It's a Shame You and Your Butler Don't Ring True Oprah !

You don't have to watch her cable network to see Oprah Winfrey these days; the billionaire media powerhouse and occasional actress is busy promoting her new film, Lee Daniels' "The Butler'' as well as opening up some racial and political divisions in the bargain. It just goes to show you money doesn't give a person any extra common sense. Oprah's not the first idiot to compare Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till, a 14 year old Negro boy who was brutally beaten and killed by two brothers for supposedly flirting and whistling at one brother's wife in Mississippi in 1955. (See this early month's posting "No Comparison: Trayvon Martin was No Emmett Till)") It is a reckless comparison that fails to take any of the facts of the George Zimmerman case into account, aside from the race of the victim.

Last Thursday, CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewed Oprah and Forest Whitaker, both starring in the Oscar-touted ''The Butler'' film. During the interview, in which Cooper thoughtfully nodded as Winfrey and Whitaker race-baited about the Martin/Till comparison and adding that Americans were racist even if they didn't have ill will toward black people. DUH?  When Cooper cited polls showing showing that black Americans were upset over the Trayvon verdict while white Americans thought too much had been made of the case, Oprah sighed, ''Oh, I know, I know. That's why I love the film in light of this discussion. I mean, look at the film, beginning with that lynching scene and ending with walking into Obama's office, look at what has happened in the span of a man's lifetime.''

Whitaker chimed in, ''This movie reminds us of the circular motion of things, we're looking at all these situations of black suffering and recognizing we have to move ourselves forward.'' Cooper then asked, ""It's amazing to me how people from different backgrounds see this.'' He then talked about a juror ''who did not understand, did not feel linked to Trayvon Martin, but felt connected to Zimmerman in a way, yet feeling race was not part of the case at all.'' Oprah couldn't wait to jump in, blurting, ''People don't feel it's race because people don't call it race. A lot of people think if they think they're not using the n-word themselves, they physically aren't using the n-word, and do not harbour ill will towards black people that it's not racist. But to me it's ridiculous to look at that case and not to think that was involved.''

The new film is a political drama that takes its cues from a Washington Post article about a black servant named Eugene Allen who worked in eight presidential administrations from 1952 to 1986.. That part of the story is essentially unchanged. The rest of the film, is a movie stuffed with left-leaning politics, historical re-creations and presidential imitations and is rife with inaccuracies that should be corrected. Such as:

1. 1.  President Ronald Reagan was indifferent to the suffering of people of colour. This week two Reagan biographers, Criag Shirley and Paul Kengor shredded this notion. Shirley detailed the president's legislative achievements and personal outreach to his black peers while Kengor asserted the film amounts to what he describes as ''Hollywood malpractice''. ''It is baseless to depict President Reagan as racially insensitive and indifferent to apartheid.'' 
2. The Democrats helped pass the Civil Rights Act: This is more of an inaccuracy by omissions. The film showcases how both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson rallied on behalf of civil rights, but what's left out is the voting record on the historic Act. Turns out 80% of the NO votes in the Senate came from Democrats. It was the Republicans that teamed up with President Johnson to pass the legislation. After it passed, the film doesn't quote Johnson as saying, ''I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!''  (Read  my August 7th posting)
3. President Nixon dismissed black Americans -- save for their votes: The film shows Nixon (John Cusack) promoting his upcoming election battle with Kennedy by giving campaign buttons to the butler and other black servers. His record on school integration outpaced his predecessors and Allen has spoken fondly of Nixon in press interviews.
4. The Butler disliked President Reagan: The real Eugene Allen has expressed affection for all the presidents he served, noting he voted for each while they were in the White House. A framed photo of the Reagans was displayed on his living room wall and he got a hug from Nancy when he retired. Hardly sounds like the character played by Forest Whitaker, who appeared to be fed up with the Reagans and quit for that very reason. It's all Bullshit!
5. The Butler met Obama: The film uses a framing device of the Butler waiting to meet personally with Obama. There's no official record of such a meeting, although Allen was a VIP guest at Obama's swearing in.
6. Leftist screenwriter Danny Strong took tremendous liberties with Allen's life beyond the name change to Cecil Gaines. He gave the butler two sons, not one and made his wife (Oprah) a heavy drinker and fictionalized much of his story prior to entering the White House.

