Poor Little Politically Correct Snowflakes - Couldn't Handle Michelle Wolf's Jokes Saturday Night

"Seriously! You people ought to be paying Trump with all the attention and column space you get from him!"

"Because fascists aren't known for their self-deprecating sense of humor, Trump skipped another White House correspondents dinner. (Can you imagine Benito attending an Il Duce roast?) In fact, fascists aren't known for possessing any sense of humor. " -  Blogger P.M. Carpenter on smirkingchimp.com 'American Nazis Hold Cult Rally in Michigan'.

" As soon as a comic does his or her job too well and uses comedy to speak a truth that could jeopardize the press’s attempt to befriend the political players they cover, reporters put away their cellphone cameras and cry, 'Who invited such a rude woman?'   I'd like to offer this unofficial response from America's comics: If you don't like comedy then don't hire us!"  - Adam Conover,  NY Times, 'Michelle Wolf Did What Comedians Are Supposed To Do'.

The Times' Adam Conover is spot on about the little wussie, priggish press only wanting comics when it suits their purposes and never wanting to be made to feel uncomfortable.  Blogger P.M. Carpenter is quite correct that fascists and fascist - Nazi snowflakes absolutely hate humor takedowns of themselves by wiseass comics.  Who can forget, or maybe too many never knew, that the Three Stooges were put at the top of Hitler's "kill list" after their spoof ('You Nazty Spy')  came out taking der Fuhrer down a few notches, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRc43duqdBc

(This short  evidently had Hitler in a spitting rage and came out four months before Charlie Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator'.)

In a similar vein, all the Right's  (including their media pawns) self-righteous snowflakes and fascist poltroons took umbrage at comic Michelle Wolf's humor at the White House Correspondents'   dinner. They failed to process that in extreme times, with a fascist like Trump defiling the nation, extreme humor is called for. You can see her performance here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDbx1uArVOM


Trump didn't attend, opting instead to hold a rally for his little Nazi - fascist followers in Michigan. Just as well. Had he been there I'm sure Michelle would have roasted him to a far thee well. But-- like Hitler before him with the Three Stooges- he preferred to attack her on his twitter feed. (At least he doesn't have a Nazi kill list yet)

He called the Correspondents'  dinner an "embarrassment to everyone associated with it" oblivious to the fact the real embarrassment was to those fascist Amerikkans who attended his fascist, hateful rally in  Michigan's 93-percent white Washington Township, "the only sort of territory that will have him"  - in the words of blogger Carpenter,

Adding:

"He prattled on for 75 torturous minutes, mostly elevating himself by tearing down pretty much everyone else. He particularly laid into Montana's Sen. Jon Tester, at one point declaring that "I know things about Tester that I could say … and if I said them, he’d never be elected again." (So why did he not say them?)

Added to Trump's familiar bête noires last night were James Comey, Andrew McCabe, the Justice Department, American intelligence agencies, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, California sanctuary cities, the European Union and, of course, the Fourth Estate, which has an appropriate habit of criticizing this godawfulest of U.S. presidents and best of two-bit authoritarians."

But the wannabe and actual Nazis that attended that hate fest are likely beyond humor anyway, just like their hero Doturd.

As for the media snowflakes and lily-livered imps bellyaching about Wolf's takedown of Huckleberry Sanders, they ought to hear some of Janice's choice comments whenever Sanders appears on the tube in typical über liar fashion.   All the petty little media whiners (like CNN's Chris Cillizza, NBC's Andrea Mitchell, and Mika Brzezinksi) bitching about Wolf assaulting Sanders' appearance have it all wrong, a fact they might have absorbed had they read the transcript of the riff on the Wa Po as I did.  As salon.com's  Matthew Rosza noted:

Objectively speaking, her comments about Sanders did not involve her looks. When she joked about how Sanders "burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smokey eye," the commentary was not on Sanders' appearance, but on her dishonesty. Similarly, when she compared Sanders to Aunt Lydia (whom Sanders looks nothing like), the jab was at the expense of totalitarianism. You could make the argument that comparing the Trump administration to a dystopian society is extreme or even silly, but it's absurd to claim that Wolf was trying to take down Sanders' appearance.

Maybe all these mewing media clowns merit being fired for their lack of intelligence and perception.

Responding initially to the Right's  crybabies and whiners  on why Wolf wasn't "vetted" first,  Margaret Talev (head of the White House Correspondents' Association)  told a CNN interviewer on Sunday

"It's a night about free speech and so by tradition we do not vet monologues"

Adding that "comedians invited over the past 30 years have often been controversial." 

