Displaying posts published in

2016

An Overheated Climate Alarm The White House launches a scary campaign about deadly heat. Guess what: Cold kills more people. By Bjorn Lomborg

The Obama administration released a new report this week that paints a stark picture of how climate change will affect human health. Higher temperatures, we’re told, will be deadly—killing “thousands to tens of thousands” of Americans. The report is subtitled “A Scientific Assessment,” presumably to underscore its reliability. But the report reads as a political sledgehammer that hypes the bad and skips over the good. It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat.

Climate change is a genuine problem that will eventually be a net detriment to society. Gradually rising temperatures across decades will increase the number of hot days and heat waves. If humans make no attempts whatsoever to adapt—a curious assumption that the report inexplicably relies on almost throughout—the total number of heat-related deaths will rise. But correspondingly, climate change will also reduce the number of cold days and cold spells. That will cut the total number of cold-related deaths.
Consider a rigorous study published last year in the journal Lancet that examined temperature-related mortality around the globe. The researchers looked at data on more than 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 areas: cold countries like Canada and Sweden, temperate nations like Spain, South Korea and Australia, and subtropical and tropical ones like Brazil and Thailand.The Lancet researchers found that about 0.5%—half a percent—of all deaths are associated with heat, not only from acute problems like heat stroke, but also increased mortality from cardiac events and dehydration. But more than 7% of deaths are related to cold—counting hypothermia, as well as increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack that results when the body restricts blood flow in response to frigid temperatures. In the U.S. about 9,000 people die from heat each year but 144,000 die from cold. CONTINUE AT SITE

They Want Your IRA The White House pushes investors toward government accounts.

President Obama’s regulators aren’t slowing down, alas. And on Wednesday they unveiled another part of their plan to push Americans out of private investment accounts and into government-run plans.

The Department of Labor says its so-called fiduciary rule will make financial advisers act in the best interests of clients. What Labor doesn’t say is that the rule carries such enormous potential legal liability and demands such a high standard of care that many advisers will shun non-affluent accounts. Middle-income investors may be forced to look elsewhere for financial advice even as Team Obama is enabling a raft of new government-run competitors for retirement savings. This is no coincidence.

Labor’s new rule will start biting in January as the President is leaving office. Under the rule, financial firms advising workers moving money out of company 401(k) plans into Individual Retirement Accounts will have to follow the new higher standards. But Labor has already proposed waivers from the federal Erisa law so new state-run retirement plans don’t have the same regulatory burden as private employers do.

This competitive advantage could be significant. Last month the board of California’s new “Secure Choice” retirement plan wrote to state legislators about their “exciting win” in Washington. They reported that employers enrolling workers in the new government-run plan “would have no liability or fiduciary duty for the plan.” Score! The California bureaucrats added that “we have been given the green light to auto-enroll workers into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).”

Meanwhile, there are only losses for private competitors. The final rule Labor Secretary Tom Perez unveiled Wednesday is being marketed as less onerous than an earlier draft. Thus much of the financial industry is going to take a few weeks to decide on its response. But the main question is exactly how many billions of dollars in costs and lost opportunities will be visited upon investors. And how big the incentive will be to seek government options.

The White House claims it is solving a $17 billion problem for consumers who suffer from “conflicted advice,” but the investment advisory industry is already among the most regulated. The $17 billion figure was assembled from a variety of data sets, many of which weren’t measuring the alleged problem that Team Obama says it can solve, and some of which were generated by people who don’t endorse the White House analysis. In any case government-run plans will have their own conflicts of interest—politicians want the money—and will be expensive. CONTINUE AT SITE

Europe’s Stand Against Israel Is a Stand Against Itself by Luis Fleischman

Horrible attacks like those we saw in Belgium last month are likely to multiply, not just in Belgium, but throughout Europe.

ISIS is a determined monstrosity. The more they lose territory in Iraq and Syria, the more likely are they going to try to commit terrorist acts in Europe in order to inflict more pain and recruit more jihadists.

ISIS’ terrorists are not soldiers or conventional fighters in uniform. Nor are they terrorists that need to cross borders illegally in order to target their victims. Terrorists are mainly European citizens or residents moving in open borders, with easy access to their targets.

