Climate change to radical Islam: the Los Angeles Times has gone mad
LOS ANGELES, June 2, 2016 — Los Angeles is one of the major cities in this world. It is the entertainment capital of the world. A world class city that makes global news deserves a world class newspaper.
The Los Angeles Times once made some pretense about trying to be that respected news source. But over time, the LA Times began substituting leftist opinions for cold facts. The editorial pages bled over into what was supposed to be the hard news section of the paper. Unless one is an unapologetic leftist, the evidence is unmistakable. The Los Angeles Times has jumped the shark. They have gone stark raving mad.
Their recent headline “Climate change is the most pressing issue of our time” was nothing more than a leftist temper tantrum. Conservatives could not have invented a stereotypical liberal caricature as perfect as what the Los Angeles Times created under the guise of a serious article. This was Pajamaboy on tofu steroids:
With the exception of a handful of quacks and deniers, the vast majority of scientists believe that human activity – primarily the burning of fossil fuels – is driving up temperatures around the world, and that the pace of global warming is accelerating faster than earlier believed.
This is liberal arrogance so toxic it might even make Harvard academics blush. Anyone who disagrees with the liberal point of view is a quack and a denier as far as the paper is concerned.
But the canard about consensus on climate change has been thoroughly debunked. What is true is that a majority of liberal gasbags are trying to bully, harass, ridicule and shout down any opposition into submission. That is the opposite of science, which relies on pure evidence and uncorrupted data.
Being an environmental zealot extremist is bad enough. In its attempt to promote climate change, the LA Times diminishes other issues that do matter. It even has the audacity to link the most important issues in real life with complete trivialities:
So what forms the core of our political discourse instead? It’s ranged from the size of Trump’s, uh, hands to whether Clinton enabled her husband’s philandering to how to make Mexico pay for a wall the length of the border, along with international trade agreements, under what circumstances the military should be deployed, and whether the multi-nation deal with Iran to freeze its nuclear program was wise or foolish.
For adults living in the real world, the Iran deal is as consequential as it gets. The mullahs in Iran are threatening to blow up world civilization. They fund radical Islamic jihad worldwide. To link them to Trump’s male phalanges is like comparing Edward R. Murrow to a Los Angeles Times editorial writer. As for deciding when to deploy the American military, that is also among one of the most serious and important decisions that politicians can ever make.
In this same column the Times fully revealed its blind, irrational leftist ideology. Whether or not Hillary Clinton enabled her husband’s alleged sexual assaults is deemed irrelevant. But in the real world, the character of the White House occupant must matter. If Mrs. Clinton enabled her husband in the commission of violent criminal acts, that does matter.
The Times, however, kept trying to minimize every issue below Goddess Gaea:
Yes, Islamic State is a destabilizing force, income inequality may have knocked the nation’s middle class on its heels and there’s way too much money skewing our political system. But climate change…is a looming problem that threatens to upend world politics.
ISIS is more than just a destabilizing force. They are genocidal, apocalyptic religious lunatics who cut off heads, burn children alive, stone gays and beat women for being in public without a male companion. Income inequality worsened under President Obama, a fact the Times never mentions. As for money in politics, campaign finance reform is the second least important political issue behind climate change.
The Times admits that virtually nobody cares about climate change. It consistently ranks at the bottom of issues of importance to voters. Like spoiled children throwing tantrums, however, the Times refuses to understand and accept this.
Those who are not rich, white liberals have plenty of issues that matter to them far more than climate change. Islamists are committing global terrorist acts. The economy is stagnant, with the American labor participation rate at its lowest level in decades. This unemployment has led to despair in the form of increasing hard drug use. Heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s are cruel killers that rob families of their loved ones. Inner cities are war zones overrun by crime. Small businesses are drowning under regulations that put paperwork and bureaucracy over customers. Political violence fomented by the left has pitted citizens against police officers, blacks against whites, women against men, and secularists and Muslims against Jews and Christians.
Every single one of these issues is far more important than anything the environmental movement cares about. Many people see environmentalists as crusaders who do them more harm than good. Ask West Virginia and Kentucky coal miners why they should lose their livelihoods based on junk science that only Los Angeles Times readers care about. The rest of society sees environmentalists as irrelevant and even dangerous to their daily lives.
Rather than value human beings over trees, the Los Angeles Times viciously attacks people for placing their own survival over climate change fantasies. According to the Times, people dismiss climate change because, “It’s depressing, it’s complicated, it’s hard for voters to comprehend, its solutions are scary because they require lifestyles changes and personal sacrifice.”
The truth: people dismiss climate change because it is perfectly normal for human beings to worry about their present lot in life. It is equally rational for them not to be concerned about possible events that may occur 1,000 years after they die. Or not. It is also reasonable to dismiss people in the prediction racket who have a lengthy history of making grossly inaccurate predictions.
Voters are not stupid. They know that climate change has nothing to do with Mother Earth. The movement is about money, power and control. The issue is not whether climate change is a problem. What matters is what the Times and liberal politicians steadfastly refuse to publicly admit. Their proposed solutions involve massive government control and the suppression of even more human freedoms we thought were constitutionally guaranteed.
The Los Angeles Times has made a conscious decision to demonize anyone who disagrees with it. It has elevated ideological and political zealotry over science. It has participated in silencing dissent (It now refuses to print letters to the editor disagreeing with climate change) and then has claimed a consensus. It has deliberately foisted its own opinions on readers and tried to pass them off as news. It has have abused the public trust under the phony guise of trying to protect it. It has ignored the cries of Americans worried about jobs and terrorism solely to push a radical leftist environmental agenda.
That is not the behavior of a news organization. The Los Angeles Times has not been a real news organization for quite some time.
The news is supposed to be clear and coherent. It is supposed to be for reporters, not activists. The Los Angeles Times was supposed to report about the crazed crusaders. Instead, they became them.
The Los Angeles Times is just stark raving mad.