Don't Take The Bait: Climate Change Debate not Settled

Here's the bait: "Don't you believe the globe is warming?"

Implication: How you respond determines whether you're a "denier."

No room for nuance or complexity; no discussion about ramifications, solutions, priorities. Just the gavel and the judgment. Welcome to the brave new world state.

I refuse to take the bait. The globe may be warming, but questions of cause and effect, solutions and priorities are still wide open, in my view.

Here are two short videos that are worth considering, both posted on Prager University's website (I have a few words to say about Prager U following the videos).

The first video, "What They Haven't Told You About Climate Change," is presented by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore's focus has to do with the bigger picture of climate change, putting change over time in perspective and raising questions about man's contribution to global warming. Of course, Greenpeace has completely disassociated itself from Moore, including publishing a statement on its website denouncing Moore as a corporate sell-out. To which I say, What's new? Scientists who question the so-called settled science of climate change do so at their own professional risk, which is probably what accounts for the frequently cited but highly dubious statistic that 95% of scientists agree that climate change is a catastrophic problem.

The second video, "Is Climate Change our Biggest Problem?" is presented by economist Bjorn Lomborg, who is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg's work, too, has been subject to scrutiny and criticism, and he has been accused of flip-flopping (correcting?) previously-held views and conclusions. The video is useful, I think, in its pragmatism.

"What They Haven't Told You About Climate Change,"presented by Patrick Moore.



"Is Climate Change Our Biggest Problem?" presented by Bjorn Lomborg.




A few comments:

For those who were previously unfamiliar with it, Prager University is not an accredited university. Founded by conservative talk radio host and author Dennis Prager, the site offers professionally-created five-minute videos hosted by experts in a variety of fields. The site is free to visitors. More about their mission and vision here. 

I find Prager U to be a good resource as conversation starters or class-writing assignments. Obviously, most (if not all) of the topics can't addressed fully in 5-minute spots. It's up to visitors to do whatever further research or inquiry they wish. Indeed, if I had any "druthers" as to how Prager U might be improved, I would like to see "For Further Reading" sections listed for each topic presented. 

As for those who would dismiss the views of Moore and Lomborg because they've been denigrated by mainstream media and climate change alarmists as "deniers," I can only say, Don't buy it. I refer you to Kirsten Powers' recent book, The Silencing, which illustrates what she calls the "illiberal" left's tactics of silencing by intimidation. She writes about it here in The Daily Signal. You can read my mini-book review of her book in this June 3, 2015 blog entry here.

"Get up, Lad"

If Victor Davis Hanson is concerned about something, I take notice. Here he explains what he thinks is behind the rise of Trump and the importance of respecting, not dismissing, Trump's supporters. 

The Classicist, with Victor Davis Hanson: "The Trump Aftershock"

My take? Cause and effect. Donald Trump is the direct result of Barack Obama's presidency. For nearly eight years Obama has shown nothing but disdain for his critics, has mocked and caricatured his political opponents, has broken faith with those he promised to bring "hope" to, has circumvented procedure, violated protocol, wreaked havoc on the political process, exceeded his executive power and dared Congress to stop him, and, in my view, has been the mitigating factor behind the balkanization of our country. Nearly everything Obama touches has turned to ash, the opposite of the Midas touch. The man is a divider, not a uniter, yet he had the gall yesterday, in yet another pompous scolding, to call for "healing the nation's partisan discord" and "poisonous political climate."

Classic. He decries the poisonous political climate that he not only nurtured but masterfully exploited.

No surprise, then, as Professor Hanson concludes, the inevitable rise of a Donald Trump, who has charged in like a warrior on his steed, talking smack and promising to rout the bullies. "It's a jungle," he sneers. "But I'm from the jungle . . . I know the jungle. I'm your guy." 

And so the GOP implodes.

These candidates need to stop the circular firing squad and focus on their real political adversaries, which is actually what Marco Rubio was trying to do, albeit clumsily, that evening at the New Hampshire debate: keep the focus outward, onto Obama. Instead, he crumpled under Christie's withering belittling and ended up looking foolish.

As for Rubio, who thanks to the giddy media suffered serious damage at the New Hampshire primary, it's possible he can recover. After the debate mishap and then his clumsy post-debate handling of it afterwards (sticking to his guns, by golly), he seems to have gotten the memo. He spoke to his supporters after the NH vote and apologized, said he messed up ("it's on me"), and promised it wouldn't happen again.

Good for him, not blaming Christie. 

But . . . I'm pretty disgusted with Christie. I've liked him for so long, but his behavior the night of the debate was petty and inexcusable, especially coming from a man who had no chance of becoming president. Now I wish him good riddance (he pulled out of the race). Some analysts are saying it was a Kamikaze attack, murder-suicide. Not a good way for him to end his run.

If Rubio does somehow survive--if he fares better at the next debate, has a strong showing in South Carolina and subsequent states, and manages to eclipse the bad storyline with a new, even better one (down but not out, that sort of thing)--maybe this will have been just a hiccup. 

"Get up, lad, and finish the race."

No, Mr. President. "Islam" Does Not Mean "Peace"

Sometimes people say things, not because they're true, but because they wish them to be true. Broadly speaking, that's a problem. But it's a particularly dangerous problem when a world leader says things that are patently false in a public setting. Such was the case this week when President Obama visited a mosque in Baltimore and said in his remarks that the word "Islam" means "peace." 