The Way I See It.....The Butler is in no way an authentic bio-pic of Eugene Allen's life as a White House butler.  It gives the impression of a life like that but is skewed to making political points when there aren't any. It is a shame that Oprah Winfrey and her obvious racial paranoia felt she had to make a story that, instead of lifting a coloured man's occupation to something to be admired, into a tome to highlighting racial division. It's ''spin'' like that we don't need at this time. Just like her ludicrous experience in a ritzy boutique in Zurich.

According to Oprah, she saw a nice handbag behind the shop assistant's head and asked to look at it. ''No, you don't want that one,'' the shop girl allegedly replied, ''you want this one, because that one will cost too much.,''  and showed her a similar, but cheaper handbag. Oprah was wounded. So when she left he shop she went straight onto Twitter, and then the Larry King Show, and then an interview outside some Hollywood bash, to rail against this act of blatant racism and to castigate the shop girl. ''Racists these days don't come up to you and call you something horrible to your face,'' she explained, ''it doesn't happen like that anymore.''

And what happened to the racist shop assistant? She says it didn't happen like that at all. She says Oprah inquired about the expensive bags and she showed her the cheaper ones which looked the same, just to be kind. She claims she offered to get the expensive bag down for Oprah but the star did not want to see it. By that time Oprah's Racist Paranoia kicked in. ''I'm so sorry, I'm sorry....it must have been a misunderstanding. I would never wish to offend Ms Winfrey in any way,'' said the shop assistant. And why, she asked, would a woman so rich and powerful and famous as Oprah persecute a simple shop assistant through the world's media? Ah, shut up racist -- we know who the real victim is here!

It Sounds Like a Racial Hate Crime To Me !

Remember how the media, celebrities, politicians and Black activists falsely portrayed the shooting in self defence of Trayvon Martin by Latino George Zimmerman as a white-on-black hate crime? And remember how some media outlets doctored evidence to make Zimmerman seem motivated by racism? I even remember how the Head-Race-Baiter, President Barack Obama amped up the racial angle by saying:
          ''You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son.....another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.''

The Trayvon Martin killing was portrayed as a hate crime when it wasn't. But Christopher Lane's killing is being described as no hate crime when it possibly is. More on that later.

Here are the three youths charged over Lane's murder - from left to right, James Edwards 15, Chancey Luna 16, and Michael Jones 17. Isn't it astonishing how the authorities and journalists are now doing their best to pretend there is no racial element to Lane's senseless murder.

Typical is this report in Time Magazine: 
         ''With a motive that's both chilling and simple -- to break up the boredom of an Oklahoma summer -- three teenagers randomly targeted an Australian collegiate baseball player who was attending school in the U.S. and killed him for fun, prosecutors said Tuesday as they charged two of the boys with murder.''
          ''Prosecutor Jason Hicks called the boys 'thugs' as he describes how Christopher Lane, 22, of Melbourne, was shot once in the back with a .22 revolver and died along the tree-lined road on Duncan's well-to-do north side. He said the three teens, from the grittier part of town, chose Lane at random and that one of the boys thinks it's all a joke.''
          '''Hicks charged Chancey Allen Luna, 16, and James Francis Edwards, Jr., 15, with first-degree murder. Under Oklahoma law they will be tried as adults. Michael Dewayne Jones, 17, was charged with using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and with accessory to first-degree murder after the fact.''

Everyone seems very eager to take at face value the statement of one of these animals, the driver charged with being an accessory -- that they were ''just bored'':  Duncan police chief Danny Ford told AP, ''They saw Christopher go by, and one of them said, 'There's our target.'  He stated that 'We were bored and didn't have anything to do, so we decide to kill somebody.'''  Just Bored?  In fact, the two youths charged with first-degree murder seem to be aspiring members of the largely African-American Crips gang - and have had themselves pictured flashing gang signs. I'm sure further information showing what kind of scum they really are will come out over the next couple of weeks. Just think what a lopsided big stink would occur if it was a bunch of white kids saying they were just bored and needed to kill someone.

The killers were arrested outside of a church, where they were alleged waiting to kill a boy who'd refused to join their gang. James Johnson, 52, called the police to tell them that the accused killers were hiding in the car park of the Immauel Baptist Church car park at about 5 pm, two hours after they shot Chris Lane.  ''My son called me and said, 'Dad, they're saying they're coming to kill me,' so I called the police and they got here within minutes.'' Mr Johnson claimed that Edwards Jr had threatened the life of his 17-year-old son, also Christopher on Facebook. ''They threatened to kill my son because thy are in a gang, the Crips, and were trying to get y so in it and I wouldn't let him do it.

