Since everyone else is discussing it, I cannot see why we should not as well, since the book was edited by a good friend and close colleague. This is from Mark Steyn, speaking for us all:
I’ve had a fun time out on the Earth Day airwaves talking about Climate Change: The Facts. That’s the new book featuring me and some of the world’s most eminent scientists on the state of the climate debate as we prepare to enter the third decade of the global-warming pause. And I’m thrilled to find that the book is currently Number One on the Climatology Hit Parade, ahead of Naomi Klein, Naomi Oreskes and any number of Naomis, and also Number One on the Environmental Policy Hot 100.
If this keeps up, in the forthcoming Mann vs Steyn trial I may call myself as an expert witness.
My sincere thanks to everyone who’s bought this important new book. The turn-of-the-century cartoon science of the hockey stick is over, and it’s time for climate science to make a new start.
Having edited books myself, it is both insanely finicky and ridiculously unrecognised given how many hassles there are. I just hope Alan won’t mind my putting him up in lights in this way, but it is an astonishing achievement.
Here is how you can get a copy of the book while helping Mark Steyn in his climactic battle against the forces of stupidity and deceit. And here is where you can buy the book through the IPA which was the publisher of this worldwide success.
There is the IRS which is a scandal that is now just seen as part of the American way of life and has been part of the background scene in the US for almost two years. And there is a president who is doing everything he can to allow Iran to build nuclear weapons. And now there is this:
“It’s a matter of life or death.”
That was the first thought of “Anne” (not her real name). Someone was pounding at her front door. It was early in the morning — very early — and it was the kind of heavy pounding that meant someone was either fleeing from — or bringing — trouble.
“It was so hard. I’d never heard anything like it. I thought someone was dying outside.”
She ran to the door, opened it, and then chaos. “People came pouring in. For a second I thought it was a home invasion. It was terrifying. They were yelling and running, into every room in the house. One of the men was in my face, yelling at me over and over and over.”
It was indeed a home invasion, but the people who were pouring in were Wisconsin law-enforcement officers. Armed, uniformed police swarmed into the house. Plainclothes investigators cornered her and her newly awakened family. Soon, state officials were seizing the family’s personal property, including each person’s computer and smartphone, filled with the most intimate family information.
Why were the police at Anne’s home? She had no answers. The police were treating them the way they’d seen police treat drug dealers on television.
In fact, TV or movies were their only points of reference, because they weren’t criminals. They were law-abiding. They didn’t buy or sell drugs. They weren’t violent. They weren’t a danger to anyone. Yet there were cops — surrounding their house on the outside, swarming the house on the inside. They even taunted the family as if they were mere “perps.”
As if the home invasion, the appropriation of private property, and the verbal abuse weren’t enough, next came ominous warnings.
Don’t call your lawyer.
Don’t tell anyone about this raid. Not even your mother, your father, or your closest friends.
The entire neighborhood could see the police around their house, but they had to remain silent. This was not the “right to remain silent” as uttered by every cop on every legal drama on television — the right against self-incrimination. They couldn’t mount a public defense if they wanted — or even offer an explanation to family and friends.
Yet no one in this family was a “perp.” Instead, like Cindy, they were American citizens guilty of nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights to support Act 10 and other conservative causes in Wisconsin. Sitting there shocked and terrified, this citizen — who is still too intimidated to speak on the record — kept thinking, “Is this America?”
No, it’s Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or any common garden totalitarian regime. But on Instapundit, where I found this, the comment begins:
Sadly, it is America, as controlled by a liberal/progressive agenda that inanely believes that conservatives who “coordinate” their political messages are somehow subverting the democratic process (rather than actually furthering it). [My bolding]
From its very title – The post–WWII presidents made mistakes, but they were not pro-Soviet – I knew the article was about Diana West. And I also knew that its author, Ron Capshaw, despite what he says, has never read the book. Because whatever else West did or did not say, she never accused any American president of being pro-Soviet. And she most assuredly did not say it about FDR.
But what she did say was that Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s closest advisor, the man who constructed and oversaw the lend-lease program, almost certainly was. It’s a big difference, and if he had read the book he would have known this perfectly well.
But someone among the editorial staff at National Review must know, so the question really is why this latest shaft at West was let go.
