Media Matters, a creation of Hillary Clinton, according to one of her own off-hand remarks while giving some kind of political speech, has an active  campaign to attack Lou Dobbs and others  of CNN.[1]  This is proper and mandatory for a narrow political organization that specializes in half truths.

This political organization is headed by David Brock, President & CEO of Media Matters for America. We must recall that Brock was the best-selling author of The Real Anita Hill who did a first-rate investigation of her phony attacks on Justice Thomas and her attempts to prevent his appointment to the United States Supreme Court. He later said he was sorry. What he meant was that he was sorry that he attacked a far-left heroine of such a lofty status as Joan DArc or Eleanor Roosevelt. Shame on him.

Media Matters for America is a nit-pickers stew pot boiler that nibbles around details and constantly recycles rubber-stamped conclusions that the right wing is always wrong. They have proof or so they state, for discounting any and all views that are not sanctioned by the far left.

Lou Dobbs has been showcasing reports on the messy immigration issue and has offended those in the far left who see their political future as absolutely dependent on the current and future votes from illegal aliens. A simple analysis of who votes for the far left gives a dismal %41 on average and they have to pick 9 or 10 points up from the independents, the non party political party that is growing every day. The rabid left must get votes somewhere and success in capitalism tends to divert votes against those who are tax mongers, dictators or liberal Senators.

A few tidbits:

In a discussion of a Wall Street Journal editorial on immigration during his December 9, 2005, show, Dobbs announced, "I support the Minuteman Project and the fine Americans who make it up in all they've accomplished, fully, relentlessly, and proudly." As you may know, the Minuteman Project has been touted by conservative outlets, despite controversy over its anti-immigrant rhetoric and vigilante-style tactics.

This is a flat lie. The Minuteman Project does not employ vigilante-style tactics and Brock can find no such incidents. No Hispanic was shot or lynched in the years that his group has been along the border. That group only watches and then contacts the proper authorities when they spot illegal aliens, many of whom are potential terrorists, sneaking across the borders. They are not like the Stasi,[2] KGB, KKK, SDS, Weathermen or Gestapo as Brock would like some to believe. This is a flat lie.

 More:

During a CBS News interview with correspondent Lesley Stahl, which aired on the May 6 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, CNN host and CBS Early Show special contributor Lou Dobbs defended CNN correspondent Christine Romans' citation -- initially made on the April 14, 2005, edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight -- of the false claims that "there were about 900 cases of leprosy [in the United States] for 40 years," and that "[t]here have been 7,000 in the past three years."

Apparently, there is some urgent need to correct the precise number of lepers who transverse our borders and correct CNN for their gross distortions of disease. Note there is no mention of many who enter the US illegally with various other diseases and pose health risks. This is an example of minutia mongering.

Brock then goes on:

The Minuteman Project has been touted by conservative outlets such as Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, which has featured Minuteman organizers and supporters, often without providing an opposing viewpoint.

Okay, let us see what you have:

We can ask David Brock: Where is your forum where I can come on and put up my opposing viewpoint to some of your conclusions?? Do you want to be fair?? Or do you just want to turn the old rusty crank on any and all matters that can be used to attack the opponents of immigration.  Is your organization just a propaganda outlet?  Do you distort news? Are you biased?

Where is your essay on the Rule of Law, popular with the Clintons who founded and support your organization, that applies to illegal aliens who commit misdemeanors and felonies by:

[1] Entering the US illegally and frequently reenter.

[2] Steal Social Security numbers.

[3] Fail to submit state income tax returns

[4] Fail to submit federal income tax returns.

[5] Fail to buy auto insurance.

[6] Smuggling drugs into the US.

Do you sanction crimes if it leads to votes for liberal Democrats?

Given the grotesque distortions of the rabid left, we might reference a few Saul Alinskys Rules[3] and hold Brock and Media Matters to their own rules and processes that they force upon others. Saul was Hillarys favorite professor.

Suggestions:

Why not open a discussion about illegal aliens committing disgusting crimes and then wasting our tax monies while in prison? Why not put this option on your website?

Quoting Saul Alinsky[4]:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

What are your rules David and can you stand some ridicule??

