September 1, 2013

IPCC Draft: ‘Extreme High Sea Levels’ Not Assessed, But Still Considered ‘Likely’

At the News York Times’s “Dot Earth” blog, Andrew Revkin reports that “the science on a connection between hurricanes and global warming is going in the opposite direction” — as in, the evidence that the connection between human-caused global warming (overgenerously assuming that there is any) and hurricane intensity or frequency of “heavy precipitations events,” as shown in a “snapshot” of a draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s upcoming report, is one of “low confidence.”

Fine, as in “It’s about time.” But at the bottom of that same graphic are findings relating to sea levels which appear to be laugh-out-loud funny.


That ‘Racist’ Reagan Visited Victims of Md. Cross Burning in 1982, Had Them Over For Two Subsequent White House Visits


Earlier this evening at NewsBusters, Tim Graham noted that the Washington Post gave space, in an item entitled “Reagan Historians to Decry ‘Ahistorical Caricature’ as Racist in ‘The Butler’ Movie,” to refute the false portrayal of the Gipper in that film.

One more anecdote should be added in rebuttal to counter the “Reagan was a racist” lie. I’m referring to an event in 1982. Note that the related the unbylined AP report couldn’t resist getting in a gratuitous dig (both reports at this post are reproduced in full for fair use and discussion purposes):


WaPo Claims Black-White Income Gap ‘Hasn’t Narrowed in the Last 50 Years’; It Did Narrow, and Has Fallen Back

Among ten charts presented by Brad Plumer at the Washington Post on Wednesday, the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the 1963 March on Washington, all meant to show that “the black-white economic gap hasn’t budged in 50 years,” is one which purports claims that “The gap in household income between blacks and whites hasn’t narrowed in the last 50 years.”

Words mean things, Brad. “Hasn’t budged” means “no meaningful movement.” That just isn’t so, as will be seen after the jump. But first, let’s look at the inflation-adjusted graph WaPo presented to support its claim:

In Syria, ‘Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack’

From Mint-Press News (“an independent online news organization providing in-depth, thought-provoking analysis, reporting and political commentary on the most pressing issues facing our nation and our world including national politics, foreign affairs, energy & the environment and civil liberties through the lens of social justice and human rights.”):

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

About Mint-Press’s Dale Gavlak:

… (she) currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East, contributing to the AP, National Public Radio, BBC and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago.

Additional Mint-Press story:

  • Aug. 26 (“Escalation Feared In Syria Amid Threats Over Ongoing Chemical Strike Investigation”) — “Syrian government troops said that they, too, suffered from suffocation, rashes and burning in their eyes and throats while carrying out the military offensive on Saturday. They also claimed to have discovered a rebel chemical weapons stash in Jobar, near Damascus.”

Let Allah Sort It Out” seems like a plan.

African-Americans’ Worst Economic Enemies

It’s their “friends” Barack Obama and others on the Left.


This column went up at PJ Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Friday.


An Associated Press story appearing Wednesday morning claimed that Barack Obama’s presidency “has been marred by racist backlash.” Naturally, the cowards at AP didn’t specifically identify the source or nature of the alleged “backlash,” because to do so would expose the claim as a lie.

Earlier this week, Jesse Jackson did the lying for them. Jackson told the Politico he “absolutely” believes that the Republican Party’s opposition to Obama’s policies is motivated by race, and that “The tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.”

The economic scoreboard says otherwise.

The frightening data recently published by Sentier Research, a group of former Census Bureau employees who have been tracking monthly household income since the turn of the century, make it obvious that it is economically devastated African-Americans who should be absolutely furious with Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in Washington.

Martin Luther King, whose seminal “I Have a Dream” speech 50 years ago this week inspired and energized millions, did more during his life than any other single person in American history to advance the opportunities of “colored Americans” — a term he used in some form over a dozen times in that speech, while using “black” only four — to have the “inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” our founders promised.

It may be correct, as the Politico’s Glenn Thrush asserted on Tuesday, that Barack Obama is behind only King on the list of “most important black leaders in American history” (Obama not truly being African-American notwithstanding). But there is also little doubt, with the assistance of a two-year head start provided by fellow congressional Democrats, that Obama’s policies have visited more economic harm on African-Americans than any president in my lifetime.

Sentier’s report shows that since the recession officially ended in June 2009, African-American household income, defined as “before-tax money income,” has plunged by three times as much as everyone else’s (dollar amounts are current):


The average median income decline for all non-black households over the four years involved is roughly 3.6 percent, only one-third of the decline African-American households have seen.

Note that the declines for “colored Americans” other than blacks differed very little from that seen by whites.

It gets worse.

Combining Sentier’s work with Census Bureau data through 2011, the most recent available, shows that African-Americans’ real household income has dropped by over 16 percent since 2007, and by over 20 percent since the statistic’s high-water mark in 2000 (for the table, I conservatively used a drop of 10 percent during the past four years instead of 10.9 percent for blacks, did not change the declines in other groups at all, and assumed that the June readings will be the same as the overall result for all of 2013):


Though there was a bit of a decline during the early and middle portions of the past decade, the steep descent in real incomes, especially for African-Americans, didn’t really begin in earnest until the year after the Democrats consolidated their power in Congress. They then proceeded to talk down the economy during the 2008 presidential campaign, and worsened the recession’s impact during the Bush 43-Obama presidential transition.

