Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Revolting Failure

I can’t say I didn’t see this coming. The answer to the eternal question, “what would happen if we gave a Tea Party, and nobody came?” has been answered. You would think these people would have seen this coming, too, but it’s coming as a shock to many of them.

Why is it a shock to them?

The modern GOP's become like those rulers you hear about in history, in myth and legend, who become surrounded by flatterers, self-interested manipulators who maneuver things in such a way as to cut off their prey from other people's input.

Democrats aren't perfect. Nobody is. But right now, Democrats can take correction in a way the Republicans can't. They can look outside their party, to see the larger issues, the larger context, to see that winning a particular political game is not the most important thing in the world.

I think there's a point, really, at which our political platforms are better held as suggestions and guidelines, than hard and fast requirements for policy. People are imperfect, and it follows from that that their plans, their platforms are imperfect, too. As somebody who pays attention to cognitive and information theory issues, let me add this: people are not always capable of plotting out all the implications of their politics and policies, and insisting on inflexible carrying out of policy according to political lines may be little better than an ego-driven failure to admit fallibility or fault.

These people were expecting 10 to 30 million people to show up. At best, hundreds did. Why did they expect so many?

A social group can become your world, if you let it. If you decide to reject the people and ideas beyond it, it can be very difficult for what other know and think to get in, and what you know and think to get out. Politics has taken a very self-centered, hyper-individual turn in today's politics, and folks have made it out to be a war of a kind.

In a war, you're out to beat the enemy, you're out to send them flaming into oblivion. But are you doing that with other Americans anytime soon? I doubt it. Most of these liberals you're trying to beat are just going to stick around. Unless you do something really stupid like take up arms and turn this country into some kind of dictatorship, then you're going to have to deal with these people as equals pretty much for the rest of your life.

These people were convinced that something like the Arab Spring was going to happen here, that people would spontaneously just up and join them, and that faced with this great mass of humanity, more or less ten percent of the country's population showing up, Washington would have to capitulate, all those dirty liberals resigning.

They thought there were far more people far more ticked off, and sympathetic with their aims. Was it polls that told them this? No, good polling would tell them their group wasn't so popular. They were telling each other this, and there weren't enough skeptics on this count to cool down the heat of their expectations.

The isolation from the mainstream is not something they are ashamed of, but it is making them look bad anyway. They prize their political incorrectness, but end up having to put out a lot of fires when one of their comments touches off a controversy.

I've got an autism spectrum disability, which means I've had to learn the hard way how valuable certain social skills are, how much BS they can cut through. At the same time, though, I learned the value of trusting individual observations and impulses. So, in total, I've learned that it's a balancing act, and most importantly, it's one where the right move takes into account the sway of what you're balancing, and the point of that balance.

Here's the thing though, and it's what mystifies me about the way that Conservatives have behaved. As a political blogger, I aim to broaden my audience whenever I can, to explain myself well, to take people who are on the fence and nudge them over to my side, and those who are on the other side, to draw them towards that fence. I've connected in the past with folks more conservative than myself, and found my share of reasonable, conscientious people. I don't think the country would be better without them, even though I'd like to convince them of some of the things I believe.

Republicans, though, have taken a path that seems deliberately designed to cut them away from outside relationships, to the point where I've heard many stories of people just cutting people and relatives off over politics. Rather than create a situation where Conservative values and ideas flow freely, with people being able to pick and choose, like the adults they are, what to believe and what to discard, the Conservatives of today have made a virtue of isolating oneself in purity.

I think it's undermined the GOP's future, set up a critical threshold. The folks who most strongly believe in the GOP's agenda aren't immortal, and their demographics have already lost some of their power; