Archive for 2015

OF COURSE HE DOES: Obama looks to use pope as leverage in climate fight.

Pope Francis’ visit to Washington next week will give President Obama a real chance to breathe new life into a climate change agenda that faces several obstacles, including growing opposition in Congress and doubts from foreign leaders that a deal on global warming can be reached at the end of the year in Paris.

The pope has been a prominent supporter of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists blame for causing the Earth’s temperature to rise, causing more floods, droughts and other catastrophes.

Francis has framed climate change as a moral issue. Obama will likely use the pope’s time in Washington to draw attention to the challenge of global warming, and the need for putting away political differences in support of actions to reduce emissions.

The pope will also address a joint session of Congress following talks at the White House. In that address, he is expected to underscore points he made earlier this year in issuing his climate change “encyclical,” which outlines his thoughts on the issue of global warming. In the encyclical, he advocates for reductions in manmade emissions from fossil fuels.

Meh. I don’t feel that the Pope has any particular authority on this issue. And neither does Obama, he just hopes the rubes don’t know any better.

THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS WAS JUST A NOVEL, RIGHT GUYS? RIGHT? GUYS? Migrants push onward to Germany ahead of E.U. refugee discussions. “Most of the more than 20,000 people who entered Austria over the weekend were expected to try to enter Germany, which itself is starting to show strains. Up to 1 million asylum seekers are expected in Germany this year alone. Austria, too, has been pushing back, angry that asylum seekers are passing through poor but safe countries and pushing onward to richer ones.”

AN UNEXPECTED DEMOCRATIC REVOLT:

The pundit class’s commitment to the conventional wisdom allowed them to miss the conditions on the right that led to the Trump surge over the summer – a dynamism that is evolving into an uprising among a healthy plurality or even a majority of Republican primary voters against professional politicians. The expert political observer is equally committed to subordinating empiricism to their understanding of how things should work when they survey the Democratic race. Clinton should have the nomination locked up. The Democrats should be committed to her campaign. If Clinton were to somehow fail to win both Iowa and New Hampshire’s early contests, her prohibitive organizational strength in the South should prove an insurmountable firewall. Amid all of these shoulds, pundits have ignored or overlooked the 2016 election cycle’s myriad coulds.

A Democratic revolt is well underway. If it snowballs, only those who should know better will have been caught by surprise.

RELATED: “On Sunday’s This Week, ABC’s Matthew Dowd provided a dose of reality as to why Hillary Clinton continues to see her poll numbers decline and chalked it up to ‘the theory of Hillary is always much better than the actual reality of Hillary running for president.’”

FIRST RICHARD DAWKINS, NOW THIS: Bill Maher defends arrest of Ahmed Mohamed.

Maher said the 14-year-old Muslim boy’s clock looked exactly like a bomb.

“Look, this kid deserves an apology, no doubt about it, they were wrong, but can we have a little perspective about this?” Maher said on his show on Friday. “Did the teacher really do the wrong thing?”

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who was a guest on the show, said Ahmed was arrested because of his ethnicity.

Ramos is a putz. Lots of white kids get hauled out of school under stupid policies. The problem is that the schools are run by idiots. Someone should write a book.

THE DISTORTED WORLD OF TA-NEHISI COATES, as charted by Kay Hymowitz:

You might think that an article on the Moynihan report and the black family would mention somewhere that today 72 percent of black children, up from 24 percent when the report was written, are born to unmarried mothers. You might assume that an analyst of the black family would explain that large numbers of those children — far more than mass incarceration can explain, by the way — will have at best erratic relationships with their fathers. You would expect him to show how one of the main reasons fathers fade out of their children’s lives is “multi-partner fertility” — parents who have children by a series of partners — and that multi-partner fertility is particularly widespread among blacks and incarcerated men. He might look at the research suggesting that children living with an unrelated father are more likely to suffer abuse. You would expect him to ponder all of this because there is abundant evidence that boys growing up under these conditions have less self-control than those growing up in more stable families, and most of all, because those boys are far more prone to commit crimes. You would think at least some of this would find its way into the pages of a 17,000-word piece called “The Black Family in an Age of Mass Incarceration,” but you would be wrong.

