Thursday, August 28, 2014

Is there anything the Most Equal Comrade could ever feel a sense of urgency about?

(Well, yes, there are a few - bankrupting the coal industry, dissolving our southern border, imposing socialized heath care.)

The ISIS threat?  Hey, don't sweat!

Before leaving for New York for a series of fundraisers, President Obama held a press conference at the White House to discuss his lack of strategy on Syria.
Obama told reporters that his strategy was still developing, and that he would continue to consult with congress and the American people about any action in Syria.
“I don't want to put the cart before the horse,” he said. “We don't have a strategy yet.”
Obama criticized the news media for “getting a little further ahead of where we're at than we currently are” on confronting ISIL in Syria.
“I think that's not just my assessment but the assessment of our military, as well,” he said.
Obama said that to solution to the situation in Syria was not simply a military issue but also a political issue.
He suggested that the United States would support a “moderate opposition” inside of Syrian to give the country’s citizens a choice.
“We have to give people inside of Syria a choice other than ISIL or Assad,” he said, “And I don't see any scenario in which Assad somehow is able to bring peace and stability to a region that is majority Sunni.”

There's the world the rest of us live in, and then there is the world of the MEC's imagination.  Would he like to say where he sees this viable "moderate opposition in Syria?"

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Dithering away a grand opportunity because it doesn't fit with his worldview

John M. Ellis at The American Thinker points out that the main reason real victories in our war against jihad have been so elusive is that, until the advent of the IS caliphate, there was no real field of battle on which to squarely face them, but that now that is the case:

n late 2001, America faced a frustrating situation. An enemy had declared its intent to destroy us, and had struck a devastating first blow. We had the most powerful military in the world and could easily defeat any power on the battlefield, but this enemy didn’t form up as an army on a battlefield. Our wars have been against states, but this was not a state; it was a loose but extensive network of individuals spread across and hidden among the populations of many countries, including our own. The exasperating result was that while we had a powerful force to defend us, for the most part we couldn’t deploy it. We were able to invade Afghanistan to clean out a sanctuary there, but that was all.
Good intelligence might let us take out a few individuals from time to time, even one as important as Osama bin Laden, but no serious engagement on a field of battle seemed possible. If our enemy ever managed to kill tens of thousands of us by using poison gas in the New York subway, all thoughts would turn to a retaliatory counter-strike, but we would probably have no idea how or where to accomplish that.

If we keep our eyes on this wider context, we can see immediately that what is happening now in Iraq is an absolute game-changer. Our deadly enemy, radical Islam, has taken to the battlefield! At last, they are out in the open, fighting a conventional war as an army and a state. This is the opportunity we could only wish for during the last thirteen years. Jihadis from all over the world are pouring into Iraq to join them, leaving the cover of their surrounding civilian populations and forming up as an army. They are fighting on our terms, on the battlefield, where we are supreme. At last, after years of frustration, we have the chance to engage and crush them.
The hang-up is that the Most Equal Comrade sees his mission as extricating post-America from the ickiness that is Iraq.

Determined to avoid doing anything that could appear to undermine what he sees as his achievement, or worse yet look like an admission that he had been wrong, Obama lets his boasts shackle him. And yet there is a simple and convincing answer to all of his hesitation: he is seeing these events in the wrong context. This is about the long struggle between modern civilization and a cruel, barbarous force that wants to destroy it, not about George Bush’s Iraq war. It may be true that Obama¹s premature exit from Iraq led to what ISIS is now doing, but that doesn’t matter. All that matters is that a hitherto elusive enemy is suddenly out in the open on the battlefield.
Obama obviously senses that something is wrong with his stance, and so he commits air power to attack ISIS, all the while claiming that this is only for humanitarian reasons, or for protection of the few Americans who are in the area. And yet it’s clear that he hopes his limited moves will stop ISIS without having to admit that this was his real goal. But in so critical a situation we can't afford self-deception. It is in our national interest to destroy this first organized trans-national jihadi army, and that means bringing  all the resources that we have to the task immediately.

At this moment, there are sane, not to mention deeply alarmed, people in Washington trying to convince the MEC to do what is necessary.  This is a moment of real testing.  Is the guy so headstrong in his insistence that "getting out of Iraq" be his legacy that he'll squander the chance to put a stop to the peril that this nation is in?