Furthermore, most terrorists hide among mass Muslim populations concentrated in specific neighborhoods. Muslim mass concentrations serve as shields and as convenient incubators for terrorist activities.

To a certain extent, this situation is similar to the one Israel has been facing for a long time. The Palestinian territories are where the terrorists come from and they find refuge among the population in order to have proximity to their target.

Most importantly in Europe, as in Israel, these are not freedom fighters seeking a specific objective, but nihilistic Islamist ideologues whose ultimate end goal is pain, destruction -and ideally, genocide.

In Europe there is no occupation and no ethnic conflict, but the continent is still trapped in a similar situation; Europe has been “Israelized.”

Now, Europe will have to take the bitter step of having to ask the Israelis how to establish a system of surveillance and a network of informers in order to prevent and dismantle the terrorist acts in the early planning stages.

Worse, they will have to admit that they were wrong when they judged Israel’s treatment of terrorism or exaggerated the responsibility of Israeli policies for such terrorism.

Europeans have never been able to understand the fanatic and irrational magnitude of Palestinian or Islamic terrorism.

Obama: Iran Plotting Destruction of Israel Violates “Spirit” of Deal Daniel Greenfield

Also Obama lying to Congress about the nuclear deal violates the “spirit” of the Constitution. But why dwell on the obvious. The deal was sold as ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Iran making it obvious that it’s still pursuing such a program violates more than just the “spirit” of the deal. In this case the lack of “spirit” shows that there is no actual deal in place. And Iran has said as much.

“Iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement, but the spirit of the agreement involves Iran also sending signals to the world community and businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative actions that are going to scare businesses off,” Obama said at a press conference.

“When they launch ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel, that makes businesses nervous.”

“Iran has to understand what every country in the world understands, which is businesses want to go where they feel safe, where they don’t see massive controversy, where they can be confident that transactions are going to operate normally,” he added. “And that’s an adjustment that Iran’s going to have to make as well.”

This sounds like Obama expressing a halfway concern about Iran’s violations. Except it’s just the opposite.

Obama is actually making the case for the next phase of his Iran bailout by giving the Shiite Islamic State access to the American economy. Thus he’s actually arguing that the more we do business with Iran, the less likely Iran is to set off a nuke.

Never mind that business ties have never interfered with Iran’s terror agenda before because terrorism is its top priority and business is just a means to that end. Iran is an Islamic State, not a capitalist one.

Rolling Stones and Obama Help Further Enrich Castro Family Aiding Cuba’s ruling billion-dollar crime family. April 6, 2016 Humberto Fontova

The curtain was just closing on president Obama’s benefit performance on behalf of the billionaire Castro family in Havana last month when another curtain opened on an adjacent stage.

Accompanied by a chorus of idiotic media hype The Rolling Stones arrived in Havana three days after Obama departed the island amidst a similar chorus of idiocies. Despite the insufferable media blather both sets of performers were helping further enrich the Castro family for one reason: their “legacies.”

You see, amigos: Cuba’s entire economic infrastructure is owned almost lock stock and barrel—not only by the Stalinist regime’s military and secret police sectors (the only people in Cuba with guns, in case you’d forgotten)—but more specifically by the Castro family itself. In Congressional testimony a few years ago, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Simmons, a recently retired Defense Intelligence Agency Cuba specialist, explained the issue in detail. He showed how through a corporation named GAESA, Raul Castro’s military owns virtually every corporation involved in Cuba’s tourism industry, among the Stalinist regime’s top money-makers lately.

GOOD NEWS IN EDUCATION: THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS LAUNCHES “BOOKS WITH SPINES”

This is the first of what we hope will be a long-running series of posts on Books With Spines. Gentle reader, we invite you to suggest good books for each topic we post about—and there’s a Google form at the bottom of this post that you should click on to send us your suggestions for our first topic – good books about bad teachers (let us know by Sunday, April 10, please!). This is an experiment—if it doesn’t work out, we’ll fold our tents. But with your help, we can make this a regular feature.

