The Left is turning on Obama. Maureen Dowd and Doonesbury are among the latest. They’re infuriated that he isn’t carrying out his campaign promises. He’s sending more troops to Afghanistan, he hasn’t closed Gitmo.
And yet Obama is calm and cool.
He has given us trillions of dollars in debt, so much that the Chinese are reluctant to loan us more money.
And yet Obama is calm and cool.
His bailout of the auto and financial industries has made the federal government a major stockholder in failing businesses.
And yet Obama is calm and cool.
The healthcare bill threatens to be a pork-laden disaster that will cost more trillions.
And yet Obama is calm and cool.
Why?
There are two ways to find out. First, don’t look at what Obama says, look at what he does. Second, go back to his political roots to find out what his political foundations are.
What are Obama’s political roots?
Saul Alinsky, ACORN, and community organizing.
Obama was a community organizer. Alinsky was the first community organizer, ACORN is the largest community organizer in the country and was founded by radical Marxists. Obama was recruited by and worked for ACORN. Obama taught Alinsky’s principles and tactics at ACORN.
What are those principles? Herewith some Alinsky quotes:
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”
“Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.”
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody."
You get the idea?
To summarize: Work within the system to destroy the system and replace it with a Marxist/socialist workers’ paradise. And the ends justify the means.
That’s why Obama is so calm and cool. From his standpoint his plan is working.
But I think that all stopped January 1st. With the election looming, very little will get done. All he’ll have left will be his political appointees, who can still do a lot of damage.
Do you still Hope for Change?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Healthcare -- Why the Rush?
A lot of people are scratching their heads and wondering why Harry Reid is in such a big hurry to pass a healthcare bill by Christmas.
Oh, there are reasons, and they’re not pretty.
First, Senator Mitch McConnell sent out a press release notifying one and all that there is no bill for senators to read. Only Reid and his hand picked staff know what’s in it. But, once again, they expect the Senate to vote on it sight unseen.
Why?
Because the longer it’s out there, the more the voters learn of it, and the more they don’t like it. Polls show that the majority of voters already don’t like it. But Harry and company are determined to get it done by Christmas against the wishes of the American people.
What happens if it isn’t passed?
The Senate and Congress go back home for Christmas and get it good from their constituents, just like it happened with the Tea Parties.
And, guess what? They come back in 2010 and that’s an election year. The odds of passing drop dramatically.
Also, Harry and company need to get it done before they go for Cap-and-Trade.
Why?
Because the healthcare bill is a stealth tax on everyone, not just the rich, and they need to sneak it through before they try to pass CandT because that is a highly visible tax.
Then there’s the illegal aliens.
What’s that got to do with the price of pot in California?
Well, speaking of stealth, making illegals legal has been one of the Left’s goals for years and Obama and his fellow travellers are going to do their damndest make them citizens in good standing.
Why?
Because they’ll vote Democrat. That’s 12 million new votes.
There’s also a dirty little secret. When they’re legal they qualify for healthcare and that drives the cost up even more.
I could say we should call or write our senators and congressman, but look who we’ve got.
Maybe come next November some of that will change.
Oh, there are reasons, and they’re not pretty.
First, Senator Mitch McConnell sent out a press release notifying one and all that there is no bill for senators to read. Only Reid and his hand picked staff know what’s in it. But, once again, they expect the Senate to vote on it sight unseen.
Why?
Because the longer it’s out there, the more the voters learn of it, and the more they don’t like it. Polls show that the majority of voters already don’t like it. But Harry and company are determined to get it done by Christmas against the wishes of the American people.
What happens if it isn’t passed?
The Senate and Congress go back home for Christmas and get it good from their constituents, just like it happened with the Tea Parties.
And, guess what? They come back in 2010 and that’s an election year. The odds of passing drop dramatically.
Also, Harry and company need to get it done before they go for Cap-and-Trade.
Why?
Because the healthcare bill is a stealth tax on everyone, not just the rich, and they need to sneak it through before they try to pass CandT because that is a highly visible tax.
Then there’s the illegal aliens.
What’s that got to do with the price of pot in California?