A top comandante in the Most Equal Comrade's junta finds a way to combine two of the Left's fave bogus causes

Those would be "carbon emissions" and ""justice for communities of color," and the comandante in question would be the EPA's Gina McCarthy:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed global warming regulations aren’t just about stemming global temperature rises — according to agency’s chief, they are also about “justice” for “communities of color.”
“Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a teleconference call with environmental activists. “If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.”
McCarthy is referring to the EPA’s proposed rule that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The agency says the rule will not only help fight global warming, but will also improve public health as coal-fired power plants are shuttered. McCarthy, however, put special emphasis on how the rule would reduce asthma rates, which affect African-American children.
“Asthma disproportionately affects African-American kids,” McCarthy added. “In just the first year these standards go into effect, we’ll avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks — and those numbers go up from there.”

Need a little background on the group putting on the teleconference call?  Here 'tis:

The teleconference was hosted by the environmental group Green For All. The group bills itself as an outreach organization seeking to educate “communities of color” about fighting global warming. But Green For All also describes itself as “radical enough to push a deeply justice-based agenda.”
“Green For All acknowledges the need to disrupt the current economy, because we understand that our current economy was based upon human trafficking, the exploitation of labor, and violent racism,” according to the group’s website. “We are safe enough to be invited into spaces where power-building groups are not, and radical enough to push a deeply justice-based agenda in those spaces. We are radical enough to partner with grassroots organizations when other national groups are turned away, and enough of an ally to offer resources and support in those spaces.”

Your tax dollars pay the salary of this jackboot who is cool with speaking to such a dog-vomit group.

"Need to disrupt the current economy."  Let that sink in for a while.

Many in Israel are not convinced the ceasefire is a good deal

Haviv Rettig Gur at the Times of Israel says that Netanyahu's popularity has taken a beating, and it's not because folks became war-weary, but rather because the IDF did not once and for all wipe Hamas out:

. . . his critics span the political spectrum. His most vocal critics are not in the opposition, but sit in his inner security cabinet – with Economy Minister Naftali Bennett slamming the prime minister’s ceasefire talks in Egypt as “negotiating with terrorists,” even as Bennett’s Jewish Home party saw its popularity rise by 50%, from 12 seats in the current Knesset to the equivalent of 18 seats in wartime opinion polls.
The day after the ceasefire, critics castigated the conduct of the operation from both sides. “In the next round, we must win,” insisted Jewish Home MK Yoni Chetboun.
“Quiet is always preferable to fire, but for God’s sake, we went through all this just to get back to the understandings from [2012’s Operation] Pillar of Defense?” lamented Labor whip Eitan Cabel.

He analyzes Bibi's reasons for putting this round in the history books:

Netanyahu did not set out on July 8 to uproot Hamas – for two reasons. First, he believes time is on Israel’s side. Hamas is mismanaging Gaza into economic and political oblivion (even those who blame Gaza’s dire condition squarely on Israel have trouble defending Hamas’s decision to drag Gaza’s economy and last open border into the Egyptian civil war, leading to the huge blow caused by the shuttering of that border over the past year). Hamas’s permanent belligerency also forms Exhibit A in Netanyahu’s explanations to the West as to why his security demands in the West Bank are so high.
Second, according to sources familiar with his thinking, Netanyahu believes, as do the IDF chief of staff, the defense minister and others in the Israeli security establishment, that the cost of the sort of military reconquest of Gaza required to root out Hamas is too high to be worthwhile. The IDF believes it could take years to “pacify” such a crowded, politically hostile territory, at the cost of hundreds of IDF dead and untold thousands of Palestinian dead, massive international opprobrium, and vast drains on the IDF’s manpower and financial resources that could limit its operational flexibility on other dangerous fronts, especially Syria-Lebanon and Iran.
Still, there is the matter of citizens' anticipation of final victory:

Netanyahu’s strategy has much to commend it. It recognizes and addresses the challenges posed by terrorism and irregular conflict – the civilian toll, the political traps, the importance of the psychological battlefield.
But it may suffer from one overwhelming flaw: in the minds of Israelis, it doesn’t look like war. It is hard to explain to millions of Israeli voters under rocket fire, to the families of dead children and dead soldiers, to a nation that expects decisive action from its leaders in wartime, why an enemy as derided and detested in the Israeli mind as Hamas can sustain rocket fire on a country as powerful as Israel for 50 days.
This gap is starting to have political consequences for Netanyahu. The growing chorus of critics, and the plummeting of Netanyahu’s approval rating, show the extent of the disparity between the government’s Gaza strategy and the nation’s expectations.