The Academe blog at the Association of American University Professor’s (AAUP) website put up a post a few days ago that reproduces New York’s magazine’s listing by “28 People on the Lesbian-Culture Artifacts That Changed Their Lives.” This is an expansive list of inspirational writings, which includes some marginal members of the scene: Harriet M. Welsch from Harriet the Spy figures on the list, although Peppermint Patty failed to make the cut. More typical works include Mädchen in Uniform (1931), The Lesbian Body (1975) and Desert Hearts (1985).

It’s a narrowly identitarian list for our narrowly identitarian times, but we’re grateful to Academe for posting it since it got us thinking about making some lists of our own. These lists, after all, are the heartblood of education—the heartblood of tradition. All canons start by people saying to one another, “say, you ought to read this! It’s a really good book, and it’ll help make you the sort of person you ought to be.” New York magazine is just doing the latest variation of what we’ve been doing for a few thousand years—waving a book under somebody’s nose and saying “Give it a try!” If they can do it, so can we—by way of friendly competition, as we both do our bit to keep up the process of canon formation.

The NAS staff is going to be putting a series of book lists up on our website—but lists of a different sort. Each week we’re going to have a new list—Portraits of Bad Teachers; Important Books I Finished after Multiple Tries; Books About Imprisonment; Books Imagining the Middle Ages; Overrated Classics; and Guilty Pleasure Books. And we’re going to invite our readers—you—to make your own suggestions as well. We’ll put the combined lists together on our website, a week after we post our first suggestions. We think this will be fun, but serious fun—do-it-ourselves canon formation, you and us together, to give the AAUP and New York a run for their money as they try to form tomorrow’s canon.

The SJP’s Hate at CUNY A pernicious student group’s hate speech on campus. Ari Lieberman

There was a time when CUNY meant a quality education at an affordable price. Today, for many Jewish students who attend CUNY, the institution has become synonymous with anti-Semitism and anti-Israel vitriol. This is due almost exclusively to the malevolent presence of a pernicious student group that calls itself Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

Former CUNY board member Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld has accurately described the SJP as the “equivalent of bullying brownshirts.” This characterization may actually be an understatement. The SJP possesses all the hallmarks of a fascist student organization that operates under the larger umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamo-fascist organization that maintains a number of subgroups, each of which is tasked with furthering its cancerous ideology.

The SJP employs intimidation tactics designed to promote fear, harass and bully. Its group members have frequently disrupted pro-Israel or Jewish themed events by shouting down invited speakers and physically preventing students and others from attending. Conversely, Jewish and pro-Israel students who have attended events sponsored by the SJP have been arbitrarily removed on orders of SJP enforcers in full view of high-level CUNY officials.

Wiesenfeld also noted that SJP members are “specifically instructed and trained that disruption, shouting, harassment and the like are to be the CORE, not the periphery, of their activities.” Often, these activities manifest to overt anti-Semitism and escalate to actual physical violence against Jewish students.

What University ‘Snowflakes’ Are Really About A key factor feeding the campus “safe space” culture. Bruce Thornton

America’s privileged students at elite colleges and universities continue to be traumatized by speech they find “hurtful” and “threatening.” Last November at Yale it was a faculty email suggesting that students should lighten up on policing Halloween costumes for racial insensitivity. At the University of Missouri, some students were offended by the administration’s failure to investigate and punish alleged racial slurs. A Harvard student recently told FOX News’ Meghan Kelly that displaying the American flag in a dorm room or just being in the same class with a pro-life student is hurtful and insensitive. Now students at Emory University are experiencing “pain,” “fear,” and “frustration” over messages supporting Donald Trump that were written in chalk on campus sidewalks. At Scripps College, #Trump2016 written on a dorm whiteboard was called “racist” and “intentional violence.”

There’s been no end of commentary on these incidents. Some have correctly pointed out that they are the fruit of nearly four decades of the progressive and leftist transformation of the university. Once a protected space for truth, independent thought, and free speech, now universities are training centers for left-wing cadres and commissars intolerant of political heresy and opposing points of view. Listen to the vice-president of the Missouri Students Association, responding to questions about the professor who had asked for “muscle” to scare off a journalist covering a protest. “I personally am tired of hearing that First Amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and for other students here.”