Jeez Louise, who'da thought? Free speech for a White House correspondents' dinner!  Alas, the wimps, media whiners and  politically correct wussies  later got her to backtrack, saying "unfortunately the entertainer’s monologue was not in the spirit” of the group’s mission."  Horse manure and balderdash! It was every bit in the spirit of a comedian recruited to entertain the assembled group. Recall Stephen Colbert's roasting of Bush Jr. some years ago? The deal is to make these entitled fuckers feel uncomfortable and get a few laughs while at it. (See the link at the end)

Carpenter's ending comment:

"What's to hate? Perhaps their love of a man who, as Ms. Wolf put it last night, "loves white nationalists, which is a weird term for a Nazi. Calling a Nazi a white nationalist is like calling a pedophile a kid-friend."

"Less than 20 minutes into the speech," reports the Washington Post, "some in the mostly white and older crowd headed for the exit." We await Trump's doing the same, so that America can get back to being America."

  Is worth a re-read. If some of the crowd were indeed heading for the exits, maybe they will soon wake up and head for the exits electorally.

As for the reaction of the whiners to the Wolf comic remarks at the Correspondents' dinner, if their skin is so thin and they're so invested in the politically correct, maybe they shouldn't attend next year. (Oh, and a newsflash for CBS'  co-anchor Alex Wagner who prattled this morning that the event is "all about scholarship". No,  the WHCD is not about "scholarship".  If you want scholarship then go to the next series of journalism seminars sponsored by the Columbia Journalism Review!)
:
See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-freeman/79059/michelle-wolf-didn-t-even-get-started

Excerpt:

"The contrived uproar over Michelle Wolf’s comedy routine at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner is just that—contrived. It doesn’t merit dignifying as even a tempest in a teapot. In truth, her act was surprisingly tame, muted, even reserved. It didn’t begin to roast the attendees in a manner appropriate to the damage they have inflicted and continue to inflict on our country and world.

The media poses as a watchdog of the public interest, a “fourth estate” holding the powerful to account. But it’s a pose. It is critical to their maintaining credibility with the population they are assigned to pacify. For that is their real function in the cultural food chain: pacifying the people into quiescence and docility, even as their country is being stolen and wrecked out from beneath them. That’s what they get paid the big bucks for. It was Wolf’s naming that single fact that ignited the most contrived indignation."

And

Michelle Wolf Did What Comedians Are Supposed to Do

Why Donnie Dotard's North Korea Nukes' Parlay Is Doomed To Fail

"When North Korea talks about  'complete denuclearization,' it typically means that the U.S. ends its alliance with South Korea, and then North Korea will no longer need nuclear weapons to defend itself. But the U.S. won’t give up the South. And North Korea has been pursuing nuclear weapons since the 1950s, and I don’t know any expert who thinks that it will genuinely hand over its arsenal.    On my last visit to North Korea, in September, a Foreign Ministry official told me that Libya had given up its nuclear program — only to have its regime toppled. Likewise, he noted, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq lacked a nuclear deterrent — so Saddam was ousted by America. North Korea would not make the same mistake, he insisted.  It’s even less likely that North Korea will give up its nukes now that it sees Trump poised to tear up the Iran nuclear deal."   - Nicholas Kristof, NY Times, Saturday

First, let's acknowledge the agreement signed between Kim Jung-un and South Korean president Moon Jae-in, putatively ending the Korean War by a stroke of the pen, is a righteous, major step toward peace on the Korean peninsula.  At the same time, contrary to talking dunderheads it has nada to do with Trump, his threats, bloviations or 'fire and fury' rhetoric. So all the screwballs chanting "NO-bel! NO-bel!" at a Trump rally in Michigan Saturday night, need to come down off their opioid highs.  (Moon Jae-In himself ought to be ashamed for sucking up to Trump's  malignant narcissism to the extent of saying he "deserves the Nobel Peace Prize". There are  more or less disgusting vanity appeals to an autocrat, and then there is out and out groveling,  ass licking, which Moon is guilty of.)

At the same time, it is precisely Trump who has the power to scuttle whatever incipient peace plans may be afoot, mainly by misreading or misinterpreting what Kim Jong -un means when he talks of denuclearization.   To get a clue, read Nicholas Kristoff's take quote in bold blue above, and try to process it word by word.