The Way I See It.....lets not blame the guns again. It has more to do with the gangsta culture...the Rap-Crap these kids are constantly listening to.  The references to killing cops and beating and raping women, etc. From where did these boys get the gun and the wads of cash we're told they've photographed. But not only did these killers seem members of a gang, but members of a gang with a racist agenda. Luna's Facebook cover photos include a Black Power poster picture. Edwards had a hatred of whites, as his Twitter postings show:

''90% of white ppl are nasty. I HATE THEM!''  Then Edwards Tweets he also marked Zimmerman's acquittal by knocking out ''woods'' - slang for white people: '' Ayeee   I knocked out 5 woods since Zimmerman court :) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! ''

So there is at the very least the possibility of a racist motive to this alleged urder by men who'd expressed such racist opinions. So what do the people who helped vilify George Zimmerman as racist say of this murder?  Race-baiter #2, Jesse Jackson, can summon up no more than a frown on Twitter:
              ''Praying for the family of Chris Lane. This senseless violence
                  is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail.''

Question: Will Obama now say that if he had a son, he'd look like one of Chris Lane's killers?

The Most Fearsome Terrorist Groups are Facing Off in Syria !

Hezbollah militia in Syria

The battle for the soul of Syria has taken an even deadlier turn over the past three months. The strategic center of the Middle East is also now a battleground between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, the region's two toughest extremist movements. The groups, both with roots outside Syria, represent rival versions of jihadism. Both use the same repugnantly violent tactics and advocate rigid Islamic rule: they're just from different sects but from the same camel dung-heap.

This war within a war carries new dangers for the Middle East, for Islam and for the outside world. The regionization of the conflict was reflected on May 25 when Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah vowed his Lebanese militia would ''bear the responsibilities and the sacrifices. This battle is ours, and I promise you victory.''  Since then, his fighters have helped repel the rebel's spring offensive in northern Syria. In a pivotal battle on June 5, they helped the Syrian military recapture the city of al-Qusayr, a rebel hub for the past year. The victory was a huge military and psychological break for President Bashar Assad -- and a particularly forceful way for Hezbollah to announce its presence in the fray.

Among Assad's enemies, al-Nusra Front -- the best-armed and most disciplined of the rebel's many disjointed factions ( left ) -- formally announced its allegiance to al-Qaeda. It has been especially effective this year in northern Idlib province and in the eastern Damascus suburbs, reportedly with growing help from foreign fighters from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and beyond. Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are also now redefining the Syrian conflict in sectarian terms, pitting Shi'ites against Sunnis and inflaming passions that date back to Islam's greatest split 1,400 years ago, when two factions of the Prophet Muhammad's followers quarrelled over who was his rightful heir. As a result, the conflict is no longer just about man-made ideology or temporal politics or an autocratic dynasty. It's also about interpreting God's will, but this time the Angel Gabrielle has not interfered with his ramblings.

The dangers are reflected in each group's recent targets. The al-Qaeda affiliate claimed to have dug up the remains of a 7th century Shi'ite martyr Hojr Ben al-Kundi after destroying his shrine outside Damascus. In turn, Sunni mosques have come under increasing attack (right). This sectarian stupidness is spilling across Syria's borders. Already attacks have erupted in Lebanon with a 100 kg bomb detonated in the Hezbollah neighbourhood in Beirut. For the outside world, the possible consequences of this escalation are also dire. Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are responsible for two of the deadliest attacks on U.S. targets since World War II. Hezbollah killed 241 Marines in a bombing in Beirut in 1983, and al-Qaeda killed nearly 3000 people on Sept. 11, 2001 in New York City.

The role of both groups' followers in Syria increases the danger that Hezbollah or al-Qaeda could gain a long term political or physical foothold in one of the most important countries in the Middle East. That sort of influence would represent the exact opposite of the democratic dream envisioned by many in Syria when the initial protests erupted in March 2011, triggered by the arrest of teenagers who had spray-painted antigovernment graffiti on the walls in the Syrian town of Dara'a.

The Way I See It.....the presence of Hezbollah and al-Qaeda in Syria will also almost certainly complicate diplomatc efforts to find any form of political compromise. Neither group has ever shown much interest in negotiating. The flames of hatred and mistrust even after the war ends will be hard quench. As history repeatedly shows, sectarian wars are often harder to resolve than political conflicts.

