Monday, December 14, 2015

A simple summation agw

An interesting comment that parallels my thoughts and questions in parts
As an engineer I find when these issues arise it is best to get as much accurate data as possible and trust your instincts and training. Interestingly it is difficult and almost impossible to find hard proven scientific data supporting the global warming view.(its silly to call it Climate change as the climate is always changing). There is on the other hand a large body of work available by scientists ruling out global warming. I could reference all sorts of information including articles on how NASA has fudged data to detailed scientific explanations of the chemistry (CO2 is a gas remember). However in all of the research I did thsi summary is possibly the best and clearest I have come across.
“The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, averages (over a year) some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.
But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.
The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.
The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.
What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.
Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.
In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.
I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Just one lone jihadi

"It's Just One Lone Jihadi. Perfectly Politically Correct Political Music. NOT! "
2 minutes 49 secs
from Elsa's Emporium.

It is just one
You must not generalize it, you must not advertise it;
For the one who is islamphobic, a right wing lynch generator; it is all your fault.

Great for a laugh

Monday, November 16, 2015

Just flowers at a funeral, Paris

These tears, tweets and tributes will not stop the terrorists

Many of the gestures are well meaning. Grieving is necessary. Solidarity is important.
But can I respectfully point out the following:
Lighting up buildings in red, white and blue will not stop the terrorists.
Singing La Marseillaise will not stop the terrorists.
Tweeting #IStandWithParis will not stop the terrorists.
Tweeting the Eiffel Tower peace sign will not stop the terrorists.
Saying you condemn the killings will not stop the terrorists.
Showing you stand in solidarity with Paris will not stop the terrorists.
Saying you are ”shoulder to shoulder” with Paris will not stop the terrorists.
Saying we will not be cowed by terrorism will not stop the terrorists.
Saying the terrorism is an attack on all humanity will not stop the terrorists.
Tears, candles, hymns, vigils, prayers, speeches, condolence books, hashtags, poems, meetings - none of that will stop the terrorists.
A challenge to our leaders: tell us precisely what you plan to do that really will stop the terrorists.
Spare us tears and tributes. Spare us platitudes and sentiment.  Give us plans. Action.
Tell us about reforming Islam, controlling immigration, shutting down hate-preachers and destroying the Islamic State and al Qaeda.
The rest is just flowers at a funeral. It will not stop the next one

Friday, November 13, 2015

Red States Blue States?

Well I never it comes from democrat states and goes to Republican states.
I’ve been seeing that argument for years , not just the many times you’ve introduced it into a debate. Have you ever looked into the detail? Ever actually thought about it? Of course you haven’t and I’ve simply treated it as yet another boring talking point, but I guess I have to now …..
Aside from anything else, to accept the argument you’d have to accept that the residents are willingly voting to destroy their own benefits, which would be wonderful but unlikely.
In any case it’s crap because it relies on Presidential elections only to define “Red” from “Blue” states, and is stuck with the 2004 results. But looking at the list of “Red” states it makes no sense to just have that definition. A state might vote GOP for president while being solidly Democrat at the Federal Senate and House levels.
You do realise that the basic definition itself has only been around since about 2000 and has largely only been applied to Presidential elections? To use this as a base going forward for sophisticated tax and spending analysis is to strangle the argument at birth.
For example, looking at the list of “Welfare” states I see New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado. New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire, which have all been evenly split on presidential candidates for the last thirty years. How can they be “Red” or “Blue”. On the bottom end of the welfare scale – the “good guys” in your endlessly Manichean world – I see Nevada and Colorado, who both voted for both Bush 43 wins. New Hampshire voted for Kerry, Obama, and Obama – but they’ve only elected one Democrat Senator since 1960! How the fuck can you call North Dakota, Louisiana, and West Virginia “Red” states when they’ve voted overwhelmingly Democratic for the past thirty years? South Dakota and New Mexico fail the same test. West Virginia finally got a Republican senator in 2014 – the first since 1959!
Similarly with Governors and state Houes and Senates, the GOP growth in that area being very recent. Are you suggesting that the voters turfed out Democrats who were on the verge of making huge spending cuts and cut down on their Federal largesse?
And this is before we even start down the track of a detailed examination of the tax and spending underlying those figures which – given this asshole’s partisan take on things – is probably no more trustworthy than his “Red” vs “Blue” definition.
Mandatory spending (Medicare and Social Security – which can’t be touched legally) vs discretionary spending (which is mainly the military) is just for starters. You are aware of the millions of retirees who’ve fled to the Sunbelt states from the colder Northern ones no?
And again, if you actually think about this from a higher perspective – if the analysis was true, would the Democrats not have done everything they could to correct this imbalance when they held the purse strings from 2007-2011 and when, according to this article, it would cost them nothing electorally as they punished their enemies and rewarded their friends. The fact that they did nothing is yet another indicator that it’s a bullshit talking point of Democratic activists.

