Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Barack Obama'

Tag Archives: Barack Obama

If clothes maketh the man ……

 (by Ray Dixon ~ fashion blogger to the manosphere)

Then Barack ‘Beige’ Obama just lost the war against the Islamic State before it even started.

obama-suit 

The ABC reports on Obama’s lack of a cunning plan:

US president Barack Obama says he has asked officials to prepare a range of military options for confronting Islamic State (IS) militants in Syria and foreshadowed recruiting international partners for potential military action.

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse.”

We don’t have a strategy yet.

 But I think that report could have also read:

US president Barack Obama says he has asked his wife Michelle to prepare a range of suit options before he confronts Islamic State (IS) militants in Syria and has foreshadowed recruiting international clothing designers for potential (and suitable) apparel.

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse.”

“I don’t have a decent suit yet.

 I suggest he tries khaki.

 

But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus.

Chariots of the Dogs

Chariots of the Dogs

Here is a lovely exposition of the way that statistics can be manipulated and distorted as a propaganda tool and then cited ad infinitum as if they have some intrinsic meaning, sorry in advance to the true believers in Climate change but this may just upset your apple cart just a little next time you cite the “97% consensus” claim.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday 28 May 2014
Media Contact: Tim Black
+44 (0)207 40 40 470
tim.black@spiked-online.com

Today on spiked, Michael Cook takes apart the claim, cited by President Barack Obama, that 97 per cent of scientists are in agreement that climate change is man-made and poses a serious danger.

‘Do 97 per cent of scientists really agree on both propositions? Let?s do a reality check here’, writes Cook. ‘On what issue do academics reach 97 per cent agreement other than that they are being underpaid? That the sun will rise tomorrow? No, some of them will say, because the sun doesn?t rise; the earth revolves. No, because we can only assert that it is probable, not certain. No, because we might be living in a multiverse where the sun will not rise on 28 May, etc, etc.’

So how did an Australian scientist at the University of Queensland, and several colleagues, arrive at the this now famous figure of 97 per cent?

Cook discovered that the researchers had sorted through thousands of academic abstracts featuring the words ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’, dividing them up into four piles to indicate whether they held a position on climate change (the biggest pile (66.4 per cent) held no position)

Cook writes: ‘Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”.’ 

The researchers then emailed a survey to 8,547 out of the 29,083 authors who ‘endorsed the consensus position’ on climate change, of which only 1,189 responded (nearly all of whom did agree that climate change was man made (97.2 per cent)).

But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus. 

Furthermore, Cook points out, ‘Obama rashly added the word “dangerous” to the claim. Not even [the Australian reseachers] dared to assert that 97 per cent of scientists believe that global warming is “dangerous”.’

Cook concludes: ‘Scientists and politicians do themselves no favours when they use shoddy statistics and public relations flim-flam to sell scientific hypotheses to the public.’ 

Read the full article:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/global-warming-the-97-fallacy/15069

When we are given any numerical value as a signifier of a proposition’s veracity we should, of course always ask the obvious question of just how was that number made or settled upon. Especially when it is a major  dot point in the climate change debate. In any event in scientific terms “consensus” is and always has been close to utterly meaningless, not that any of the true believers will ever admit that because to them its their ticket to ride in the Chariots of the Dogs.

Cheers Comrades

this post was produced entirely with puppy power

this post was produced entirely with sustainable  puppy power

Obama claims victory

Good bad or indifferent what do my readers think of the Election result in the USA?

Cheers Comrades

Muslim Rioters In Sydney: Deport Them

Very well put Yale, Sadly even if these rioters have foreign citizenship it would be hard to deport them however we can live in hope that a way could be found to invite them to leave.

Truth and consequences in abortion

We all generally agree that life is precious and that killing another human being is one of the most heinous crimes that we can imagine. and when it comes to killing we scale our disgust on a basis of how well that killing can be justified. Thus we  think that killing someone who is threatening our lives is both justifiable and entirely acceptable whereas killing for pleasure or expedience is most abhorrent and we, as a species usually have social mechanisms to excuse the former and punish the latter. I jurisdictions that execute killers it is considered most humane to use drugs to carry out a sentence of death. There is a part of me that is very old school when it comes to capital punishment. Old school insofar as I think that some crimes are so terrible that the guilty deserve a terrible end rather than something that is painless and entirely sanitised.   There is also a part of me which  thinks that a similar principle should apply to abortion, that we should never allow it to be too easy, too sanitised and too easy to deny the reality of what is being done, it is the killing of another human being. Like the killing that I began with it can be justified under certain circumstances but we are lessened as creatures of virtue if we allow the conceit that what is being done is anything less than killing another human being.

