PowerLine -> Too Much Ice = Global Warming
PowerLine -> Too Much Ice = Global Warming
- Too Much Ice = Global Warming
- Speaking of turkeys
- Color Him Father
- St. Louis Cardinals stand up to LGBTQ activists
- Trump breaks campaign promise on “dreamers”
|Too Much Ice = Global Warming
Posted: 18 Jun 2017 10:44 AM PDT
The University of Manitoba has canceled its 2017 Arctic expedition because there is too much ice to execute the mission safely. The U of M headlines: “Large Canadian Arctic climate change study canceled due to climate change.”
The repeated insistence that large and dangerous quantities of sea ice are the result of “climate change” is humorous. It’s climate change, damn it!
No matter what happens, it is “climate change driven.”
The shrillness borders on hysteria, which is pretty much what we are getting 24/7 from the global warming lobby.
|Speaking of turkeys
Posted: 18 Jun 2017 08:47 AM PDT
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar begs to disagree with President Trump’s modest curtailment of Obama’s normalization of relations with Cuba’s Communist regime. CNN gives Klobuchar’s column the jarring headline “Trump, we need Cuba’s business.”
I don’t think Senator Klobuchar would ever address the president as “Trump.” I seriously doubt that the form of address was supplied by her for the headline. It’s just not her way. I also don’t think we “need” Cuba’s business.
Klobuchar’s column is a throwback of sorts. It harks back to the American capitalists’ ardor to do deals with the Soviet Union. It is the ardor that supposedly inspired Lenin’s aphorism “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them.”
The implication that President Trump somehow erred by curtailing any of our business with the Cuban regime is the theme of her column: “Doing business with Cuba is good for America. It’s that simple. American business owners get it.”
She strikes a local note in her first example: “Take the turkey growers from my home state who are hopeful that income growth among Cubans will lead to higher demand for American poultry. Or the farmers throughout the Midwest who want to export their crops to Cuba.”
Klobuchar argues: “Nationwide, American businesses export about $300 million in agricultural products to Cuba each year– and that’s just for humanitarian purposes. If the trade embargo were lifted, the US Department of Agriculture believes that number would be more than three times as much.” Klobuchar doesn’t link to any source that supports the Department of Agriculture estimate, but she concedes that Minnesota farmers already export turkey to Cuba.
I don’t want to get lost in the weeds, but let’s pause here for a moment. Minnesota is ranked number one in the United States for turkey production. If you seek turkeys, Minnesotans, look around.
According to Minnesota Turkey Industrial Facts (dated November 2014), only five percent of Minnesota’s turkey production is exported to international markets. The top five export markets for the United States turkey meat are given as Mexico, Canada, Hong Kong, Russia and South Korea. Klobuchar to the contrary notwithstanding, I doubt the great impact on Minnesota’s turkey industry of any change in American policy toward Cuba.
Klobuchar’s column is presented as a dissent from Trump’s policy, but it appears to me that this is highly misleading. Klobuchar disagrees with the United States embargo of Cuba. The embargo remains the law of the land. Klobuchar seeks its repeal.
Klobuchar nowhere acknowledges how Communism has turned Cuba into a slave state or impoverished the island, rendering the Cuban economy a pitiful wreck. In its 2017 Index of Economic Freedom the Heritage Foundation notes, for example: “In the absence of significant future oil subsidies from nearly bankrupt Venezuela, Cuba’s dysfunctional economy is even more dependent on external assistance such as remittances from Cuban émigrés.”
Klobuchar presents herself as a forceful advocate of American economic interests, putting all other considerations to one side. She doesn’t acknowledge that the Castro regime is an enemy of the United States or mention that the Castro regime has provided refuge to American fugitives such as Joanne Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur), whom President Trump called out in his remarks in Miami on Friday.
I had forgotten about Chesimard until I read Bryan Burrough’s riveting Days of Rage when it was published two years ago. Chesimard was a member and leader of the cop-killing Black Liberation Army. Burrough quotes others who characterize her as the group’s “heart and soul.” In 1973 she participated in a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike in which Trooper Werner Foerster was murdered and Trooper James Harper seriously injured. In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout.
Chesimard escaped from prison in New Jersey and has been on the lam since 1979. She is believed to be holed up in Havana, in the sheltering arms of the Communists who run the asylum and the asylum operation. In 2013 the FBI made Chesimard the first woman to be named to the Most Wanted Terrorist list. She has had a substantial reward out on her capture for several years. It’s too bad Klobuchar couldn’t find room for any mention of Chesimard in her column.
|Color Him Father
Posted: 18 Jun 2017 05:54 AM PDT
I wrote this on Father’s Day a few years ago. It is a post that rung a bell for at least a few readers. I am taking the liberty of reposting it today in honor of the day.
My father was a thoughtful man in his own way. In the last years of his life, he recited for me the things for which he was most grateful. In retrospect, I can see he thought about gratitude a lot.