No right not to be offended.

Professor Mike Adams took liberalism and progressivism to task in his viral class introduction that will leave you cheering.
In a time where college students are offended by pretty much everything, one professor at UNC-Wilmington decided to cut through the rhetoric and let his students know that they aren’t the special snowflakes liberals and their parents would have them believe.
His epic class introduction has gone viral, and for good reason: this is the most common sense lecture to come out of any college in a long time.He begins by letting his students know that they don’t have the right to be offended and the rest you simply have to read for yourself.
Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.
Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. In part, I blame your high school teachers for failing to teach you basic civics before you got your diploma. Most of you went to the public high schools, which are a disaster. Don’t tell me that offended you. I went to a public high school.
Of course, your high school might not be the problem. It is entirely possible that the main reason why so many of you are confused about free speech is that piece of paper hanging on the wall right over there. Please turn your attention to that ridiculous document that is framed and hanging by the door. In fact, take a few minutes to read it before you leave class today. It is our campus speech code. It specifically says that there is a requirement that everyone must only engage in discourse that is “respectful.” That assertion is as ludicrous as it is illegal. I plan to have that thing ripped down from every classroom on campus before I retire.
One of my grandfathers served in World War I. My step-grandfather served in World War II. My sixth great grandfather enlisted in the American Revolution when he was only thirteen. These great men did not fight so we could simply relinquish our rights to the enemy within our borders. That enemy is the Marxists who run our public universities. If you are a Marxist and I just offended you, well, that’s tough. I guess they don’t make communists like they used to.
Unbelievably, a student once complained to the Department chairwoman that my mention of God and a Creator was a violation of Separation of Church and State. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: If any of you actually think that my decision to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in the course syllabus is unconstitutional then you suffer from severe intellectual hernia.
Indeed, it takes hard work to become stupid enough to think the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. If you agree with the student who made that complaint then you are probably just an anti-religious zealot. Therefore, I am going to ask you to do exactly three things and do them in the exact order that I specify.
First, get out of my class. You can fill out the drop slip over at James Hall. Just tell them you don’t believe in true diversity and you want to be surrounded by people who agree with your twisted interpretation of the Constitution simply because they are the kind of people who will protect you from having your beliefs challenged or your feelings hurt.
Second, withdraw from the university. If you find that you are actually relieved because you will no longer be in a class where your beliefs might be challenged then you aren’t ready for college. Go get a job building houses so you can work with some illegal aliens who will help you gain a better appreciation of what this country has to offer.Finally, if this doesn’t work then I would simply ask you to get the hell out of the country. The ever-growing thinned-skinned minority you have joined is simply ruining life in this once-great nation. Please move to some place like Cuba where you can enjoy the company of communists and get excellent health care. Just hop on a leaky boat and start paddling your way towards utopia. You will not be missed.
Professor Mike Adams previously made news when he won a legal battle after being subjected to retaliatory action by the college after he expressed Christian, religious and politically conservative views.
The jury found that these were the motivating factors behind the college’s decision not to promote Adams, and awarded him damages.
Do you agree with what Adams had to say? Let us know in the comments!
From a comments on another blog below the jump break

Saturday, November 7, 2015

carbon dioxide molecules the trace gas

PJM (112 comments) says: 

At a magnification of X 20,000,000, carbon dioxide molecules would have a diameter of 40 mm (the same as a ping-pong ball) and at a concentration of 380 ppm (the approximate concentration currently), they would be equispaced at 7.8 metres at sea level, and 9.8 metres at an altitude of 5,500 metres. This explains why carbon dioxide is called a trace gas.
In the light of this fundamental, physical knowledge, anybody who believes that CO2 could have any measurable, significant effect on absorbing infrared radiation (the thermal end of the spectrum) from the earth (the so-called greenhouse effect) ether has rocks in their head of believes in fairies in the bottom of the garden!
Needless to say, there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide has any measurable, significant effect on absorbing infrared radiation from the earth (the so-called greenhouse effect).
All of the so-called findings of the alarmist so-called climate ‘scientists’ are based on computer models, which have been proven time after time after time to be seriously flawed. This explains why their doomsday predictions have never eventuated. They never will, for the reasons explained above!
This paper by one of the USA’s award-winning atmospheric physicists explains in detail the physics involved:
Perhaps somebody should draw the attention of both Tonkin & Taylor and the Mayor of Christchurch to this blogpost.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Gun Shootings Australia