To be sure, Obama is not the only president to have said this. In the dark and terrible hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former president George W. Bush said basically the same thing. I get it. It sounds good. We want it to be true. These are beautiful words, and many Muslims, in America and around the world, are no doubt wonderful, peace-loving, people. 

Nevertheless, wishful thinking should not form the basis for a president's public remarks, let alone his foreign policy. The word "Islam" does not mean "peace." It means "submit." This is not a fine distinction nor a matter of semantics or culture. It's a core tenet of the religion's doctrine and history. 

A few examples: 

• What Makes Islam So Different? addresses the myth that "Muslim apologists sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is 'al-Salaam,' which is 'peace' in Arabic:

 "An Arabic word has only one root.  The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.”  There is no disagreement about this among Arabic or Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.     

"Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace can be brought about by forcing others into submission.  As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, 'Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law.' 

"In truth, the Quran not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also orders them to  subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule.  This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its military and demographic success in conquering other cultures."

• The Noble Quran, in a section called "The Repentance" directs its adherents to "fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

• A (female) Islamic scholar at Al-Azhar University in Egypt, who is considered moderate by other Muslims, explains that Islam sanctions rape of non-Muslim female prisoners.

• Pew Research data reveals that a large majority of Muslims across the globe accept the Islamic practice of forced conversions and the implementation of Sharia law for all citizens, not just Muslims.

• The documentary, "By the Numbers: The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions and Demographics," narrated by Raheel Raza, reiterates these data. Raza, a Canadian Muslim feminist and activist who dares to speak out against radical Islam, is also president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow. Watch the (short) documentary here. 

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali, seen here among the panelists in an Intelligence Squared debate, and here in this conversation with Bill Kristol, has been speaking out about the radical nature of Islam for years. 

Eighteenth century philosopher Thomas Paine said something that, in my view, has profound ramifications in this current climate of political correctness as it relates to multi-culturalism and diversity: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." 

President Obama appears to be listening to people who are either ignorant or deceptive, more likely, the latter. He's certainly not listening to people like Raheel Raza or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. America needs a leader who will face reality with open-eyed clarity and not wishful thinking. I pray we get it right this time around, and that it's not too late to repair the damage of this naive president's foreign policy malfeasance.

Cat's Meow: Thoughts on a Tuesday Morning in an Empty Nest

6:30 a.m. 

Meowing unfettered going on in hallway. 

Husband left early for work. 

Youngest child, last to leave home, recently moved out, sleeping on an air mattress somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. 

The nest is empty.

Normally I would dislodge from beneath my cocoon of blanket and book to lure the cat into this back room and shut the door so as not to disturb the sleeping family. 

But there's no one in the house besides she and me. 

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" 

I stay bundled on my chair.

She appears. 

I am displaced. 

Someone will ask: If you're the only one home, why the blog post?

My reply: I want the universe to know what I put up with every morning. 

Responding to an Ancestral Voice: Thoughts on Being (or not being) Jewish

Recently re-read this beautiful book. Such an eloquent, honest, and deeply respectful exploration of his religion. I wish with all my heart that I could convince my dad to read it. But of course he won't. 

This second reading made me wonder (again) why I care, why I'm drawn to Judaism. From what I understand, I'm not considered Jewish, at least according to Orthodox and Conservative definitions. It's not just that I'm a Christian, which would make me apostate in their eyes regardless of heritage or ancestry. It's that my mother was not a Jew. 

I've struggled with this question ("who is a Jew?"), being the parent of three children of mixed ancestry. Their dad is Japanese, which makes them "half" Japanese racially. To suggest that their father's race has no bearing on their racial make-up is ridiculous. Yet that's what is said about me. I'm not a Jew racially even though my father is Jewish. And I'm not a Jew religiously because I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. In order to be a Jew, I would need to convert (and reject Christianity).

A couple of weeks ago at church, there was a guest speaker who happens to be a Messianic Jew, i.e., a Jewish believer in Jesus, who was invited to speak briefly about Israel (he leads tours). In explaining how he, a Jew, came to believe in Yeshua (Jesus), the man said his mother was an Irish Catholic and his father an agnostic Jew. So technically, legally, I mean, he's not a Jew. That's what I was thinking. Later though, in explaining how he ended up living in Israel, he said that he was told that because he was Jewish, he was allowed to become an Israeli citizen. He was referring to something called the Law of Return ("aliyah") which, according to Wikipedia, is  

. . . Israeli legislation, passed on 5 July 1950, that gives Jews the right of return and the right to live in Israel and to gain Israeli citizenship. In 1970, the right of entry and settlement was extended to people with one Jewish grandparent or people married to a Jew, although they were not considered Jewish under Jewish law.

So this man, not legally a Jew, can be an Israeli citizen. 

And even though I'm not a Jew because my mother was not a Jew, my dad's parents were both Jewish, which means technically, I, too, have the "right of return." 

This is all a bit confusing, and to be honest, deep down I reject the notion that I'm not Jewish. Why I feel that way I can't really explain. Something keeps drawing me to learn more about this ancient religion. From Wouk's Epilogue, these passages stood out:

Maybe I'm responding to "this ancestral voice." But why? My sister, my brother, my father, who share this ancestry, why don't they respond in the same way? 

Wouk understands, and does not judge. I believe he wrote his book as much with them in mind as for people like me. 

I love this book.