Monday, November 28, 2016
IF only Donald Trump was a dictator who killed and jailed his opponents and enslaved his people.
Maybe then the ABC would give Trump the respect it’s now showered on the belatedly dead Fidel Castro.
To the ABC, Trump is a racist, sexist, neo-fascist demagogue whose election as president of the United States, said ABC boss Michelle Guthrie, was “a bruising experience for women everywhere”. A “nightmare”, agreed ABC host Barrie Cassidy.
In contrast its vitriol changed to the sickening sweetness of the ABC’s coverage of Castro’s death.
More tears for Castro from Left-wing politicians, and a perfect description of exactly this kinds of idiot.
Greens Senator and rabid unashamed Communist, Lee Rhiannon, Twittered, yesterday:
Fidel Castro liberated Cuba from corruption, exploitation. From opposing apartheid to bringing healthcare to Third World, he inspired so many.
Among them, Canadian wuse Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, November 26:
A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation. While a controversial figure, both Mr Castro’s supporters and detractors recognised his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”...
“ ... (the idiot) will still gyrate in excitement like a dog seeing a bone if during a visit to Cuba he finds before him the hand and the bearded, exuberant and monumental presence of the “Maximum Leader”. And, naturally, being a perfect idiot, he will find plausible explanations for the worst disasters created by Castro. If there is hunger on the island, the cruel US embargo is to blame; if there are exiles, it’s because they are incapable of understanding the revolutionary process; if there are prostitutes, it isn’t due to the poverty on the island but rather because Cubans now have the freedom to use their bodies as they wish.”
Donald Trump gives Fidel Castro the send-off he deserves. Will the ABC now dry its tears for a dictator - and will Malcolm Turnbull follow Trump's lead?
Trump tells it just as it is:
''Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.
While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.
Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty.
I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me, with the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.''
Tony Abbott also tells it like it is:
''In a column back in 2014, I noted that living standards in Cuba and Hong Kong were identical in the 1950s.
But the two nations then conducted an experiment. Hong Kong chose laissez-faire capitalism while Cuba chose communism.
The result, as you can see in the graph (http://freedomandprosperity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Hong-Kong-v-Cub.jpg) is that Hong Kong has enjoyed decades of strong growth while Cuba has stagnated.''
I’m not alone in noticing the onerous economic cost of Cuban oppression. This academic article has a devastating summary.
We examine Cuban GDP over time and across space. We find that Cuba was once a prosperous middle-income economy. On the eve of the revolution, incomes were 50 to 60 percent of European levels. They were among the highest in Latin America at about 30 percent of the United States. In relative terms, Cuba was richer earlier on.
Income per capita during the 1920s was in striking distance of Western Europe and the Southern United States. After the revolution, Cuba slipped down the world income distribution. Current levels of income per capita appear below their pre-revolutionary peaks."
There was even Praise for a dictator from Britain's contemptible Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn: (right)
''Fidel Castro's death marks the passing of a huge figure of modern history, national independence and 20th Century Socialism. Castro's achievements were many''
The Way I See It......it's amazing how preachers on "social justice" can excuse enslaving a whole people and murdering thousands. Provided it's all done by one of their own.
Climate scientist, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Judith Curry reviews the performance of climate models used to predict future temperatures and blame past warming on man's emissions.
She concludes they are "not fit" for the purpose and have failed to predict even the past.
Climate models infer that all of the warming since 1950 can be attributed to humans. However, there have been large magnitude variations in global/hemispheric climate on timescales of 30 years, which are the same duration as the late 20th century warming. The IPCC does not have convincing explanations for previous 30 year periods in the 20th century, notably the warming 1910-1945 and the grand hiatus 1945-1975. Further, there is a secular warming trend at least since 1800 (and possibly as long as 400 years) that cannot be explained by CO2, and is only partly explained by volcanic eruptions.Given the uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity and the magnitude and phasing of natural internal variability on decadal to century timescales, combined with the failure of climate models to explain the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling, I conclude that the climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming.
