The Future

Youth: As riots roil Ferguson and Baltimore, a new poll shows it isn’t just inner-city youth who are disaffected. It seems young adults across America are profoundly dissatisfied with the big institutions of their country.

A new Harvard University Institute of Politics poll suggests that 18-29-year-olds have a deep distrust of major American institutions. Such profound distrust doesn’t bode well for our future.

Only the U.S. military and scientists score over 50% when young Americans are asked if they trust them.

To be sure, many of those institutions (see chart) might deserve distrust. The biased mainstream media has plainly done a poor job. So has Congress. And so have local, state and federal government agencies.

Still, it’s disquieting to see that America’s young adults have so little faith in the institutions of the richest, freest nation ever. And the cynicism starts early.

A big part of the blame belongs to 40 years of liberal control of our education system, which, coupled with the decline of intact families, has left an entire generation deeply distrustful of America and the institutions that have, over the years, worked quite well.

From the start, kids are taught a litany: America is racist, greedy and hypocritical. Such instruction alienates them from their society and culture.

Yet the doubt and alienation come despite the fact that many young Americans know little about our nation’s history or how its government works.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

–George Orwell

Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

Thus removing any concept or thought pattern not desired by the ruling elite.

How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished?

“Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.”

A new survey of eighth graders by the National Assessment of Educational Progress underscores this. It found less than a quarter of those tested are proficient in civics, geography and U.S. history.

Locally, it was reported here that 650 3rd Graders who couldn’t read were going to passed onto the 4th Grade. First of all, if they are roughly 8 years old and they can’t read to begin with is a problem that no one wants to address.

In just a few years they too will be cynical young adults, just as those in the Harvard poll.

“If the next generation doesn’t understand the causes and the purpose of our American Revolution, the reasons for the separation of powers in our government or the role of the states in our federal system, that generation isn’t likely to notice when its liberties slowly slip away and will not be equipped to hold elected officials accountable,” said Roger Beckett, executive director of the Ashbrook Center.

But damn, they’ll know everything about Snap Chat and The Kardashians!

He’s absoutely right. If young Americans do not understand how our system ideally works, they have no way of understanding what’s wrong — or how to fix it.

Which I think was the point all along. But then the old guard dies off and these “feel good” idiots take over the country is doomed.

Unfortunately, our young are deeply susceptible to liberal teachers sneering that “nothing works” in America and that today’s students are victims of social forces beyond their control — race, wealth inequality, gender, whatever — not masters of their own fates.

Are we being too harsh on our education system?

NO.

Not at all. Since the 1960s, K-12 educators have used the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s theories of “cultural Marxism” to indoctrinate kids with poisonous, anti-social ideas — ranging from multiculturalism, political correctness and diversity, to affirmative action, social justice and inequality.

Meanwhile, they relegate fact-based study of history, geography and culture to the academic ash heap.

No longer teaching a fact-based curriculum, left-wing teachers, unions and administrators can fill young heads with all sorts of useless, nihilistic nonsense.

Yes, young adults might be right: Our institutions are flawed and dysfunctional. But they should also know this: In democracy, you get the institutions you deserve. (IBD)

They just think they are “entitled” and “enlightened” because the Left wing has told them so since birth.

Among college-aged Americans, 58 percent report a positive view of socialism and 56 percent a positive view of capitalism. In contrast,  only 28 percent of seniors have a positive view of socialism while 61 percent have a favorable view of capitalism. This may give the impression young people are trending socialist.

However, college-aged Americans are far more supportive of a free market system (72%) than they are of a government-managed economy (49%). Seniors concur with young people on the free market system (74%), while only 28 percent have a positive view of a government-managed economy.

