RUTHFULLY YOURS

Is the Muslim world as a whole responsible for the epidemic of jihadist terrorism that has rocked the globe in recent years? The question will strike many who consider themselves enlightened as offensive. And yet few of those who recoil from it reject out of hand the possibility that an entire society could be responsible for racially motivated terrorism.

Philosopher-turned-activist Cornel West is among those who do not seem to see any tension in this juxtaposition. On the January 15, 2016, episode of Bill Maher’s HBO show, Real Time, West admonished his host not to infer from the recent sexual attacks in Cologne, Germany, that the newly arrived Syrian migrants do not share European values. After all, West noted, many crimes are committed by non-Muslims, and many Muslims did not participate in the Cologne crimes.

“I think you have to distinguish between culture and morality,” West said. “Every culture has good morality and bad morality.”

On a CNN appearance several months earlier, in the aftermath of the notorious racially motivated Charleston shooting that left nine people dead at a church, West didn’t bother distinguishing between America’s racist culture and its (presumably deplorable) morality. He asserted that the “vicious legacy of white supremacy is still shot so deep in the culture” of the United States that politicians of both parties are unable to address it. In this social context, it makes sense to see racial terrorism as a manifestation of widely accepted racism.

According to Tuskegee University figures, some 4,743 “lynching” murders occurred between 1882 and 1968. That figure doesn’t even cover all of the terroristic racial murders during this period: so many bombs exploded in Birmingham, Ala., during the 1960s, targeting black homes and churches, that it earned the moniker “Bombingham.”

Several state attorneys general have joined in a campaign to prosecute energy companies for “misleading investors” on global warming.

These AGs claim a conspiracy implying that investors are unaware that climate changes may impact investments and have committed to using the power of the state to prove it. In November 2015, Exxon Mobil was targeted by New York State attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman by pursuing a strategy based on claimed similarities to the way tobacco companies were found guilty in 2006 of suppressing their own research showing tobacco being both harmful and addictive.

Virginia AG Mark Herring joined five other AGs and former Vice President Gore in the goal of determining “whether fossil fuel companies misled investors and the public on the impact of climate change on their businesses.” Herring is also a supporter of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP).

When scientific argument fails its cause, governmental legal prosecution becomes Plan B. “Attorneys General and law enforcement officials around the country have long held a vital role in ensuring that the progress we have made…” according to Gore. That is the “inconvenient truth” of governmental dogma.

Claiming disastrous climate change related to human activities, alarmists disregard eons of natural climate variations. Climate change is a vague term and is often undefined. No student of history denies that the climate changes. These AGs posturing as legal determiners of scientific truth join the current vogue to label variations in some idealized concept of an unchanging “normal” climate (the Goldilocks Climate) as a disaster. The evidence is otherwise: sea level rate-of-rise remains about 7 inches per century, droughts are cyclical, tornadoes are less frequent and less deadly, fewer hurricanes are hitting the U.S., even the polar bears are thriving. Global temperatures have plateaued for 18 years even as CO2 levels have increased 10 per cent (the recent El Nino caused an expected temperature spike).

Do you know who is selling you that souvenir T-shirt in the airport? You might want to.

In the late 1970s, it became known to international security agencies that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) owned a variety of duty-free shops in airports across Africa. They didn’t get too excited — selling newspapers and snack food didn’t seem particularly dangerous, and the breech of security posed by terrorists with all-airport access passes doesn’t seem to have aroused any great level of concern.

But that was before we stripped to our skivvies and dumped our lattes in order to board a plane. After years of hijackings and the horrors of 9/11, surely we’re smarter now.

Or not. Following the ISIS-orchestrated bombing at the Brussels Zaventem airport, part of a two-pronged attack that killed 31 people and injured more than 300, Belgian police disclosed that more than 50 known ISIS supporters are working in the airport as baggage handlers, cleaners, and catering staff. They have unprecedented access to passenger areas, back hallways, runways, and onto the airplanes themselves. The situation was so dire before the March 22nd bombing that Israeli inspectors warned the Belgian authorities of the danger. Similar warnings may also have come from the United States. No matter — nothing at all was done.

Some European countries, particularly the UK, have stepped up security around airports and other major facilities. But their focus is almost entirely on people passing through the system — passengers and their families — while the truth is the insider threat receives only perfunctory consideration in most Western venues.

Apart from airports, insider threats have been noted at nuclear power plants. In Belgium at least two atomic power stations have had jihadists working inside — at least two of whom went off to Syria to fight for ISIS. A plot, uncovered in Belgian authorities in February, appears to have targeted a senior scientist in hopes of acquiring nuclear material. Time magazine reported that 12 nuclear plant workers were stripped of their access badges — eight before the Zaventem bombing and four after.

The threat of an attack on a nuclear facility raises many horrific possibilities: a reactor meltdown, the theft of radioactive material for a dirty bomb, or holding a nuclear plant hostage threatening to destroy it unless specific conditions are met. But the most immediate and dire danger is a combination of an airplane hijacking and a 9/11 style hit on an atomic power plant.

