of the population as arrogant, uncaring, and greedy. After all, there are many poor people in the country, and, having worked among some of them (as a community organizer), he believes their plight is the result of a toxic mix of action and inaction on the part of a financially advantaged class. He places blame while he searches for causes, in other words.

One of the most powerful manifest symbols of US exceptionalism is the nation’s border. Over an extended period of time, Obama has tacitly implemented a policy of eradicating the legal distinctions between native and alien; that effort has included refusing to maintain and defend the border. When Mexican criminals literally occupied a huge section of Arizona, the Obamoid response was to put up a few signs warning US residents to stay out of the area (because the alien mercenary army could be expected to kill hikers and campers). A decent president would have ordered the military to give the invading force the option of departing at once, or perishing in place.

Subsequent debacles along the southern border of Texas continue to demonstrate the vandalism of Obamoid ideology: the immigration policy of the US is systematically mocked and degraded by a lunatic cosmopolitanism that departs radically from historical patterns of federal guidelines and practices.

2. Obama is a latter-day anticolonialist whose political and cultural orientations were partly formed in East Africa, even though he spent little time there. His father’s values appear to have ensorcelled the president, capturing his imagination and intellect with a swirling saga of bondage and class struggle that raged dramatically through bloody chapters, culminating in thrilling liberation from the white man’s exploitation.

In fact Obama’s ideological conceptions were partially shaped by his inherited hatred of the British. If he were candid, Obama would recount bitter stories of the atrocities committed against the freedom fighters called Mau Mau, and compare that uprising to the US revolution that also drove British power back to its damp native island. In that sense, Obama is not representative of the vast majority of US citizens of recent African descent (all humans have African ancestors). His heritage and its ideological orientation led some observers to note that, in voting for Obama, black people in the USA were not selecting one of their own. Of course that view was politically incorrect; sheer skin color (which is diagnostic of nothing political, religious, or ideological) was the shibboleth, so Obama was a proxy for millions of black folks who — along with this newsletter — were delighted to see a black candidate advance to the nomination. The “Obama is not really black, in the US sense of the word” assertion was, therefore, very short-lived in the media.

Obama’s position as a community organizer in Chicago (a job he held from June 1985 to May 1988, which means for 36 months at most) is often cited as good experience for a presidential hopeful. Presumably it made the young lawyer aware of the gap between him and many black folks; it seems to have suggested to him that the poverty he witnessed was due to political repression and economic exploitation. Some observers might say that the experience strengthened his conviction that only a paternalistic government could render the rapacious racists of the overclass harmless.

Whether those months spent trying to help the disadvantaged of Chicago are fundamentally significant to Obama’s ethos might be debated, but some — including this newsletter — would say, “The harm done by the racist mindset, wherever it exists, cannot be denied. It might not be cogent to draw fundamentally important parallels between south Chicago and the regime imposed by the Poms in East Africa, however. That exercise, if pursued with more zeal than perspicacity, can give rise to a bizarre kind of racism”.

Yes, the “East African travail/Britain as villain” concept does matter. The USA’s first black president presented the then British prime minister with some insultingly childish “gifts” that raised eyebrows in Britain. What’s this — digital video discs that are incompatible with British players? Episodes of old US TV shows?

Yes, more’s the horror. It was a stunning gaffe, and no one in Foggy Bottom had the sense to say, “Hold it, this is not Arthur Godfrey’s Amateur Night for Diplomats! Somebody call the folks at Steuben Glass and get a proper trinket for the PM, now. The rest of you lot go back to reading your comic books, and don’t do anything, absolutely any damn thing, without clearing it with me first!”

Of course the story has been carefully forgotten. When, years later, Obama sided with the wretched nation of Argentina in its transparently phony attempt to regain The Falkland Islands, the depth and sincerity of the White House’s disgust for the Poms remained out of sight.

In his heart, Obama is a bitter man; he lives with abiding reminders of the injustice and cruelty of the white English-speaking world. Though he suffered little personally, he feels a deep kinship with the black and brown people of the world who would be so much better off if only Europeans and their descendants had been…and were today…decent.