Several forces could likely be at play. First, young people don’t know what these words mean. The fact that they are more favorable toward socialism than a government-managed economy, which if anything is socialism-lite, demonstrates this. Second, young people like free markets and the technology, products, and wealth it creates, but they also want to feel confident the poor have access to what they need. In their minds socialism might simply connote a social safety net rather than government ownership. Third, individuals often trend left in their youth, but may change as they age. Fourth, this cohort of young people may be systematically different from older generations in holding a preference for both markets and government activism. It remains to be determined how this young generation will make the trade-off when markets and government action are at odds. (reason.com)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

The Death of Martin Luther King, Jr

mlk hate MLK

50 Years of Democrat rule and the complete loss of the principles that got them their rights in the first place.

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

The president of the Baltimore City Council apologized for calling rioters “thugs” at a press conference Tuesday, calling those responsible for the violence “misdirected” youths. Standing side-by-side with self-proclaimed gang members, Jack Young said that gang members stood in front of stores to prevent looting and retracted claims that gang members were targeting the Baltimore police. “We are all Baltimoreans,” Young said. Almost 200 people were arrested during Monday night’s riots. At least 144 vehicles and 15 buildings were burned, according to the mayor’s office.

No wonder the left can’t identify Radical Muslims as Radical Muslims.

Orwell’s principle wrought forth

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

CLASS/GENDER/RACE  WAR IS PEACE

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Then  there’s Salon.com (Leftists) that ADVOCATES violence as the only means, and non-violence (ala MLK) is worthless.

I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.

This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend. Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?), but certainly not one organized specifically to call attention to the fact that the state breaks its own laws with regard to the oppressed on a nearly constant basis.

But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.

I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.

Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.

Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a deadly and irresponsible demand.

The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.

When there is more concern for white sports fans in the vicinity of a riot than the Black people facing off with police, there is mounting justification for the rage and pain of Black communities in this country.

What kinds of actions will it take to make it widely understood that all policing is racist terror, and justice can only come with its permanent abolition?

Black power, Queer power, power to Baltimore, and to all oppressed people who know what time it is.

But not to worry, it’s not their fault, after all, they’re hearts are in the right place and they “care” unlike Republicans…

President Obama  made clear that the reason the citizens of Baltimore are rioting out of control is – wait for it – because Republicans have failed to pass his legislative agenda.
They haven’t thrown enough money at the problem!!

Throwing money at a problem – especially Federal money – might make elected leadership feel good, and prevent upper class white liberals from having to face the reality of inner city life by keeping it at a safe distance with checks from the IRS, but it seldom does anything to repair infrastructure or rebuild an eroding community. And it certainly does nothing to improve the quality of leadership that people in flailing urban areas experience (and Baltimore looks to be the same story). In Detroit, it took a plotline straight out of Gotham City – the mysterious death of a stripper and the mayoral persecution of two rogue cops looking to bring her and her family justice – to start the ball rolling on reform. The Federal government threw millions – billions – at Detroit to bail it out, and it spent it all on hookers and cocaine. 

Literally.

But far be it from Barack Obama to address the real root causes of violence. I suppose the good news is he’s too busy than to use the city as a prop for a photo opportunity. (American Spectator)

The Daily Caller asked Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, if the city’s leadership had failed, since the West Baltimore area was still being rebuilt from the 1968 riots. Hoyer replied, “We have to invest in making sure that we have proper infrastructure and proper housing so that we have neighborhoods that are safe and that we safe conditions in which to live.”

“But I wouldn’t call it a failure, certainly, of Baltimore,” he added. “But we’re going to have to as a country invest if we’re going to have the kinds of communities we want.

MLK is dead.

Not just physically, but spiritually DEAD.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

For Freedom

Forget for a moment the ever-failing economy, the implosion of our foreign policy coherence, and our virtually unilateral withdrawal in the war on terror under Barack Obama’s presidency. If liberty lovers don’t start fighting back soon, we’ll forfeit our freedom of thought and religious expression under the assault of fascist leftist activists in our culture.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

Let’s just look at two of the many recent events that should have us very concerned. As you may have guessed, they revolve around the controversial matter of same-sex marriage. At the outset, let me say that this issue is no longer about same-sex marriage or gay rights; it is about our basic liberties.