Can Media Matters tell us, using numbers as accurate as they required for the exact numbers of lepers in the US and tell us how many illegal aliens that are Mexican criminals are in jail in the US?? What fraction of crime in the US today is committed by illegal aliens? Can we debate that?

Can we get Media Matters to acknowledge that drug smuggling is a crime and account, in numerical terms, for how much this costs society in terms of medical expenses, social counseling and drug rehabilitation from Mexican and South American drug profits?? Can we debate that?

Is it illegal to grow marijuana in California? Can we debate that?

How many illegal aliens voted in Orange County for Rep. Sanchez? Can we debate that?

Media Matters is hypocritically acting to put out negative information against any right wing organizations or policies and function as a ragzine. They are not objective They cannot accept opposite views or criticism.

Take some ridicule!

rycK

 Enigma: The New York Times Advises Shutting Up Venezuela’s Chávez!?

Sometimes the New York Times blunders near the political center and commits a few unforgivable political strategic errors which grabs the attention of   those observers who  prefer the use of reason rather than simply  nod  with a leftist reflex at the Times’ Op eds. Roger Cohen reports from Caracas[1], Venezuela with some slightly negative views on Spanish-speaking tyrants.

To wit:

“President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela hates fascists; they are central to his repertoire of insults. But he has not hesitated to deploy the imagery of death to bolster his leftist brand of petro-authoritarianism, now operating under the ludicrous banner of “Fatherland, Socialism or Death!”

Misdirection.

Here we detect a synthetic linkage between fascism and hate and death with a few slogans to amplify the report. Perhaps the author thinks that millions of Kulaks were not dispatched with hate slogans. How about Mao and Pol Pot? Read a few Soviet posters from the 1919-1924 era to see some hate against the opponents of Marxism.

The conclusion appears early in his report:

“…Latin America’s oil-gilded caudillo is getting serious about ruling for life, just like Franco and Castro.”

Then, as an afterthought he says:

“I might add Vladimir Putin to that list.”…”… Chávez has … oil revenue… and the galvanizing appeal of vitriolic anti-Americanism to concoct a 21st-century, gulag-free authoritarianism. But even Putin has not contemplated going as far as Chávez now intends to take his “Bolivarian revolution.”

Here Cohen mixes political similes by lumping Marxist dictators (and their associates like Che Guevara, but Simon Bolivar was never in Bolivia, and Che tried to start a revolution in Bolivia, his home. This is almost a simultaneous play on words and sounds.) and assorted tyrannical wannabees with monolithic anti fascists into a tangled mixture that seems to offer some ethical political demarcation line separated only by gulags.

Then:

“Foreign investment has plunged, scared off by nationalizations.”

And

“But Chávez’s grab for socialist-emperor status is grotesque and dangerous — as Fascism was — a terrible example for a region that has been consolidating democracy.”

How about substituting –As Communism was—above?

Cohen omits a frank and stark criticism of the grotesque socialist-emperor status of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, Ho, Pot and others. He fails to show the near seamlessness between socialism with respect to Nazism and Italian forms of the Fascisti and then Franco’s unique fascist version of government in Spain. The author cannot spell out the fact that fascism was created in direct response to Bolshevism, the cancer of the 20s that sought to infect Italy, Germany in 1919 and later in Spain and other countries.. Much of the disgust and hate against fascists, called the ‘far right’ now is because those groups destroyed the Soviet Dream in many places and ‘liquidated’ Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg in Munich. These people of both the socialist, Marxist and fascist groups were all socialists of varying degree with the usual warts and defects and differing only on the salient mutual cooperation attribute with other socialists—not as they should be: properly allied against capitalism. We have to thank George Bernard Shaw who praised Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and others for their common and tautological stance  against capitalism for clarifying this point. The New York Times scurries around this fact and appears to cherry pick attributes of various leftist despots as they did with Trotsky and Stalin in the 20s. They persist in refusing to believe that Nazis, Fascisti, socialists and Communists are all brothers in the quest for private property and wealth for leftist elitists to squander and  that they  differ only in methodology not ideology. They all hate capitalists.