As for predicting the future, Curry said the models are "warming too much":
The IPCC’s projections of 21st century climate change explicitly assume that CO2 is the control knob on global climate. Climate model projections of the 21st century climate are not convincing because of:
- Failure to predict the warming slowdown in the early 21st century
- Inability to simulate the patterns and timing of multidecadal ocean oscillations
- Lack of account for future solar variations and solar indirect effects on climate
- Neglect of the possibility of volcanic eruptions that are more active than the relatively quiet 20th century
- Apparent oversensitivity to increases in greenhouse gasesThere is growing evidence that climate models are warming too much and that climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC...The 21st century climate model projections do not include:
- a range of scenarios for volcanic eruptions (the models assume that the volcanic activity will be comparable to the 20th century, which had much lower volcanic activity than the 19th century
- a possible scenario of solar cooling, analogous to the solar minimum being predicted by Russian scientists
- the possibility that climate sensitivity is a factor of two lower than that simulated by most climate predictions.
- realistic simulations of the phasing and amplitude of decadal to century scale natural internal variability.... Hence we don’t have a good understanding of the relative climate impacts of the above or their potential impacts on the evolution of the 21st century climate.
The Way I See It........
It was easy to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on who convened in Paris for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you did not see much quoted is Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’.
What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.
Some consider her a heretic. According to discredited Professor Michael Mann (the idiot father of the debunked ''Hockey Stick Curve'') who festers at Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ''anti-science''.Curry isn’t fazed by the slur.
‘It’s unfortunate, but he calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him a denier,’ she tells me. ‘Inside the climate community there are a lot of people who don’t like what I’m doing. On the other hand, there is also a large, silent group who do like it. But the debate has become hard — especially in the US, because it’s become so polarised.’ Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming the bullshit fact how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. They like to reduce the uncertainties of climate science and climate projections to Manichean simplicity. They have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate about what to do.
Professor Curry, does not dispute that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening much more slowly than the alarmists fear.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Malcolm Turnbull is right about the link between immigration and terrorism and the Belgian ambassador is completely wrong.
From Turnbull's Lowy Foundation address:
European Governments are confronted by a perfect storm of failed or neglectedTrue enough. But still left unsaid by Turnbull is the clear and critical link between the numbers of Muslims in a Western nation and the danger to the host. More Muslims tends to mean more radicals tends to mean more terrorism.
For all intents and purposes there are no internal borders in Europe, that has been a great achievement of openness, and the external borders are difficult to manage. Recent intelligence indicates that ISIL is using the refugee crisis to send operatives into Europe.
Simply criticising Western countries for “neglected integration” is to falsely assume that their Muslim minorities can be integrated or even want to be.
So Belgian Ambassador Jean-Luc Bodson is in hopeless denial when he criticises Turnbull’s very mild remarks:
False ! This has everything to do with immigration and Islam.
It’s dangerous because it’s precisely what ISIS wants — that we would make a confusion between terrorism and migrants and between terrorism and Islam…
My view is that the terrorists who committed the latest attacks and in Paris and in Belgium are European-raised and born. Maybe from foreign origins, but they are Europeans. So it has nothing to do with the refugee crisis...
The fact is that the all the terrorists behind the slaughter in Paris and Brussels were Muslim immigrants or the children of them, killing people in the name of their faith..
That has urgent lessons for us:
Counter terrorism expert David Kilcullen suggests we’re not as vulnerable as some European
Australia’s circumstances differ greatly from those in Europe. Australia’s border protection agencies are vastly more effective than the European frontier agencies overstressed by the twin impacts of massive refugee flows and an ongoing financial crisis.Former Islamist radical Maajid Nawaz admits it’s the ideology - a popular version of Islam - that is the real problem:
Our police and intelligence services have a much better track record of detecting and wrapping up terrorist plots before attacks can mature.
Australia also lacks the common land border with serious conflict areas in the Middle East that makes Europe more vulnerable, and Australian society is vastly better integrated than some European societies, where marginalised and unemployed youth in poorly serviced housing developments become vulnerable to grooming and recruitment by radical Islamic extremists. These are differences of scale, though, not of kind — Australia is much further down the spectrum than Europe, but the threat is still real.
-For many years, small ‘l’ liberals — and I speak as one — have refused to acknowledge the ideology of Islamism…Nawaz (below) may be right to say Islam is just a faith, without a theocratic desire to impose it on others.
