Friday, 23 March 2007


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of the absolutely invaluable, is a 32 year article from Newsweek, about the coming ice age.  Complete with expert scientific testimony. 

I wonder what they did to the people who disagreed in those days.   I wonder if, 32 years from today, anyone will be asking about the torquemada-like tactics being used against heretics in 2007 who dare to question the immutability of global warming.


Newsweeks 1975 Article About The Coming Ice Age

The Cooling World

By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earths weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the worlds weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earths average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the little ice age conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data, concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

The worlds food-producing system, warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAAs Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality



Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, under the heading "A TASTE OF THE FUTURE", I posted a report that a German judge - to the outrage and disgust of just about everyone else - had refused to allow a Morroccan born woman to file for divorce over the beatings her husband was giving her, because the koran allows him to beat her (what that has to do with German law is anyone's guess).    I pointed out that if we don't successfully fight the Islamic lunatic-fringers who want us all to live this way, it will be our future.

In that connection, here is another example of what I'm talking about, this time from Nigeria.  Please read it and think about whether you would like to acquiesce to these people:

Muslim pupils kill teacher

From correspondents in Gombe

March 22, 2007 04:32am

MUSLIM pupils at a secondary school in northeastern Nigeria beat a teacher to death today after accusing her of desecrating the Koran.

Oluwatoyin Olusase, a Christian, was adjudicating an Islamic Religious Knowledge exam at the school in Gombe state when the incident occurred.

The students attacked her outside the school compound after the exam and killed her, witnesses said.

It was not clear exactly what Olusase had done that angered the students.

Police confirmed the killing and said their intervention had prevented the incident from turning into a riot.

"We have received information that a female teacher has been lynched by her students. We are investigating the report," Gombe state police commissioner Joseph Ibi said.

At least five people were killed and several churches burned down in February 2006 in the neighbouring state of Bauchi by Muslims infuriated that a Christian teacher in a secondary school had tried to confiscate a Koran from a student who was reading it during class.

Word got out into the streets that the teacher had desecrated the Koran, infuriating Muslims who went on the rampage.

At least 15,000 people have died in religious, communal and political violence in Africa's most populous country since 1999, when Nigeria returned to democracy after 30 years of almost unbroken military rule.


Ken Berwitz

Do you remember that story, a month or two ago, about Barack Obama attending a Muslim madrassah for four years in Indonesia?  The one reported by Insight magazine (which did not ever claim it was true, only that it was being floated by the Hillary Clinton it and see)?  The one that Fox took so much heat for reporting as well (as with Insight, they did not claim it was true, only that the story was out there)?

Well, there is now an ad being shown over the internet, on behalf of the Obama candidacy, which attacks Hillary Clinton as an ominous 1984-esque Big Brother (or is that sister?)

In the ad, countless drones with blank looks and identical clothes march in lock-step to a hall, where Hillary's face is on a huge, spartan movie-like screen speaking to/indoctrinating them.  Suddenly a non-drone woman in a track suit runs towards the screen, wielding what appears to be a hammer.  She hurls it at the screen, just one or two seconds before a military brigade (all masked, no faces) can stop her.  The hammer destroys the screen.  Then, the ad ends with a Barack Obama logo.

If you want a first-hand look at what I'm talking about (and I hope you do), please link to it at

The ad, which is devastatingly negative towards Hillary Clinton, has been on the internet for a couple of weeks.  And it has been seen by an astonishing number of people already - as I write this, alone has a count of 476,595 views.  But only in the last day or two have we found out who created it. 

The ad's creator is Philip de Vellis.  He was, at least until his name became public knowledge, an employee of  "Blue State Digital" (presumably the "blue state" part indicates they perform their services for Democrats).   Blue State Digital does work for presidential candidate Barack Obama. 

If you believe the subsequent PR, de Vellis had nothing to do with the Obama campaign and he has been let go by Blue State Digital.  Personally, I think this information was released by a flying pig.

When Insight and Fox reported the Obama/madrassah rumor, mainstream media acted as if there was no reason at all to connect it to the Clinton campaign.  They did little but ream Insight and Fox, while posturing that they were far more professional and ethical than either of them. 

Now that someone working for Barack Obama - either directly or through a company engaged by the Obama campaign - does this, why is it at all unreasonable to suspect that what we're really seeing is payback for the madrassah story?

I don't know the answer.  But I sure as hell know it's a legitimate question.  And those oh so superior legends in their own minds -  at CNN and MSNBC to name two - suddenly look less professional/ethical and a lot more like shills for Hillary Clinton who protected her from any journalistic investigation of her staff.