Trump himself demands "nothing less than complete denuclearization"  and we've since learned over the weekend this ignorant buffoon has claimed a 'W' before the so-called summit has even occurred, e.g.
The Fix: Trump claims wins on North Korea before the game really starts

But his reckless claim is premature given that Kim and the North Koreans have done a neat end run around him and his "denuclearization"  demands by the use of clever semantics.   As Nicholas Kristof has also accurately noted:

"Kim’s game plan seems to be to sign pledges for denuclearization, leaving details to be worked out in follow-up talks, knowing that the pledges won’t be fully implemented and that there will never be intrusive inspections. "

And as the old saw goes, "the devil is in the details" .  Indeed, and it behooves us to get into those "weeds"....errr details, to grasp why - when one cuts thr0ught the media blather - there will be no "denuclearization" such as the Trumpy buffoons envisage.

While the breathless 24/7  cable media continue to babble about Trump probably "making history"  and getting North Korea to "dismantle"  its nukes, they'd do well to bloviate  less and process more. Especially the words quoted from Nicholas Kristof in his Times  article that first appeared on Saturday.  Or, they could read the WSJ editorial in its weekend edition, 'Korea Summit Hype' (p. A12) noting "there has been no tangible sign" of the North giving up its nuclear program.

Let me put this in even starker terms:  The chances of the North "dismantling" its nukes are roughly the same as the Cleveland Browns winning the next two Super Bowls with their latest Boy Wonder QB, Baker Mayfield.  It ain't gonna happen!  You can take that to the bank.

The North and Kim have not invested the past 30 years -  including recruiting rocket scientists from the former Soviet Union - to give it all up now on a whim, baseless media speculations, or Trump's braggadocio and threats. No way in hell. But for those still not convinced, let's look more closely, starting with Kristof's last point that Dotard wants to tear up the Iran nuclear deal.

We learned, for instance from the lead NY Times story on Sunday that::

"Kim Jong-un, had told President Moon Jae-in that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States agreed to formally end the Korean War and promise not to invade his country."

But how the hell could Kim believe a word the U.S. says when it's already reneged on the Iran nuclear deal?  That doesn't make sense. Let's process here that  the Iran nuclear deal -  already signed on to by a number of European nations  - is absolutely the gold standard for reducing Iranian weapons and up to now compliance has been verified, It's also been brilliantly defended by John Oliver, e.g.in this segment from "Last Week Tonight'.

Iran Deal: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube

The very fact the Trumpies would seek to tear it up discloses they can't be trusted with any other strategic nuclear  deals, especially which include any promise not to invade N. Korea and subdue it.  Why should Kim believe anything Trump says when he's already been documented as having made 3,001 false or misleading claims, according to the latest WaPo tally?

Pompeo told ABC News in a broadcast on Sunday that the Trump administration’s objective was “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization” with North Korea.  But most clear thinkers can tell him right now that is a total pipe dream. Unless he and John "Ripper" Bolton  can also swear (on a stack of bibles) that the U.S will never attack the North.   Meanwhile, Bolton dismissed that demand as another "page from the North's propaganda playbook" and insisted there had to be a complete, verifiable dismantling of nukes within 2 years.  But as the Times noted:

"Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust."

Most  experts who are familiar with North Korea, like former CIA specialist Sue Mi Terry, estimate that any process if it does get off the ground - would  take 3-5 years, or likely longer (we hope!) than the Trump buffoons will be in power. So why would Kim just give it all up?

And again, Kim knows deep down the U.S. will never promise not to invade or attack because that isn't what's burned into this nation's militant DNA. For those who need reminding,  the American Empire is still guided by National Security Council (NSC) Directive ‘NSC 10/2’,  formalized on June 18, 1948. A key element therein warned that all activities to be conducted against “hostile” foreign states – or in support of “friendly” ones, were to be executed so that “no U.S. Government responsibility would be evident to any unauthorized persons.” The provision also had to be included that if such activities were discovered “the U.S. Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them."

The scope of activities enumerated under the directive included: “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action – including sabotage; subversion against hostile states including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas and refugee liberation groups and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”

Ratcheting up the effect, and consolidating the impetus to Empire building,  was the document NSC-68, prepared by Paul Nitze of the National Security Council – completed by 1950. The document essentially contained the blueprint for unending strife and undeclared wars, all of which would be invoked on the basis of a zero tolerance threshold for foreigners’ misbehavior.