-Fearing a politically incorrect debate on values with Muslim communities, these same liberals preferred to view the problem as merely criminal, to be dealt with by law, or militaristic, to be dealt with by war…
-And as jihadist attack after jihadist attack came, liberals slowly, reluctantly, took to euphemistically naming the problem “violent extremism’’. They used nauseating, insipid phrases such as “al-Qa’ida-inspired extremism” to refer to what was an ideology… [I]t was not al-Qa’ida that had “inspired extremism”; it was extremism that had inspired al-Qa’ida…
-In fact, this struggle is first and foremost an ideological one.. Extremism certainly has something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something.
-We can distinguish Islamist extremism from Islam by clarifying that whereas Islam is simply a religion, Islamism is a theocratic desire to impose any version of that religion over society…
-By failing to name the Islamist ideology and isolate it from everyday Islam, we are depriving these reforming voices of a language to deploy against those who are attempting to silence their progressive efforts within their own communities.
But together, the two points underline why we cannot be smug about how much better we assimilate Muslims.
The key issue here is critical mass. It is easier to assimilate immigrants or police the radicals when there are fewer of them - and when their numbers are not so great that they can form self-sustaining colonies.
So let’s compare.
France, which has suffered horrific mass-murders by Islamists, has more than 5 million Muslims - at least 7.5 per cent of the population.If we had three times as many Muslims here to match the proportion in Belgium, or three and a half to match that in France, the danger here would almost certainly come close to the matching the danger there. Imagine radicals here having three times more supporters around them to support, supply and hide them.
Belgium, who has just suffered its own mass-murder by Islamists, has around 700,000 Muslims - 6.2 per cent of its small population.
Australia has 500,000 Muslims - about 2.1 per cent of the population.
The Way I See It......we, here in Australia, have the advantage of having the world’s biggest moat around us, but we would be utter fools not to recognise the key factors of this grave danger: the numbers of believers and their faith.
To limit the first and insist on change in the second is thus urgent. Yet both have been fiercely rejected by the Left, and even now Turnbull cannot speak frankly about either and neither will he back his Immigration Minister, Perter Dutton for mentioning. Trump-wise, that we need to be selective in our migrant intake in future to keep Australians from further danger.
NOTE: Dutton finally admitted that prime minister Malcolm Fraser in 1976 made a dangerous mistake by lowering our entry requirements and letting in many illiterate and unqualified Muslims fleeing Lebanon’s civil war. Yes, Dutton conceded, “Fraser did make mistakes in bringing some people in the 1970s and we’re seeing that today”.
Oops ! Too late. See the extraordinary crime wave we’ve since imported with Sudanese refugee gangs as well? The carjackings, home invasions and brazen thefts?Will we never learn?
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard the accusation thrown at me.
“You’re homophobic!” says the gay, or lesbian.
“You’re transphobic!” says the transgendered.
This assumption usually comes smack dab in the middle – or if they’re lazy, at the beginning – of an argument against the latest in the long line of you-will-be-made-to-care attempts at bringing the culture at large to heel. Sometimes, the accusation is thrown out – not to silence an opponent in an argument – but to no-platform someone who they feel needs to be silenced before he or she even opens their mouth.
But how accurate is the label of homophobic, or transphobic when thrown at others, and the public at large when they, like me, resist the agenda? Not very. Sure there may be some who are so disgusted by the idea of gender bending, or homosexuality that it sends them into a quivering mess of fear and anxiety, but I don’t imagine they are very many. In fact, I imagine there are more people out there actually suffering from gender dysphoria than there are “transphobes.”
The dictionary defines a phobia is “an extreme, or irrational fear of something.” A good visual example would be someone’s fear of snakes, dogs, or heights. The person, upon being introduced to the very sight of these things, is reduced to something like a cornered animal with his or her primal fight-or-flight instinct hammering at the mind.
You can see how the “phobe” accusation is a ridiculous one. “Phobe” hardly fits those who disagree with homosexuality or transgenderism, or it’s activist community’s agenda, but that’s not the point. The point is to paint the opposition as irrational, and/or hateful. This way the opposing person, or persons, is viewed with an initial level of contempt, and their words and points are automatically worth less, or not even up for consideration.
