PowerLine -> Apple Funds Left-Wing Hate Group

Powerline John Hinderaker at HoaxAndChange

PowerLine -> Apple Funds Left-Wing Hate Group

Daily Digest

  • Apple Funds Left-Wing Hate Group
  • Cut Down the Jungles!
  • Statue of Lincoln Defaced In Chicago
  • Gore: The Gift That Keeps on Giving
  • Who toppled that statue in Durham?
Apple Funds Left-Wing Hate Group

Posted: 17 Aug 2017 06:02 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

I suppose this is a dog-bites-man story, given the crazy politics of Silicon Valley. But the Associated Press reports that Apple’s CEO Tim Cook, a politically ignorant lefty, has pledged $2 million “to help lead the fight against the hate that fueled the violence in Virginia during a white-nationalist rally last weekend.”

So is Apple coming out against Antifa? Just kidding:

Cook also told Apple employees in the memo that he strongly disagrees with President Donald Trump’s attempts to draw comparisons between the actions of the white nationalists and protesters opposing them.

Like so many others, Cook misrepresents what President Trump has said. Maybe he did it intentionally, or maybe he was relying on pundits, including a number of conservatives, who have shamefully misrepresented Trump’s words. Trump said that white nationalists and violent Antifa thugs–not “protesters,” who Trump said were “fine people”–both bore responsibility for violence in Charlottesville. I don’t know how anyone who has seen the videos of those events can dispute the truth of that assertion.

Apple is giving $1 million apiece to Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. It will also match employee donations to those two groups and other human rights organizations on a two-for-one basis.

As has been documented many times, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a left-wing hate group that has blood on its hands. I don’t know whether Cook shares SPLC’s hateful agenda, or whether he is just a naive stooge. Either way, Apple has aligned itself with some very bad actors. And either way, it is time to sell my Apple stock.


Cut Down the Jungles!

Posted: 17 Aug 2017 02:54 PM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

I sometimes like to muse that nearly all the trouble and confusion of the modern era comes from the obfuscations of nomenclature. Actually I think I heard George Carlin explains this first, but it goes something like this: it used to be swamps were for draining, until we started calling them wetlands, and now they are sacred—and don’t you even think of draining a wetland! We used to throw our garbage into the dump, but now we call them landfills. And the “jungle” became a tropical rain forest, which is romanticized more than a Lifetime movie on steroids.

Well, maybe we should go back to calling them jungles, because as Nature news explains this week:

The monster El Niño weather pattern of 2014–16 caused tropical forests to burp up 3 billion tonnes of carbon, according to a new analysis. That’s equivalent to nearly 20% of the emissions produced during the same period by burning fossil fuels and making cement. . . The overall jump in emissions from tropical forests was roughly three times the annual average carbon output from deforestation and land-use change globally between 2006 and 2015.

Wait! I thought deadly greenhouse gas emissions only came from evil tailpipes and smokestacks? Maybe we should just chop down the jungles rain forests so they don’t choke us!


Statue of Lincoln Defaced In Chicago

Posted: 17 Aug 2017 02:11 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

The people who are tearing down statues of Confederates in the South are barbarians, not notably different from the Taliban fanatics who blow up Buddhas and other historical monuments. Many have noted that if the barbarians want to erase Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis today, it is only a matter of time before they come for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

We can add Abraham Lincoln to that list. Last night, a bust of Lincoln in Chicago was vandalized, apparently as a political act:

Abraham Lincoln has joined George Washington on the list of those targeted by Chicagoans in a national debate over Civil War-era monuments.

Alderman Raymond Lopez took to Facebook Wednesday night to decry a defaced statue of the nation’s 16th president in the Englewood neighborhood. The giant bust appears to have been damaged after someone in the 15th Ward sprayed and ignited a flammable liquid.

Alderman Lopez called on residents to contact the police with any information about the vandalism. His request did not meet with universal approval:

“F- Abe Lincoln,” responded Quintin Mitchell, whose comment was “liked” or deemed “funny” by 160 others.

These are not good people. There is, of course, no coherent theory on which the Left should try to erase Lincoln from our history, but so what? From a Communist’s point of view (or a nihilist’s) there is no important difference between Jefferson Davis, John Calhoun, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Our civilization is under siege, and meanwhile, many conservative intellectuals can’t think about anything other than new ways to attack President Trump.


Gore: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Posted: 17 Aug 2017 10:55 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

Almost ten years ago, not long after Al Gore’s first entry into the slasher/horror film genre (An Inconvenient Truth), I had occasion to ask a straight-shooting “mainstream” climate scientist I know slightly what he thought of Gore’s film. I was fishing to see whether he’d comment on some of the more obvious howlers that Gore included in the film, but instead, after a long pause he said, “I wish he’d made the film with John McCain.” In other words, Gore should have tried to make it a bipartisan effort. McCain is the perfect person and is so vain that he surely would have done it. He had, at that point, sponsored two greenhouse gas emissions-trading bills with Democratic senators, and also a bill with John Kerry to mandate much higher mileage standards in the American car fleet (22 Senate Democrats voted against that proposal, incidentally).

Now that Gore is out with a sequel (that is bombing at the box office, so there probably won’t be a sequel Oscar in Gore’s future), it is worth taking in the reflections of two young political scientists at the University of British Columbia who conclude that Gore’s efforts on behalf of climate change have only succeeded in polarizing the issue, and set back the cause of climate action.