If there is a solid upside to the way this chapter is being concluded, it is that al-Sisi-era Egypt, a regime that seems to have a fairly decent head on its shoulders, has emerged as once again the power to be reckoned with in the eastern Mediterranean.  And Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, surely largely motivated by the undiminished strategic threat from Iran, is calling for the Islamic world to recognize Israel.  

So the Middle East's lone Western nation may enjoy more parties having its back than it has had in some time.  Not a bad situation to be in, given that Iran and its proxies still loom large, and that the alliance with post-America is pretty much worthless.

The Most Equal Comrade, our Constitution-shredder-in-chief

Quite clearly this blog is not the only outlet in the world to notice what a state of chaos and peril the world is in.  So many front-burner issues that we'd better get right, or it's grim times ahead.

So what is the MEC regime preoccupying itself with at the moment?  Yet another push at an international pow-wow to address "climate change" and make everybody reduce carbon emissions.

Wait?  Wouldn't that require a Congressionally ratified treaty?

Not in post-America:

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
 To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.

Those who push this hooey readily admit it's not Constitutional:

“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.

Oh, that it were politically feasible to impeach this guy.  The grounds for it proliferate by the hour.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

American education is a sewer of indoctrination - today's edition

Get your kids away from this poisonous system pronto:

The College Board, the private company that produces the SAT test and the various Advanced Placement exams, is effectively requiring that AP U.S. History be taught from a hard-left perspective. It is doing so through a newly-issued “Framework” for its AP U.S. History exam. I warned of this development here.
Stanley Kurtz provides the back story. He points out that the co-chairs of the committee that redesigned the AP U.S. History Framework, Suzanne Sinke and Ted Dickson, worked closely together on a project whose goal was to reshape the U.S. History Survey Course along the lines recommended by Thomas Bender and the La Pietra Report.
Bender, a history professor at NYU, is (in Kurtz’s words) “the leading spokesman for the movement to internationalize the U.S. History curriculum at every educational level.” He is also a leading critic of “American exceptionalism,” which celebrates America as a model, vindicator, and at times the chief defender of ordered liberty and self-government in the world.
By contrast, Bender views America as (in his words) just “a province among the provinces that make up the world.” It is this view (and worse) that he has successfully urged the College Board to coerce high schools into teaching to our nation’s best young history students.
The La Pietra Report was the fruit of a project to create an internationalized U.S. history curriculum. Kurtz says that approximately one-third of the participants who forged the new curriculum were non-Americans. One of them was Cuban.
The co-chairs of the committee that redesigned the AP U.S. History Framework are also enthusiasts of the “internationalization” of U.S. history and enemies of American exceptionalism. According to Kurtz, Dickson was an original member of the joint panel seeking to advance the goals of the La Pietra Report.

Keep the name Lawrence Charap ensconced in your memory bank:

Lawrence Charap, the College Board’s AP Curriculum and Content Development Director who was in overall charge of the AP U.S. History redesign process, also holds the United States in low esteem. Kurtz notes that he contributed a piece on American cultural imperialism toAmerica on the World Stage: A Global Approach to U.S. History:
Charap’s essay highlights America’s commercial advertisements and anti-Soviet propaganda efforts in the Middle East during the Cold War. Charap seeks out off-putting examples of American propaganda and then suggests that students to put themselves in the places of people in the Soviet block or developing world as they respond to the American presence.
This, indeed, is teaching students to see their country through the eyes of its alleged “victims” and enemies.
And for Charap, our “victims” include the people in Central and Eastern Europe who were oppressed by the Soviet Union. This narrative goes beyond denying American exceptionalism. It is squarely anti-American.

This is what your kids will be subjected to if they get placed in AP history classes. AP, what "serious" students aspire to, because it's where you "seriously" immerse yourself in the subject matter.

Between the jihadists and the declinists, it looks like awfully grey on the horizon.

Here's a foreign-policy head-scratcher for ya

Why is the post-American State Department criticizing Egypt and the UAE for teaming up to conduct air strikes against the Islamist militia that has taken over Tripoli and much of Libya?

Jen Psaki says it's an interference in Libya's "democratic transition."  Huh?  Neither word in that stunner of a phrase depicts present-day Libya.

Excuse me, but they're doing pretty much what we've commenced doing against the IS caliphate a few miles to the northeast.