Somewhat humorously, many people with the label leveled at them are accused of being phobic as they share friendships, and maybe even strong familial ties with the LGB, and maybe even the T. I know my LGBT friends would find the accusations leveled at me surprising.
So if it’s not phobia (id est, hatred or irrational fear), then why would we resist the LGBT community’s march on the culture? The answer is simple:
We’re not a part of that culture!
Reports differ, but the LGBT community makes up something like less than 4% of the total population in America. It has its allies, but outside of this small bubble, the rest of the country at large has little interest, or investment, in the LGBT community.
And we can’t be blamed for this. The hard truth about humanity is that if someone can’t relate, then they have a hard time investing in the cause or issue. A straight person should be no more expected to interrupt his or her life for the LGBT community, as a lesbian should be expected to for the local frisbee golf league. Unless she’s into that sort of thing, of course.
The American culture at large is very accepting of the LGBT community. Gay and lesbian characters are in movies and television are somewhat common, and some of the most popular programs have had gay or lesbian leads as characters. Modern Family, Will and Grace, and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, just to name a few. Ellen DeGeneres is openly lesbian, and has one of the most famous talk shows in America. This live and let live mentality toward homosexuality is generally pretty static.
But every now and again, the LGBT activist community will attempt to force itself on the culture at large by injecting its issues into places where it doesn’t belong. A very recent example came in the form of a hashtag campaign called #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, where the community rose up to declare that the “fans” wanted Steve Rogers to have homosexual urges, preferably for his longtime friend, Bucky Barnes, the Winter Soldier. The hashtag was celebrated by all the usual media suspects, such as E Online, LA Times, and even TIME.
Naturally there was a resistance, and that resistance was labeled with all the usual “phobes” and accusations of hate and disgust. But the resistance wasn’t there for any of those reasons. Once again, it comes down to the simple issue of relating, or finding common ground. People across the nation love Captain America because he is the quintessential American archetype. He’s straight, a Christian, and a patriot. He hates fascism, nazism, and communism. He loves freedom, etc etc etc. He is who many of us aspire to be.
Only a small fraction would relate to ''Cap'' if he suddenly became concerned with closeted homosexuality, or his relationship with his former war buddy. Hell, judging by some of the responses on Twitter while this hashtag war was raging, even a fraction within that fraction wouldn’t want to see a Captain America concerned with homosexuality because they think the concept doesn’t fit for ''Cap'' either. Despite the media’s overblown reporting, very few people want to see a Captain America concerned with identity politics, and this applies to all characters, and even other media.
Even the channel known as Logo, which was aimed directly at the LGBT community, began introducing content that didn’t focus so much on the identity issues of the community because they found out it’s viewers were less interested in shows highlighting their identity. If the LGBT channel doesn’t want it all that much, why would the general public?
Remember that this issue concerns, at most, 4% of us. Naturally, when a demographic this small tries to force its concerns and views on everyone else, there’s going to be resistance. But this isn’t because of hate, it’s because it’s not our view or concern. In fact, when it’s made to become our concern is when you generally see a fight erupt.
And the fight is tiring. Every attempt to strip freedoms – like being able to fine someone exorbitant
amounts of money for misgendering someone – or every attempt at pirating pop-culture – like injecting social justice into movies and video games – results in someone like me having to rise up and stand athwart. The more straights resist and fight, the more they can stack the up “phobia” argument.
The Way I See It........that’s what really happens when the LGBT community forces itself on everyone. It causes division, when it was an attempt at bringing forth acceptance. A forced attempt to get more acceptance, but the acceptance nonetheless.
But the vast majority of us aren’t the LGBT community. We’re not concerned with it, nor should we be expected to. We don’t deal with their problems in our everyday life, nor do we wish to. We can be friends, and family members, and we may care for their happiness, but that doesn’t mean that our world has to become theirs.
A massive migrant crime wave is surging across Germany, according to figures buried in a new report released by the country's interior ministry. The data reveals that without migrants considered, crime rates in Germany would have remained roughly static since 2014. But, in fact, the country recorded an extra 402,741 crimes committed by migrants. More Germans are disgusted day-by-day with Angela Merkel's stupidly inviting so many migrants.....not really refugees into their country!