Conservatives have good reason to view American universities as hostile territory. The 2006 Politics of the American Professoriate survey, conducted by the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, found that 17.6% of faculty in the social sciences consider themselves Marxists. Only 3.6% consider themselves conservatives. The same survey suggested that if the election of 2004 had been held exclusively in faculty lounges, John Kerry would have won in a historic landslide, 77.6% to 20.4%.

Progressive academics, otherwise so skilled at finding the prejudice behind every disparity, typically shrug this off. According to Mr. Gross, the explanation professors most often give for the scarcity of conservatives among their colleagues is that conservatives are close-minded. The second most popular explanation is that they are too money hungry to settle for a professor’s salary. In other words, if conservative academics are rare, they have their own defects to blame.

In “Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University,” Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. are not complaining—conservatives both, they are tenured political scientists at Claremont McKenna College and the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. They aim to understand those conservatives who, despite being “widely stigmatized in academia,” have nonetheless made a home in higher education: What are they like, and how do they think they are doing?

Messrs. Shields and Dunn “interviewed and surveyed 153 conservative professors in six disciplines in the social sciences and humanities” at 84 universities. They located a diverse group of conservatives, including libertarians, by gathering names from conservative journals and organizations, and then they asked those professors to identify other conservatives. Messrs. Shields and Dunn do not claim that their sample is representative. But the results of their study, the first of its kind, are intriguing. CONTINUE AT SITE

This week’s fare at the Angelika Film Center in New York City includes “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” a purported documentary that began its run on Friday. If only the theater’s schedulers had been making a droll point by choosing April Fool’s Day to launch this dangerously misleading movie falsely linking vaccines to autism. Instead, they all too eagerly snatched up the film after it had been ousted on March 26 from plans for the Tribeca Film Festival later this month.

The decision to remove “Vaxxed” from the festival was the right one, and credit goes to organizers, in particular co-founder Robert De Niro, who has a son with autism, for having the courage to reconsider their plans. If “Vaxxed” had been submitted as science fiction, it would merit attention for its story line, character development and dialogue. But as a documentary it misrepresents what science knows about autism, undermines public confidence in the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and attacks the integrity of legitimate scientists and public-health officials.

As Mr. De Niro explained in announcing that “Vaxxed” would be dropped from the festival: “My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family. But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.”

I am among those Mr. De Niro consulted. In a 45-minute phone conversation with him, I recommended that the festival withdraw the film from the “documentary” category and not screen it.

The filmmakers claim they have not stated that autism is caused by the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, known as MMR. However, that is the inescapable message of “Vaxxed.” And it is certainly the stance of Andrew Wakefield, the discredited British researcher who is the movie’s director and co-writer. CONTINUE AT SITE

Every warmish day inspires media references to broken temperature records, the implicit message being that we have just endured further evidence of a planet in its sweaty death throes. Need it be said that those alarms should be taken with the usual grain of salt?
In late January, I was startled to hear the Nine News weather reporter breathlessly exclaim that a maximum of 33C in Sydney on the 21st of that month happened to be 7C above the city’s average January maximum. That’s it – 7C, for Heaven’s sake! My initial impression was that couching the report in those terms had been intended to add a global warming shock-and-awe angle to the report. After all, 7C is well above the 2C we are told is the magical figure beyond which we will all fry. Not that contrasting one day’s mercury with long-term records is an apples-to-apples comparison, but how many gullible warming believers would be capable of, or even bother, making this distinction?

My second reaction was to think that 33C doesn’t seem to me to be remarkably hot for January; neither did it strike me that 26C would be a likely average January maximum, so I had a look at Weatherzone. To my surprise it confirmed that the mean January maximum for Sydney is, indeed, 25.9C. So there you are. This is the long term mean maximum for January. The high mean maximum for January is actually 29.5C and that was recorded in 1896.

A closer examination of the data reveals that the figure of 7C on any particular day is not all that remarkable – so unremarkable, in fact, that it confirms my impression it was cited for purely propaganda reasons.

Sydney’s January high maximum is 45.8C and its low minimum is 10.6. So, historically, daily January temperatures in Sydney range over 35.2C. The maximum temperature on January 21 of 33C was actually 12.8C lower than the highest recorded January maximum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQjTLGgQV2w – A Special Kind Of Hate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZKAewadF9U – Feminist Whores for Islam

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Ann Marie Waters, the Director of Sharia Watch UK and deputy leader ofPegida UK. http://jamieglazov.com/2016/04/03/ann-marie-waters-on-islam-kills-women-on-the-glazov-gang/

Ann Marie discussed “Islam Kills Women” — the name of the protest that she will be holding on August 20, 2016 outside the Parliament in Westminster to bring attention to Islam’s oppression of women in the UK and abroad. [For more info on the protest, write Ann Marie via contact@shariawatch.org.uk.]

Ann Marie focused on Islam’s hazardous impact on free speech and women’s rights in Britain and around the world — and the way the government and culture are demonizing truth-tellers on this issue. She also brings attention to the myriad catastrophic consequences that opening borders to vast numbers of men from Sharia environments is having on the UK and the West.

Don’t miss it!