 Tripoli isn’t beingliberated by democrats, but captured by radical Islamists who will impose another dictatorship on the ancient city.
That’s the outcome that Egypt and the UAE want to prevent, and that’s especially important to Egypt. Sisi’s military government has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of these radical terrorist networks, after Mohamed Morsi tried to impose a shari’a state on Egypt after an election. They want the secular militias to emerge as the controlling clique instead. That may not sound palatable to the Obama administration — but that’s precisely the outcome that the administration favored in Syria, and the strategy which it’s attempting to follow there now after the rise of ISIS.
To call this finger-wagging incoherent is an exercise in understatement. It’s difficult to know what “democratic transition” this administration believes is in process in Libya, because it exists only in their fantasy world where their foreign policy has enjoyed the entirety of its success.

Just what we need: an alienated al-Sisi regime in Egypt.  Post-America is running out of allies, let alone friends, at a rate I've never seen.

The American Legion wasn't digging the Most Equal Comrade

Received with something less than adulation at the group's national convention in Charlotte:

After the customary introductions and thank-yous to dignitaries, Obama spoke for nearly eight full minutes on Tuesday without a single clap.
He touted his foreign policy bona fides, boasting that 'even countries that criticize us – when the chips are down and they need help, they know who to call. They call us. That's what American leadership looks like.'
'Sustaining our leadership, keeping America strong and secure, means we have to use our power wisely,' Obama cautioned, in keeping with his slow approach to battling ISIS and other terror groups overseas.
'History teaches us of the dangers of overreaching and spreading ourselves too thin, and trying to go it alone without international support, or rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences.'

'You know that we should never send America's sons and daughters into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary and we have a plan and we are resourcing it and prepared to see it through.'Tepid clapping followed pregnant seconds of emptiness.'We removed more than 140,000 troops from Iraq and welcomed those troops home. It was the right thing to do.'Nothing. Obama couldn't muster sustained applause for a declaration that 'in just four months we will complete our combat mission in Afghanistan and America's longest war will come to a responsible end.'Not even when he paused to honor 'every American who served to make this progress possible, every single one, especially the more than 2,200 American patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan to keep us safe.'

Apparently, the crowd did express some enthusiasm when he vowed to get to the bottom of the VA scandal.

Not exactly an SEIU-type bunch.

Friends, allies, and tactical partners

One favorite tactic of lefties seeking to discredit the beginnings of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is to hearken back to the Reagan era and cite aid to the mujahedeen, who became the Taliban, and providing weapons to the Baathist regime led by Saddam Hussein during Iraq's war with Iran.

The basic principle that counters such a line of argument is that the moments comprising history often make for alliances borne out of urgency.  The case in point I've generally employed is the alliance of Churchill and Roosevelt with Joseph Stalin.

But we're seeing it again now.  If we engage in any kind of military mission - surveillance flights, air strikes - in Syria against the Islamic State, we are de facto on the side of Assad, who was in disfavor with the Most Equal Comrade and Secretary Global-Test scant months ago (which was after Global-Test had been dinner buddies with Assad at the presidential palace in Damascus).  We have a stake in his prevailing over IS.  (There just isn't an adequate "moderate rebel" faction to get behind.)

My only point here is to say to those who bring up the "well-we-aided-the-guys-who-later-became-our-enemies" line, "Oh, knock it off.  Put on the big-boy pants and live in the real world."

As I say, there was a time when Assad was considered by libbos to be the least-bad-and-actually-kind-of-intriquing dictator in the Middle East. Ophthalmologist with a fashionable wife.  Spread in Vogue.  Visits by Global-Test and Pelosi.

Does that mean that if post-America can get someone into the office of president who is actually a serious human being, we wouldn't want to get firm big-time with Assad if the IS can be rolled back?  Probably, depending on all other circumstances of such a time.

But it's about strategic objectives, national interests, and, indeed, standing for principles - in this case, the principle that it's not okay for a fanatical army-state to behead, crucify and enslave its way across the territory of two sovereign nations.

But it's not about wearing badges for the sake of preening.  In this world, friends are few and far between, so you sometimes pick your allies on a least-bad-option basis, and you don't make too much of it.  It ain't no kumbaya moment.

"Too onerous," doncha know

That's the excuse the IRS is giving regarding Lois Lerner's e-mails now that it's been ascertained that they're not lost.

Thanks to a determined federal judge, the country learns that all government emails are preserved in a doomsday kind of database. Lerner's emails never were lost.
But here's the kicker: According to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan on Friday that "this back-up system would be too onerous to search." Yes, too onerous.
"This is a jaw-dropping revelation. The Obama administration had been lying to the American people about Lois Lerner’s missing emails," Fitton added.
"There are no 'missing' Lois Lerner emails – nor missing emails of any of the other top IRS or other government officials whose emails seem to be disappearing at increasingly alarming rate," he said.
Cough 'em up, you Freedom-Hating thieves.