We soon forget that Hitler and Stalin had secret agreements to carve up much of Eastern Europe [Poland and the Balkans] to their mutual benefit. Stalin said, in effect, that he could trust the Nazis over the British. [2]

Hugo Chávez is a very ordinary Latin American Marxist who uses old, stale hammer and cycle methods of grabbing industrial wealth and resources and spending them on some Marxist dream. His potential use of firing squads is restrained only by the media. His idols are Fidel Castro, Che and other Marxists and probably the inflation monger Daniel Ortega. Cohen stops very short of summarily denouncing Communism and its manifold failures as he should. We all recall the tears Jimmy Carter shed when Ortega lost the first election in Nicaragua.

Castro’s brutal communism is usually contrasted to the lesser antics of his predecessor of 50 years ago and hailed as an ‘advance’ in social experimentation while his firing squads and brutal suppression of criticism gets little notice by the New York Times, who has frequently described Castro in glowing terms and heaped praise upon his phony health care system.[3] Cohen does mention the Mexican PRI revolution and nationalization of British Petroleum and other assets in the 20s and the refusal to let foreigners own property in Mexico (as Castro does now in Cuba) as the basis for Mexico’s disastrous economic status for seven decades. Castro moans that his country is poor due to the US embargo although the Russians, French, Irish and Canadians were always free to trade and invest in Cuba-provided there was no private ownership and no profits.  To say that Cuba is ‘gulag free’ is a joke given the many thousands who were murdered or driven away by Che and his thugs. To think that Hugo Chávez has not set up gulags and firing squads may be fair for the moment, but we must see how the elections fare before we give Chávez some kind of label different from Cheap Marxist Thug. We can all recall the leftist support for the Khmer Rouge until they became too macabre and disgusting to praise in public.

We are constantly reminded that Marxism has much to offer and that the past leaders ‘just didn’t get it right yet’ and that ‘Marxism has not yet been given a fair chance to demonstrate its splendor’ and other fluffery by the New York Times and other far-left apologists. 

Cohen ends with the summary of “what Hugo Chávez wants:”

“Venezuelans will vote Sunday in a referendum that would remove all limits on presidential re-election, grant Chávez direct control over foreign currency reserves, allow him to censor the media under a state of emergency declarable at his discretion, expand his powers to expropriate private property and create the second formally socialist nation in the Americas alongside Fidel’s.”

Hitler, we must remember, got most of that from the German Enabling Act of 1932/3, from a fair vote from the German people. Can Venezuela offer a fair vote?

We must recall that the USSR had votes too. We should recall that it was Lenin who  MAY HAVE SAID said something like this; ”It doesn’t matter who votes—it only matters who counts the votes.”     This is not fully documented but it fits the Marxist-Leninist theme. This was called Democracy in Chicago in the Daley era and in Orange County, CA when Sanchez won with unchallenged absentee ballots reputed to be sent in by illegal aliens. The definition of ‘fair’ and ‘voter’s rights’ seems to wander when viewed by the New York Times and left-liberals.

The New York Times treads softly here so as not to intimidate Latin Marxists too much. This article is as much an Anti-Fascism Education Piece as a report from some dump that is undergoing the usual Marxist revolution with song and dance. There is too much respect for Stalin and Mao to strongly attack Ortega or Castro or Chávez  directly and condemn their far-left socialism as failed communism at its worst. There is even less desire to delineate the differences between socialism, Nazism and Fascism as the apparent separation that took a century to structure with ‘education’ to establish might  defeat many leftist causes. We can not, as yet, get the New York Times to Hitlerize or Stalinize Hugo Chávez as it should.

rycK

_____________________________________________________

Comments On Global Warming and Failed Computer Models

There are some serious problems associated with the current Global Warming Circus. The political forces seem to cherry pick those features that tend to amplify and extend their Tour of Fear and the usual Holocaust Songs. Our planet is burning! There are many so-called scientists who squat at large universities with fat research grants paid for with tax money and play with computers and, not surprisingly,  have conjured up scary scenarios of disasters that would the Earth.