Note here that any excuse could be rendered to justify invocation of either document, neither of which has ever been revoked.  The North Koreans have to know this too, which is exactly why they'd demand a "promise" never to be attacked knowing full well the U.S. - especially under John Bolton's adherence to the documents -would never comply.  It is the proverbial "catch 22" which Kim knows can never be resolved, hence he can milk this de-nuking process as long as he wishes knowing he never has to comply because the U.S. won't first promise its non- interference.

Then there is the issue of the North Korean nuclear test site,  Punggye-ri, and Kim promising no further tests from this location.  Well, he can afford to make it because the site has collapsed! As reported in the WSJ ('North Korea Nuclear Test Site Collapse',  April 28, p. A8)  Chinese seismologists in a study published this month "concluded a secondary tremor" after their last test "was caused by the cavity's collapse"  Most experts in the know believe this has made the nuclear test site unusable for further testing. So, in other words, Kim isn't really giving up anything by asserting no further nuclear tests. (More recent reports quote Kim as stating there are still "two undamaged tunnels" at Punggye-ri, but those could well be decoy tunnels designed to mislead any foreign inspectors.)

But again, the so-called Kim-Trump summit and  presumed follow-ups may never manifest. By which I mean come to the point of actual inspection of nuclear test sites, so the issue could well be moot.   As one NBC news source put it this morning, Kim's promise to close Punggye-ri appears to be "mostly symbolic".  If the U.S. makes no promises not to invade then Kim will not make any "tangible" steps to de-nuking, as if he ever had such intentions anyway. 

Having seen first hand what happened to Iraq in 2003 and seeing how the U.S. treats the Iran nuclear treaty, there is simply nothing in it for Kim or the North Koreans. Trump - idiot asshole  that he is - will simply be making a long trek to Mongolia or Singapore (postulated meeting sites) for nothing.  As for Dotard's dreams of getting a Nobel Peace Prize, he'd do well to put that in the same "wish" canister as surviving his foul presidency.

See also: 
Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away as Koreas Talk Peace

Elitists Need An "Excuse" To Slam Trump? How About Just Watching This A-Hole In Action - Like On FOX Yesterday

"I'll call Fox and Friends any time and sound off! I'm da Prez!"

One of the ongoing concerns of media and culture analysts (e.g.  David Frum in 'Trumpocracy - The Corruption of the American Republic') is that the thing occupying the White House will have its behavior "normalized" and become more and more accepted. One of the first putative signs of this would be a steady diminution of outrage, people no longer willing or able to call this degenerate on anything - or even use epithets to describe him.  That is a point many suspect we're rapidly reaching.

It doesn't help either to have Rightist, Trump ass- lickers like the WSJ's William McGurn ('The Elitists' Trump Excuse', yesterday, p. A 11) insisting it's all liberal and media "elitist" huff and puff because we disdain "Trump's brand of vituperation".  In other words, we attack the Trump Thing because of its constant attacks on the values, virtues and norms that  "democracy requires to survive."

Thus, like Jim Comey, we declare this maggot is "morally unfit" for the Oval Office. In fact, many of us go beyond Comey and declare this loathsome loser and con man is mentally unfit to hold office of any kind, even dog catcher in Podunk, Arkansas.  As 'Exhibit A' you need look no further than the 31 minute insane rant Dotard unleashed yesterday morning on Fox and Friends, e.g.

Missed 'Fox & Friends'? Here's what Trump said on Cohen, Ronny ...

But hell, don't just take my word, watch it and make up your own mind.  At the end of it you tell me if you really, truly believe this type of unhinged behavior is presidential in any measure, or that it doesn't degrade the office as well as the person holding it - not to mention the country. Think before you answer! Can you really visualize a President Obama calling in to MSNBC's "Morning Joe"  to deliver such an extended rant, or a JFK or FDR?    Let me back up, visualize any other president calling in an extended TV rant when he's supposed to be doing the work of the country?   (As one former FBI agent put it on 'All In', "That's the time he's supposed to be going over the nation's security issues in the Presidential Daily Briefs!")

If you can imagine another president - even Gee Dumbya Bush-  doing the same, then you inhabit a different universe from the one I'm in.

To put a perspective on it, even the illustrious Steve Doocy - main anchor of the FOX trio - and most famous for burning his hands while trying to roast marshmallows, actually trying to cut the Dotard off after 28 minutes, saying "Mr. President, we know you have a MILLION things to do...."    Well, evidently not.

But the blowhard imbecile kept on ranting for another 3 minutes before the station had to pull the plug on the fool, with the Fox trio saying "Adios".