But not as wrong as Ta-Nehisi Coates.

BEN CARSON: LET’S NOT HAVE A MUSLIM PRESIDENT: “It is hard to imagine the abuse that Carson is going to take for those remarks,” John Hinderaker writes at Power Line. “He’d better batten down the hatches. But what he said is true: Islam is incompatible with the Constitution because it does not recognize a separation between church and state:”

But world-wide, the trend in Islam is more toward resurgent fundamentalism than toward tolerant moderation. And, as I understand Islam, Carson is correct that a person who holds faithfully to Islamic doctrine has views that are incompatible with our Constitution. Carson will take enormous abuse for saying the unsayable, but he deserves credit for putting an important issue–which bears strongly, to cite just one example, on our immigration policy–on the table. If his understanding of Islam (and mine) is wrong, no doubt correction will follow. But that is a candid discussion that needs to take place.

Read the whole thing.

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE UPDATE: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys.

In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

So wait, all this yammering about “white privilege” could have simply been responded to with a “tough, it’s my culture” response? Who knew? Me, I prefer the Sir Charles Napier approach to barbaric customs. But that requires a culture whose leaders have confidence in it. Our leaders are more embarrassed and apologetic.

JOEL KOTKIN ON THE TEACHING OF HISTORY TODAY: America The Not-So-Beautiful.

In contrast to the physical sciences, and even other social sciences, the study of history is, by nature, subjective. There is no real mathematical formula to assess the past. It is more an art, or artifice, than a science.

Yet how we present and think of the past can shape our future as much as the statistics-laden studies of economists and other social scientists. Throughout recorded time, historians have reflected on the past to show the way to the future and suggest those values that we should embrace or, at other times, reject.

Today we are going through, at both the college and high school levels, a major, largely negative, reassessment of the American past. In some ways, this suggests parallels to the strategy of the Bolsheviks about whom Serge wrote. Under the communists, particularly in the Stalinist epoch, the past was twisted into a tale suited to the needs of the state and socialist ideology. This extended even to Bolshevik history, as Josef Stalin literally airbrushed his most hated rivals – notably Leon Trotsky, founder and people’s commissar of the Red Army – into historical oblivion.

In the modern reformulation, America – long celebrated as a beacon of enlightenment and justice – now is often presented as just another tyrannical racist and sexist state. The founding fathers, far from being constitutional geniuses, are dismissed as racist thugs and suitable targets of general opprobrium.

Initially, the progressive assault made some sense. Traditional “civics” education often presented American history in an overly airbrushed manner. Many of the nation’s worst abuses – the near-genocide of American Indians, slavery, discrimination against women, depredations against the working class and the environment – were often whitewashed. These shortcomings now have been substantially corrected in recent decades, from what I can see in my children’s textbooks.

Of course, the old attitudes still remain embedded, particularly among those mostly older, white middle- and working-class Americans who are attracted to Donald Trump’s call for America “to be great again.” This kind of unfocused nostalgia does seem likely to be consigned to – as Trotsky dubbed it – “the dustbin of history.”

But as progressive ideology has grown in influence, it has become ever more radicalized, often to the extent of downplaying, or even denying, the remarkable accomplishments of our civilization. It is now considered a “microaggression” on college campuses, notably, those of the University of California, to call America “the land of opportunity,” or celebrate the notion of the “melting pot.” This attitude ignores that America has provided succor and hope to many millions of people who left desperate conditions in places like southern Italy, Ireland, the slums of Lancashire, the shtetls of Russia, rural Japan, China, Central America, the Middle East and, increasingly, Africa. . . .

Winston Churchill remarked that “history is written by the victors.” Today, in terms of history and the American past, the presumptive winners are Hollywood, academia and the mainstream media, where people often have little appreciation for America’s unifying creed. In such a situation, there are also losers – namely, the rest of us and our children – who will inherit little of the pride in their country’s history that older generations took for granted.

If American and the West are uniquely awful, how come everyone else in the world wants to live here?

But this is best understood as a war by the New Class against the bourgeoisie. Sapping the bourgeoisie of pride and confidence is a vital step toward bringing them to heel. But when a nation’s rulers have no particular affection for the nation they rule, can it end well?