If he or Radosh would like to deal with the accusations against Harry Hopkins and the mass of evidence West brings up, then get on with it. In the meantime, I do not believe they have read this book, or if they have, they must be the two persons least capable of reading for meaning I have ever come across in my life.
The bigger question that remains is why National Review will not let this issue go.
This is from Tim Blair and I cannot tell if this is a parody or something taken directly from a Green election pamphlet somewhere. Reads straight out of the 1930s so I opt for parody but who can be sure?
Going to the original Tim links to, the comments thread is hilarious. I guess I prefer the Greens to ISIS, but with the Greens in charge, ISIS will not be far behind.
I’VE NOW GONE AND LOOKED:It really is there, page 77, just like it says. There are no words for such people, but the Morlocks will come and get them sooner than they think.
And I have to say, this elois and morlocks thing has a kind of modern day significance I will have to dwell on further.
Having zero influence on international relations may be a policy of sorts, but it will not end well, especially for America whose foreign policy is being run into the ground. Here’s the story:
President Barack Obama blew a gasket over actions and criticism by Congressional Republicans regarding his negotiations with Iran about that country’s nuclear program, telling them, “It needs to stop!”
Is the American system really designed to give any idiot who becomes president as much power as this with no limit to what they can do? Seems so. Could Hillary really be as bad?
Obama keeps up with the nudge, nudge, wink, wink but these ayatollahs just don’t get it. Ayatollah Khamenei Accuses WH of ‘Lying,’ Being ‘Deceptive,’ and Having ‘Devilish’ Intentions. If only they would play along, pretend that everything is just like Obama says it is, then there would be no problem in getting this stitched up. It must frustrate the daylights out of Obama that the Iranians weren’t brought up on Alinski. Instead, we have this:
Beginning earlier this month and in the days since, Obama and his advisers have attempted to portray the negotiations as major step forward. During an appearance in the Rose Garden on April 2, Obama said the U.S. and its allies have “reached a historic understanding with Iran.”
Khamenei does not agree. “There was no need to take a position” on the supposed deal before today, Khamenei said. “The officials are saying that nothing has been done yet and nothing is obligatory. I neither agree nor disagree [with any deal].”
“What has been done so far does not guarantee an agreement, nor its contents, nor even that the negotiations will continue to the end,” Khamenei elaborated.
“I neither support nor oppose it,” Khamenei reportedly said of the proposed deal. “Everything is in the details; it may be that the deceptive other side wants to restrict us in the details.”
It gets much worse.
When Obama announced that a “framework” for the deal was in place earlier this month, the administration released a fact sheet purportedly showing the agreed upon “parameters.” The White House said the terms outlined in the fact sheet “reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran.”
Khamenei would beg to differ.
“The White House put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators finished their talks…this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues,” Khamenei said, according to Reuters. Khamenei added that the fact sheet, which doesn’t match Iran’s understanding, exposes America’s “devilish” intentions.
Early stages but Rand Paul being the only candidate I have ever met and spoken with, and who I liked on the spot, there is a certain partiality I must confess to. He, like Marine LaPen, has a family past he must overcome but still embrace. I am nevertheless encouraged by his foray yesterday having put himself forward for the nomination. And what really appealed to me was that he has decided to take on the media, who are enemies not only of every Republican, but enemies of good governance and common sense.
Tuesday night, Paul came out swinging. “The media tells you and I that we should choose a GOP nominee with a track record full of sellouts, compromises and betrayals,” he tweeted. “So even though I’m at or near the top of every state poll for the nomination, they continue to try and dismiss my message of liberty!
“Thankfully, our national media doesn’t get to pick and choose our Republican Party’s presidential nominees. Patriots like YOU do!”
But by the end of the day Wednesday, the candidate seemed to recognize that perhaps that approach was bringing the wrong kind of attention to his nascent campaign, conceding that he often didn’t handle tough questions particularly well. “I’ve been universally testy and short-tempered with both male and female interviewers,” he admitted explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
Gage echoed Paul’s description, saying that in the interview with Guthrie, the senator had seemed to “come across as a bit of a bully. I don’t know if that’s specific to her being a woman, or incredibly bad manners.”
It’s an approach that usually fails to deliver in the long run, she added. “I think particularly when you’re trying to appeal to women voters, they’re a little turned off by that level of aggressiveness when it comes across as cranky and mean,” she said.
