RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/peter-smith/2014/02/statistics-dummies-warmists/

These breathless reports about the planet never being hotter, take them with a truckload of salt. How can anyone place the slightest credence in claims being advanced by people who fail to grasp, or refuse to grasp, the simple truth about trend lines and temperature

“Read all about it! Read all about it! It’s the hottest year on record — except for another five hotter years!” A new twist can be put on the aphorism attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. It is now clear that there are lies, damn lies, and the interpretation of climate statistics.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported that last year (2013) tied with 2007 for the sixth-hottest year on record – i.e. since 1850. “This is confirmation of the trend of global warming of the planet,” according to WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. In case you missed the import, Mr Jarraud added that thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st Century.

The latest version of the Hadley Centre’s global surface temperature series HadCRUT 4 shows a trend rise of about 0.8 degrees Celsius between 1850 and 2013. This upward trend steepened between around 1910 and 1940 and, following a period of becoming negative between 1940 and 1975, steepened somewhat more acutely between around 1975 and 2000 before leveling.

It seems clear, based on both the surface and satellite records, that since around 2000/’01 — that is, for the last 12 or 13 years — temperatures have plateaued. I don’t really buy the 17-year cessation being bandied about. I think there is too much noise created by the sharp rise in temperature in 1998 to draw firm conclusions until just after the beginning of this century. But form your own conclusions. Data can be sourced from the excellent and universally well-regarded web site woodfortrees.org.

Marks Could Be Hurdle for Democrats in November Amid Broad Dissatisfaction

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433533118580224?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories&mg=reno64-wsj

President Barack Obama is struggling to overcome widespread pessimism about the economy and deep frustration with Washington, notching the lowest job-approval ratings of his presidency in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The results suggest Mr. Obama could weigh on fellow Democrats in midterm elections this fall, particularly in the conservative states that will play a large role in deciding whether his party retains its Senate majority.
View Graphics

Mr. Obama’s job approval ticked down to 41% in March from 43% in January, marking a new low. Some 54% disapproved of the job he is doing, matching a previous high from December, when the botched rollout of his signature health law played prominently in the news. The latest survey also showed the lowest-ever approval in Journal/NBC polling for Mr. Obama’s handling of foreign policy.

The findings come amid dissatisfaction with all elected leaders in Washington and low regard for the Republican Party. Roughly a quarter of those polled view the GOP positively, with 45% harboring negative views, weaker numbers than for the Democratic Party.
Still, the GOP leads slightly when the public is asked which party should control Congress.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-lefts-fantasies-of-cultural-ghettos/print/

American diners eternally immersed in the 50s where Elvis is always on the jukebox dot the world from London to Tokyo. Rockabilly is bigger in Japan and Germany than it is in America. Replicas of the Statue of Liberty are scattered all over China and a generation of Asian filmmakers influenced by American films has come to Hollywood to make movies that are then redistributed around the world.

America has always been a machine for mixing and remixing cultures. Americans have Greek, Jewish and French first names, music that combines Celtic and African influences, and movies where British directors hire Australian actors to portray ordinary Americans. Any group trying to untangle that mix and patent their “contribution” would have as much luck as a divorcing couple trying to sort out their individual belongings after sixty years of marriage.

To whom does the lowly hamburger belong? To the Germans whose urban name it carries, the Mongols who invented it, the Russians who introduced it to the Germans or the Wisconsin man who began selling it that way? It doesn’t really matter. What really matters is how the burger tastes.

If the Jews and Greeks began calling in all their cultural debts, we would all be poorer for it.

In recent years, cultural protectionism has gone from being the obsession of beleaguered European states doling out millions in absurd cultural grants to another weapon wielded by professionally outraged minority activists who lay exclusive claim to what they consider their culture.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/kenneth-levin/jeffrey-goldberg-jackson-diehl-and-obamas-targeting-of-israel/print/
In his recent hour-long White House interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, President Obama once more unleashed a biased, dishonest attack on Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Goldberg, like all too many high-profile writers and commentators, gave the president a pass on his anti-Israel riff and even seconded it. A striking contrast, demonstrating incisive, reality-based coverage of Obama’s anti-Israel slant and its inevitable negative consequences, has been provided over the past five years by the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl.

Goldberg’s interview received wide attention for the president’s warnings to Netanyahu that he must quickly reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians or Israel could face dire consequences from a world impatient with the Jewish state’s supposed foot-dragging in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, now in the tenth year of a four-year term, the president had only positive things to say, including definitively characterizing him as ready for a peace deal.

The Goldberg interview, broadcast on Bloomberg News, was wide-ranging, touching extensively on Iran and Syria as well as Israel, and Goldberg has been praised by some for his handling of the hour. Elliot Abrams, on The Weekly Standard website, wrote: “… kudos to Goldberg; he pressed Obama repeatedly, challenging vague formulations and seeking clarity. Goldberg pushed Obama hard, especially on Iran and Syria.