Which brings me to the announcement yesterday that chemical methods of procuring an abortion are to be come more available as a method of killing the unborn:

click for source

I am reminded of one of the themes of Umberto Eco‘s book “The Name of the Rose” was essentially that just because we can do something should not mean that we should do so and when we make something like abortion too easy we make it too easy to pretend that the life of a person is being ended and by doing that we are all diminished. Make no mistake I am not one of those absolutists who thinks that all abortion is murder and that it should be prohibited by law. I am far too much of a realist to suggest that. But like the consideration of killing that I opened this piece with I do think that there is a variation in how we should consider the justifiability of abortion. That scale has at one end a procedure to save the life of a woman who would die if the pregnancy were to continue and at the other end an abortion that is done in response to a “failure” or a “failure to use” contraception. And in-between those situations there are lots of different scenarios where an abortion can be well justified. The thing is just like executions there are also good arguments for making the procedure as significant as the act of killing that it is even when it entirely justified by circumstances because at the very least then the woman who is ending that life will truly understand what it is that they are doing. Just being able to end a life by taking an a drug is just too easy and it make denying the humanity of the unborn far too easy as well.

With respect Comrades.

Putting Pandora back in the marriage equality box

By Jim Wallaceposted Tuesday, 5 June 2012

Slogans such as ‘marriage equality’ and ‘equal love’ have dominated the gay marriage debate so far. But as the federal parliament inches closer to dealing with the three ‘marriage equality’ bills that are before it, we are finally beginning to see their consequences.

During the recent Senate Hearings into one of the bills, the Green’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, former High Court Justice Michael Kirby was asked what logical reason could be given for not extending ‘marriage equality’ to other configurations of love such as consenting polygamous and polyamorous ones.

“The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people,” he told the Senate.“There may be, in some future time, some other question.
Advertisement

The lesson in courts and in the parliament, I suggest, is that you take matters step by step.”

And it is clear by recent events that there are those who are very interested in seeing those next steps.

Last week, leaders of Australia’s polyamorous community expressed disappointment with Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young for rejecting equality for their relationships.

Hanson-Young is yet to respond to the specific question of whether the Greens will drop their support of ‘marriage for all’ and the clear expectation the bi-sexual community in particular has in their policy.

This week The Punch and SBS featured a polygamous relationship in which the participants complained of discrimination from authorities and said if it were legal they would marry.

Of course such talk is dangerous indeed for gay activists, and Rodney Croome, the campaign director for Australian Marriage Equality, felt it necessary to explain why ‘marriage equality’ did not apply to the poly communities, so as not to unhinge his own campaign.
Advertisement

Ironically, many of his arguments mirrored those used against same-sex marriage.

Croome says that same-sex attraction is ‘immutable’ but then tells the poly community their sexual attraction is a choice, which seems strangely at odds with his allies the Greens, who must surely treat all these sexualities equally.

Or do they now suddenly believe that we shouldn’t treat everyone’s love equally?

Certainly such intolerance from gay activists seems less than acceptable to Nikko Antalffy who recently gave a rambling defence of polyamory in a national newspaper, claiming it takes us back to our pre medieval natural desires.

But let’s be honest, they are in reality pagan desires, customs rightly long rejected, and now only contemplated by a parliament that is perhaps less esteemed than any in the country’s history. A parliament forced to consider the intolerable due only to the artificial power of the Greens.

Marriage was institutionalised to protect not only society from the nonsense of things like multiple unions, but specifically children. Unless children were involved, government would have no interest in marriage.

Neither gay nor polyamorous “marriages” could serve the interests of children. Gay marriage by definition denies a child either a mother or a father. Mother love and father love that no amount of gay-activist-dominated studies can tell a parent doesn’t matter to a child.

Croome says another reason for not extending marriage equality to polyamorous people is that it would complicate the family law system.

But in some states gay activism has already erased fathers from birth certificates and led to the nonsense of even a single man being able to get a child through surrogacy.

In Croome’s mind this level of complication to family law, not to mention to the child, is OK.

How insulting it must be to polyamorous people to be told by Croome that their love is less equal and that the ‘group dynamics’ of their relationships means they can’t have ‘marriage equality’.

He argues their relationships are less stable. So too are same-sex relationships, when compared to marriage, but try using this as an argument for man-woman marriage without being demonised.

Again, more breathtaking double standards.

Comments by polyamorous activists such as James Dominguez and his wife Rebecca, show they are deadly serious about rights for their community.

They live with Mr Dominguez’s boyfriend and Mrs Dominguez’s boyfriend and went to the trouble of lodging a submission to the Senate inquiry.

In blog comments last week, Mr Dominguez expects that the Greens will champion any future popular move to legalise poly marriage.

He says no-where in the world where same-sex marriage has been legalised has there been a push for poly marriage.

This is simply untrue. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage, Holland, now allows civil law contracts for polygamists.