George Orwell — ‘He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.’

First, we read via The New York Times that “Ian Reisner, one of the two gay hoteliers facing boycott calls for hosting an event for Senator Ted Cruz, who is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, apologized to the gay community for showing ‘poor judgment.'”

What was Reisner’s sin for which he is now openly flaying himself in faux repentance? He and his business partner allowed Sen. Cruz to participate in a “fireside chat” for about a dozen people, which was not even a fundraiser. But as soon as word got out, gay activists apparently mobilized in force through social media outlets and phone calls calling for boycotts of Reisner’s properties.

An ostensibly shocked Reisner, in an effort to stanch the bleeding represented by more than 8,200 likes on a Facebook page calling for the boycott, apologized on Facebook. “I am shaken to my bones by the e-mails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake,” wrote Reisner.

Yes, he made the unforgivable “mistake” of hosting an event for a presidential candidate who has different views on social issues than the fascist boycott organizers have — and he has himself, for that matter, seeing as he’s a prominent figure in the gay rights community, according to the Times.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, as many used to predict would happen, are not content with their recent victories on the issue. They obviously want to punish anyone who dissents for any reason — including religious and conscience reasons — and also bludgeon those (such as Reisner) who even inadvertently assist those who dissent (such as Cruz).

Next, we should consider the horrendous ordeal of Aaron and Melissa Klein, who used to own Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery they built from scratch in Sandy, Oregon, in 2013. When they respectfully declined, on religious grounds, the request of two women to bake a cake for their wedding, the happy couple filed a civil complaint against them for failing to provide them equal service in a place of public accommodation. You know, live and let live — the attitude the activists and their fellow liberal foxhole buddies told us they would have if they prevailed in their quest to legalize same-sex marriage.

A group of unspecified people — real or robotic constructs of social media legerdemain — went into battle. “They got together and harassed all of our vendors,” Melissa said. The vendors, according to The Daily Signal, folded and took Sweet Cakes off their referral lists, resulting in a 65 to 70 percent reduction in the Kleins’ annual income, forcing them to close the bakery. (The Kleins have five children, and Melissa is reduced to baking a few cakes a month at home. Aaron now has a job as a garbage collector.)

But that heartless result wasn’t enough for the victors. They pursued their legal action against the Kleins with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and last Friday, an administrative law judge with that agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000 for the damages caused to the happy — and now happily married — couple.

As a result – Aaron and Melissa Klein could lose everything they own — including their home in the name of “tolerance”.

When I first heard about this, my jaw literally dropped, and that takes quite a bit in this upside-down, crazy world we’ve grown to understand we now inhabit.

Aaron Klein said: “This country should be able to tolerate diverse opinions. I never once have said that my fight is (to) stop what they call equality.”

Sorry, Aaron, and I do mean I am profoundly sorry for the injustice that has been imposed on you, but these activists are not willing to tolerate diverse opinions. They don’t care that you are not proactively trying to oppose their march for whatever it is they’re marching for. It appears that the true quest of leftist gay activists — and not just gay activists but those of many other leftist causes in this country (e.g., “climate change”) — is to wholly shut down and censor opposing opinions, whether thought or expressed, whether publicly or privately.

“The past was dead, the future was unimaginable. What certainty had he that a single human creature now living was on his side? And what way of knowing that the dominion of the Party would not endure for ever? Like an answer, the three slogans on the white face of the Ministry of Truth came back to him:

WAR IS PEACE  (Even a “Culture” or “Social” War)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH IS WATCHING YOU!

I repeat: The real fight on these types of issues in this nation is no longer about the underlying “rights” involved. It concerns the appalling mission of activists to marshal the coercive power of government and of commercial blackmail to compel other people to agree (and publicly say they agree) with their opinions on issues they deem important.

DO AS WE SAY, THINK AS WE SAY, OR ELSE!