Ken Berwitz

As you may have heard or read, the Duke lacrosse players accused of kidnapping and raping an exotic dancer at a party on March 13/14, 2006, apparently will be exonerated of all charges in a matter of days. 

Lucky them:  all it took was a year of having their names dragged through the mud daily while the lying accuser's name was never made public, the unspeakable anguish and emotional toll exacted by these terrible allegations hanging over their heads and, not incidentally, the legal bills that would wipe most families out.

Countless articles have been written about this fiasco, including my blogs of December 16 and 22.  I, of course, urge you to scroll back and read them when you get a chance.

But right now I urge you to read the following column by New York Post writer John Podhoretz.  He nails this story beautifully.  

It is very satisfying to see Podhoretz excoriate the amoral District Attorney, Nifong, who rode this fraudulent case to an election victory.  The fact that it has become a pyrrhic victory gives me hope for the triumph of justice over race-pandering lunacy.   And I especially appreciate Podhoretz' comments about the 88 academic anal apertures (I'm trying to keep this clean) who tried, convicted and sentenced the lacrosse players before having even the remotest idea of whether they were guilty of anything.

Here is the commentary.  Let me know what you think of it.



March 23, 2007 -- IT seems that the trumped-up charges against three young men who played for the la crosse team at Duke University will be dismissed either today or sometime next week.

That will mostly end their ordeal, though they'll still have to deal with millions of dollars in legal fees (which, in the end, the city of Durham, N.C., will probably have to pick up).

The same can't be said of their false accuser - who is in a world of trouble, since you're not supposed to make false accusations to the authorities.

But her dire fate will seem positively sunny compared to that of Durham DA Mike Nifong - who is certain to be sued for defamation, likely to be disbarred and very possibly charged with an open-and-shut case of perjury that could land him in jail for a long time.

Yet some of the most disgraceful actors in this case will go unpunished.

I'm referring to a huge cohort of the professors at the top-flight university attended by the three unjustly accused men.

Some 88 of them - more than 10 percent of the entire Duke professoriat - engaged in a shocking rush to judgment in the weeks following the party where the accuser falsely alleged she had been raped.

They signed an ad declaring they were "turning up the volume at a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down."

Their shameful conduct helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere that tempted and seduced DA Nifong to believe he could ride an indictment of the three young men to political victory in the Democratic primary that took place only weeks after he charged them.

It is not too much to say that many of the adults at Duke, who should be stewards for their students, actually wanted the false rape story to be true because it fulfilled their ideological predilections.

Since the academic work of those who organized the ad centers around the notion that the white male power structure subjugates and violates all those who are neither white nor male, the case was actually a dream come true for them.

After all, a poor African-American woman said a gang of white boys - a gang whose number changed each time she told her cock-and-bull story - had raped her only a few yards from the Duke campus.

These academics must realize there is something more than faintly ridiculous about professors living in bucolic splendor with lifetime tenure at one of America's most prestigious universities claiming that they and people like them - students whose admittance to the university represents an irrevocable ticket into the highest reaches of the American power structure - are being socially suppressed.

So here the accusation of a race-and-sex crime falls right into their laps.

Ah! At last! Proof!

Here it was: Real-world support for their absurdly airy conspiracy theories.

So what if the tale made no sense, that anyone with eyes to see could perceive almost from Day One that it was a preposterous invention?

So what if the lives of young men in their charge were at stake? It was time to "turn up the volume" - not to save countless African-American women from rape, but rather to justify their own ideas.

There will be consequences for the unseemly conduct at Duke. The university's president, Richard Brodhead, may not survive his own rush to judgment. His conduct may lead the school's board of trustees to look for a successor who won't destroy reputations at the drop of a hat to satisfy the desires of the politically correct.

But for those 88 professors - what consequences will they experience?

Consequences? Don't make me laugh.

The tenured ones will continue to enjoy their aristocratic installment in Durham. The untenured will be supported in their efforts to find similar perches elsewhere by the rest of the Gang of 88, because that's how academic politics works.

How about even the loss of even a single night of sleep?

Oh, no. Not these folks. They're fighting the white patriarchy. They're on the side of the dispossessed and oppressed. They're giving voice to the voiceless. They're giving hope to the hopeless.

They're fools at best and monsters at worst - and neither fools nor monsters are much troubled by attacks of conscience.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!