3. Obama is obsessed with what he calls “fairness”. Clearly, this is linked to his anticolonialist sentiments, and expresses itself in his chaotic immigration policy. It extends at once to the economic system, and pushes Obama toward a desire to control the body politic as needed. The fundamental article of faith behind that desire is this: uncontrolled, people tend to be exploitative bigots, which is another reason why a free market economy does not work. The Liberty of the individual is a luxury that an ethical nation cannot afford.This example has been cited before, but it is powerfully instructive, so here it is again: in spite of the fact that Obama knows that high capital gains taxation reduces both tax revenues and national employment, he considers punitive taxation of the rich to be a sterling example of “fairness”.

4. The president is not as interested in expanding benefits to the public as he is in the redistribution of income. He necessarily looks first to tax policy to achieve that, and secondarily thinks of how he might control every individual completely enough to end both poverty and privilege. In his understanding, poverty means something has been stolen, and privilege identifies the thief.

This is the core of the Marxist and neo-Marxist dream, and it is closely linked to economic determinism. In a moment when he did not know he was being recorded, the president-to-be explained the odd behavior of backwoods folks in Flyover Country as a clinging to religion and firearms in response to economic factors. That’s “analysis” worthy of the Frankfurt School. The ignorant remark was supposed to remain sub rosa, and it’s very unfortunate that not much has been made of it.

In fact ignorance seems to be a quality the president considers protective. He has said flatly that free markets do not work, and while one might question exactly what he meant by that, the fact that he would say it at all is noteworthy. The only economists who deny the efficacy of free markets are those who are genuine planners. What plans can be executed when neither designer nor builder has control? Ultimately, prescriptive economists do not control policy, or regulate markets, or oversee the allocation of resources. They control human beings. They are coercive, which is to say they are slavemasters.

5. Obama is an authoritarian in the mold of Wilson, FDR, and other less palatable foreigners; he craves and wields power illegitimately. He points out that he has a pen and a telephone, and that executive orders are the order of the day. He will change existing legislation (unconstitutionally) without bothering with Congress. The word for such misbehavior is fascist. Throughout history, only those who were able to convince the masses that they were national socialist leaders with great vision have been able to rule so boldly.

6. Possibly as a consequence of his emotional and irrational anticolonialist policies, Obama has failed to grasp the significance of the Islamist threat to the West. He approaches foreign policy as if he were afraid he might be criticized by aliens who hope to destroy his nation and his civilization. There are suggestions that he actually does consider Islam — all Islam — a religion of peace, and that he is distrustful of Jews.

A rational person knows that nothing can be concluded from the observation of just some of the many communities to be found in the (metaphorically) variegated Muslim world. The honest observer realizes that he must begin with the holy writ, and then understand how it is interpreted by most of the groups of Islam, paying particular attention to how influential each is. The complex subject begins with a simple set of commandments allegedly handed by the creator of the world and mankind to an angel, who then conveyed the information to mankind — through a self-proclaimed prophet. What are those commandments? That should be made plain for everyone to see.

What US president would take the next rational step, and speak to the nation candidly about the nature of Islam’s challenge to the West? None, probably. That is a pessimist’s view, for it is probable that a president who strongly upheld religious Liberty and expressed a firm determination to protect it would be well received by his electorate.

Of course plain talk would infuriate insanely violent Muslims who, in any event, seek to kill all Jews and destroy the USA. So…what? One cannot tame a mad dog.

Recall the old joke about the two Israeli spies who, captured by the Syrians and stood against a wall to be shot, exchanged the following remarks: “Oh, Aaron, I can’t stand it. I’m going to ask for a blindfold.” “Schlomo, don’t make trouble!”

The parlous times demand candor and honesty — especially as regards Islam. There is neither need nor reason to savage all Muslims; the truth can be promoted objectively, and the clear distinctions Muslims make as they describe their multifaceted faith should be made clear to the US public by the president. As his nation’s leader, it is his duty to inform and issue moral guidance. Obama does not display the courage and vision to lead; that could well be because he does not feel the USA should invest faith in the eighteenth century version of Liberty expressed in the US constitution.

Withal, Islam is challenging the West. If Obama realizes what is at stake, he gives little sign of it. Of course he would remind that he killed bin Laden. That matters less than is generally understood, for Obama had no politically viable choice but to allow the mission to proceed.