An Inconvenient Truth about ‘An Inconvenient Truth’” has some interesting findings that run counter to the slogans of the climatistas:

However, 11 years after its release, there is also evidence that it might have had an unintended consequence: serving as a catalyst in the polarization of American public opinion on climate change.

We have studied in detail how the media covered the issue of climate change since the 1980s and how it may have played a role in polarizing the American public. The commonly observed pattern is that public opinion tends to follow, rather than lead, debate among political elites. . .

What we found is a nuanced story that sheds considerable light on why the public polarized on climate change. First, politicians became increasingly common in coverage, politicizing the issue as it grew in importance. As a result, the public has been exposed to a growing number of messages about climate change from party elites.

Second, When one side’s messages are clear and the other side’s are muddled, as was the case here, it’s plausible that Republican voters took their cues from Democrats. This should not be surprising. In an age of affective polarization where Republicans and Democrats each increasingly dislike the other, it makes sense that Republicans may have taken an oppositional stance on climate change, at least partly, in response to signals from Democratic elites.Democratic messages have been more common in news coverage, and, unsurprisingly, consistent in a pro-climate direction. Meanwhile, Republican messages have been fewer in number, and, until the Obama presidency, ambiguous in direction. Contrary to conventional wisdom, only a small fraction of Republican messages on climate change explicitly denied the scientific consensus on climate change.

When one side’s messages are clear and the other side’s are muddled, as was the case here, it’s plausible that Republican voters took their cues from Democrats. This should not be surprising. In an age of affective polarization where Republicans and Democrats each increasingly dislike the other, it makes sense that Republicans may have taken an oppositional stance on climate change, at least partly, in response to signals from Democratic elites.

A couple of observations. First, what this study suggests is that Al Gore is the best friend climate skeptics ever had. Here’s to hoping Gore makes many more sequels to An Inconvenient Truth. With enemies like him, who needs enemies? Second, the first bolded sentence above—”Democratic messages have been more common in news coverage”—should not surprise us in the least, since the media is the echo chamber of the Democratic Party and most environmental “reporters” are just stenographers for activist group talking points. But in an age when public trust in the media is in free fall, how smart was this if you’re a sincere climate change worrier?

This passage from the story is especially interesting:

For example, Al Gore was featured in 48 per cent of climate change stories on Fox News in 2006 and in 57 per cent in 2007. There were explicit references to the movie in 28 per cent of the stories in 2006 and 17 per cent of the stories in 2007. On the other hand, a leading Republican climate change denier, Sen. Jim Inhofe, was not featured in a single story on Fox News in 2006 and in only one per cent of the stories in 2007.

The traditional media also focused heavily on Al Gore. In 2006 and 2007, the former U.S. vice-president was featured in 13 per cent and 17 per cent of news stories in the highest circulation newspapers in the United States, and in 16 per cent and 23 per cent of the network broadcasts.

In other words, if you tuned in to news about climate change in that time period, you were exposed to Al Gore and his message. And even though that message was unabashedly pro-climate and for strong climate action, it likely played a role in turning Republicans against that message, since to them, Gore was simply a Democratic politician they disliked.

In other words, the best way to stop climate action is to give Gore more air time. And memo to Hillary Clinton: please please please make a movie about climate change. It would probably kill off the issue once and for all.

Also this:


Who toppled that statue in Durham?

Posted: 17 Aug 2017 08:57 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

According to local reporting from North Carolina, members of the Workers World Party (WWP) toppled the memorial to Confederate soldiers in Durham. The group said it destroyed the statue hoping to “take down white supremacy.”

I see.

Takiyah Thompson, a member of the WWP who climbed to the top of the statue to tie a rope around its neck, declared: “The people decided to take matters into our own hands and remove the statue.” Dana Milbank has placed Thompson and her commie group squarely among “the rest of us,” so maybe they have cause to think they can act for “the people.”

But what is the WWP? It is a communist party that was founded in 1959. Apparently, it split off from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) because it thought the SWP didn’t sufficiently support Mao’s China and was wrong to condemn the Soviet invasion of Hungary. In other words, the SWP wasn’t viciously totalitarian enough to suit the WWP. Today, the WWP says it’s “dedicated to organizing and fighting for a socialist revolution in the United States and around the world.”

I’m going to risk never being able to convene an advisory council of the titans (or wimps, as I see them) of U.S. industry. I’m going to suggest a parallel between the tactics of the communist revolutionaries of the WWP and the racist Nazis of the “alt-right” Charlottesville rally.

Both are using the issue of monuments to Confederates to generate momentum for their extremism. The WWP wants to appeal to the many non-communists who oppose such monuments. The Nazis want to appeal to non-racists who don’t want these monuments removed.

It’s a standard tactic — one with which I’m personally familiar. As a student radical in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we always tried to exploit opposition to the Vietnam War as a means of attracting support for our radicalism. We would advertise our rallies as anti-war, but use them to preach anti-capitalism, in addition to the anti-war message. We considered opposition to the war as the gateway to overarching radicalism.

That’s why President Trump was probably right to say there were good people alongside the abominable Nazi protesters. I wasn’t in Charlottesville, but I have attended protests off and on for 54 years and, as just noted, have helped organize a few small ones.

The “alt-right” rally was billed as an attempt to unite the right — in other words, to bring in an array of folks united around the idea that the statue of Robert E. Lee shouldn’t be removed. It would shock me if the only people who were induced to attend were Nazis and other racists. That’s not how such protests work.


Leave a Reply