Why we call them Freedom-Haters - today's edition

By now you've heard about Burger King buying the Canadian fast-food chain Tim Horton's, Inc., mainly so it can move its headquarters to Canada and pay a lower tax rate. Pretty much Econ 101: capital flows to where it can best flourish.

Well, Ohio FHer Senator Sherrod Brown feels that this is something to publicly speak out about.  He calls for a boycott of Burger King, getting into all that Elizabeth Warren-type crud about taxpayers funding the infrastructure that made BK's success possible.

For exposing  this "argument" for the totalitarian dog vomit that it is, I cede the floor to Thomas Sowell:

People who run businesses are benefiting from things paid for by others? Since when are people in business, or high-income earners in general, exempt from paying taxes like everybody else?
At a time when a small fraction of high-income taxpayers pay the vast majority of all the taxes collected, it is sheer chutzpah to depict high-income earners as somehow subsidized by “the rest of us,” whether through paying for the building of roads or the educating of the young.
Since everybody else uses the roads and the schools, why should high achievers be expected to feel like freeloaders who owe still more to the government, because schools and roads are among the things that facilitate their work? According to Elizabeth Warren, it’s because it is part of an “underlying social contract.”
Conjuring up some mythical agreement that nobody saw, much less signed, is an old ploy of the Left — one that goes back at least a century, when Herbert Croly, the first editor of The New Republic magazine, wrote a book titled “The Promise of American Life.”
Whatever policy Herbert Croly happened to favor was magically transformed by rhetoric into a “promise” that American society was supposed to have made — and, implicitly, that American taxpayers should be forced to pay for. This pious hokum was so successful politically that all sorts of “social contracts” began to appear magically in the rhetoric of the Left.
If talking in this mystical way is enough to give you control of billions of the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars, why not?

It's going to be a daunting task indeed to disabuse the post-American public of the notion that "it" in some kind of collective sense is entitled to the money of individual people and organizations.

Monday, August 25, 2014

The Most Equal Comrade and the H-Word Creature both get mark-leaving smackin's from a fellow Dem

Jim Webb has some choice words for the architects of our current disaster:

As Obama considers enacting amnesty "by the end of summer," Webb, the former Virginia Senator, blasted Obama's extensive use of executive actions to labor leaders, reportedly saying that Obama "has gone way too far away from the legislative branch." 
"It certainly is outside all precedent, and the Congress should have stepped in," Webb later said, according to the Associated Press.
Iowa reporters also asked Webb about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, and Webb said that "there's time to have that discussion later." He then said the "actions in the Arab Spring were probably detrimental" and indicated that he needed more time than the 25-minute program allowed to criticize Clinton's foreign policy failures.
"It would probably take up the whole show," he said on Iowa Press.

Said this stuff in Iowa.  Interesting.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

And now, for a couple of developments that transpired as you were enjoying your Sunday

It's not just the international airport at Tripoli that has fallen under jihadist control, but Libya's entire capital city.

And a major Syrian air base - the last government-held outpost in IS-controlled territory - has fallen to IS.

Oh, and here's a tidbit to cap off your digesting of the above developments:

According to a new Sunday Times report by Toby Harden,"Pentagon sources said Foley and the others might well have been rescued but Obama, concerned about the ramifications of US troops being killed or captured in Syria, took too long to authorise the mission."

It's claimed that Obama was concerned about his administration being Carterizedhad the mission failed. 
For President Barack Obama the decision to send in the Night Stalkers was an agonising one. The audacious bin Laden raid in Pakistan had been a success but also preying on his mind was the failed 1980 Delta Force operation to rescue American hostages in Tehran. Sandstorms and mechanical troubles led the mission to be abandoned and eight American troops were killed when two aircraft collided. The debacle cast a shadow over Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
However, it also seems worth noting that the eventual timing of the mission may have made for a nice July 4th weekend announcement for Obama had the mission succeeded. Instead, Obama played golf on July 5th, as well as an additional six times in the month he is said to have spent agonizing over his decision, the delay of which may have cost journalist Foley his life.
Anthony Shaffer, a former lieutenant-colonel in US military intelligence who worked on covert operations, said: “I’m told it was almost a 30-day delay from when they said they wanted to go to when he finally gave the green light. They were ready to go in June to grab the guy [Foley] and they weren’t permitted.”
Just wow.