The biggest losers from the emergence of this new fault line are the uprising's early heroes -- the peaceful dissidents and defectors who later took up arms to protect themselves against Assad's military. Their brave struggle seems increasingly marginal as Syria becomes a battleground for the region's extremists.

Skip the Screening: Prostate Blood Test Doesn't Save Lives !

Medical dogma in cancer care has always been that preventing cancer is better than treating it. So routine screening for the early detection of the disease makes a lot of sense. But now a U.S. government group says that logic doesn't apply when it comes to the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer.

Regular screening doesn't always save lives once you account for the high rate of false positive results, and it increases men's risk of serious complications from biopsies and treatment of the tumours that would never have killed them. So in new guidelines concluding that the harm of testing outweigh the benefits, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that no men receive routine PSA screening at any age. The advice is based on a review of the research, including two large trials of the PSA test, which found no significant difference in survival rates between men who did and did not get screened, after 10-14 years of follow up.

Prostate Cancer Cells

The idea of forgoing a cancer screen runs counter to everything patients and doctors have been taught about prevention, but the panel's advice stems from the New Science of understanding that not all cancers need to be treated. That's especially true of prostate tumours, which are generally slow-growing and often don't require aggressive intervention: 25% of men test positive for prostate cancer, but only 3% will die of it. Meanwhile, PSA testing can lead to medical interventions that unnecessarily raise the risk of infection, impotence, incontinence and even death.

It may take a while for doctors to accept the new advice, and critics are concerned that halting PSA tests will lead to a rise in more-advanced disease, which is harder to treat. The task force stressed, however, that patients with a family history of prostate cancer or other risk factors may still ask their doctor whether the PSA test makes sense for them, even if it's not part of their routine check-up.

Medical Evolution:   Health advice is based on research, but medical knowledge keeps advancing. The Old Science gives way to New Science; here's a few examples:

MAMMOGRAPHY : 
     Old Science:   Many organizations advised women to start screening for breast cancer at age 40.
     New Science:  To avoid misdiagnoses, women should start breast screening at age 50.

HORMONE-REPLACEMENT THERAPY:
      Old Science:   Estrogen and progestin protected post-menopausal women from heart disease.
      New Science:  Hormones do not protect the heart and can increase the risk of breast cancer.

LUNG CANCER:
      Old Science:   Chest X-rays can detect early lesions and get patients treated sooner.
      New Science:  X-rays don't help patients live longer even after they are treated.

The Way I See It.....there are a number of natural medicinals available that can help reduce some of the benign swelling of the prostate to aid in reducing the number of nightly trips to urinate by allowing fuller emptying of the bladder. Research has shown that a diet rich in lycopene-containing foods helps lower the risk of prostate and other cancers. Lycopene is a carotenoid -- a family of pigments that give fruits and vegetables their brilliant red, orange and yellow colouring. It is a powerful antioxidant that eliminates dangerous free radicals that can damage DNA and other fragile cell structures. Tomatoes are an ideal source of lycopene and is better absorbed in the body when it's combined with some fat, so don't hold back on the tomato sauce.

Now in a report just published in the journal Neurology, a team of Finnish researchers has linked lycopene levels in the bloods to stroke prevention. They made this connection after following more than a thousand middle-age men for 12 years. Men with the greatest amount of lycopene in their blood had a 55% lower chance of having any kind of stroke. The lycopene connection was even stronger (59%) when it came to protecting against strokes due to blood clots (the most common kind). The finding came as a surprise -- the researchers initially wanted to know if other antioxidants affected strokes, such as alpha carotene, beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E. But they didn't. So, that makes the succulent tomato far more than a food; that makes it almost a nutraceutical. Other lycopene-containing foods range from tomato puree, juice, and paste as well as watermelon and red or pink grapefruit. Enjoy!

The Egyptian Democratic Coalition Puts it to Obama !

The National Salvation Front, a coalition of pro-democratic and secular parties in Egypt, set out its objections to remarks made by President Barack Obama on the weekend. Led by Ahmed Said of the Free Egyptians Party, the group issued the following stern letter:

     ''Like most Egyptians, we listened with attention to your statement on Egypt's latest developments. As representatives of the non-Islamic political forces in Egypt, we believe in the same fundamental values on which the U.S. was founded. We have 7,000 years of civilization and history that gives us a special identity that we are fighting to keep since the Muslim Brotherhood came to power. 