Candor forces the admission that the death of bin Laden has proved virtually meaningless. Next the honest observer must note that in the single most important respect of all, Obama has failed. Tragically, his leadership has sent a clear message of encouragement to the West’s oldest enemies. The USA has endorsed the pattern of fight — bleed — withdraw begun in Korea, continued in Vietnam, and recently repeated in Iraq and Afghanistan (and reprised by its very public disagreements with Israel). The most fanatical and bloodthirsty Muslims in the world understand what that pattern means to their chances for conquest. Too, they know Obama is wrong to assume that a religious movement can be defeated by the assassination of its leaders.

Obama’s express policy of reluctance to fight, win, and then preserve the victory has prompted the seemingly spontaneous appearance of ISIS — an Islamofascist movement of shocking brutality (that is literally following the grand design set out in the Koran). The mad mass murderers embrace martyrdom in huge numbers because for the first time in centuries, they smell victory.

Who in the world has the sheer will to impose failure on them?

To be sure, Obama’s domestic policies weigh him down, and his fear of being likened to the hated President W is suffocating. The USA does not want to pay for and bleed in yet another war. The prospect of fighting a religious ideology rather than a political regime is daunting. Is it fair to accuse Obama of being a personal and ideological failure?

It is enough to say that he is the wrong man for his job. The fellow who reads speeches by swiveling from one teleprompter to the other is also the leader who lies easily, spouts nonsense, slanders decent people, bungles his relationships with virtually everyone except a few justices on the supreme court, and sets no examples of personal commitment to the tasks at hand. His signal accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, is a bizarre puzzle, and his greatest accomplishment just might be the militarization of the nation’s police forces.

This is not a man who can ask Western Civilization to take a stand that will require great sacrifice, for he is not a leader. Again: Obama was elected on his tacit promise to make the everyday lives of his fellow citizens more comfortable, not on his pledge to preserve the genius of over two thousand years of history.

Unfortunately the present topic is larger than just the Obamoid response to Islam. One cannot say whether the president participates in the unfortunate tendency of too many black US citizens to consider Jews parasitical deceivers, but it is clear that Obamoid foreign policy does not envision Israel and the USA as strong partners.

In fact recent developments indicate that the White House is the origin of considerable antipathy toward Israel. Why ever? Do the discord and enmity arise from rational considerations, or from too-familiar bigotry? Certainly Jew-hatred inspired by malign religious teachers (living and dead) is easily identified and ignored, but individuals who are both prejudiced and wily know candor will disqualify their views, so they pose as unbiased.

Were it the case that the Obama administration stood with Israel, you would hear the president damning Hamas for its policy of sacrificing children to protect weapons. Obama would have appeared on TV almost daily, urging the rational and ethical elements of society to condemn not only Hamas, but those who defend this quintessentially evil faction. A good president would have delivered heartfelt speeches supporting the Israeli effort to de-fang the villains. Obama has been ethically delinquent.

He has also been blatantly indifferent. The selection of Hillary and then Kerry to oversee foreign policy sent a distinct message to the world: “Your diplomatic circus is a farce that doesn’t matter all that much to me”. That message was received, though its transmission and import were not reported in the press.

Those in the USA must consider the full implications of the lunatic stance taken by Kerry and his boss regarding the rapidly-approaching appearance of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Talk of this or that political ideology, ethnic bigotry, mad economic fantasy, Utopian dream, confiscatory tax policy, or Keystone Kops medical insurance plan…well, all of it is irrelevant. The issue is survival.

7. Obama is secretive, disingenuous, deceitful and opaque. All presidents are, to some extent. The real question is how much dishonesty can be tolerated. It is known, for example, that Obama has sequestered documents produced by the Department of Justice relating to the deadly “Fast and Furious” scheme; that action is utterly improper and illegal.

Read this, and then consider the president’s commitment to the rule of law.

A consideration of Obama’s statements on firearms legislation leads to the conclusion that he has shyly, gently courted one side and avoided offending the other — yet this is a sharply-defined constitutional issue on which a president should be definitive and outspoken. “I’m not gonna take away your guns” is heard one day, and later he says, “What’s more important to you, our children, or an A-grade from the gun lobby?” (See the second item under the headline “Notes and Snippets” in Number 301 of this newsletter. Yes, he really said that.)