The infant undergrads of America hit another low last Monday when Emory students woke up and discovered that pro-Trump slogans had been written in chalk on some of the university’s sidewalks. According to the Emory student newspaper, about 40 Emorites responded to the chalking by assembling outside the university president’s office and demanding that he meet with them, because they were “in pain.” The paper quotes students saying the chalk slogans were “fear”-inducing; one said she didn’t “deserve to feel afraid at [her] school.”

Why do these kids need to be handled so very gently? According to one Emory undergrad, who echoes whining heard on campuses across the country, some students “are struggling academically because they are so focused on trying to have a safe community and focus on these issues” of student comfort.

What these kids need, besides a kick in the pants, is a look at university life in the good old days, when universities were just starting to revolutionize education and lay groundwork for the Enlightenment.

When you get right down to it, two men invented modern test-and-result science: Francis Bacon and William Harvey (who discovered blood circulation). They both got their start as undergrads at Cambridge in the late 16th century.

What was Cambridge like in the late 16th century? Not pleasant. Harvey, like all students too poor to afford private lodging, slept in a tiny attic room with three other students. The attic had a window, but the window had no glass, and the room had no fireplace. According to a 16th-century writer — quoted in Thomas Wright’s superb Harvey biography, A Life in Circulation — Cambridge students were known to “run up and down half an hour, to get heat in their feet,” before turning in at night.

At 4 in the morning, students were awakened by the college bell, which gave them time to dress and prepare themselves for chapel, which began at 5. Chapel was mandatory; missing morning prayers resulted in a fine of at least twopence (at a time when one penny was enough for a meal that four students could share).

After chapel, at 6:10, classes began. Like prayer, classes were mandatory, and missing one of your hour-long lectures would get you hit with another two-penny fine. With short breaks for lunch and dinner, classes continued — in unheated and badly ventilated rooms — until 7 in the evening, when students returned to chapel for evensong. After the evening prayers, studies resumed, until 9 or 10; then the students put a little heat in their feet, climbed into their attics, and managed five or six hours’ sleep before starting again at 4.

This was all rough on Harvey, who entered Cambridge at the tender age of 15. It was probably even rougher on Bacon, who started Cambridge at 12.

I spent part of the week speaking on several college campuses in Texas, and my subject was free speech and the threats against it on campus and beyond. The students were in the main shocked and dismayed at the revitalization of censorship as a political ideal and by the widespread support for censorship among so-called liberals. Most of them were genuinely unaware of just how far and wide the war against free expression currently ranges.

This is strange, because the war on free speech starts on campus.

In March of 2014, Professor Lawrence Torcello of the Rochester Institute of Technology, the seal of which appears alongside the definition of “second-rate” in many dictionaries, published a short article online calling for the criminalization of what he calls “climate denial,” meaning the holding, perpetuating, and, especially, the financial support of heretical ideas about global warming. A few articles were written criticizing the article, and the response was the expected one: “It’s just one crank nobody professor from some second-rate philosophy department publishing a blog post, don’t make such a big deal about it!” Professor Torcello subsequently denied that he had argued what he plainly does argue, namely that legal protections for free speech should not encircle those who dissent from the received dogma of global warming. “Misguided concern regarding free speech,” he wrote, should be no impediment to imposing criminal sanctions on those whose activism “remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action” on the issue.

We’ve taken this ride before: An obscure academic writes something loony. We withstood “feminist physics” and “queer algebra,” and we’ll get through this, too.

Unless we don’t.

Shortly after Professor Torcello’s tentative exploration of criminalizing political disagreement, Gawker published an article by Adam Weinstein bearing the straightforward headline: “Arrest climate-change deniers.” Building on Professor Torcello’s argument, Weinstein called explicitly for the imprisonment (“denialists should face jail”) of those working to further particular political goals (“quietist agenda posturing as skepticism”) on climate change. Never mind that protecting people and institutions attempting to further a political agenda is precisely the reason we have a First Amendment. Weinstein dismisses the First Amendment out of hand, with the expected dread cliché: “First Amendment rights have never been absolute. You still can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You shouldn’t be able to yell ‘balderdash’ at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year, all saying the same thing.”

Yelling “balderdash” at the conventional wisdom has a very long and proud tradition. (Not that it should matter to this debate, but I suppose I should here note for the record that I hold more or less conventional views on climate change as a phenomenon but prefer mitigatory policies to preventative ones.) The name “Elsevier” is not beloved on college campuses (the modern company is a publisher of academic journals and sometimes is criticized for its pricing), but it is to that company’s spiritual ancestor, the Dutch printing house of Lodewijk Elzevir and his descendants, that we owe the publication of, among other articles of samizdat, the works of Galileo, at that time under Inquisitorial interdict. (The story of Elzevir’s 1636 covert mission to Arcetri to meet with Galileo and smuggle his manuscripts to Amsterdam, a city that was then as now a byword for liberality, would make a pretty good movie.) It isn’t that it’s likely that our contemporary global-warming critics are doing work as important as Galileo’s: It’s that no one knows or can predict, which is the practical case for free expression, which should be of some concern even to our modern progressives, self-styled empiricists and pragmatists who reject the moral case for free expression.