     "Let us first educate you about who the Muslim Brothers are: They're an unlawful organization operating outside the realm of Egyptian law, receiving foreign funding and laundering money in a flagrant breech of international law. Their aim is to rule the world through a so-called Islamic Caliphate a they believe in their absolute supremacy. They pretend they are God's emissaries and they will not rest until they have forced the whole world into submission. For them, Egypt is the launching pad to achieve their fascist dream. Their international reach spans the globe and they command the hearts and minds of many unsuspecting politicians. They have used deceit, soft speeches, international funds and whenever required, violence, to impose their will.

     ''The rule of deposed President Morsi showed how in less than a year they abused the wishes of the people, reneged on their promises and overturned the rule of law by issuing constitutional diktats controlling the judiciary as well as the legislative arms of the state. This was enough to impeach any president in a democratic nation but Egyptians couldn't refer to their Supreme Court as it was also controlled by thugs. So finally, Egyptians took to the streets and this century's second 'peaceful unarmed' revolution took place in June to recall the president and a reject the rule of the Brotherhood. We deposed our president not because he was inclusive, as you naively represented, but because he broke his constitutional oath and became another dictator, like the one we removed in January 2011. This was the will of freedom-loving people.

     ''It's time we address a few points of your address. Despite the perception, history will tell of a Western media consistently portraying only one side -- the Islamist's) We have to let you know some facts and some truth. Like the day President Morsi was ousted by popular demand and with the Army's help. The Western media and emissaries from the U.S. ad Europe have consistently described the sit-ins that paralysed Cairo as 'peaceful demonstrations.' They chose to ignore that Morsi's backers were torching churches and killing randomly and destroying private and public properties across Egypt. Peaceful demonstrators do not threaten Christians with genocide as many Brothers declared in hate speeches from the sit-in stage. Peaceful demonstrators do not raise the black flags of al-Qaida while marching with pictures of bin Laden on their chests.

     ''While the Western media was focusing on the clearing of the sit-ins and moaning over the number of those killed, more than 45 attacks were made on Christian installations across Egypt, resulting in the torching of 19 churches and cathedrals, some built in the 6th Century. The list goes on, but your intelligence reports should enlighten you, especially if you read them. You know Mr President, it is important that you see reality, especially that the American people have themselves suffered from the dark evil of Islamists where unfortunately thousands of Americans died from their terror. The Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadist allies have never known and will never know peace.

     ''Mr President, we are on the side of freedom, we are on the side of human rights. We all on the side of justice for all. Is it too much for Egyptians today to have the support of the American people during on war on terror? How can the same group be named terrorists in the U.S.A. and peaceful demonstrators in Egypt? How can these be the ones you say you will never negotiate with while your government demands that we Egyptians not only negotiate with them but also partner with them in building a modern Egypt. This is grossly illogical. With this in mind we hope that this letter will get your attention for, after all, we are now representing the majority. Our present government represents us, the secular, civil and liberal political forces. We hope that you will find it of value to probe more and investigate more and ask more. When you do, we are ready to come to you in a delegation and discuss and explain more. We are sure that you will realize that, after all, Egyptians are indeed a great people deserving a great future.''

The Way I See It.....when Obama ignored his CIA assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood prior to the election last year his Mid-East policy went off the rails. The amazing deafness of Team Obama to the ''Mein Kampf'' type of rantings of the MB when they were free to express themselves after Mubarak's ouster showed how out of touch they were to the whole Middle East dynamic. Obama chose to consider one side of picture that allowed him to show that his ass-kissing of a radial Muslim group was better for the future of Egypt. Thank God that General al-Sisi and his Army were there to rescue what was left of the democratic fabric of the Egypt. 

Now Obama still sticks to his delusion by cancelling Operation Bright Star. Well Mr President, Operation Bright Star means nothing to most Egyptians, but it is the misunderstanding and misleading of the American people that they worry about and you should care about. The Egyptians feel betrayed by the one country, which holds the torch of democracy high, that can't come to grips with the reality that the Brotherhood defiled the very essence of the meaning of a democratic state. Obama and his cronies have lost the plot and don't know who their friends are anymore.

Egypt's Lesson: Being Elected Doesn't Make Extremists Safer !