It is known that Obama has lied, and then explained that he was not really lying; the press overlooks the ethical breach rather than condemn it and the liar. Who in the world knows what US policy in the Middle East will be tomorrow? When Obama told the Congress that he had absolutely no intention of driving the Mexican drug cartels out of the area of Arizona that they occupied unless he, the president, received exactly the legislation he demanded from Congress, where was the outrage? Even life-long Democrats should have been incensed, but Obama was able to elude condemnation for his vile tactic. Truly, the man is shameless, and only partly because the nation’s press and society seem beyond caring.

That reminds yet again of Obama’s flat statement — not made extemporaneously — that the nation needs a national civilian security force as well funded as is the existing US military. Clearly, the man is primarily interested in control. He means to redistribute the wealth, break the back of the proud exceptionalism of the USA, impose smotheringly powerful control of the populace, and rule.

Now read this carefully. It’s a bit confusing, but remember: this president wants it that way, so you will have no idea what he said and how much of what he said was truthful. He’s a flim-flam artist. The odds are that after reading his answer to a very simple question, you will have no idea whatsoever how you could possibly tell another person what he said, let alone evaluate his response. That’s very typical of The One.

Conclusion

Obama is not an empty suit.

He is an unintellectual ideologue whose lust for power is virtually absolute, and he is a huge danger to Western Civilization. More a child of East Africa’s colonial period than an elusive college student who smoked pot with the neo-Marxist radicals, Obama is a dictator waiting for the chance to take power.

That day might never come. He could find that he simply does not have the influence and support needed to remain in the White House past the end of his present term (that seems to be his view at present, but that’s probably just the whining of a partially-thwarted bully). Whether that day is ever seen matters little, however; what matters now is that the USA has suffered grievous harm in many ways, and that the legacy of Obama’s lunatic Utopianism will be an abiding cancer in the body politic. He has done a lot to lend legitimacy to “progressive” assaults on the Liberty of the individual, dilute Western consanguinity, and consequently encourage Islamofascist fanaticism.

Obama has demonstrated just how bad a president can be — and get away with it.

Dispatches From A Tramp Abroad

German national security

ISID / ISIS Attacks in Germany: Link One and Link Two. I really wonder about the Germans. Does the Staatsschutz really know what is going on? Are they really observing all of these strange groups that have migrated to Germany in the last few decades? Are they doing more than just “observing” them? It is said that they have infiltrated some groups, but I believe these are primarily indigenous Neonazi groups. I guess for obvious reasons it is more difficult to get someone reliable to report on what is going on in these groups that are set on disturbing the German social order. Probably the only way to do it is to co-opt existing members, possibly with monetary enticements, to report on their activities.

I can tell you, from my observations and “standing around the water cooler” chats with my colleagues, there is real concern about what is going on in Germany with respect to these radical groups from abroad. Personally, if I were the Minister des Inneren, if a non-German citizen were picked up after being positively identified as a “shit stirrer”, I would immediately deport him, possibly his entire family. If the Germans had the intestinal fortitude to do this consequently and make a big show of it, I am sure that things would quiet down rather quickly.

However, because of their “Vorbelastung” (the political-ethical burden that remains from the Nazi era), every German government since the 1970s (not the state) has been reluctant to take such measures to protect themselves from such dangers. Sometimes I wonder exactly what a Ministry of the Interior does.

Anthrax

Anthrax breakout in Tatarstan: A resident of Kukmary region, Tatarstan, Russia has been diagnosed with cutaneous (skin) anthrax. Contacts are being closely monitored. The area has been quarantined, and slaughter of livestock for consumption has been prohibited. Symptoms of anthrax include skin ulcers (cutaneous type), and vomiting (intestinal type). Anthrax can be treated with antibiotics. The disease is consistently present in some parts of Russia and the risk to business travelers is low. Prevention: Avoid contact with livestock, animal carcasses and animal products such as hides and skins. Ensure that all meat is sanitary and has been properly cooked.

Other matters

Misogynistic religious fanaticism is not exclusively Islamic, and it’s certainly not restricted to the Middle East. The USA has it right in its backyard. I can only pray that preachers of this guy’s ilk make up a very tiny percentage of the Christians in the USA. Fundamentalism is one thing, but this is another.

The return of vinyl to stereo hi-fi might be a boon for some music lovers, but it won’t stop “digital madness”. Those snaps, crackles and pops in the grooves of a record drive folks to CDs; then there’s the fussy setup and the fact that every time you play a vinyl disc, you degrade it.