He listed the three things he was most grateful for in this order: 1) that his grandfather didn’t miss the boat from Russia to the United States, 2) that when his grandfather arrived in New York he kept on until he reached Minnesota (this although my father loved New York), and 3) that his father was born before he was. The last was his way of acknowledging his debt to his father. I join him today in all three thoughts.
I started thinking about my father and this Father’s Day when I heard the old Winstons’ single “Color Him Father” on the radio last week. I learn from the Allmusic Guide entry on them that the Winstons were a Washington, D.C.-based soul act led by Richard Spencer. Spencer was born in North Carolina, where he received some formal training on the piano.
In 1969 the Winstons hit it big with “Color Him Father.” The single was a top ten R&B and pop hit. Spencer wrote the song and won a Grammy for it.
The father depicted in the song sets a good example for his seven kids. He works hard to support his family. He emphasizes the importance of education. He also has a big heart for the kids. As if that were not enough, Spencer loads an O. Henry twist into the last verse: the man is the kids’ stepfather. Their father was killed in the war.
I wonder if the father in Spencer’s life resembled the man in the song. Spencer followed one of the that man’s precepts, taking time out from show business to pursue his education in 1979. (First posted in 2010.)
|St. Louis Cardinals stand up to LGBTQ activists
Posted: 17 Jun 2017 09:54 PM PDT
For nearly three decades, the St. Louis Cardinals have held a yearly event called “Christian Day.” The team calls this a reflection of its commitment “to bringing like-minded groups together to share in the unifying experience of Cardinals baseball.” The same commitment manifests itself in Jewish Community Night, Catholic Family Night, Bosnian Heritage Night, Fiesta Cardenales (heavy on cultural appropriation, I hope), etc. And this year the Cardinals are scheduled to host their first “Pride Night” for members of the LGBT Community.
The guest speaker for Christian Day is former Cardinals star Lance Berkman, a strongly committed Christian. A few years ago, Berkman spoke out against a Houston city ordinance that would allow transgender people access to bathrooms opposite their biological gender.
Berkman’s selection drew an outcry from the LGBTQ community. An organization called St. Louis Pride said it was “disappointed by the decision of the St. Louis Cardinals to provide a public platform for Berkman, an individual whose words and actions towards the LGBTQ+ are divisive and demeaning.”
The Cardinals are sticking to their guns, however. And they should.
Berkman’s words are no more divisive than the push to have boys (biologically speaking) shower with girls. Indeed, it can be argued that they are less divisive since it is the LGBTQ activists who are trying to change radically longstanding rules for who goes to the bathroom and showers there. That’s the origin of the “division.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the LGBTQ activists’ position is wrong — division is often okay. It means they are using weasel words — “divisive” and “demeaning” — to game the debate and disguise their radicalism.
That’s their prerogative. But I’m glad that the baseball team isn’t buying it. Berkman is a former Cardinal and a strong Christian. This makes him a good choice to speak on the Cards Christian Day.
However, I should add that if, during the event, Berkman speaks against “bathroom legislation,” the Cardinals should not object if, during “Pride Night,” someone speaks in favor of it. The best thing would be if the issue — hardly a momentous one — goes unaddressed on both occasions.
Via Joshua Gill at the Daily Caller.
|Trump breaks campaign promise on “dreamers”
Posted: 17 Jun 2017 07:22 PM PDT
I don’t think we have commented yet on President Trump’s decision to continue, for now, President Obama’s amnesty program (known as DACA) for illegal immigrants who came to the United States as small children.On Thursday evening, the Trump administration announced that the so-called Dreamers will still have legal status and be able to receive work permits, renewable every two years, assuming they satisfy certain minimal conditions.
On Friday, however, it stated that no final determination has been made as to whether this amnesty shall be permanent. The purpose of the Thursday announcement, the administration explained, was to clarify that immigrants enrolled in the DACA program would not immediately be affected by a separate action that officially ended a similar program — DAPA — for illegal immigrants whose children are citizens or legal permanent residents. The judiciary had blocked DAPA; Trump put it out of its misery.
Trump’s campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, he clearly sympathizes with “Dreamers” and wants them to have amnesty — or so it seems. By keeping open the possibility of ending DACA, though, he preserves his bargaining power — i.e., his ability, perhaps, to get something from Democrats in exchange for a final decision to retain DACA.
I’m opposed to DACA because it signals to potential illegal immigrants that their young children eventually might well receive amnesty, thus providing the parents with an additional incentive to come to the U.S. illegally. However, I understand that the “Dreamers” scarcely know any home other than America and sympathize with the humanitarian argument for permitting them to remain and work here.
Thus, I don’t strenuously object to DACA.
However, candidate Trump promised in no uncertain terms to end the program. He has not done so; nor has he agreed to do so in the future. Thus, those who strenuously object to DACA have a right to be upset, unless they took Trump “seriously,” rather than “literally.”