But why be surprised? We knew from this time last year the piece of waste occupying the office hates to work, he'd rather loaf, watch TV, tweet and rant.  Recall 'the Donald' has never really worked at a real job outside of owning his family branding business (who could order anyone to do his bidding) and being a NY real estate weasel who used bankruptcy (of multiple casinos) to make more $$$.  Hell, five days into his presidency he  even bawled that the job had  turned out to be too much for him to deal with. Too many details, too much stuff to master for an extensive government bureaucracy.  Hence, his penchant for becoming a cable TV and tweet addict. See e.g.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-stunned-to-learn-presidency-is-an-actual-j-1792215349

Excerpt:

“Being president is harder than Donald Trump thought,” begins the article, neatly capturing the blithe, criminal ignorance that characterizes both Trump himself and the many dozens of millions of morons who thought he should be the leader of the free world. Yes, being the president is a harder job than Donald Trump would expect, because Donald Trump had never previously held an actual job, because actually, spending your inheritance on a succession of failed cons is not an actual job."

 But hey, if the job is too much maybe he ought to resign. It beats wasting time tweeting, watching TV for nine hours a day, and ranting like a nut railing about UFO "invasions" on talk radio.  Or as one MSNBC guest put it on 'All In' last night: "The rant reminded me of my Uncle Willy who calls in to sports radio and unloads his bile every other day."

Anyway, McGurn asks in his op-ed piece:

"So which is more damaging to the American body politic - the schoolyard taunts and threats of Trump, or the anti-Trump opportunism of 'polite' society?"

But given the opposition  of "polite society" - i.e. that which upholds and values norms, decency and decorum-  is the only edifice standing against normalizing Trump, that's an easy call.  As David Frum has put it in his book, the longer Trump remains in office the greater  the corruption of our democracy. This is  because his behavior becomes more and more accepted, as outrage is lessened ("too much to be outraged over")- until daily rants on FOX ("Trump TV") become a way of governing. This we cannot allow, whether McGurn and his ilk like it or not.

McGurn's other complaints - as if  we "elites"  are trying to impose fascism on the Trumpies,  are all red herrings. Examples:

- "Good liberals once found the idea of spying on American citizens without just cause unconscionable... But when the target becomes a former Trump campaign associated, it becomes OK."

Hold strain there, Willy.  Carter Page was ID'd  as a suspected foreign (Russian-linked) agent long before U.S. FISA warrants were issued to monitor him. This was by way of foreign intercepts of his assorted meetings with Russian FSB, GRU etc. agents.  For the U.S. then not to do anything would have made our own intel agencies appear slack and incompetent.

McGurn again:

"James Clapper revised procedures to make it easier to unmask Americans  in intelligence reports, and share the information, making leaks all but inevitable. The illegal leak of Mike Flynn's name in connection with a phone conversation with Russia's ambassador was one result."

C'mon, Willy, pull your head out of your fat ass.  Going after Flynn was perfectly justified given he was wheeling and dealing with the Russkies, via phone calls, and  after Obama had imposed sanctions, and even before the Trump cabal had assumed office.  Besides, Flynn's calls were again picked up via foreign intel intercepts which were forwarded to the CIA, NSA etc. For our intel agencies to do nothing while foreign agencies monitored Flynn, Carter Page and others would have been irresponsible.

McGurn ends by writing:

"The point to the double standard isn't in any way to justify Mr. Trump's more boorish displays. It is, however, to say that the standard ought to work both ways."

But by resorting to false analogy McGurn is indeed justifying Trump's more boorish ways.  He's saying in effect we have no right to cast "stones' of opprobrium at this mental and moral misfit because we've allowed greater "sins"  of omission and commission to go unanswered. Seeming to forget or dismiss the fact that Bill Clinton was impeached based on illegal wiretaps made by then Columbia, MD resident and Pentagon flunky, Linda Tripp - when MD law expressly  made recording phone calls a felony without notifying the other person on the line (in this case one Monica Lewinsky).   Ken Starr, then special prosecutor, used those illegal phone recordings to go after Clinton - with the Reepos jumping on the illegal wiretap bandwagon to hang him out to dry.

So don't hand me any BS about "double standards".  Trump, by not only flouting standards but breaking laws as well (e.g. obstruction of justice) merits at least impeachment, and probably indictment as well.