The nation of Turkey matters, so…first, here is the link to RTE’s personal website for his presidential candidacy. Next, whenever the Important People do something entertaining, there’s no harm in reacting appropriately. Accordingly, notice the amusing similarity between his campaign logo and the logo of this well-known alcoholic cocktail! Even though RTE won the election, I’ll bet he wanted to shoot his campaign manager when he saw this….

rte

Summing up the recent problems in Iraq and Syria …. in 4:35 minutes. This video is recommended as a contribution to an extremely important subject.

If you had a $350K salary, would you give up more than 25% of it? Maybe together with the pension of a retired GE Senior Executive, $260K is sufficient income in Kentucky. Certainly this would be a gracious gesture for those lower on the wage scale.

This fellow is a laughing stock for Turkish women: Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç’s recent remarks that woman should not laugh in public have caused quite a backlash in the social media. One can even say that this old-fashioned fellow is considered riciculous by fully half of all Turks; certainly his comments were laughable, not laudable. — Bülent Arınç’s Turkey is a country of contrasts. In a single week, the Deputy Prime Minister opines that women should not laugh out loud in public, and now there’s this. High-profile transsexual if not openly gay personalities and entertainers, e.g. Zeki Müren, are nothing new in Turkey.

I’d say this applies to the AGWers….and to many others as well. “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, deny and even ignore anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.” Quote from Frantz Fanon; more here. Related information.

Here’s more on the feeding of street animals in Turkey. Based on the 0264 area code seen on on the container in the photo in Nr. 352 of this newsletter, the scene appears to be Sakarya, Turkey. This project is supported by Yücesan, a Turkish manufacturer of rail cars headquartered in Sakarya. “ Pugedo Intelligent Recycleable Products, helping the life of stray animals and wildlife, are designed to support ecological living.” The implementation of these “feeding booths” seems to be growing in Turkey, and possibly also in Spain. I noticed that the relevant page on their website has a short blurb in Spanish. There’s a Video Clip.

The Tramp’s Links

Each side is blaming the other for committing crimes against humanity and using the same illegal tactics.

For crying out loud — … can’t we even laugh out loud?

Young German buskers help a homeless man.

Is the Israel-Gaza (or Israel-Palestine?) war really all about energy and controlling the revenue from exploiting the resources?

Hell on Wheels revisited: The best fire challenge ever….

OMG, our values have been transgressed…by Zionist enemies of [our] religion!

Maybe, just maybe, this challenge will go viral.

Here’s how Hamas assembles and fires rockets from densely populated areas within the Gaza Strip.

Nazi-Hipster…die neue Mode (“the new fashion”).

Anti-Semitic attack in Australia: it looks as if there will be an upsurge of these attacks.

I heard that this is making waves in the USA; Trailer; Clip One; Clip Two; Clip Three.

This video shows how real men shoot skeet.

Happy Birthday Obama… from Russia with Love.

Real Skullduggery: this shows that the US can also engage in some hot-shit, ballsy spy craft — or at least Uncle Sam used to be capable of it.

Big boom-boom.

Obama speaks candidly about world politics, but sneaks in a few jabs about domestic politics and the Republican Party. One might not agree with his politics and actions, but he is no dummy.

Myth Trumps Reason

Whoops! The seas are going to hell

Perhaps the most absurd claim made by warmers is their explanation of where the heat went: confronted with temperature measurements that show no statistically significant global warming for almost eighteen years, they cannot give up their article of faith that carbon dioxide has been heating the earth tremendously. If that were true, then where’s all the heat? The batty response is that those elusive calories have migrated to the depths of the seas.

Yes, you read that correctly: atmospheric heat is claimed to have moved to Davy Jones’s Locker, where it remains — just waiting to come boiling out and devastate the planet.

That is actually believed by the hard core of the cult, and many associate members pay no attention to the absurdity of the claim. They just take it on faith.

Before you object that a high school understanding of physics equips a person to ask how the heat could (a) pack up and decamp to the ocean’s deeps, and (b) be imprisoned there (remember entropy?), consider that explaining how fluids transmit heat is not a wise choice if you should find yourself in the company of warmers. One might better ask, “All right, just how warm are the oceans?”

Enough answers are available to tell you what you would like to know. Of course you never heard of that, now did you? Your ignorance is due to the fact that the news media are extremely unlikely to report anything that debunks the cult’s holy writ. So you might want to share this link with your circle of correspondents (after you have read it, of course).