Other critics blame a culture of permissive parenting and a therapeutic obsession with children’s feelings that have led to demands for “safe spaces,” speech codes, and rigorous surveillance of “microagressions.” A callow youth at Yale demonstrated this change, hysterically shouting to a professor and master of a campus residence, “It is not about creating an intellectual space! . . . It is about creating a home here!” Another Yale student in an article for the student paper wrote, “I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain!” The university’s role of being in loco parentis now means recreating the pampered indulgence of childish feelings that many affluent students have became used to at home.

These analyses are revealing, and the weird incoherence of this combination of Marx and Oprah has been neatly captured by William Voegli in an essay for the Claremont Review of Books: “The compassion commandos of 2015 are history’s first revolutionaries to mount the barricades in the name of their own emotional fragility.” Yet there are other causes of the “snowflake” phenomenon.

Start with federal law. Sexual harassment and Title IX legislation employ vague and subjective language that invites legal complaints no matter how obviously absurd. Once harassment proscribes actions or words that create an “intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment,” as sexual harassment law puts it, then the standards for defining these subjective terms will be set by the hypersensitive, the neurotic, or the Machiavellian opportunist. So too with Title IX, which says no one will “be subjected to discrimination” on the basis of sex. But who will define what constitutes “discrimination”? Students like the one quoted above, who echoes sexual harassment law with her phrase “hostile and unsafe learning environment.”

David Singer: Internet Manipulation Fuels Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish Hatred

Internet manipulation of readers’ comments in response to articles published on overtly anti-Israel and anti-Jewish web sites is allowing those web sites to spew out their venom unchecked and uncontrolled.

Freedom of speech on these web sites is non-existent – and its absence is playing a large part in influencing the opinions of those who visit these sites and see no readers’ comments that act as a counterbalance or rebuttal to the article published or readers’ comments supporting such articles.

Such manipulation has until now taken either of the following forms:

1. Simply not publishing a reader’s comment.

The editor can claim to exercise editorial control of what appears on his web-site – and there is nothing you can really do about it.

I received this treatment when seeking to comment on the decision by McGraw Hill to trash the remaining copies of a text book, Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World – after four maps of “Palestine” in 1946, 1947, 1948-1967 and 2000 were subsequently determined by McGraw Hill to be inaccurate and misleading.

My comment detailing why McGraw Hill’s decision was justified was not published.

This rejection motivated me to write an article “Palestine – Internet Intifada Denies Free Speech” – which was published on many web sites – and subsequently went viral.

2. Publishing readers’ comments – overwhelmingly anonymous – that do not address the subject matter of the article but comprise general comments repeated over and over again – such as “ethnic cleansing”, apartheid” and “stealing Palestinian land” – denigrating and delegitimising both Israel and Jews.

Donald Trump, Sore Loser. By Tyler O’Neil

Ted Cruz won the Wisconsin Republican primary tonight, making it much more difficult for Donald Trump to win the GOP nomination before the convention in July (indeed, he now needs the same percent of remaining delegates as Bernie Sanders does to win the Democrat primary). As the results were coming in, The Donald released a pitiful, nasty statement unworthy of a presidential candidate.

Look up “sore loser” in the dictionary, and you’re likely to find the Trump campaign statement after Wisconsin. Yes, it is that bad. Don’t believe me? Fine, here it is in all of its glory:In one statement, Trump denounced Cruz as a liar(no surprise there), a “puppet,” and an establishment “Trojan horse.” Furthermore, The Donald accused Cruz of coordinating with Super PACs and being “totally” controlled by them. A Tea Party conservative might find it ironic that Trump compares Cruz (once nearly universally hated among GOP elites) to the “establishment,” declaring that he had “the entire party apparatus behind him.” It is true that more moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, and Jeb Bush have supported Cruz, but the Texas senator is still a far cry from an “establishment puppet.” These are less the arguments of a confident challenger and more the complaints of a spoiled child. Some have characterized such comments as “extreme whining,” not without merit. Trump also complained about being treated unfairly on other occasions, especially by Fox News. Here’s a newsflash: Presidents do not get treated fairly. If you really want to win this thing, you need to accept that.Compare this statement with Marco Rubio’s concession speech, or don’t. After all, it’s impossible to compare petulant whining with dignified withdrawal.