But on Israel Goldberg pushed Obama not at all, even when the president made assertions untethered from reality.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/putins-contempt-for-obama-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Igor Melcuk, a Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the University of Montreal and Member of the Royal Society of Canada. A scientist and “reluctant” Soviet dissident, he left the Soviet Union in 1977 after being expelled from the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences because he defended Andrei Sakharov​ in a letter published in The New York Times​.

Prof. Melcuk joined the Gang to discuss Putin’s Ukraine Gamble. The discussion occurred in the context of Putin’s Contempt for Obama. Prof. Melcuk explained why the Russian president laughs in the Radical-in-Chief’s face, what he is really after, what he really fears, and what dangers he poses:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/lois-lerners-lies-and-cover-up-revealed/print/

Former IRS mandarin Lois Lerner orchestrated an unprecedented crackdown on Tea Party and conservative groups and then attempted to scapegoat those nonprofits, blaming them for the harsh treatment they received at her instigation, according to a damning report released yesterday by congressional investigators.

The report came out six days after Lerner appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee under subpoena and for a second time refused to testify about IRS targeting of right-of-center 501c4 nonprofit advocacy groups during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. (The full report is available in PDF form at the committee’s website.) At the March 5 hearing, which was a continuation of a hearing started last year, Lerner again opted to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

President Obama has claimed that there was not even “a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS affair but anyone with eyes knows the Obama administration has been stonewalling and intimidating witnesses who know the ugly truth about these Third World banana republic-style tax abuses.

Democrats correctly view Tea Party groups, that is, right-wing populist groups, as an existential threat to the Left. These nonprofits tend to be Republican-leaning organizations and they have been successful so far in derailing, or at least slowing, parts of President Obama’s ongoing transformation of America. Many left-wingers don’t believe such groups are legitimate and don’t want them granted official recognition and tax-exempt status by the IRS.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/fdr-to-stalin-i-would-give-saudi-king-6-million-jews/print/

This isn’t really new, but some of the most interesting material comes from Rafael Medoff’s demonstration of how the material was buried and misreported by historians sympathetic to liberal presidents.

When FDR endorsed quotas for Jews in the US and even North Africa, liberal historians claimed that he was being “practical” or actually trying to help Jews. And then there’s the story of the efforts to bury and lie about FDR’s exchange with Stalin about the Jews.

The first inkling that FDR’s private attitude toward Jews was less than amiable came during the mid-1950s debate over the publication of the transcripts of Roosevelt’s February 1945 conference with Josef Stalin and Winston Churchill at Yalta. In 1953, Republican senators began pressing for publication of the full transcripts of the conference.

The State Department opposed publishing the records, on the grounds that they contained sensitive information that might be harmful to the United States or its allies. Eventually, in March 1955, the Yalta transcripts were released as part of the Foreign Relations of the United States series. Two passages that appeared in the original Yalta minutes were deleted from the published version. One had to do with a conversation between American and Soviet military commanders. The other pertained to an exchange between FDR and Stalin concerning Jews.

Had the State Department simply left in the passage about Jews, it might have attracted less notice. Instead, the obvious omission intrigued observers. The New York Times reported that Roosevelt and Stalin discussed Soviet Jewry, Zionism, and the Soviet attempt to establish a Jewish “homeland” in the Siberian region of Birobidzhan.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2014/03/israels-big-mistake/
Israel’s biggest mistake is not having recognized the faith-driven aspect of its Arab/Moslem enemies. As Victor Sharpe has often reminded us: ““Wherever the Muslim foot has trod triumphal that is forever considered by Muslims as Islamic territory and enters the Dar al-Harb (the House of Islam). Wherever and whenever such territory is liberated from Islamic occupation it then enters for Muslims the Dar al-Harb (the House of War) and forever after it becomes incumbent on all Muslims to wage endless and relentless war against it.Thus for Israel, the Jewish state, even if it withdrew to just one downtown city block in Tel Aviv, it would still be unacceptable to Islam and would be warred against until it was no more. This is the very fundamental reason why there can never be a true and lasting peace with the Muslim world and phrases such as “land for peace’ or the so-called “Two State Solution” are pure insanity.”
YOAV SOREK: ISRAEL’S BIG MISTAKE
“These words are printed in three languages, loud and clear, on big red signs beside Israeli roads leading to Palestinian-governed territories:
This road leads to Area “A” under the Palestinian Authority. Entry for Israeli citizens is forbidden, life-threatening, and against Israeli law.

The warning is unlikely to shock anyone familiar with Israel today. As those of us who live here know all too well, a trip inside one of these areas can indeed prove fatal.