(Here’s an older paper that adds to the topic.)

Once again, this newsletter provides you with hard science. Don’t expect the linked paper to be anything like the pre-digested pap so many of the cult’s smarmy, smiling sophists feed you. This is empirical information, not misanthropic mythology.

By the way, do those publicists for the warmers ever remind you of Arthur Godfrey or Walter Cronkite? No? Well, those two snake-oil salesmen belong to a past era, so pick a more modern version of the hollow stereotype here. Don’t sneer! This is the advertising age, and nobody knows that better than do the media — and the cults. There are people out there who are P. T. Barnums on steroids. That means that if you don’t watch out, those rascals will steal your face right off your head, as the song says.

Addendum: Maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson is simply too, too for some of you, but surely Bill Nye The Science Guy has all his ducks in a row. Sorry, NO. Read this. Nye won’t respond to the post; that’s certain. In case you want to bet on that, what odds will you give? Be careful before you risk your money, because…faithful warmers consider their critics to be inferior life-forms, so no responses or corrections or apologies and even slightly embarrassed looks are required in cases like this. BNTSG blew it, and that’s the last you will ever hear of it, outside publications like this one.

Well. A comment from “The search for missing heat in oceans”, linked above: (the truth about those hot oceans is) “a bitter blow to the theory of impending heat disaster”. That will do.

The cult can corrupt genuine science, unfortunately. Here’s evidence of the crime

In a serious effort to be objective, many scientific journals make their contributors responsible to peer reviewers who tell the editors which papers are junk and which are golden. Yes, the idea is good, but think how Semmelweis, Lister, Pasteur, Jenner, Fleming and more would have fared under that system (and how Marshall and Warren did fare under it). No one knows how much good science is censored out of existence each year. The reason is simple: science has a mindset, a comfortable understanding, that cannot help but view new developments with caution.

Innovators must prove their points, in other words. Consider the case of Kammerer, for example: could he possibly have been right? Probably not, and his claims did not indicate that he was anywhere near to a formulation of epigenetics. So what can be concluded from his example?

Some would say that Kammerer was not abused, and that there is no problem with various schools of thought (that is, factions within science) controlling the publication of scientific papers. Not today.

Well, that’s wrong, and in spades. Read this.

As science presses on, some people get crushed. Others promote hoaxes and are never called to account (here’s a short list). Because anthropogenic global warming is an article of faith rather than a valid scientific explanation of anything, the polite rules by which factual disputes are supposed to be settled do not apply to it. As a consequence, careers have been ruined and a granitic variety of tyranny has attempted to impose itself on the climate sciences. That vicious mindset has seen expression in the bitter accusation that those who reject the hoax are on an ethical level they share with Holocaust deniers.

Here’s a series of short videos that deals well with the most important aspects of the entire subject of climate. Recommended.

For more: see Number 206 of this newsletter; then the ape-human cross hoax is detailed here.

Emergency last-minute add-on: see this immediately. It’s important.

Links

The US Government, the perennial growth industry, needs better PR. How about genuine reform, instead?

For now, those in the USA need to see to this burning issue — and then work on the many other problems. But first things first.

The New York Times explains the Israel-Gaza conflict to you. [Caution: The linked material might cause explosive nausea.]

A halal singles bar.

If this paragraph upsets you…”Everything that Barack Obama touches seems to turn to dross. Think of it for a minute. He inherited a quiet Iraq (no American combat deaths at all in December 2009). Joe Biden bragged of the calm that it would be the administration’s “greatest achievement“. But by pulling out all U.S. peacekeepers — mostly for a 2012 reelection talking point — Obama ensured an ISIS wasteland. He put his promised eye on Afghanistan at last, and we have lost more soldiers there than during the Bush administration and a Taliban victory seems likely after more than a decade of lost American blood and treasure. The message seems to be that it is better for Obama to have his eye off something than on it.” …you won’t want to read the rest of the commentary (which is provided by Victor Davis Hanson).

Do watch this video. Can you refute any of its contentions? Then re-read this review of Rodney Balko’s excellent book. There is a lot to think about…the times call for it.

A short Aussie video that’s worth watching.

The internet now has what amounts to “super cookies”. Approximately five percent of the top 100,000 websites are equipped with them. The list is here. Blocking this new technology is said to be extremely difficult.