Isn’t it ironic that the people who are pushing for these rights always wave banners of tolerance, love, compassion and liberty? More than ironic, it’s outrageous. And fewer and fewer people of principle are standing up to this tyrannical bullying because, understandably, they don’t want to put themselves in the crosshairs of this gestapo. But history tells us the logical conclusion of this story. Some socially liberal Republicans naively believe that this is only about the social issues themselves, but it’s about liberty.

God help us. (David Limbaugh)

It’s Baltimore. It’s Ferguson.Stand around and let the crazies destroy and get it out of their system, they’ll take your freedom with them.

When they are done taking your freedom of religion and conscience from you, what will they take next??

To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone — to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone:
From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings !–George Orwell

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Just say “NO” to Watermelons

 Picture of watermelons for sale at the wholesale fruit market in Lima

Watermelon Environmentalists Cause Global Warming

UN Communists Hide In Global Warming Trojan Horse

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political

system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

Brett Stevens was both humorous and thought-provoking when he announced a while

back that “Liberalism Caused Global Warming.” I have political evidence that suggests

that he may have even had an empirical point. You see there are two types of

environmental activists. Honest ones believe that the government should assume greater

powers in order to prevent environmental pollution from doing terrible things to people

and places they care about. Dishonest environmental activists (AKA Watermelons*) just

believe the government should get more power over the lives and wallets of the citizenry.

The environment provides an excellent vehicle to usurp power and control the property

of other citizens.

United Nations Climate Chief Christiana Figueres is clearly a dishonest environmental

activist. She informs us that Communist China, the world’s leading source of CO2

pollution for several consecutive years since 2007, has the right type of governmental

system to fight Global Warming. This can only bring me back to questioning why

Christiana Figueres calls herself an environmentalist. If she wants to reduce the extent to

which human pollution could potentially warm the terrestrial climate, she should not

encourage the world emulate a nation that emits 25% of the world’s industrial CO2

pollution on an annual basis. Not only that, they get about 25% as much GDP per ton of

CO2 as the United States and about 13% as much GDP per ton of CO2 as Germany or

Japan.

To demonstrate just how wrong Christiana Figueres and her cohorts at the UN truly are,

we look at two pieces of data. The United States Government tracks CO2 pollution by

nation, by year at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. They are properly

diligent in making this data available to the public. The table below** displays the

world’s top 10 CO2 polluters by nation for 2010.

Rank Nation Metric Tons CO2
1 China 2259856
2 USA 1481608
3 India 547811
4 Russia 474714
5 Japan 319257
6 Germany 203268
7 Iran 155880
8 Korea 154777
9 Canada 136116
10 UK 134580

We then compare these pollution stats to how much economic output each of these

polluter nations produces. The World Bank tracks national GDPs by country by year.

The 2010 GDPs in Base Year USD $M for each top 10 CO2 polluter nation follows below.

Rank Nation GDP USD $M
1 USA 14,582,400
2 China 5,878,629
3 Japan 5,497,813
4 Germany 3,309,669
6 UK 2,246,079
9 India 1,729,010
10 Canada 1,574,052
11 Russia 1,479,819
14 Korea, Rep. 1,014,483
29 Iran 331,015

So to finish walking the dog on this analysis, we can take the GDP and divide it by the

polluter nation’s CO2 emissions***. This allows us to evaluate what trade-off we make

every time one of the top 10 CO2 polluters emits another ton. Lower dollar figures

indicate a greater environmental cost per dollar of GDP produced. It can also allow us to

run back-of-the-envelope experiments such as determining how much CO2 China or

Japan would have to emit to produce the US 2010 GDP. My own tabulation of this

experiment follows below.