Once they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid whooped through a stimulus plan which didn’t stimulate anything except previously unseen levels of deficit spending and greater levels of welfare program dependency, especially among African-Americans.

In March 2010, against the will of a large majority of the American people, they then passed the statist healthcare scheme known as Obamacare, an enterprise which shows every sign of becoming the most incompetently implemented government program in U.S. history — assuming it even gets off the ground.

There is no longer any meaningful dispute that the legislation has caused employers to think twice about taking on new employees, especially those who have been unemployed for some time. Companies are also hiring far more part-time and temporary workers than they have in the past, and in some cases even busting full-timers down to part-time, all to avoid Obamacare’s employer costly mandate dictating that anyone who works 30 or more hours per week must be covered by an employer-sponsored health plan. The likelihood that blacks are bearing a disproportionate brunt of the impact of this shift is very high.

Thus, what has happened during the past six years, during which we have seen median African-American household income fall to its lowest level since 1993, is not the result of Republican or conservative policies.

Historically, the Republican Party happens to be the one whose very founding was based on ending slavery and whose first president won the war which freed the slaves. It was the Republican Party whose members provided the margin of victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, defeating doggedly determined southern white segregationist Democrats in the process.

More recently, the fastest gains in African-American household income in the past 46 years listed in the Census Bureau’s annual income and poverty publication have occurred during the following time periods:

  • From 1983 to 1989, up 16.7 percent in real terms, outpacing the nationwide gain of 12.9 percent. The supply-side economic policies of Ronald Reagan drove this improvement.
  • From 1996 to 2000, up 15.6 percent in real terms, blowing away the overall national gain of 8.3 percent. This was primarily the result of Congress’s GOP-led welfare reform, which motivated millions from all races who had been on the government dole to find and keep work. In April 2000, the black unemployment rate reached 7.0 percent, still the lowest level ever seen. All Democratic President Bill Clinton contributed to this is his reluctant 1996 welfare reform law signature required to save his reelection viability after he had previously vetoed it several times.

Though there’s no space for it here, as Christopher Orlet at the American Spectator noted last week, the social fabric scoreboard would be even more lopsided in conservatives’ and family values advocates’ favor than the one tied to economics. Republicans, who have lost virtually all meaningful influence in most of the nation’s largest urban areas, have largely been limited to standing by, warning of the fiscal and social carnage to come, and watching helplessly alongside tea party sympathizers as it has arrived.

The time for African-Americans to correctly identify their real friends and enemies is way overdue.

Sunday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (090113)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:05 am

This open thread will stay at or near the top today. Rules are here. Possible comment fodder follows. Other topics are also fair game.

If you are on the front page, click “more” to see today’s items (updated sporadically; items time-stamped 6:05 a.m., if any, were posted earlier and held).

Positivity: Conjoined boys separated at Dallas hospital

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:00 am

From Dallas:

August 29,2013

The mother of twins successfully separated after being born joined at the chest says she’s looking forward to holding the babies she once thought had no chance of survival.

“I’m just so happy that they’re here and they’re alive and thriving. It’s the best feeling in the world,” Jenni Ezell said Thursday during a news conference at Medical City Children’s Hospital in Dallas, where she was joined by husband Dave and a doctor.

Owen and Emmett Ezell were separated Saturday at the hospital after being born joined from just below the breast bone to just below the belly button on July 15. The babies shared a liver and intestines and had an about 3 inch by 5 inch area on their lower stomach that wasn’t covered by skin or muscles.

“The whole pregnancy was very frightening. I didn’t know what would happen. I didn’t know if they would make it. It’s hard as a mom to know that,” Ezell said tearfully.

Dr. Clair Schwenueman, a neonatologist, said that once the boys were born, tests were done to determine exactly how many connections they had. During the nine-hour surgery, a team of surgeons separated the liver and intestines, with the most difficult part being the separation of a shared blood vessel in the liver.

“At this point they’re as stable as we could hope for post-operatively,” Schwenueman said.

Conjoined twins are rare, occurring in about one in 50,000 to one in 200,000 deliveries, the doctor said.

The Ezells, both 31, discovered the twins they were expecting were conjoined on March 1, when she was 17 weeks pregnant. The couple, who now live in Dallas but lived in Oklahoma at the time, said their doctor there gave them little hope the babies would survive.

“We didn’t think they had a chance, that they weren’t going to make it at all,” she said. “So we decided to abort and it was the hardest decision that a mother has to make.”

Conjoined Twin Boys Successfully SeparatedPlay video.”Conjoined Twin Boys Successfully Separated
The Dallas clinic where they went for the abortion had concerns that her scar from previous cesarean sections might tear and sent her to Medical City for a consultation about the scar tissue. During that visit, a doctor unexpectedly told the parents that there was hope for their unborn boys, Jenni Ezell said.

“I could not contain my joy,” said Ezell, who added that since they weren’t even looking for a second opinion, she felt that through the whole process God was leading them to “exactly where we needed to be.”

The boys weighed a combined 11 pounds, 15 ounces at birth. Hospital officials say the twins had grown to more than 16 pounds when the surgery was done. …

Go here for the rest of the story.