Once in a blue moon … UN does something right

Readers of this blog are probably quite aware that I am no fan of the United Nations … and in fact I have called for a “divorce” from this decreasingly credible bastion of doublespeak and bloated bureaucracy.

But yesterday (March 5), there must have been a “blue moon”: The UN actually did something right!

As a self-described “jaded journalist”, Chemi Shalev at Haaretz had observed (registration required):

Inside the hall of the General Assembly at the United Nations building in New York, it seemed at times that either the messiah had arrived or the world had turned inside-out Bizarro, like in the Superman comics: Rita, one of Israel’s most popular performers, was singing in Farsi and Hebrew; Israelis were dancing in the aisles: diplomats from around the world were clapping and begging for more; Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor was the hero of the day; Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said “shalom” and General Assembly President Vuk Jeremic, it turned out, hails from a family of Righteous Gentiles.

[...]

Even jaded journalists like the one writing this report were moved, knowing that they had witnessed an event that had never been seen before, at least from an Israeli point of view, and is unlikely to be seen over and over again for a very long time.

A big thank you and h/t to longtime family friend, Dr. Victor Z., whose E-mail today alerted me to this. If you want to skip the speeches, concert begins at approx. 16:15. Enjoy!

 

A tale of two disputes … time for some audio-visual clarity

The United Nations (in no small measure, thanks to the cooperation of far too many “journalists” whose possession of critical thinking skills seems to be rather conspicuous by its absence – and/or pushed aside by a blatant advocacy agenda) has succeeded in fostering and promoting two very contentious narratives.

One is to continually blame humans for “climate change” (aka global warming) caused by a tiny percentage of a trace gas, carbon dioxide (CO2). It does so by using a hefty chunk of our respective governments’ contributions (i.e. the taxes we pay) to produce masses of non-evidence based propaganda, channelled through the activities of various and sundry departments, division, commissions, etc.

The other is to continually blame Israel – which constitutes a very tiny percentage of the landmass and population in the Middle East – for any and all that ails those other countries (and, supposedly, one country wannabe). It does so by using a hefty chunk of our respective governments’ contributions (i.e. the taxes we pay) to produce masses of non-evidence based propaganda, also channelled through the activities of various and sundry departments, divisions, commissions, etc.

If your knowledge of either (or both) of these two narratives is limited to that which you have gleaned from the mainstream media, you might want to consider broadening your horizons by taking the time to view either (or both) of the following two videos.

Climate change:

Israel:

How low can the CBC go … paints Bob Ward, U.K. PR hack, as ‘expert’

The CBC is Canada’s national public broadcasting corporation. As such, one should have the right to expect some elements of professionalism in their practice of journalism. Alas, with very few exceptions, professionalism at the CBC has become highly conspicuous by its absence. Prejudicial and biased choice of words – not to mention those they choose to interview – have become a hallmark in their coverage of many matters, not the least of which is their reportage of events in Israel and of any matter pertaining to global warming aka climate change.

One of their radio programs, As It Happens – heard each weekday – was the last bastion of anything deserving of credence at the CBC in recent years. Not always, but (compared to the track record of other programs) much of the time. However, as the National Post‘s Terence Corcoran reported yesterday, as it so happens, As It Happens is now toeing the green party line, albeit in this instance by gross errors of omission.

The guest on a segment Corcoran heard recently, was none other than the U.K. Grantham Institute’s well-known (well, at least among skeptics on that side of the pond) PR hack, Bob Ward.

As Corcoran reported in U.K.’s phony war on carbon emissions, Ward’s “mission” was to:

portray Canada as a dreadful laggard in the global war on carbon, compared with the bold new policies announced last Monday by the British government. The coalition government of Prime Minister James Cameron had just announced what it proclaimed to be a plan to make it “the greenest government ever” and put Britain “at the leading edge” of a new global industrial transformation

Not surprisingly to any who have ever heard him speak, Ward obliged by providing:

an official-sounding “Grantham Institute” scientific endorsement of the British plan and to dump on Canada for not stepping up to do its duty. Britain can do all this, said Mr. Ward, because it makes good economic sense. The cost of cutting emissions by such huge amounts is “roughly about 1% of gross domestic product.” While that may seem like a lot of money, it is actually “very small compared to the potential economic costs of climate change,” which he estimated at 5% of GDP or “potentially as high as 20% of our national wealth.”