Well, speaking of stealth, making illegals legal has been one of the Left’s goals for years and Obama and his fellow travellers are going to do their damndest make them citizens in good standing.
Why?
Because they’ll vote Democrat. That’s 12 million new votes.
There’s also a dirty little secret. When they’re legal they qualify for healthcare and that drives the cost up even more.
I could say we should call or write our senators and congressman, but look who we’ve got.
Maybe come next November some of that will change.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Climate Change Walls Are Acrumbling
Okay, let me get this straight.
First, Michael Mann, the Penn State Director of their Earth System Science Center and creator of the famed hockey stick graph that claimed to have proven the Medieval Warm Period didn’t exist (despite archeological sites in Greenland that proved the Vikings had farmed there at that time) is now under investigation at his university.
Why?
Well, it seems that Mann’s hockey stick data and medieval warm period theory was based on core samples of trees that he had cherry picked, choosing only the ones whose growth rings matched his theory. Others, checking out his data, used all of the samples and, behold!, the medieval warm period reappeared (it had really never gone anywhere) and the hockey stick straightened out. It may surprise you (if you’re a man-made warmist) that Mann’s work simply wasn’t good science. In fact, it was bad science. In fact, it was politically motivated and self serving.
Next, the emails at East Anglia are revealed and we find that these noble scientists, who work hand-in-glove with the UN climate folk, have been plotting to discredit scientists who disagreed with them and were found congratulating each other on how easy it was to get around peer-reviewed journals.
Next, the same East Anglia boys and girls somehow dumped the original data they used to determine that evil mankind (the Republicans and business men, at least) had caused the planet to warm. Now nobody could double check their data to see if they were right. Curious timing here, because the data had recently been requested under the Brit’s version of the Freedom of Information Act. A coincidence, no doubt.
Yet despite all these recent events, the powers that be in DC refuse to admit that there is even a glimmer of a chance that there could be anything wrong with the pro-warmist research. Couldn’t be because cap-and-trade and other programs would bring in a king's ransom to the treasury (by taking it out of out pockets).
It must just be a string of coincidences.
Ya think?
First, Michael Mann, the Penn State Director of their Earth System Science Center and creator of the famed hockey stick graph that claimed to have proven the Medieval Warm Period didn’t exist (despite archeological sites in Greenland that proved the Vikings had farmed there at that time) is now under investigation at his university.
Why?
Well, it seems that Mann’s hockey stick data and medieval warm period theory was based on core samples of trees that he had cherry picked, choosing only the ones whose growth rings matched his theory. Others, checking out his data, used all of the samples and, behold!, the medieval warm period reappeared (it had really never gone anywhere) and the hockey stick straightened out. It may surprise you (if you’re a man-made warmist) that Mann’s work simply wasn’t good science. In fact, it was bad science. In fact, it was politically motivated and self serving.
Next, the emails at East Anglia are revealed and we find that these noble scientists, who work hand-in-glove with the UN climate folk, have been plotting to discredit scientists who disagreed with them and were found congratulating each other on how easy it was to get around peer-reviewed journals.
Next, the same East Anglia boys and girls somehow dumped the original data they used to determine that evil mankind (the Republicans and business men, at least) had caused the planet to warm. Now nobody could double check their data to see if they were right. Curious timing here, because the data had recently been requested under the Brit’s version of the Freedom of Information Act. A coincidence, no doubt.
Yet despite all these recent events, the powers that be in DC refuse to admit that there is even a glimmer of a chance that there could be anything wrong with the pro-warmist research. Couldn’t be because cap-and-trade and other programs would bring in a king's ransom to the treasury (by taking it out of out pockets).
It must just be a string of coincidences.
Ya think?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Of Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, and Capitalism
When someone posts a comment that I think deserves a response, I usually do so in the “Comments” section. However, one comment to the post before this deserves to be seen by those of you don’t bother reading the comments.
Adam said...
Here's a fun lesson Jack - everything Rush Limbaugh says on the radio isn't true. Unsurprisingly, this had NOTHING to do with capitalism vs. socialism. I'll allow someone who has done actual research explain for me. No link, just like you prefer.