Yet the term “Israeli citizens” belies a deeply unsettling truth: not all Israelis need avoid entering these areas. Israeli Arabs come and go freely, and are even encouraged to conduct business in the territories. Only Jewish Israelis are at risk of death. No less unsettling is that one encounters such signs not at distant outposts, far from densely populated Jewish towns, but on the fringes of Jerusalem and the outskirts of Tel Aviv, just a few miles from Ben-Gurion International Airport.

Israeli Jews have resigned themselves to this reality. Under the laws of our own government, areas within what we consider our ancient national homeland are simply off-limits to Jews. We are not taken aback by this circumstance, not even disturbed. When the Palestinian Authority names central streets after suicide bombers with Jewish blood on their hands, we don’t think twice about it. And when we talk about a Palestinian state, we take it for granted that Jews will not be allowed to live there—or that, if allowed, they would never feel safe enough to do so.

To be sure, in the latest round of negotiations headed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, all sorts of suggestions have been floated for normalizing relations between Israelis and Palestinians. At the end of January, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went so far as to raise the prospect of Jewish settlers having the right to remain in a future Palestinian state. But the outcry of protest from his own coalition partners, together with the longstanding stony refusal of Palestinian leaders even to consider the notion of a single Israeli Jew living in their prospective state, has only underlined the grotesque abnormality of our situation.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/tesserae/2014/03/pass-the-fig-leaf-please/?utm_source=Mosaic+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=4b9c347525-2014_3_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0b0517b2ab-4b9c347525-41153705

The day before Russian President Vladimir Putin flexed his muscles in Ukraine, the columnist Jeffrey Goldberg asked President Obama whether, given his failure to police his own “red line” in Syria, countries like Russia and Iran still believed he was capable of using force to advance American interests. Repudiating the inference, the president pointed to his threat last fall to intervene militarily with targeted strikes in Syria. That threat, he averred, was directly linked with the support subsequently given by both Russia and Iran to the agreement stripping the Assad regime of its chemical weapons:

We’ve now seen 15 to 20 percent of those chemical weapons on their way out of Syria with a very concrete schedule to get rid of the rest. That would not have happened had the Iranians said, “Obama’s bluffing, he’s not actually really willing to take a strike. . . .” Of course they took it seriously!

In three ways, this rendition of events is illusory. First, the Syrians are not, in fact, sticking to the chemical-weapons agreement. Assad has repeatedly dragged his feet, delaying the process of removing the weapons in order to keep Washington and the Europeans dickering with him; in the meantime, Syrian security forces continue to enjoy a free hand slaughtering people by means of conventional arms. Second, and more important, Obama’s stated goal in Syria was to establish a process that would force Assad to step aside and make way for a transitional government capable of ending the civil war. Touting his “success” with Assad’s chemical weapons is a sleight of hand, deflecting attention from the abject failure of that larger aim.

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2014/03/11/the-lunchbox-a-review/?print=1

Ila, a Mumbai housewife sends her husband his lunch in a customary Indian tiffin that’s color -coded and brought to his desk by specially trained delivery men on bikes. Insecure about the coolness in their marriage, she prepares a particularly aromatic meal on the advice of the upstair neighbor, Auntie, who is heard but never seen. Even though the delivery system has been vetted and approved by the Harvard Business School, the lunch goes to the wrong man. Ila realizes this quickly but annoyed by her husband’s indifference and spurred on by Auntie, the voice of experience from on high, she continues to send increasingly delicious and fragrant meals to the man she doesn’t know, initiating a correspondence between them that becomes far more intimate and meaningful than her dissolving marriage and his widowed loneliness.

Within this somewhat familiar plot lies a movie of poetic and subtle restraint in which the simplest sentences and smallest changes of expression are conveyed by two remarkable actors – Irrfan Khan and Nimrat Kaur. The former has appeared in one season of In Treatment and in The Life of Pi – his luminescent eyes and total command of the screen give us an instant read on his retreat from life and his guarded protection of his feelings from any further hurt. We see his annoyance with the neighborhood children whose ball invades his gated space; we see him eating his lunch alone day after day and we see his prickly resistance to the garrulous and sycophantic new employee who has been hired to replace him when he retires and whom he is expected to train.

As the lunches and letters keep coming, we see the break in his armor and a disarming smile spread across his handsome face. Suddenly, the man who stood in the crowded train boxed in by other commuters is standing on the edge near an open window with his hair blowing in the breeze. The man who threatened the street urchins can gaze lovingly out his window at the scene of family warmth in the apartment across the way and smile at the little girl who had previously rattled him. His annoyed relationship with the new replacement softens into tolerance of that man’s inadequacies and compassion for his orphanhood – a paternal friendship develops. There are surprises in his relationship with Ila and in her re-appraisal of her marriage and her understanding of her mother; to reveal more would be a spoiler.