So many guns. So many violent people. Melbourne has changed
I don’t recall this level of gun violence before in all the years I’ve lived in Melbourne. Something has changed:
Gunfire has narrowly missed a woman’s head in a terrifying road rage incident north-east of Melbourne. The 22-year-old woman and her passenger, a 17-year-old boy, was allegedly tailgated by a four-wheel-drive from Donvale to Healesville before its driver fired shots through her car’s back window.
[Racing Victoria Chief Steward]Terry Bailey ... was relaxing with his wife and teenage daughters in the back yard when, at 9.20pm on Sunday, bullets from a semi-automatic gun tore into the front door.
Police have been told that about a week earlier, a bikie wearing gang colours rode past the home of Racing Victoria head of integrity­ Dayle Brown.
A FOUR-YEAR-OLD boy has been injured and a man is fighting for his life after shots were fired at a house in Melbourne’s north. Shots were fired into the man’s home on Darebin Drive in Thomastown about 3.45am.
In 2010-11 there were 6,922 [gun] offences compared to 2014/15 when there were 14,404 offences…
In Lalor overnight a family escaped serious injury after as many as 20 shots were fired from what’s believed to be a machine gun in an early morning drive-by shooting… 
On Wednesday night a senior bikie figure was gunned down near his Narre Warren home.
A family was also targeted in a drive-by shooting in Broadmeadows in the early hours of Monday morning while a car was shot at nearby on Sunday night. 
Police are discovering guns in cars every two days in Melbourne’s north-west, which has been dubbed the “red zone” by officers concerned about a growing gangster culture in the region.
The culture in question isn’t just a gangster one, as is clear from the list of shootings in this report:
February 3, 2015 M16 assault rifle and Thureon machine-gun seized in police raids on homes in Point Cook, Wyndham Vale, Tarneit and Werribee. Number of people arrested. Raids sparked after a $290,000 armed robbery of a cash transport van in Sunbury. 
April 19, 2am Khaled Abouhasna, 39, gunned down in his driveway in Altona Meadows. Under investigation.
March 3, 6.30pm Handguns, long arms and an automatic machine-gun found by police in an intercepted Holden Commodore in Elizabeth Drive, Sunbury. A 23-year-old woman has been charged.
May 21, 5.40pm A gym owner is shot at twice outside a house in Mockridge Avenue, Burnside, and survives. Under investigation.
May 31, 4.30pm Man shot in the leg in a road rage incident off the Western Highway near Bacchus Marsh. Two children in the car. Under investigation.
June 10, 5.30pm Ali Duyar, 34, shot in a Bloomfield Road house in Doncaster and dies in hospital the next day. Three men fled the scene. Under investigation.


This morning’s shooting in Thomastown is now a murder. A 3AW reporter says neighbours held shouting in foreign languages from the house. Many residents in the street have little English.
Andrew's columns appear in the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph and Advertiser. He runs Australia's most-read political blog and hosts Ten's The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am. See more of

Monday, October 26, 2015

How not to be moved by "sjwarriors"