"As for the initial failures of the Plymouth Colony, one should probably blame the colonists' attempts to use Old World plants in New England, a much colder climate, as well as their initial profound refusal to eat the local food, up to and including capturing oysters and lobsters to feed their diminishing stock of pigs. This poor planning and ignorance can probably be attributed to the fact that the ship's manifest for the initial Plymouth landing lists NO farmers or productive tradesmen as passengers. This is probably why a third to half of the colonists died the first winter. And the purchase of the land by the individual colonists from the joint stock company over time didn't improve the situation.
The only reason the Plymouth colony succeeded, like most of the New England colonies the British established, was that eventually immigration from England outweighed deaths and emigration back to England by enough that the population stabilized and the colony was able to develop a functioning system of commerce. Why did this happen? Because eventually the system of replacement was overwhelmed by people eager to join in on the new and lucrative tobacco and fur trades. The Plymouth colony became part of this larger economy, and survived. Not all of the starter colonies did. Socialism or capitalism has nothing to do with it. Especially considering that no Englishmen of note was a real capitalist at the time of the Plymouth landing, all of them instead subscribing to mercantilism, which has no firm position on collective or individual land ownership."
I'm sure all four of your readers will appreciate some research for once.
Adam is a classic example of someone who makes up his mind on a topic and then goes looking for evidence to support it. He also makes assumptions. I didn’t use Rush Limbaugh as my source, I used William Bradford’s journal titled Of Plymouth Plantation. I don’t know the name of the source Adam quotes, but he or she got just about everything wrong factually. The Pilgrims signed a treaty with the Indians who taught them to farm, hunt, and fish. The first winter was a disaster with many dying. After that they prospered. Others followed because the Pilgrims wrote home about the plenty. Come spring, they gathered food and planted crops. But don’t take my word for it, take Governor Bradford’s on the first harvest in the fall of 1621.
“They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was a great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.”
And this on the switch from Collectivism (Socialism) to individual effort and reward (Capitalism) in 1623.
“All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”
Capitalism exists when the non-labor factors of production (the means of production) are privately held. So, when an ancient potter used clay (means of production) and a kiln (means of production) to make a pot that he sold or traded for a profit, he was a capitalist. Capitalism has been with us since the beginning of time, it’s just that it was only lately defined and systematized. Mercantilism that Adam’s source wrote of is a government controlled economy based on government owned and controlled precious metals or other similar assets that encourages production and export and discourages the import of foreign goods through tariffs. The British had mercantilism; the Pilgrims converted from communalism to Capitalism and it worked wonderfully.
That’s all a bit simplistic, but that’s the way it is, folks. People like Adam should do a little honest research instead of just looking for the opinions of fellow travelers.
Adam said...
Here's a fun lesson Jack - everything Rush Limbaugh says on the radio isn't true. Unsurprisingly, this had NOTHING to do with capitalism vs. socialism. I'll allow someone who has done actual research explain for me. No link, just like you prefer.
"As for the initial failures of the Plymouth Colony, one should probably blame the colonists' attempts to use Old World plants in New England, a much colder climate, as well as their initial profound refusal to eat the local food, up to and including capturing oysters and lobsters to feed their diminishing stock of pigs. This poor planning and ignorance can probably be attributed to the fact that the ship's manifest for the initial Plymouth landing lists NO farmers or productive tradesmen as passengers. This is probably why a third to half of the colonists died the first winter. And the purchase of the land by the individual colonists from the joint stock company over time didn't improve the situation.
The only reason the Plymouth colony succeeded, like most of the New England colonies the British established, was that eventually immigration from England outweighed deaths and emigration back to England by enough that the population stabilized and the colony was able to develop a functioning system of commerce. Why did this happen? Because eventually the system of replacement was overwhelmed by people eager to join in on the new and lucrative tobacco and fur trades. The Plymouth colony became part of this larger economy, and survived. Not all of the starter colonies did. Socialism or capitalism has nothing to do with it. Especially considering that no Englishmen of note was a real capitalist at the time of the Plymouth landing, all of them instead subscribing to mercantilism, which has no firm position on collective or individual land ownership."
I'm sure all four of your readers will appreciate some research for once.
Adam is a classic example of someone who makes up his mind on a topic and then goes looking for evidence to support it. He also makes assumptions. I didn’t use Rush Limbaugh as my source, I used William Bradford’s journal titled Of Plymouth Plantation. I don’t know the name of the source Adam quotes, but he or she got just about everything wrong factually. The Pilgrims signed a treaty with the Indians who taught them to farm, hunt, and fish. The first winter was a disaster with many dying. After that they prospered. Others followed because the Pilgrims wrote home about the plenty. Come spring, they gathered food and planted crops. But don’t take my word for it, take Governor Bradford’s on the first harvest in the fall of 1621.
“They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was a great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.”
And this on the switch from Collectivism (Socialism) to individual effort and reward (Capitalism) in 1623.
“All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”
Capitalism exists when the non-labor factors of production (the means of production) are privately held. So, when an ancient potter used clay (means of production) and a kiln (means of production) to make a pot that he sold or traded for a profit, he was a capitalist. Capitalism has been with us since the beginning of time, it’s just that it was only lately defined and systematized. Mercantilism that Adam’s source wrote of is a government controlled economy based on government owned and controlled precious metals or other similar assets that encourages production and export and discourages the import of foreign goods through tariffs. The British had mercantilism; the Pilgrims converted from communalism to Capitalism and it worked wonderfully.
That’s all a bit simplistic, but that’s the way it is, folks. People like Adam should do a little honest research instead of just looking for the opinions of fellow travelers.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Real Story of the Thanksgiving Spirit
‘Tis the season to look at one of the greatest lessons in Capitalism – the Pilgrims.
Many – in fact most – do not know that the Pilgrims and the other members of the party (only 41 of the 102 expedition members were Pilgrims) were under contract to their merchant sponsors and that contract called for everything produced to go into a common store and that each member of the community was entitled (gotta love that word) to one common share.
Sound familiar? That’s right – In 1620, more than 200 years before Marx and Engels started their rabble rousing, the Pilgrims and their associates experimented with Socialism. All property and buildings belonged to “the community”. You know, the community as in commune as in the ultimate manifestation of Socialism – Communism.
How’d it work out. Just as any conservative would expect. Since all were entitled to a share whether they were productive or not, many didn’t do their share of the work. Production dropped and there was a lot of anger and finger pointing. Those who were originally hard working and productive, saw no reason to break their backs for those who didn’t pull their weight. Production went down and nobody was a happy Pilgrim camper.
There was no INCENTIVE to achieve!
So, what’d they do? Govern William Bradford cancelled Socialism and gave every family their own home and their own parcel of land to farm.
“This had very good success,” wrote Bradford in his journal. “for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”
In fact, the expedition found that they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians (not Native Americans, I am a native American because I was born here. If you want to split hairs, the correct term is Aboriginal Americans). The profits enabled the expedition members to pay off their debts to their merchant sponsors and their success attracted more Europeans.
Not for the last time, Capitalism triumphed over Socialism for the best reason in the world – one works and the other doesn’t.
Enjoy your leftovers, everyone, and hoist a cup of cider to good old American Capitalism.
Many – in fact most – do not know that the Pilgrims and the other members of the party (only 41 of the 102 expedition members were Pilgrims) were under contract to their merchant sponsors and that contract called for everything produced to go into a common store and that each member of the community was entitled (gotta love that word) to one common share.
Sound familiar? That’s right – In 1620, more than 200 years before Marx and Engels started their rabble rousing, the Pilgrims and their associates experimented with Socialism. All property and buildings belonged to “the community”. You know, the community as in commune as in the ultimate manifestation of Socialism – Communism.
How’d it work out. Just as any conservative would expect. Since all were entitled to a share whether they were productive or not, many didn’t do their share of the work. Production dropped and there was a lot of anger and finger pointing. Those who were originally hard working and productive, saw no reason to break their backs for those who didn’t pull their weight. Production went down and nobody was a happy Pilgrim camper.
There was no INCENTIVE to achieve!
So, what’d they do? Govern William Bradford cancelled Socialism and gave every family their own home and their own parcel of land to farm.
“This had very good success,” wrote Bradford in his journal. “for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”
In fact, the expedition found that they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians (not Native Americans, I am a native American because I was born here. If you want to split hairs, the correct term is Aboriginal Americans). The profits enabled the expedition members to pay off their debts to their merchant sponsors and their success attracted more Europeans.
Not for the last time, Capitalism triumphed over Socialism for the best reason in the world – one works and the other doesn’t.
Enjoy your leftovers, everyone, and hoist a cup of cider to good old American Capitalism.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Why Obama is Failing
Healthcare is on the ropes, cap-and-trade is doomed from day one, the recession isn’t going away, TARP didn’t work, no decisions on Afghanastan for three months, and the polls continue to drop.
Why?
Obama cut his teeth and grew up on politics Chicago style -- threats, intimidation, power brokering, thuggery. These all work well in the microcosm that is Chicago. But Chicago is not the USA.
Obama is slowly discovering that he cannot intimidate Democrat congress folk like they did renegade aldermen in Chi Town.
Why?
Because these Dems want to get re-elected. Many are from red states and would lose too many votes if they supported ObamaCare. Many are from coal or oil states and would lose too many votes if they voted for cap-and-trade.
Their worries are not in Washington where Obama reigns, they are back home where the voter rules.
Is this a bad thing?
No, it’s a good thing because nothing is getting done. It’s when politicians are getting things done that you have to worry.
Eventually, the economy will sort itself out despite the machinations of Washington. More and more people will become aware that climate change a) is not man made and b) that man can’t do anything to change it. In the mean time, we won’t pass any foolish legislation that will cost the taxpayer and increase the governments grip on us.
So, it’s time to celebrate, kinda, well, maybe in a year or so.
Why?
Obama cut his teeth and grew up on politics Chicago style -- threats, intimidation, power brokering, thuggery. These all work well in the microcosm that is Chicago. But Chicago is not the USA.
Obama is slowly discovering that he cannot intimidate Democrat congress folk like they did renegade aldermen in Chi Town.
Why?
Because these Dems want to get re-elected. Many are from red states and would lose too many votes if they supported ObamaCare. Many are from coal or oil states and would lose too many votes if they voted for cap-and-trade.
Their worries are not in Washington where Obama reigns, they are back home where the voter rules.
Is this a bad thing?
No, it’s a good thing because nothing is getting done. It’s when politicians are getting things done that you have to worry.
Eventually, the economy will sort itself out despite the machinations of Washington. More and more people will become aware that climate change a) is not man made and b) that man can’t do anything to change it. In the mean time, we won’t pass any foolish legislation that will cost the taxpayer and increase the governments grip on us.
So, it’s time to celebrate, kinda, well, maybe in a year or so.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
On Politics and Climate Change
A gadfly wannabe who goes by the single name Adam (ah, the anonymity of the internet) thought he handed me a “gotcha” when he linked to an AP article that contests the widely held scientific belief that the earth’s temperature peaked in 1998 and for the last few years has been cooling.
After reading the article, it seems to depend on two things: the year you start and the data you use. The ones who use land based stations placed around the world say that the temperature actually rose between 1998 and now. The others use satellite data and say the temperature has actually dropped a little. The latter are in the majority. There have also been problems with the placement and reliability of land-based stations. But decide for yourself. You can find the article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling
The point that ankle-biting Adam doesn’t realize is that I believe in global warming and climate change. If the last 12 years were warmer than thought, fine.
My only point is that mankind didn’t cause it.
There is a widely held belief (with no evidence to back it up) that scientists are somehow significantly more honest than other humans.
Wrong.
They are subject to the same temptations and flaws as the rest of us.
As I see it, there are currently three broad groups involved in the man-made climate change debate.
The first is are the solid scientists who actually go out in the field, collect data, and test to see if their theories are correct. If they are not, they try to find out what is true. These folk practice the scientific method.
The second are the most despicable. These are the scientists who are motivated by their politics. In this debate, these are the liberal scientists. Their job is to doctor evidence that they acquire -- mostly through computer models, not by the scientific method -- and shape it to fit the needs of their political mentors.
Why?
Once again, that pesky Mencken quote:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Man-made climate change is the current (and largest) of contemporary hobgoblins. Leftist (statist) politicians who want larger, more controlling government are trying to use it to institute what they call cap-and-trade legislation that gives them near-absolute control over all uses of energy. It also costs you and I more and more. It’s just another stealth tax that these guys are so good at.
The BBC recently uncovered proof that the guys responsible for the infamous “hockey stick” global warming graph actually cherry picked information on tree core samples to “prove” via computer models that this is the warmist time in the history of the world.
They also “proved” that the medieval warming period (much warmer than now) did not exist. They “proved” this despite historical data that shows it was real. Using all of the tree core samples, the medieval warming period reappears. (No footnotes or links, Adam. You can Google it yourself).
What kind of data?
How about Viking farm sites in Greenland. Yep, that same Greenland that, if its ice sheets melt, will make the Hudson Valley an inland sea (according to our leftist scientists). How about written Viking accounts of Erik the Red and Lief Ericcson.
The third kind of scientist involved in this debate is the saddest. He’s the guy who’s in it for the money. The lion’s share of grant money springs from liberal sources and, to get and keep the grants, your findings had better gibe with theirs.
So, when doing research on climate change, do some research on the researchers and try to identify if they have political or financial fish to fry. It really isn’t so difficult to sort them out.
After reading the article, it seems to depend on two things: the year you start and the data you use. The ones who use land based stations placed around the world say that the temperature actually rose between 1998 and now. The others use satellite data and say the temperature has actually dropped a little. The latter are in the majority. There have also been problems with the placement and reliability of land-based stations. But decide for yourself. You can find the article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling
The point that ankle-biting Adam doesn’t realize is that I believe in global warming and climate change. If the last 12 years were warmer than thought, fine.
My only point is that mankind didn’t cause it.
There is a widely held belief (with no evidence to back it up) that scientists are somehow significantly more honest than other humans.
Wrong.
They are subject to the same temptations and flaws as the rest of us.
As I see it, there are currently three broad groups involved in the man-made climate change debate.
The first is are the solid scientists who actually go out in the field, collect data, and test to see if their theories are correct. If they are not, they try to find out what is true. These folk practice the scientific method.
The second are the most despicable. These are the scientists who are motivated by their politics. In this debate, these are the liberal scientists. Their job is to doctor evidence that they acquire -- mostly through computer models, not by the scientific method -- and shape it to fit the needs of their political mentors.
Why?
Once again, that pesky Mencken quote:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Man-made climate change is the current (and largest) of contemporary hobgoblins. Leftist (statist) politicians who want larger, more controlling government are trying to use it to institute what they call cap-and-trade legislation that gives them near-absolute control over all uses of energy. It also costs you and I more and more. It’s just another stealth tax that these guys are so good at.
The BBC recently uncovered proof that the guys responsible for the infamous “hockey stick” global warming graph actually cherry picked information on tree core samples to “prove” via computer models that this is the warmist time in the history of the world.
They also “proved” that the medieval warming period (much warmer than now) did not exist. They “proved” this despite historical data that shows it was real. Using all of the tree core samples, the medieval warming period reappears. (No footnotes or links, Adam. You can Google it yourself).
What kind of data?
How about Viking farm sites in Greenland. Yep, that same Greenland that, if its ice sheets melt, will make the Hudson Valley an inland sea (according to our leftist scientists). How about written Viking accounts of Erik the Red and Lief Ericcson.
The third kind of scientist involved in this debate is the saddest. He’s the guy who’s in it for the money. The lion’s share of grant money springs from liberal sources and, to get and keep the grants, your findings had better gibe with theirs.
So, when doing research on climate change, do some research on the researchers and try to identify if they have political or financial fish to fry. It really isn’t so difficult to sort them out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