More exposure of climate "science" funny business

Seems the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has some 'splainin' to do:

THE Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.
Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.
After a description of some of the problems, the BOM responds to explain the adjustments. Most of it the usual argument from authority, and handwaving about how they are experts and a very complicated technique (that produces odd results) is “likely” right:
“‘BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
There’s a suggestion that the changes don’t matter much:
‘It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
Except we know from Ken’s work (and many others in the informal BOM audit team) that the homogenization and adjustments do affect the trends – pushing minima trends of over 100 stations up by nearly 50% compared to the raw data.
‘”In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
‘Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
‘Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
Translated: We are careful people, “trust us”
Despite Amberley being a good station (as far as anyone can figure) it was adjusted to fit “neighbours” hundreds of kilometers away:
‘BOM said the adjustment to the minimums at Amberley was identified through “neighbour comparisons”. 

Those wily truth-haters, it requires eternal vigilance to stay on top of what they're up to.

Clown time is over

Been thinking about four recent remarks by public figures.

There's SecDef Hagel's remark that the Islamic State is "beyond anything we've seen" and that we must "get ready."

There's former deputy CIA director Mike Morrell's remark that "if an ISIS member showed up at a mall in the United States tomorrow with an AK-47 and killed a number of Americans, I would not be surprised.”

There's Senator Inhofe's remark that "they're developing the method of blowing up a major US city, and people can't believe that's happening."

There's retired Lt. General McInerney's remark that this country needs to be on DEFCON 1 alert level.

Yikes.  That's imminent-nuclear-attack level.

These four individuals represent varying degrees of alignment with my overall outlook on public policy and the world generally.  But none are considered any kind of beyond-the-pale wack jobs.  These four disparate figures are not just trying to generate buzz and make their brands more visible.

The fact that someone like Hagel, whose recent past includes such demonstrations of cluelessness as pushing to reduce our military strength to a 1940 level, seeks to convey his message with maximum urgency means that the situation has his full attention.  He and the others have seen something that alarms the hell out of them.

Are there any reports of how the Most Equal Comrade has spent his day?  That's not usually among my top ten concerns in life, but it's real important at the moment.  Maybe we'll hear that he's been hunkered down with Hagel as well as his national security advisor, the head of the CIA, Chairman Dempsey, and, I suppose, since it was a bureaucracy created for such times, although, like all gummint bureaucracies, it has become bloated and rather worthless, the top folks at DHS.  Hell, for what it's worth, Global-Test ought to be there, too.

It would really bolster my outlook to hear that such is the case.

And if I hear he's been on the damn golf course again, my disgust level will rise substantially.

Anti-Assad coalition in Syria lays blame for IS rise on the Most Equal Comrade

They say the red line thing sealed the deal:

Mohammed Qaddah, vice president of the Syrian Coalition, said that the terrorist attack on the United States did not begin with the murder of journalist James Foley, as was stated by deputy national security advisor to the White House Ben Rhodes,” the statement began.
Qaddah put the blame on Washington. “Rather, the terrorist attack against not only the United States but against all humanity began with the Assad regime’s murder of the Syrian people amid an unprecedented silence by the international community,” he said.
The United States bears much of the responsibility for this horrible crime when it did not react to the Assad regime’s repeated crossing of the red lines it had drawn and warned against crossing. Therefore it is now imperative for of us to realize that the silence towards the wholesale killings and state terrorism committed anywhere in the world which has produced ISIS and other extremist groups is a real indicator of the expansion of extremism not only to the rest of the region but the entire world. From the very beginning we have many times warned the international community that Assad seeks to carry out its threat and set the region ablaze in case popular uprising against his rule.
The statement goes on to note the many times in which the world was warned that growing instability in Syria would lead to regional violence. The Syrian opposition did, however, express great grief for the United States over Foley’s murder.
“James Foley was also one of our sons, and our grief over his murder was not less than that of the United States,” the statement read. “This horrendous crime is a terrorist attack not only on the Unites States, but also on Syria, the whole region and humanity in general.”
At a time when it seems like Obama will be forced to finally undertake military action inside Syria, although with muddled objectives and conditions on the ground far less favorable than they were a year ago, it seems imprudent of the Syrian Coalition to be antagonizing the president. That being said, if I were engaged in a more than three-year-old civil war characterized by the use of weapons of mass destruction in which nearly 200,000 had died and is only now going to be subject to foreign intervention after an American journalist was gruesomely beheaded, I would be understandably churlish, too.

One more force on the world stage that has no respect for the MEC.  We're in a pickle, folks.