Egypt's army decided to strike now before the Muslim Brotherhood became too strong. I suspect they recognized that the longer they waited to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood encampments the better prepared the MB would be to resist. And they have resisted, and are still doing so. Several score policemen are dead among the 700 hundred of protestors in Cairo and around the country. So are hundreds of mostly innocent Copts, who have no recourse but to be on the wrong side of the Brotherhood's murderous intolerance. Indeed, spending energy and resources to kill Coptic civilians and burn down their churches while Muslim police are bearing down on you with shotguns furnishes about the best example there can be of how the Brotherhood's fanaticism completely swamps its capacity for rational planning of any kind. The army is, thankfully, about to ban this Islamic filth very soon.

The MB under Morsi found that democracy can be just another way of imposing authoritarian rule or in this case, even an utterly incompetent one. I think Washington's fascination with the Brotherhood is the product of a search for an Islamist organization that reflects the ''culture'' of the Middle East and isn't violent. There is a lack of appreciation from Team Obama for the fact that just because an organization doesn't lead with violence doesn't mean it's going to be moderate, secular-leaning, democratic or capable of governing. Far from finding an Islamic justification for democracy, they were simply redefining democracy in a way that wasn't democratic but sounded good to the West. After Obama's 2011 ''apology tour'' of the Middle East the extremists saw a weakness in America's thinking to be exploited.

By the time of Morsi's first anniversary as president we had a massive outpouring against Morsi due to his frankly undemocratic rule of the country and his bid to consolidate power for the Muslim Brotherhood. Secondly, Morsi completely lost control of the state. By the time the protests started on June 30, he didn't control anything. He didn't control the police and he obviously didn't control the military. He didn't control any of the institutions of government, and it made his presidency untenable. So the military under General Sisi stepped in. The military believes it not only had to removed Morsi, it has to decapitate the entire organization. Otherwise, the Brotherhood will re-emerge and perhaps kill the generals who removed it from power.

Over it's one year in power, the third-rate politician, Morsi, lost substantial public support. The young Egyptians could see their efforts to oust Mubarak for a change in a democratic direction begin to fade into another tin-pot dictator. Think back to the early presidential elections in 2012. Morsi only won 5 million votes, which was 25% of the votes cast. The Brotherhood's power is not derived from mass public support and it never has been. It is derived from its exceptional organization capabilities on one hand, and the fact that the rest of Egypt is deeply divided and highly disorganized on the other. The MB wants to consolidate power in Egypt and then create a global Islamic state, a Caliphate. It's a key part of their ideology and their rhetoric. They can't and won't share power with any faction.

Over the past few years there has been a gross naivety in Washington as a whole but especially the Islamist in anti-American clothing: Obama! Such is the absurdity of both parties' stance towards Egypt: the Egyptian military is doing America's dirty work, suppressing a virulently anti-modern, anti-Semitic and anti-Western Islamist movement whose leader, Mohammed Morsi, famously referred to Israelis as ''apes and pigs.''  It did so with the enthusiastic support of tens of millions of Egyptians who rallied in the streets to support the military. And the American mainstream reacted with an ideological knee jerk. America's presence in the Middle East has imploded.

The Way I See It.....America's credibility in the Middle East, thanks to the delusions of its government, is broken, and it cannot be repaired within the time frame required to forestall the next stage  of violence. Egypt's military and its Saudi backers are aghast at American stupidity. Israel is frustrated by America's inability to understand that Egypt's military is committed to upholding the peace treaty with Israel while the Muslim Brotherhood wants war. Both Israel and the Gulf States observe the utter fecklessness of Washington's efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Last night on an Australian television program The Project,  I listened to ABC Muslim presenter, Waleed Aly make an impassioned plea for sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood (as well as an attack on further attempts to stop what's in effect illegal immigration into Australia, predominantly by Muslims). He was given a supportive hearing by the rest of the other idiots on the panel. It was a chilling moment -- and it was not the only occasion when nice Mr Aly has sided with or run interference for Islamists.  He better get his priorities straight or he'll get a taste of deportation.

We can condemn the killings in Egypt and mourn the death there of democracy. But for Aly to present the events as simply a clash between a brutal military and their elected victims is a gross and deceptive simplification - a tale as fanciful as another Aly subscribes to, of Muhammad riding up to heaven on a winged horse to take dictation from God. As always the truth is more complex.