How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation

There are very few legitimate cultural divisions in the world. Most of them are arbitrarily created, not only by political and financial elites, but also by the useful idiots and mindless acolytes infesting the sullied halls of academia.
It is perhaps no mistake that cultural Marxists in the form of "social justice warriors", PC busybodies and feminists tend to create artificial divisions between people and “classes” while attacking and homogenizing very real and natural divisions between individuals based on biological reality and inherent genetic and psychological ability. This is what cultural Marxists do: divide and conquer or homogenize and conquer, whatever the situation happens to call for.
They do this most commonly by designated arbitrary "victim status" to various classes, thus dividing them from each other based on how "oppressed" they supposedly are.  The less statistically prominent a particular group is (less represented in a job field, media, education, population, etc.) in any western society based on their color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc., generally the more victim group status is afforded to them by social justice gatekeepers.  Whites and males (straight males) are of course far at the bottom of their list of people who have reason to complain and we are repeatedly targeted by SJW organizations and web mobs as purveyors of some absurd theory called "the patriarchy".
Although cultural marxism does indeed target every individual and harm every individual in the long run, my list of personal solutions outlined in this article will be directed in large part at the categories of people most attacked by the social justice cult today.
I do not write often about PC cultism and social justice because the movement is only a symptom of a greater problem, namely the problem of collectivism. The only true and concrete social (group) division is the division between collectivists and individualists: between those who believe the individual should be subservient to the group mind and those who believe the group is meaningless without the individual mind.
I have already spoken on the root dangers and logical inconsistencies of the social justice cult in articles such as ‘The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness' and 'The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism.'
There are many intelligent commentators on the Web who have consistently demolished the PC mob with reason and logic, and I leave that battle to them. In this article I would like to continue my examination but with the goal of presenting some real and tangible solutions. And like most solutions to most problems, it is the individual who is required to draw the line in the sand and change the way he approaches the realm of cultural Marxism. It is not up to groups, organizations or governments.
First, let’s be clear, cultural Marxism has already done most of the damage it can possibly do to our way of life. And by damage, I mean the end of long-standing foundational pillars of society that provide stability and prosperity, including traditional marriage (not government-licensed marriage), family, gender “roles,” etc. (which cultural Marxists openly boast about tearing down).
In Western nations male suicide rates are way up. Women’s proclaimed levels of happiness and contentment are way down, despite the fact that they have had wage equality for decades (yes, the wage gap is a perpetually pontificated Lochness monster-sized myth that was debunked years ago by economists like Thomas Sowell), despite the fact that they have surpassed men in educational participation and despite the fact that they have total control over family planning.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Jigsaw:- Peace. Justice, Truth, freedom of speech, Offends, Protection

The question to be asked is whether it is possible to have peace without justice? Is it possible to have justice without truth? Can we have truth without freedom of speech? And finally does freedom of speech mean anything if it is not the speech that offends? The answer to all these questions is no. Therefore to have peace we must promote freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is to protect the speech that offends. The speech that does not offend does not need protection. You are free to say anything even in Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea, as long as you don’t offend those in power.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

The birth of society to its death 9 stages

Every society ends eventually. Every single one. And it always happens the same way. Alexander Tytler said it best (in 1776):
  • From bondage to spiritual faith,
  • From spiritual faith to great courage,
  • From courage to liberty,
  • From liberty to abundance,
  • From abundance to selfishness,
  • From selfishness to complacency,
  • From complacency to apathy,
  • From apathy to dependency,
  • From dependency back again to bondage.

Society circling a Molly coddling concept

Declining Student Resilience: A Serious Problem for Colleges

College personnel everywhere are struggling with students' increased neediness.
Posted Sep 22, 2015
A year ago I received an invitation from the head of Counseling Services at a major university to join faculty and administrators for discussions about how to deal with the decline in resilience among students. At the first meeting, we learned that emergency calls to Counseling had more than doubled over the past five years. Students are increasingly seeking help for, and apparently having emotional crises over, problems of everyday life. Recent examples mentioned included a student who felt traumatized because her roommate had called her a “bitch” and two students who had sought counseling because they had seen a mouse in their off-campus apartment. The latter two also called the police, who kindly arrived and set a mousetrap for them.
Faculty at the meetings noted that students’ emotional fragility has become a serious problem when it comes to grading. Some said they had grown afraid to give low grades for poor performance, because of the subsequent emotional crises they would have to deal with in their offices. Many students, they said, now view a C, or sometimes even a B, as failure, and they interpret such “failure” as the end of the world. Faculty also noted an increased tendency for students to blame them (the faculty) for low grades—they weren’t explicit enough in telling the students just what the test would cover or just what would distinguish a good paper from a bad one. They described an increased tendency to see a poor grade as reason to complain rather than as reason to study more, or more effectively. Much of the discussions had to do with the amount of handholding faculty should do versus the degree to which the response should be something like, “Buck up, this is college.” Does the first response simply play into and perpetuate students’ neediness and unwillingness to take responsibility? Does the second response create the possibility of serious emotional breakdown, or, who knows, maybe even suicide?
Two weeks ago, that head of Counseling sent us all a follow-up email, announcing a new set of meetings. His email included this sobering paragraph: 
“I have done a considerable amount of reading and research in recent months on the topic of resilience in college students. Our students are no different from what is being reported across the country on the state of lateadolescence/early adulthood. There has been an increase in diagnosable mental health problems, but there has also been a decrease in the ability of many young people to manage the everyday bumps in the road of life. Whether we want it or not, these students are bringing their struggles to their teachers and others on campus who deal with students on a day-to-day basis. The lack of resilience is interfering with the academic mission of the University and is thwarting the emotional and personal development of students.”
He also sent us a summary of themes that emerged in the series of meetings, which included the following bullets:

Monday, September 28, 2015

Change Society and continue with Victimhood, or become a Survivor

Sorry no links to the quote yet
"We recognise a gender transitioned person’s new identity because it is the humane response to their condition. Kindness doesn’t cost anything".
No. The humane response is not to encourage them in their delusion. That is not helping them. For some reason, the liberal Narrative remains supreme, and the only people who are openly criticized are those who do not fall in line with it. Activist and lesbian Tammy Bruce points out that feminists and other groups go through a kind of ersatz therapy in their sharing groups which never actually makes it to the third and final stage of getting them help and reintegration into society, rather the focus is on social change – getting society to adapt to you, instead of the other way around.
Because there is a third stage of recovery that is ignored by feminist and gay special-interest groups—the stage where the group is supposed to concern itself with “reintegrating the survivor into the community of ordinary people.” In other words, face your issues, deal with them, get the help you need, and rejoin life. Not as a victim, mind you, but as a survivor and as your ordinary self. The failure of the Left Elite is that it requires of its leaders and its activists that they not move on to this third stage of recovery. Dr. Herman oddly lauds the fact that the feminist “consciousness-raising groups,” full of individuals who clearly needed psychological help because of past traumas, were focused on social change “rather than individual change.”
This is the core of the problem, stated by one of the leading psychologists in the field, but because Dr. Herman is a feminist she was blind to the implications of what she was saying: When your victimhood is your empowerment, recovery is the enemy, and working on “individual change” becomes counterproductive, even dangerous to your identity.
When that third stage of recovery is missing—when the group maintains the victimhood of the individual and spurns the last, imperative step—not only is there no reintegration, but something even more sinister begins to happen: the subconscious transference of the injured person’s trauma onto society. Society and culture end up being subjected to the malignant narcissism of those traumatized during their childhood or youth—which includes the Left’s most powerful leaders, activists, and ideologues.
This, I contend, is the monster that haunts the heart and soul of the Left Elite and threatens our future: the fact that the Left is led by a cadre of damaged and powerful individuals who have been condemned by their own politics never to escape their victimhood. Consider an entire wing of politics invested in the victimhood of its constituency, naturally attracting into activism and leadership those who have experienced more than their share of the tragedies that life has to offer and encouraging them to work out their demons on our society.
Bruce, Tammy (2004-06-29). The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (p. 28). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

The old approach to joint dialogue for RC

Quoted below are the three paragraphs (of sixteen total) which discuss Islam in Pope Benedict's lecture: Pope Benedict XVI said this on September 12, 2006 at the University of Regensburg in Germany: 
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on — perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara — by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between — as they were called — three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point — itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole — which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.[then abrogated] But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[5]

An interesting contrast of the 2 popes, Is it shutting the door on a dark history? or is now covering even the modern happenings.under the guise of modernizing.

Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013:
In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
From Pope Francis’ address to Congress, September 24, 2015:
Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.
It would seem the cardinals that voted for the Argentinian cardinal to be Pope wanted these modern changes., as they would have well known the politics
          A 2013 report from The Telegraph shows that Cardinal Bergoglio took precisely the wrong stand with regard to Pope Benedict’s 2005 famous lecture at Regensburg that caused worlwide Islamic rage:
Reacting within days to [Pope Benedict’s lecture], speaking through a spokesman to Newsweek Argentina, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio declared his “unhappiness” with the statements, made at the University of Regensburg in Germany, and encouraged many of his subordinates with the Church to do the same.

“Pope Benedict’s statement don’t reflect my own opinions”, the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires declared. “These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years”.

[Not only that, but at the time, the Papacy threatened Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) with punishment for his disobedience:]

The Vatican reacted quickly, removing one subordinate, Joaquín Piña the Archbishop of Puerto Iguazú from his post within four days of his making similar statements to the Argentine national media, sending a clear statement to Cardinal Bergoglio that he would be next should he choose to persist.

Reacting to the threats from Rome, Cardinal Bergoglio cancelled his plans to fly to Rome, choosing to boycott the second synod that Pope Benedict had called during his tenure as pontiff.