In seeking to allay society’s concern of a slippery slope, activists assure us that same-sex marriage is a natural stopping point, but if nature can be brought into this argument, then surely biological marriage is the natural stopping point.

It is time to move past the slogans and consider the consequences for society and children of redefining marriage. Because clearly there is an agenda well beyond the current claim on it.

Re posted under the terms of its Creative Commons licence from Online Opinion

Wedging the Greens

I do love Janet Albrechtsen’s style. She cuts right to the chase and in her incisive piece from today’s Oz she points out that there is much to be gained for Gillard’s leadership if she makes a stand for nuclear energy development in this country. I like her suggestion that by doing so Gillard can consign the Greens to the same sort of irrelevance that is now enjoyed by One Nation.

Plenty of sensible Labor minds recognise the potential of nuclear energy for base load 24/7 power and the limits of wind and solar energy. The facts are on the table. As Ziggy Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, has pointed out, this is a 55-year-old industry. Thirty-one countries already use nuclear power. Fuel and spent rods have been moved across the world without incident. Britain will increase its nuclear power to 30 per cent by the 2030s. France has increased its nuclear power to 80 per cent of energy needs over 50 years. US President Barack Obama has endorsed nuclear power. Japan, the size of Victoria, with 127 million people, has 55 reactors. Germany, the same size as NSW, also has accommodated nuclear reactors. The Italians are doing the same. China, with electricity demand growing by 12 per cent each year, has 24 nuclear reactors under construction and more in the planning. Both India and China, where this debate ultimately will be decided, are projected to be the biggest users of nuclear power by 2050.

And Australia? With 40 per cent of the world’s uranium resources, the present political cowardice makes no sense. As new Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg said in his recent maiden address, “It is a curious moral, economic and environmental position that we find ourselves in where we are prepared to supply uranium but not use it.” In February, Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes described nuclear power as a “political reality”. We will, he said, have that debate in the future.

The future is now. Rather than allowing gay marriage to dominate the next ALP national conference, modern Labor must redefine its relationship with the Greens. And that, says the Labor member, can happen only if the left faction can “summon the fortitude to change the game”. “History is tapping you on the shoulder,” Sawyer told Combet.

Janet Albrechtsen

I’m a conservative these days but there is still part of me that cares about the fate of the ALP even if it is only because I think the country is better served by that party dominating the cross benches from a good coalition government than the Loopy Greens being anywhere near the parliament.

Cheers Comrades

 

Moral questions and the “Reaper” drone

While morality warriors like our own JM can lengthen a comment thread to a tally of one than 150 comments I thought it would be interesting to post about this story , seeing that he is so keen to pontificate about the morality of shooting people from Apache gunship helicopters in Baghdad. You have to think that he is going to have conniptions about the way that under Obama’s administration the use of unmanned aircraft to target and kill senior members of Al Qaeda has increased by a couple of orders of magnitude compared to his predecessor.

CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, NV - AUGUST 08: A pilot's heads up display in a ground control station shows a truck from the view of a camera on an MQ-9 Reaper during a training mission August 8, 2007 at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada. The Reaper is the Air Force's first "hunter-killer" unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and is designed to engage time-sensitive targets on the battlefield as well as provide intelligence and surveillance. The jet-fighter sized Reapers are 36 feet long with 66-foot wingspans and can fly for as long as 14 hours fully loaded with laser-guided bombs and air-to-ground missiles. They can fly twice as fast and high as the smaller MQ-1 Predators reaching speeds of 300 mph at an altitude of up to 50,000 feet. The aircraft are flown by a pilot and a sensor operator from ground control stations. The Reapers are expected to be used in combat operations by the United States military in Afghanistan and Iraq within the next year. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

CIA drones are killing terrorists — and civilians — in Pakistan almost every day. The unmanned aircraft are becoming the weapon of choice in the fight against al-Qaida and its allies. But the political, military and moral consequences are incalculable. SPIEGEL ONLINE has investigated Barack Obama’s remote-controlled campaign against terrorism.

What is the cost of rendering a terrorist harmless once and for all by killing him? During the course of 14 months, the CIA used unmanned and heavily armed small aircraft known as drones to stage 15 strikes against the presumed locations of the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. On Aug. 5, 2009, on the 16th try, the drones finally managed to kill Baitullah Mehsud.

On that day, a Predator drone was hovering about three kilometers (2 miles) above the house of Mehsud’s father-in-law, somewhere in the Pakistani province of South Waziristan. The drone’s infrared camera sent remarkably sharp images in real time to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The images showed the Taliban leader sitting on the roof of his house, in the company of his wife, his uncle and a doctor.

I think it would be fair to guess that JM would characterize the use of drones as firing platforms for hellfire missiles as a “wrong” ,  personally it just looks like smart use of technological superiority  to me.

Cheers Comrades

8)

%d bloggers like this: