In today's (18 Feb 2010) Townhall.com, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's Morning Joe bemoans the fact that he has been attacked by Brent Bozell and other fellow conservatives. He then goes on to suggest they should be more Reagan-like, like he is, according to Joe. Let's see if we can help him understand why he is getting the kick back.
Yes, Joe, you are surrounded by liberals who always seem to flock like geese in the Lame Stream Media. Yes, Joe, you do defend conservative principles. And, yes, Joe, we believe that you are probably a conservative at heart.
The problem is, whenever you attack a conservative, even if the criticism is justified, all you do is to encourage the gaggle of liberals around the table. They love it when a conservative goes off on a conservative. You have to remember that liberals are not concerned so much about the logic of the argument as they are about the person who made the argument in the first place. In their minds, George Bush was evil, so, if he said 'the sky is blue,' they would convince themselves that it was actually orange. And, probably related to global warming to boot.
Why don't you try this? Instead of attacking Bush, Limbaugh and other conservatives, why don't you go after the politics of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama? Not the individuals, I'm sure Obama is a hale fellow well met, but his political views are right out of "Mein Kampf." (Hitler was a socialist, you know.)
Joe, you rightly advised conservatives to spend more time advocating less government and more freedom, not knocking individuals. Why don't you take a bit of your own medicine?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Let’s Have the Debate on Global Warming
The Global Warming debate has hit an impasse. Those who believe that there is irreversible catastrophic man-made warming turn a deaf ear to any skepticism, while those who are not convinced are becoming increasingly skeptical. The recent leaking, global warming advocates call it ‘stealing,’ of email communications from the climate study group on which all of the scientific conclusions are based, reveal a pattern of unscientific behavior.
It is obvious that the scientists charged with studying global were personally, and financially, dedicating to proving that man is causing a global train wreck, and that reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to avoid a disaster of massive proportions. Enough is enough. We are talking about science here.
Those who believe in the theory are anxious to declare the debate to be over, and label anyone who questions how they arrived at their conclusion to be a ‘denier,’ or worse. Science is never “settled,” as they are now trying to assert. A few facts are in order, then a proposal that will end the debate, or at least put it on a more logical and scientifically sound track.
First fact, it is completely unacceptable that one institution, rather obscure until the global warming issue, has the only set of keys to the study of climate kingdom. The email leaks show that, in their fervor to prove the global warming theory, head scientists fought the release of raw data, and deliberately deleted data rather than letting it out of their control.
Second, it is not in step with normal scientific protocol for all the data and analysis to be done in one place, by one group of people, as is the case with the global warming theory. There are claims that other study groups have reached the same conclusion independently, but when closely examined, it inevitably turns out that the data they relied on was not independently acquired, but based on the single source of data, which has now been destroyed.
Third, for a scientific conclusion, or at least, a consensus of opinion to be reached, there has to be a vigorous, no holds barred, open debate at which theories are laid out, attacked and defended. That has not happened with the global warming debate, despite the fact it is being used to turn the structure of the entire world on its ear.
How to resolve this? Here is a proposal that could change the way the global warming debate is being conducted and take the politics out of the center of the debate. Let’s allocate US$1 Billion and one calendar year to get the job done the right way. Considering what the cost estimates are for avoiding a sea change in the world’s economy, a billion does not even rise to the level of chump change. And, given the fact that we are nowhere near doing anything about it, one year is a hiccup.
We take the billion and cut it in half. One half goes to the pro global warming camp and the other half goes to the skeptics. Since any scientific debate is based on advocacy of a theory, the pro side has to put forth its theory in scientific terms. The anti side then gets to attack the theory in an attempt to prove it incorrect. Each month, there will be a debate between the two sides, broadcast live to the world, and published in print. After the 12 monthly debates, there should be a clearer understanding of the issue by everyone.
There are a lot of details to be worked out, but instead of holding a pep rally for global warming, like Copenhagen, a world wide conference to implement this scientific debate should be held.
It is obvious that the scientists charged with studying global were personally, and financially, dedicating to proving that man is causing a global train wreck, and that reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to avoid a disaster of massive proportions. Enough is enough. We are talking about science here.
Those who believe in the theory are anxious to declare the debate to be over, and label anyone who questions how they arrived at their conclusion to be a ‘denier,’ or worse. Science is never “settled,” as they are now trying to assert. A few facts are in order, then a proposal that will end the debate, or at least put it on a more logical and scientifically sound track.
First fact, it is completely unacceptable that one institution, rather obscure until the global warming issue, has the only set of keys to the study of climate kingdom. The email leaks show that, in their fervor to prove the global warming theory, head scientists fought the release of raw data, and deliberately deleted data rather than letting it out of their control.
Second, it is not in step with normal scientific protocol for all the data and analysis to be done in one place, by one group of people, as is the case with the global warming theory. There are claims that other study groups have reached the same conclusion independently, but when closely examined, it inevitably turns out that the data they relied on was not independently acquired, but based on the single source of data, which has now been destroyed.
Third, for a scientific conclusion, or at least, a consensus of opinion to be reached, there has to be a vigorous, no holds barred, open debate at which theories are laid out, attacked and defended. That has not happened with the global warming debate, despite the fact it is being used to turn the structure of the entire world on its ear.
How to resolve this? Here is a proposal that could change the way the global warming debate is being conducted and take the politics out of the center of the debate. Let’s allocate US$1 Billion and one calendar year to get the job done the right way. Considering what the cost estimates are for avoiding a sea change in the world’s economy, a billion does not even rise to the level of chump change. And, given the fact that we are nowhere near doing anything about it, one year is a hiccup.
We take the billion and cut it in half. One half goes to the pro global warming camp and the other half goes to the skeptics. Since any scientific debate is based on advocacy of a theory, the pro side has to put forth its theory in scientific terms. The anti side then gets to attack the theory in an attempt to prove it incorrect. Each month, there will be a debate between the two sides, broadcast live to the world, and published in print. After the 12 monthly debates, there should be a clearer understanding of the issue by everyone.
There are a lot of details to be worked out, but instead of holding a pep rally for global warming, like Copenhagen, a world wide conference to implement this scientific debate should be held.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Real Damage of Obama
There has been much said about the damage Obama is creating to free enterprise, business, national security, and foreign policy. But, the real risk is far greater and could be impossible to repair later. The Great American Experiment was an incredible balancing act by our Founding Fathers. The thirteen colonies had diverse economic, social and cultural characteristics, and getting them to agree to a single national government was an amazing accomplishment.
But, it involved compromises that strained the new republic at the seams, especially as regards slavery. The strain was so great, that it ended up with eleven states seceding from the union. It took a devastating war fought within its borders resulting in heavy military and civilian casualties to reunite the United States. Wars in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries solidified the reformed country by focusing on common external enemies.
Keeping the country together through World War II, Korea, and the subsequent Cold War was relatively easy. But, since the Vietnam War, the country has continued to drift politically. We are now defined as Red States and Blue States. This is more than a distinction driven by election results; there are fundamental differences in core values. Just travel from South Carolina, one of the reddest states, to California, one of the bluest, and you will see that differences that are so vast as to be irreconcilable on issues like abortion, gun control, health care reform, separation of church and state.
Keeping an increasingly diverse 50 states together is not an easy task, and one that is not fully appreciated for its difficulty. Staying in control is a difficult job for the political leadership. It is an art, not a science, nor is keeping the country unified a given.
In many ways, 9/11 was an opportunity for America to reunite once again against a common foe. But, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the drift has begun anew. George Bush, a moderate conservative president, was able to find common ground, as did Bill Clinton, and his father. Even the feckless Jimmy Carter avoided causing deep divisions despite a very left wing orientation.
Obama is different. He has not shied in the slightest from confrontation, despite campaign rhetoric that he would re-unite the country. This nation is more deeply divided than it has been since before the Civil War. It is so bad that the governor of the second largest state, Texas, has talked openly about secession. There are secessionist movements in several states and twelve state legislatures have passed legislation re-asserting State’s rights.
Even if a unifying event such as 9/11 occurs, there is no guarantee that the nation will unite under Obama. The left and right are not in agreement as to what an appropriate response would be, so whatever he would do would further alienate one side or the other. We seem to be in a downward spiral that is without a foreseeable bottom.
If Obama continues to divide and govern as irresponsibly as he has, pushing legislation that is unpopular and locking the GOP out of the process, the political divide will continue to widen. There is no good that can come of what may be Obama’s greatest threat, failing to keep the fabric of the nation from unraveling.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
I Was Wrong About Thomas L. Friedman
There are times in man's life when he just has to admit he was wrong and move on. Today is one of those times. In his New York Times op-ed of November 17, entitled, "What They Really Believe," self appointed green nanny Thomas L. Friedman says:
Take a close look at the theme here, it is ludicrous on the surface of it -- fix the game, then let the free market work. In "The World is Flat," Friedman strikes a similar theme, if we could just have a totalitarian government for one day, we could destroy capitalism, then let the "free market" work. Friedman has the odd view that government should make a set of counter-intuitive rules and regulations before turning anything over to free market innovation. You have to read the Constitution to understand how truly wrong this is. Thomas Jefferson would scoff at this notion, as would anyone who values liberty and appreciates the importance of free markets.
But, the really disturbing thing is that many of those who share his "green" views also share his political philosophy, including, of course, Barack Obama and his minions. The good news, if there can be any in the light of an increasingly disconnected and fanatic one-party government, is that the attempt to destroy capitalism known as "cap and trade," may finally be dead. Majority Leader Harry Reid, soon to be the ex-Senator from Nevada, has delayed any debate on cap and trade until the spring. By then, we will be into the mid-term election cycle, joblessness will be approaching 12% and the country will hostile to any plan that will kill even more job growth.
The bad news is that a lot of people at the EPA read Friedman's column, and armed with a Supreme Court decision that carbon is pollution, will try to implement the scheme without Congressional approval. In fact, they are already implementing it, and threaten to accelerate the process. It will take court action to stop them before 2012, when America gives Obama what is likely to be a failing report card. In the meantime, those who care more about power over others, like Friedman, will have field day, and may nanny the rest of us to death.
The only thing that I was wrong about regarding Thomas Friedman was when I thought in his heart of hearts, he really loved America. About that, I was truly wrong.
"And we believe the best way to launch [Energy Technology] is to set a fixed, long-term price on carbon — combine it with the Obama team’s impressive stimulus for green-tech — and then let the free market and innovation do the rest."And, all this time, I thought he was an avowed anti-capitalist communist. I guess I was just wrong. I should have seen the signs when he had a chapter in his book, "The World is Flat," entitled, "China for Just One Day."
Take a close look at the theme here, it is ludicrous on the surface of it -- fix the game, then let the free market work. In "The World is Flat," Friedman strikes a similar theme, if we could just have a totalitarian government for one day, we could destroy capitalism, then let the "free market" work. Friedman has the odd view that government should make a set of counter-intuitive rules and regulations before turning anything over to free market innovation. You have to read the Constitution to understand how truly wrong this is. Thomas Jefferson would scoff at this notion, as would anyone who values liberty and appreciates the importance of free markets.
But, the really disturbing thing is that many of those who share his "green" views also share his political philosophy, including, of course, Barack Obama and his minions. The good news, if there can be any in the light of an increasingly disconnected and fanatic one-party government, is that the attempt to destroy capitalism known as "cap and trade," may finally be dead. Majority Leader Harry Reid, soon to be the ex-Senator from Nevada, has delayed any debate on cap and trade until the spring. By then, we will be into the mid-term election cycle, joblessness will be approaching 12% and the country will hostile to any plan that will kill even more job growth.
The bad news is that a lot of people at the EPA read Friedman's column, and armed with a Supreme Court decision that carbon is pollution, will try to implement the scheme without Congressional approval. In fact, they are already implementing it, and threaten to accelerate the process. It will take court action to stop them before 2012, when America gives Obama what is likely to be a failing report card. In the meantime, those who care more about power over others, like Friedman, will have field day, and may nanny the rest of us to death.
The only thing that I was wrong about regarding Thomas Friedman was when I thought in his heart of hearts, he really loved America. About that, I was truly wrong.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Blinded by the Right
A recent Facebook post by a friend of mine, and the ensuing dialog with her liberal friends, are a crystal clear illustration of the most significant characteristics of the American left. In her post, this lady, who is suffering from advanced breast cancer, expresses outrage at the recent decision of the U.S. Preventative Services task force raising the age for mammograms to 50. She is so outraged that she made the entire posting upper case. An experienced writer, this indicates the depth of her revulsion for the decision.
She and her liberal friends begin to flog, deservedly so, this idiotic action, which could put millions of women in harm’s way. As the dialog unfolded, one of the participants came to the conclusion that this proved why we needed to reform the health care system and pass Obamacare.
This jaw-dropping conclusion was quickly agreed to by all those engaged in this dialog.
To most of us it is clear that this kind of bureaucratic meddling, resulting in the rationing of essential preventive health care is a flash forward to what we can expect with a government take over of the health care system. Decisions about individual health care will be taken out of the hands of doctors and patients, and relegated to rigid government rules based on economic concerns.
This dialog on Facebook also illustrates what is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of today’s American liberal, the ability to completely deny the obvious. It is a classic case of ignoring the elephant in the room.
How is the left able to pull off this incredible act of denial?
Part of the answer lies in the vilification process the left uses to advance their agenda. If they can hang a label of “evil” on the opposition, they can justify seemingly illogical conclusions by destroying the credibility of the opposition. This is why the left spends so much time attacking the people who oppose them instead of the ideas they oppose. It is much more efficient to undermine Sarah Palin, say, than it to try and counter each of her opinions individually. It avoids the need to have any meaningful dialog on the issues themselves.
Just look at the health care debate. What do you hear Democrats say when Republicans question whether it is affordable? They talk about the obscene profits earned by health insurance companies, leaving the question of affordability untouched.
This explains how Democrats and leftists can vote to pass bills they do not even read. All they need to know is that the right opposes a particular bill, and they can justify passing it. No debate is necessary.
Doubt that this is true? Go read a few of the left wing web sites, like Daily Kos and Huffington Post. You will see that they are clearly blinded to issue by hatred of those on the right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