Al Gore has mustered a pack of leftist scientists who tend to benefit from more and juicer research grants, higher tax revenues for their favorite social projects as in Africa and South America and more. The temptation to impede growth and capitalism, the forces that trashed the socialists and Communists in the last century, is too irresistible for the far-left liberals and Neo Marxists to give up. They have lost everything as the capitalism juggernaut crushed their phony attempts to control the world. The losers in the socialist and peasant world have only our wealth for money to spend. They cannot survive on their own as we see clearly from 7000 years of history. The Marxist-oriented states of Sweden and Norway are always anxious to promote some new form of George Bernard Shaw Fabianism, Marxism, Maoism, Castroism or worse even though they made their money from selling guns to everybody who wanted one or submitting to Nazis and Communists.

___________________________

Here are some facts from many places collected by Wikipedia[1] 

[1] They [some researchers] claim global average air temperature rose1.33 ± 0.32 F during the last 100 years. The error in a single thermometer reading is + or - 0.2 deg C.

[2] They use phases like is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man made] greenhouse gas concentrations and overwhelming majority of scientists.. agree with this.

___________________________

Here are my problems with this:

[a] That is a very very very small increase. The satellites show essentially no change in the last 30 years when the proper noise factors [3 sigma] are added in. Scientists who claim this frequently refuse to give out data and then sneakily   include tree ring measurements[2] to correct their data. Can you imagine that anybody can correct 1.33/100 or 0.0133 deg per year with tree rings?? Note that we had no sophisticated temperature measurement devices before about 1930. How do they get a good temperature measurement for 1900?? They had thermometers that good back then in the field around the Earth? No.

[b] How do you measure the average surface temperature on the Earth? Pick 100 cities or airports?? What if one group picks 100 sites and another group picks 100 different sites and suppose the second set shows a cooling of 1 deg F over 100 years? There are thousands of temperature monitoring devices on roofs next to smoke stacks and other sites whose local environment can affect the readings and bias the mean. Any extra heat only biases the result toward global warming!

[c] What is the standard error in measuring the temperature on the second Tuesday in August at 100 sites?? How about + or - 0.01 deg F? Can we believe they can take 100 to 10,000 measurements within+/-  0.01 deg?? What if they can only get down to 1 deg F? What then is this trend based on?? How about a 2 or 3 or 4 degree uncertainty for a set of data? So, how about a rise of 1 deg F + or 3 degrees?? How does that sound? That means we might be in a Global Cooling mode and not know it.

The ref above says this in footnote 12: The error in recent years is dominated by the incomplete coverage of existing temperature records. Early records also have a substantial uncertainty driven by systematic concerns over the accuracy of sea surface temperature measurements.[12][13]

They used to measure sea temperatures with buckets and thermometers. How accurate is that??

There are some serious questions about what this trend might be and how big it is. Recall that there was a glacier in Kansas 8000 years ago, the Viking settlements on Greenland froze over and the ice wiped out their crops about the year 1000 and medieval Europe nearly starved to death in the Middle Ages because the weather changed.

___________________________

Apart from the science, I am bothered by the following question:

Who benefits from this even if the studies are flawed or phony??

[1] Do politicians get more power? Do they attract votes with speeches on global warming? Yes. Do they demagogue with unsubstantiated fears? Yes.

[2] Do politicians get more taxes from this??  Yes.

[3] Does the UN want to tax carbon?? What will they do with the money?? Yes.

[4] During the Kyoto period no European country met the standards of the treaty they signed [nobody tried to] and China and India were given a pass and, of course, didnt meet any standards imposed upon them. Is the US supposed to do it all?? Yes.

[5] Do colleges and research facilities get more tax monies for research on the weather?? Yes.

[6] What is the effect of sun spots on surface temperature? Can we tax the sun and lower the temperature in August in Maryland?? Yes.

There are very serious questions about temperature changes in the last 10,000 years and if there are long term trends of say 75 to 100 years we do not know where we are on the curve. If  we can only measure 30 years of measurements out of 10,000 years how do we know if we are in some cyclic or random phase where the temp rises and then falls?? If the trend is sine wave cyclic or some approximation thereof, and the temp rises and falls in a 300 year sinusoidal cycle then are going up or down?   Do we only focus on the rise?? What if the temperature begins to fall in 20 years? They then want to do what? Do we put out more CO2 to heat the place back up??