[AIH host Carol] Off didn’t question any of this. Instead, she asked, “How is it that the U.K. government bought into this” when governments around the world mostly have not? Mr. Ward said it was just a matter of the U.K. government “following the advice of scientists and the economists — and I’m sure Canada has just as many scientists and economists.” It is, he said, a “question of political will” and of “accepting the evidence.” [emphasis added -hro]

However, Corcoran noted several omissions in the segment, including:

1.PR is not science: Bob Ward is a public relations guy, described somewhat acerbically but accurately by British writer James Delingpole as the “Grantham Institute’s angry baldie attack dog.” He has actively led PR campaigns against Exxon and any person or institution who might sit skeptically outside the fixed ideological confines of the official green bunker known as climate change.

2.The Grantham Institute is headed by Sir Nicholas Stern, the economist whose famous report on the long-run economic costs of climate change has been denounced around the world as a flawed collection of misplaced economic theory and abused data. When Mr. Ward told As It Happens that the cost of “decarbonization” of the entire British economy is no more than 1% of GDP against the 5%-20% cost of coping with global warming, he was merely regurgitati[ng] the Stern report’s discredited conclusions.

3.Neither Mr. Ward nor Ms. Off mentioned that the greenest-of-all-green world-beating British carbon reduction strategy announced Monday will only be pursued if the European Union goes along with the same crazy plan — an unlikely development. As the U.K. Department of Energy put it, the British will “continue to argue” for an EU move to a 30%-below-1990 target by 2020. And what if the EU fails to act? “We will review progress in EU climate negotiations in early 2014. If at that point our domestic commitments place us on a different emissions trajectory than the EU,” the U.K. will “as appropriate, revise up our budget to align it with the actual EU trajectory.” In other words, the U.K. will be the greenest of all nations propelled by a “leading edge” plan that will only be followed if it does not have to be at the leading edge. Britain will, rather than lead, follow Europe in the great stumbling global attempt to reduce carbon emissions by government fiat.

[...]

And in other CBC related news … it would appear that the recent makeover of their website has been designed to ensure that the words and wisdom of “science” maven Bob McDonald, (whose lack of scientific academic credentials the CBC conveniently continues to omit from his laurel-laden bio) shall henceforth be unchallenged by cleverly “disappearing” his earlier Quirks and Quarks blog entries(on which selectively and slowly moderated comments were permitted) and closing his more recent ones to comments.

Quelle surprise, eh?!

UDATE: 07:05 PM The As It Happens segment featuring the Ward interview can be heard here

The spirit of Israel

When it comes to Israel, coverage by the mainstream media is typically conspicuously silent … unless, of course, some angle or hook can be found (or fabricated) in order to portray Israel in a bad light.

Came across two items today that you’ll probably never hear about from the MSM. The first is one that I stumbled across on one of the Forbes blogs:

Israel, The Third Nation on the Moon?

If all goes according to plan, by December 2012 a team of three young Israeli scientists will have landed a tiny spacecraft on the moon, explored the lunar surface, and transmitted live video back to earth, thereby scooping up a $20 million prize (the Google Lunar X Prize), revolutionizing space exploration, and making the Jewish State the third nation (after the U.S. and Russia) to land a probe on the moon. And they’re doing it in their spare time.
[...]
The X Prize’s organizers say their competition is intended to attract “mavericks” who “take new approaches and think creatively about difficult problems, resulting in truly innovative breakthroughs.” They see the moon as a largely untapped resource, and believe that “inexpensive, regular access to the Moon is a critical stepping stone for further exploration.”
[...]
The X Prize was inspired by the Orteig Prize [won by Charles Lindbergh's "Spirit of St. Louis" flight from N.Y.C. to Paris], and if the “Spirit of Israel” is successful they can certainly count on changing how young Israelis see science and how others see Israel. They may also change how we all see the universe.

And the second is the perfect antidote to the hyper-hysteria generated by the AGW doomers and gloomers (not to mention the Director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research – and his “‘master plan’ for transforming society”, recently highlighted by Pierre Gosselin) whenever a natural disaster occurs.

The following video is somewhat on the long side, but it is in keeping with the Spirit of Israel (in which, of course, the MSM has no interest). And, it’s well worth watching to the end. Enjoy.