See also:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/opinions/trump-fox-news-interview-dantonio-intl/index.html

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/78895/trumps-latest-meltdown

Excerpt:

"The NY Times' reporting, however, captured a president in mental and emotional free fall, such as, "Even the Fox hosts seemed concerned as the president railed at length about the 'fake news' media. 'I’m not your doctor, Mr. President, but I would recommend you watch less of them,' one of the hosts, Brian Kilmeade, told him.""

Miami's Residents Now Factor Climate Change Into Housing Costs

It's been known for some time, at least 35 years, that South Florida will be 'ground zero' when the rising seas from climate change begin to have their most serious impact. Indeed, the image produced giving a U.S. Geological survey map - with projected inundations by 2035, was actually published first in a Science Encyclopedia from 1981.

More recently, it's come to the attention of those who live in Miami or Miami -Dade (the greater metro area) that some areas flood during heavy rainfall and even on sunny days - when high tides known as "king tides" can swell the sea.

In fact, a 2016 study in the journal Ocean and Coastal Management found that the frequency of flooding increased significantly in Miami Beach between 2003 and 2016, with rain-induced events jumping 33 percent and tide-induced events soaring more than 400 percent.

How are tide-induced events generated and how are they connected to climate change? An examination of the diagram below can help which serves to illustrate tidal effects at Barbados:


It is not too difficult to see that the Moon would exert a pull, say  with force F1,   on the near point -  call it A on the Earth. By the same token, point B on the opposite side from A would be pulled  (say  with force F2) )nearer to the Moon than the water above it, thereby inducing a high tide at point B as well. In other words, two separate pulls, with F1 > F2,  resulting in two high tides at locations A  and B.  In this context one can appreciate the concept of differential gravitational pull.

Now, a "king tide" is the common term given to high ("spring") tides which occur when the Moon is at its closest position ("perigee") relative to the Earth.  The difference in distance works out to about 50,000 km or 30,000 miles.  That difference is enough to  generate a significant differential gravitational tidal pull at high tide - when the alignment is as shown.

In a normal situation such tides wouldn't constitute a flooding threat other than when the configuration occurs during a storm, e.g. hurricane. But to have it occur even on sunny days shows some other factor at work - and that other factor is incipient rising seas from climate change.  In effect, the sea level rise - even though it may only be measured in inches - is ample to flood the streets of Miami on sunny days if there is also a king tide on those days. 

That may still sound somewhat sketchy except now we have evidence from Miami property values that the rising seas from climate change  is factoring into realty assessments. Research published last Friday in the journal Environmental Research Letters  and reported in the WSJ (April 21-22, p. A3) shows that "single family homes in Miami Dade County are rising in value more slowly near sea level than at higher elevations."

Why is this? Well, it's entering into buyer considerations of possible "more frequent minor flooding in the short term and the challenge of reselling properties that  decades from now could be submerged. (Again, refer to the projected U.S. Geological survey map).''  The map of the Miami area showing effect of elevation on rate of price appreciation is shown below:

Where the more contrast colored purple section refers to greater effect on rate of appreciation.  The incredible conclusion of Harvard real estat4e professor (and author of the paper) Jesse Keenan, is that ordinary home owners are already factoring future sea level rise into their calculations.

 Reinforcing Keenan's work, the WSJ (ibid.) cites another new paper from researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder and Pennsylvania State University. This paper "shows the trend in Miami is playing out across the country, with homes vulnerable to rising sea levels now selling at a 7 percent discount compared to similar but less expensive properties.".  In addition the paper "shows that the size of coastal discount has grown over time".  The same thing appears to be happening in Barbados, especially as hotels, beach houses now start to discount their rates after obvious sea level increase has eroded their once extensive beach fronts.

In the case of Miami it's an obvious testing ground for the vulnerability of housing markets to sea level rise- climate change because its elevation "is as little as 1 foot above sea level".

The WSJ cites one particular Miami native (Joel Fabelo) whose previous waterfront home "increasingly flooded in the final five days they lived there" - and "a half a dozen times each year when tides were especially high, water rose over the sea wall leaving mullets swimming on the lawn."

Are Miami's home owners loopy?  Are they too susceptible to global warming "blurtations"? Nope, they have their heads screwed on straight and they know what they know - and what they see with their own eyes. Moreover, like  nearly all the reinsurance companies (e.g.  Munich Re) they have climate change factored into their tables, costs, plans.  They better, because they will be ground zero as the planet's sea level continues its inexorable rise owing to melting ice caps, and the Greenland ice sheet.