Have the scientists forgotten that the sun heats the Earth and that sun spots vary  with ime and that the energy input  happens in cycles from 11 years to dozens of years?? The output from the sun is constant? Any change must have come from CO2 emissions from Buicks and SUVs?

There are too many politicians pandering for votes in this Global Warming Circus and too many third world countries with Marxist Dictators and other losers at the controls that will benefit from UN sanctions and taxes. They like to rely on computer models instead of hard data.

Let us not forget the phony science that predicted that saccharine was a carcinogen, also NutraSweet and others. Have we forgotten that the ozone layer is now not caused by Freon as we were assured in the 80s?? Let us not forget Carl Sagans Nuclear Winter predictions that were trounced in Science Magazine as lousy science and his membership in AAAS was rejected twice. Let us not forget Lysenko and his stuff and when we look at computer models let us ask why we got zero our of 14 hurricanes last year.  And this year we might also get zero hurricanes. How is that for computer model predictions? What happened to the canals on Mars? Everybody happy with this kind of failure? Why dont we all just predict the destruction of everything and somebody will be right eventually then they can be hailed as a prophet.

___________________________

An early computer model was a farce[3]:

What happened to the computer study from MIT[?] [The Limits to Growth] in 1972 that predicted the world economy would be critically dependent scarce metals and fail from depletion of fossil fuels.

Here are their predictions from 1972:

[1] They predicted we would run out of gold by 1981,

[2] we would run out mercury in by 1985, 

[3] be out of tin by 1987, 

[4] out of zinc by 1990, 

[5] run out of oil by 1992, and copper, lead

[6] out of natural gas by 1993.

What went wrong here?? Limits to Growth attracted controversy as soon as it was published for its absurd and phony assumptions and political bandwagon mentality. Yale economist Henry C. Wallich labeled the book "a piece of irresponsible nonsense" in his March 13, 1972 Newsweek editorial.  The authors of this tripe still cling to their notions and want people to think them might have right in the first place. Such hooey. Failure is failure. I had to deal with this group a decade or so ago at an innovation conference when they wanted to issue a new book with revised computer models yet they could not really explain why they failed the first time to get anything right. I pointed out that their methods were largely similar to the methods that failed 30 years before. Trash this computer model and stop funding phony studies like this.

Is this just as phony as the hurricane predictions of last year and this one when the score is 0/14 and will probably be 0/14 for the second year in a row?? Yes.

___________________________

Two days ago a study was published that noted the following [4]:

[1] The mean global temperature peaked in 1998 and has shown no warming for a decade now.

[2] From satellite data dating to 1979, we note global cooling is the general trendnot warming. 

[3] Changes in El Nino appear to have ended the warming trend in the Pacific that began in 1978.

[4]  There was a cooling trend correlated with  three  Las Ninas in a four  year period that  helped cool the earth in the late 1990s.

There are more data and information in the link.

Conclusion:

Science is not that good and politicians do not need the truth to gain powerall they need is persuasion. Let us be careful who we believe when there is tax money and political power to be had. There are a lot of third world parasites who would like free money from the US to deal with problems associated with US CO2 emissions. Such crap.

rycK, a retired scientist and inventor who is sick of reading this meretricious fluff. .

Bill Clinton lies As Usual. Is this new? the NTY can fix.

Certain political theories describe tactics that persuasion is more important than truth[1] hence the well-crafted lie or a little spin is a political advantage. The old notion that you should tell people ‘what they want to hear’ and  make changes that old tune if it waxes a bit stale sometime later is considered a workable elitist political theorem that produces results.

The Clintons are known for their links to Communists[2] and other matters such as lying under oath[3], but the use of the truth is frequently not a crime  they might  be convicted of outside of California or Vermont.

Yesterday we hear that “Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start” as reported by the New York Times, surprisingly, one of the great resources on propaganda, political spin tactics and bending the truth when political climate calls for this measure. [4] Usually the Old Gray Lady remains silent on embarrassing political incidents involving the Clintons. The NYT functions as a political front in  a manner similar to a massage parlor fluffer in ways meant to offer customers something more exciting than the truth. <