A tale of two prejudices: the tides of time (and TIME)

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.” – Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Back in the day – before I’d ever heard of the “climate bible” – I spent many an hour wading through the oft-recycled drivel that constituted the tenets of the “revisionist bible”. The newsgroup, alt.revisionism was (and perhaps still is … my mouse and I haven’t been there for many a year), the favourite posting ground of Holocaust deniers and other assorted anti-semites.

As I had observed in a post, on the Ides of March, 2004:

The cancer of anti-Semitism

“discussion of the tenets of the “revisionist bible” was merely a pretext for giving vent to noxious “views” on Jews, Judaism and/or the State of Israel.

[and]

“Those who wrap themselves in the flag of ‘freedom of speech’ for yet another recycling of all the gambits known to “denierdom”, have become fewer and further between here in alt.revisionism. Nowadays, this same flag is increasingly the cover for the recycling of pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism – although, as in the real world, it is often masked as an expression of ‘anti-Zionism’.”

It is somewhat ironic that some of the most ardent adherents to the tenets of the climate bible, in addition to adopting the denigration and delegitimization “debating” techniques of the Holocaust deniers, will sometimes (not unlike David <I see you, I sue you> Irving) wrap themselves in the “free speech for me, but not for thee” flag.

There are some other ironic parallels: the United Nations is very much a “parent” of much anti-Israel propaganda (viz. the disgraceful “Zionism = racism” resolution of some years ago – although you’d never know that it was actually rescinded – not to mention the more recent Durban conferences on “human rights”) and (thanks to the IPCC) AGW alarmist rhetoric.

The “must act now” mantra of the AGW alarmists could be considered a parallel to the [Israel] “must do more now” mantra that the media mavens invoke at every prospective revival of the so-called “peace process” – or the equally loud mantra that [Israel] “must stop now” whenever she has had the temerity to exercise her sovereign right to defend her citizens against attack.

Both the situation in Israel (and the disputed territories) and global warming are complex issues that, for the most part, the mainstream media have – for far too many years – given such shallow and one-sided coverage that they can no longer be believed. Just as good news from Israel is invariably “no news”, good news on the climate change front is rarely (if ever) considered “fit to print”.

Time magazine is a perfect example. Notwithstanding the above, and the many disturbing echoes from alt.revisionism that I’ve heard in the MSM during the last 6 years, I don’t think I ever envisaged the day that a so-called respectable magazine, such as Time, would abandon all journalistic ethics so that “good news” from Israel has, in effect, been obscenely warped into, well, “bad news” about Jews.

Daniel Gordis is one of my favourite commentators. His article today is a must read. Some excerpts:

Acceptable in Polite Society

The German word Salonfähig doesn’t have a precise English translation. The closest English can do is something along the lines of “acceptable in polite society.” Salonfähig came to mind when I got my first look at the outrageous cover of this week’s Time magazine. Against a light blue background is a Star of David composed of white daisies. “Blue and white” brought to you by Time. But in the middle of the star, in stark black letters, lies the title of this week’s cover story: “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.”

Here we are in the middle of peace negotiations that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, insisted upon, and to which the president of the Palestinian Authority, Abu Mazen, had to be dragged, and Time writes about “why Israel doesn’t care about peace.” Is there no limit to the Israel-bashing that now passes for serious convers[at]ion in polite society?

[...]

[Time's] claim is that Israelis don’t discuss the peace process much (true), that they have low expectations (true), and that they don’t care (also true). And why do Israelis not care?

Ah, here comes the rub. Part of the answer that Time offers is that Israelis have despaired of peace (though why that might be is never explicitly stated – Palestinian recalcitrance is never actually mentioned, like a dark family secret that everyone knows but that everyone hopes will go away if it doesn’t surface). Israelis have learned to build decent lives even in the face of the conflict, and the Palestinians are now a nuisance, not a strategic threat. That’s true, and a fair point.

But what about the rest of the answer that Time offers? Why are Israelis not more interested in the peace process? Money.

Yes, you read that correctly. The Jews are more interested in money than in peace. In four pages of text, the Israeli (Jewish) pre-occupation with real estate, startups, and high rises on the Ashkelon beaches is repeated again and again and again, like the refrain of a bad country song. “Newspapers print fewer pages of politics … and more pages of business news.” That’s news? How is that different from dozens of other papers throughout the world? It seems that this is important because now we’re talking about Jewish newspapers, and those stubborn Jews who “don’t care about peace” just print more and more pages of business news.

[...]