Ian Stirling:'' I Found a Polar Bear Who Died of Climate Change! ''

Will wildlife biologist and Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) member Ian Stirling now say anything -- no mater how unscientific -- to garner more sympathy and media attention for polar bears?  It appears he's back into ''tragedy porn''.  A tabloid-style picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words article appeared in the environment section of the UK newspaper The Guardian last week with a picture of a dead polar bear meant to wring your heart. The picture is a vehicle for statements from Stirling and others that this poor bear died from climate change. The caption below the photo of the dead animal read: ''This 16 year old male polar bear died of starvation resulting from the lack of ice on which to hunt seals, according to Dr Ian Stirling.''

Many folks have been asking questions about this and so have I. I suggest this is what really happened: the polar bear biologists working in Svalbard earlier this year knew this bear was going to die back in April when they captured him -- they simply waited with a photographer on hand, until he died. It was an orchestrated photo-op. The Guardian quoted Dr Stirling (below left) explaining the circumstances of the dead polar bear:
           ''The bear had been in apparently good health when it was examined by scientists in April in southern Svalbard. It was found dead three months later (July) 250 km away in northern Svalbard, far from its normal range. Most of the fjords in Svalbard did not freeze normally last winter, driving the bear further afield in the hunt for food. From his lying position in death the bear appears to simply have staved and died where he dropped, having been reduced to little more than skin and bone.''

Ashley Cooper, the photographer who took the picture, said the sight of the dead bear was ''desperately sad.''  He added, ''it looked basically like a rug because there was just no weight on it at all.''   He said he saw five live polar bears during a 12 day trip to Svalbard in July. Three looked ''quite thin'' and the others looked healthy hunting on the sea ice. Now, I ask, how is it possible that his bear was healthy in April but dead by starvation less than 3 months later? Why was he even on land in April? Why was global warming activist photographer Ashley Cooper in Svalbard in July, fortuitously available to take the bear's picture?

The fact that the bear was onshore in April, available for capture by polar biologists, is a Red Flag. He should not have left the ice this early. He should have been out on the ice hunting seals. The ice may have pulled away from the shore but there was no compelling reason for him to go on shore if he was healthy and still successfully hunting -- he just had to stay on the ice. He must have been sick or dying of old age. I say this bear was doomed back in April by the simple act of leaving the ice so early and the biologists working the region (putting collars on bears) had to have known it: leaving the ice in April was not normal behaviour. I suggest they alerted their colleagues (in crime) and then kept track of him until he died, so Cooper (right) could get a useful picture of his dead carcass.

Male polar bears routinely go through a 4 month fast every summer of their lives (females go for 8 months). A bear in good condition should be able to live through a 3 month fast -- since this bear didn't survive for 3 moths, he could not have been healthy. It's old bears that starve to death; something goes wrong with their ability to fast properly and they burn their stored fat too quickly. The decline of old age is highly individual (which is way some die at 15 or 18 years, while a few live past 20). Polar bear biologists will  routinely use ''tragedy porn''. It's worth noting that there haven't been any incidents of cannibalism this year (despite the record low sea ice in September 2012), so this emaciated dead bear was the next best thing to emphasize the ''message'' that polar bears are already being harmed by global warming.

The Way I See It.....this incident is meant to prime the media pump to make the PBSG get maximum coverage and that the right hoax message is spread. They did it before, back in 2009, before the international climate meetings in Copenhagen (IPCC) and it worked very well for them. Their press release showing the shocking photos and video of cannibalism in Western Hudson Bay of an adult male dragging around a carcass of a cub it had killed and partially consumed. It is telling that Mr Cooper just happened to be on hand to take that picture too, with the Polar Bears International (PBI) also in on that circus.

There seems to have been no press release associated with this report (there is not one listed on their website), so how did the Guardian get sucked-in with this story? Who told them what was going on? Ian Stirling? Apparently, he is now an employee of PBI, although there is nothing on their website to indicate he is more than the ''scientific adviser'' he has been for a long time. So this story also is an announcement of sorts that Stirling has become a professional advocate. This should add an extra income stream to his already lucrative largess from the government trough he has his ''snout'' in. In short, it's pretty clear to me, and perhaps you now too, that this poor bear did not die of climate change: he was simply used as a prop for a message that activist polar bear scientists want to convey, even if that message is no longer valid with no significant warming for the past 17 years!