While much of this criminality concerned illegal border crossings, German authorities instead talked up a "record surge" in crimes by "right wing radicals."
Concerning statistics from the 135-page report reveal that 70 percent of pickpocketing, one of the crime types on the rise, was committed by non-Germans. Of this figure, 34 percent was committed by recent asylum seekers, with the rest committed by "non-Germans."
Foreign nationals are thought to account for around 11 or 12 percent of the total population of Germany, but were over-represented in every area of crime. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers account for around 2.5 percent of Germany's population, but were also massively overrepresented.
Non-Germans and illegal migrants account for a massively disproportionate amount of crime in Germany.
Amongst total offences, non-Germans accounted for 27.6 percent, while illegal immigrants and asylum seekers accounted for 5.7 percent. For homicides the figures are 29.3/8.2 percent, and for sexual assaults the figures are 20.5/4.8 percent.
In all of these cases, as well as those indicated in the chart below, the proportion of crimes committed by non-Germans and illegal migrants outstripped their representation in German society. Non-Germans accounted for 38 percent of all robberies, 38 percent of thefts, and 43 percent of thefts that involved a level of aggravation such as assault or force. They accounted for 40.2 percent of burglaries, 43.5 percent of shoplifting, and a whopping 75.7 percent of pickpocketing or purse snatching.
And of migrant crimes specifically, Syrians top the list of migrant crimes that are not related to border controls, with a total of 10,348 individual offences in 2015. They also led assault cases among migrants, with 3,186 offences in 2015.
Thefts were most committed by Albanians, with 6,689 offences; Algerians come close with 5,611. Algerians almost tie with Serbians when it comes to fraud. Balkan nationals were accountable for 2,834 cases, barely above North Africans' 2,774.
Algerians top the lists for smuggling goods (2,449) and drug-selling offences (976).
Even when border control breaches are exempted from the data, the situation is still stark. Male crime is stagnant amongst Germans, but when migrants are added, male crime goes up 12 percent, with female crime rising just 6 percent. This reflects the fact that most migrants into Europe in 2015 were young men.
Crime rates amongst "non-Germans" outside the Residence Act are up 13 percent, whereas crimes committed by Germans are down 5 percent.
And the report shows that offences against the Residence Act, the Asylum Procedures Act, and the Freedom of Movement Act are up by 157.5 percent, with shopliftings up by 7.1 percent, pickpocketing up by 7.0 percent, burglary up by 9.9 percent, and drug offences up by 2.1 percent.
Presenting the report to journalists, however, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière insisted in focusing on "politically-motivated crimes by the far-right," which he said had risen 35 percent in 2015 to nearly 23,000.
"The sharp increase in politically motivated crime points to a dangerous development in society," de Maiziere told reporters at a news conference. "We are witnessing a growing and increasingly pronounced readiness to use violence, both by right- and left-wing extremists."
German Interior Minister Thoas de Maizière is more concerned with "politically-motivated crimes by the far-right." Idiot !
But while attacks on refugee centres rose to 1,031, compared to 199 in the prior year, most of the offences appear to be what could be called "thought crime," or what police describe as "evidence that they aimed to eliminate certain constitutional principles." Of a total of 38,981 political crimes committed in 2015, some 29,681 (76.1 percent) were classed under this category.
Of real incidents, 1,031 were attacks on asylum centres, but just 177 of these were thought to be "violent," with most of the rest believed to be "propaganda" offences or vandalism.
And according to the statistics, identified left wingers have had more confrontations with police (3,507 incidents), according to the statistics, than right wingers have (1,203 incidents). Left-wing activists have confronted more right wingers (4,276 incidents) than vice versa (1,406 incidents). These incidents include public protests like those of the PEGIDA movement.
The Way I See It......the reporting from Western news agencies has disgustly focusedmon a "right wing" wave of violence.
Earlier this month, when Republican Party presumptive nominee Donald Trump alleged "Look at Germany, it's crime-riddled right now," organisations like Politifact were quick to crow about how immigrants accounted for fewer crimes than native Germans.
But today's statistics reveal that as a percentage of the population, non-Germans and illegal immigrants account for a massively disproportionate amount of crime in Germany.