The implication that Israelis are not overwhelmingly concerned about the peace process because we’re more interested in money is well … so stereotypical that it’s hard to believe that Time actually went that far. But that’s the world we live in. The line between Israel-bashing and Jew-baiting is so thin as to be nonexistent. And crossing the line is Salonfähig.

[...]

[O]n the first page of text, we’re offered a comparison of life in secular Tel Aviv versus largely religious Jerusalem: “On a Saturday, when Jerusalem turns into a mausoleum in observance of the Jewish Sabbath,” Karl Vick writes. A mausoleum? Would any decent publication dare describe the quiet that descends over Arab villages and neighborhoods as people enter their homes to eat the post-Ramadan-fast meal as a “mausoleum”? Can one imagine a sentence describing some New Hampshire town on a Christmas Eve as “quiet and still like a mausoleum”? It’s unthinkable. But it’s not unthinkable to describe the capital city of the Jewish state, at a moment of quietude in observance of a several-thousand-year-old tradition, as a “mausoleum.” Dead. Rotting. And Salonfähig again.

[...]

The worst, though, is still the cover. Across bookstore and airports this week, Time’s cover will scream to those who (wisely) do not read the story that it’s Israel, and Israelis, who simply don’t care about peace. It’s a setup, of course. Because these talks are likely to stall, and then to fail. And Time has already predicted whose fault that will be.
[...]

In today’s Jerusalem Post, there’s an article by the Arab-Israeli writer, Khaled Abu Toameh:

Analysis: The PA’s mixed messages about peace talks

A state on confusion: Different officials, sometimes the same officials, are issuing contradictory messages

It’s hard these days to tell exactly what the Palestinian Authority wants or thinks. For the past few days and weeks, it has been speaking with more than one voice, sometimes sending contradictory messages.

[...]

[...] Palestinians have become used to hearing such contradictory messages on an almost daily basis, sometimes from the same official.

Following last week’s ceremony in Washington, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, gave a series of interviews to various media outlets.

In one interview, he was quoted as saying that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was not serious about reaching peace with the Palestinians and that his only goal was to waste time. Erekat later issued a denial, saying his words had been taken out of context.

In another interview, Erekat was quoted as saying that Israel and the Palestinians had agreed in Washington on the core issues that would be discussed during the direct talks. Later that day he was quoted by a different newspaper as saying that the two sides had yet to agree on the agenda of the negotiations.

[...]

Some PA officials sound more like their Hamas counterparts when they are interviewed in the Arab media.

Making statements and denying them, often within hours, has become almost a daily event in the politics of the PA. The latest example was that of Fatah’s Muhammad Dahlan, who, in an interview with an Arab newspaper on Sunday, denounced Netanyahu as a “swindler.”

After his remarks were published in Israel, the former security commander rushed to issue a denial, claiming that his words had been taken out of context.

[...]

Palestinian analysts said that the PA’s conflicting messages are a sign of the state [of] uncertainty among the top leaders in Ramallah.

Will Time ever do a cover story on the PA’s contribution to the failure of the peace process? Somehow I doubt it.

But speaking of “uncertainty” … on the climate change front, while reading the August 30 Inter Academy Council’s Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC I was very encouraged to see that they appeared to give far more consideration to criticisms submitted than the previous post-climategate inquiries – in particular to the poor handling of “uncertainties”. And while there was no explicit criticism of the IPCC chair, Rajendra Pachauri, a recommendation that the term of office for his position be limited to the duration of one assessment (about which Time did report) certainly offers him the opportunity for a dignified, graceful exit.

Were Pachauri to take advantage of this opportunity, it would not fix the IPCC, but (to paraphrase Dickens):

It is a far, far better thing that he does, than he has ever done.

No laughing matter

For a good number of years, now, most MSM coverage of anything involving Israel can be counted on to accentuate – and exaggerate, if not fabricate – the negative, while downplaying the positive – if not ignoring it completely: good news from Israel is no news, as far as the MSM is concerned.

It was, therefore, very refreshing to find the following brilliant British satire site, where the authors note:

No Laughing Matter

If you’re looking for sober, reflective, thoughts on the Middle East, Israel and the Palestinians, then we’re afraid you’re in the wrong place.

How these issues are discussed, in particular how Israel is demonised, has become just too absurd. So here is our response.

There are currently two short videos, one about Hamas, and the other about Iran. Both are well worth watching.