Whether he wins or not, this seems to necessary from the Republican side that I can only hope it is blessed with great success. The media has ruined the US by its lickspittle backing of parties to the left. Someone has finally tried fighting back. Even if it doesn’t work for Rand, it will help clear a path for others.
“You’ve said a few things that don’t necessarily comport with the facts, like, ‘125,000 IRS agents, send them to the border,'” Harwood said. “They’ve only got 25,000 agents or something like. You’ve talked about the job-killing nature of Obamacare. We’re adding jobs at a very healthy clip right now. Why shouldn’t somebody listen to you and say, ‘The guy’ll just say anything — doesn’t have to be true?'”
Cruz responded by accusing fact-checker groups of not making a good-faith effort to hold all politicians accountable, adding that such groups often subject conservatives to extra scrutiny.
“There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers. It’s this new species of yellow journalism called PolitiFact,” Cruz said. “Colloquially I was referring to all the employees as agents. That particular stat is in a joke I used. So, they’re literally fact-checking a joke. I say that explicitly tongue in cheek.”
Make the media defend itself. Here no one is in any doubt that the ABC tells the truth only when it suits Labor. This needs to become recognised as an established fact across the divide. If you hear it on the ABC, everyone should immediately recognise that they might as well have heard it from the ALP.
UPDATE: Rand Paul’s interview with Megyn Kelly on these issues, with Megyn’s interesting and to-the-point comment at the end.
Early stages but Rand Paul being the only candidate I have ever met and spoken with, and who I liked on the spot, there is a certain partiality I must confess to. He, like Marine LaPen, has a family past he must overcome but still embrace. I am nevertheless encouraged by his foray this morning having put himself forward for the nomination. But what really appeals to me is that he has decided to take on the media, who are enemies not only of every Republican, but enemies of good governance and common sense.
Tuesday night, Paul came out swinging. “The media tells you and I that we should choose a GOP nominee with a track record full of sellouts, compromises and betrayals,” he tweeted. “So even though I’m at or near the top of every state poll for the nomination, they continue to try and dismiss my message of liberty!
“Thankfully, our national media doesn’t get to pick and choose our Republican Party’s presidential nominees. Patriots like YOU do!”
But by the end of the day Wednesday, the candidate seemed to recognize that perhaps that approach was bringing the wrong kind of attention to his nascent campaign, conceding that he often didn’t handle tough questions particularly well. “I’ve been universally testy and short-tempered with both male and female interviewers,” he admitted explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
Gage echoed Paul’s description, saying that in the interview with Guthrie, the senator had seemed to “come across as a bit of a bully. I don’t know if that’s specific to her being a woman, or incredibly bad manners.”
It’s an approach that usually fails to deliver in the long run, she added. “I think particularly when you’re trying to appeal to women voters, they’re a little turned off by that level of aggressiveness when it comes across as cranky and mean,” she said.
Whether he wins or not, this seems to necessary from the Republican side that I can only hope it is blessed with great success. The media has ruined the US by its lickspittle backing of parties to the left. Someone has finally tried fighting back. Even if it doesn’t work for Rand, it will help clear a path for others.
I guess it’s not yet the 9th April in the US so we get to commemorate this great moment before the Americans do.
The odd thing for someone my age is that the Democrats were the party of slavery and the Republicans the party of freedom. It is still the case now. If you would like to see the racist past of the United States laid bare, you need only look at the policies of Woodrow Wilson and then at Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was Lincoln who fought the Civil War and Eisenhower who began the desegregation of schools in the American south. And then there are, you know, George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Bull Connor, Democrats all. The solid south was the Democrat south of segregation.
Freedom leaves you alone to live your own life. Tempting individuals into dependence on the state is the opposite.
LET ME JUST ADD THIS: Grant ended up being one of the great presidents, finally bringing “reconstruction” to an end and doing much more than he is usually given credit for. Here is a quote that I think helps capture his greatness:
Grant also revealed that he struggled to reconcile his respect for brave and dedicated Southern soldiers, including Lee, from his complete contempt for the depraved institution — slavery — that had induced them to take up arms against their own nation in the first place.
“I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly,” he wrote, “and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”
You know that thing about if it walks like a duck. This is Dick Cheney discussing Obama:
If you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing.
But still no one comes right out and says what everyone thinks.
Law of Markets 