Rank Nation $M GDP/Tons CO2 Tons CO2 to Produce US GDP
1 Japan 17.221 846,797.313
2 UK 16.690 873,744.598
3 Germany 16.282 895,598.709
4 Canada 11.564 1,261,011.681
5 USA 9.842 1,481,608.000
6 Korea 6.554 2,224,798.370
7 India 3.156 4,620,215.668
8 Russia 3.117 4,677,916.308
9 China 2.601 5,605,749.935
10 Iran 2.124 6,867,074.036

If Christiana Figueres were to arrive in New York and announce that the United States

had a lot to learn from other countries in reducing CO2 pollution per unit of wealth

produced, I would find her obnoxious but impossible to refute. She veers into the

self-serving Leftist stupid when she claims we should be learning it from the Communist

Chinese. The top 10 CO2 polluter nations produced about $37.5 Trillion in national

wealth. At the USA’s rate of CO2 pollution, these nations would have emitted 3.8 Million

Tons. At Japan’s rate, they would collectively emitted 2.2 Million Tons; at China’s

rate….14.5 million.

Pace Christiana Figueres; the United States needs to learn and do better on this issue.

Contra the dishonest, UN Watermelon Environmentalist, we sure don’t need to be

learning from a Communist dictatorship. If we accepted her prescription, and the UN

was truly correct about CO2 impacts on terrestrial climate, then Watermelon

Environmentalists would cause Global Warming.

*- Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside..
** – (HT:HTML.am) for the table source code.
***- We’ll call this our Dead Millibear Index (HT:Al Gore)

corruption

Do Inquiring Minds Want to Know?

Christopher Booker: Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

Below, the raw data in graph form

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

The Science is Settled

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

So 36% for not man-made means The Alarmist have a “consensus” and the “science is settled”. The 64% that don’t believe them must therefore be morons. So time to lie even more and step up the political arm of this control agenda because the facts don’t matter and their sanctimony and “rightness” must be assured.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

So 24+17 (that’s more than 36 right?) against the IPCC “gods” of “consensus. The scientist in this survey must be complete morons not to bow down to the “the truth” of the Alarmist Wolf Criers. 🙂

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

24+17+10 against the IPCC. So the IPCC “consensus” and The President therefore MUST be right? 🙂

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

24+17+10+5 = We have liftoff! The IPCC and The Global Warming Chicken Littles must be right! 🙂

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

And they use typical condescending and childish ad homimems to quell your disagreement with their ‘superior intellect’ and their ‘superior knowledge’ of the situation which obviously you are too stupid to understand.

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

Yeah, but any scientist who isn’t with the Party Line is a mislead moron who doesn’t speak for the “consensus”.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. (Forbes)

But you’ll never hear that from The Ministry of Truth or our Alarmist President who thinks Global Warming is more important than Iranian  Nukes or the Beheading Terrorists. After all, they aren’t on the Totalitarian Control Agenda so they don’t really matter. 🙂

You must be an idiot to oppose their superiority over you.

Sounds like the average Leftist to me. Now that’s a Consensus… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Hollywood Follies

Well, since WordPress said it published this yesterday, then didn’t…

Welcome to Hollywood, where dreams become real — and where logic, reason and Economics 101 become dreams.

Take the current battle over the minimum wage. In Los Angeles County, the minimum wage is $9 per hour.

You mean, in the heart of Liberalism it’s not $15 already? 🙂

Theater actors, however, can be paid as little as $7 a performance, and an actor can even work long rehearsal hours with no pay.

Three decades ago, L.A. County actors sued their union for an exception to union wages for theaters with 99 seats or fewer seats.

Why do these stage actors work for so little? They want to work. By working, they improve their skills, stay sharp and or perhaps have a chance to get spotted by an agent.

Some say simply having something to do is better than just sitting around and waiting for a casting agent to call.

Actors Equity, the national union, wants to change this. According to the New York Times: “The union, seizing a moment when organized labor is having some success pressuring low-wage employers to pay higher salaries, says many of this city’s small theaters — which currently pay actors nothing for rehearsals, and stipends as low as $7 per (hour for) performances — should start paying California’s minimum wage of $9 an hour.”

But then a very Republican thing happened — 66% of the union members voted against a higher minimum wage.

Traitors to THE CAUSE. How dare they make a rational decision! They must have been contaminated by Republicans. We need to get the Ministry of Truth on this right away to stop this!

Their rationale was simple: A higher minimum wage means fewer plays get performed. Fewer plays mean fewer opportunities for actors and therefore fewer opportunities to gain experience, stay in practice or get discovered.

But that’s not the Party Line! The Party Line says everyone will prosper if you raise the minimum wage. They are lying out their teeth and in the face of the facts, but hey, since when was The Party Line about the actual people. 🙂

But the union’s national council ignored this advisory vote and ordered, with some exceptions, a $9 per hour minimum wage.

When it comes to their own lives, these actors understand the law of economics: Artificially raise the cost of a good — in this case the price of an actor in a stage play — and you reduce the demand for actors.

Last year, meanwhile, actor Kevin Spacey lobbied Maryland lawmakers to extend their tax credit program. He films his Netflix series, “House of Cards,” in Maryland.

That state offers generous tax credits and relaxed union rules, so the Netflix series earned more money than would be the case if the show filmed in Hollywood.

In Maryland, a production company can claim a credit on its income taxes equivalent to 25% to 27% of the costs of their film or TV production. If the credit is larger than a company’s tax liability, the company can receive a refund from the state.

“Maryland has capped the total value of credits it offers,” writes the Washington Post, “with the amount varying by year but averaging about $12.5 million. Ten productions have been approved for credits since 2012. But the vast majority of the $62.5 million in funding has been allotted to ‘House of Cards’ ($37.6 million) and ‘Veep’ ($22.7 million).”

Hollywood studios aggressively seek tax credits and other benefits when determining where to shoot a TV series or movie.

That’s why Vancouver, British Columbia became known in the 1990’s especially, as “Hollywood North” when the Canadian dollar and the Canadians themselves made TV production so much cheaper than LA.

When a shoot takes place other than Hollywood, studios call the out-of-state production a “runaway production.” Brilliant marketing.

Hollywood says, “We don’t want to shoot outside of California, but, you see, our hands are tied. We have no choice. The production ran away from us, lured by text credits and generous union rules.” When a manufacturer, however, decides to move a facility to a different location — to take advantage of tax breaks — critics call this outsourcing.

How dare they! Don’t they have The Leftist Agenda script!! Capitalism is evil! 🙂

When it comes to politics, the Hollywood community votes for the party that seeks to raise the minimum wage and taxes on the rich.

But when it comes to making “the magic” of Hollywood, they are a bit more pragmatic and self-interested.

The foundation of wealth redistribution is imposing higher and higher taxes on the so-called rich. Yet after pulling the lever for the tax-hike party, the Hollywood community demands tax breaks for its own industry.

Because THEY ARE THE RICH, and as always with Liberals the rules don’t apply to them. The rules are for thee, not for me.

A higher minimum wage is an article of faith for Democrats, whose party believes that society exploits poor workers. “A raise of the federal minimum wage is one of those common-sense proposals that is both good for the economy and good for the country,” says Democratic Party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

<<SQUAWK>>

“This is a good first step to show we are committed to helping Americans who work hard and play by the rules. And as we tend to this core American value, we will expand the middle class, which will always be the backbone of this nation’s economy.

Socialism contracts the middle class.

“These principles are essential to Democrats like me, but they do not have to be exclusive to Democrats. We would welcome Republicans to join us in the achievement of improving wages and creating new momentum for the U.S. economy.”

Where’s my barf bag?…

Another Hollywood denizen, Pat Sajak, host of “Wheel of Fortune,” recently offered a different perspective on the minimum wage. “When I had minimum wage jobs,” he tweeted, “my goal was to better myself, not to better the minimum wage.” (Larry Elder)

Throw him off the train, he’s a heretic! He is not of The Body!! He speaks evil thoughts!

California, The Granola State. What isn’t fruits and nuts is flakes.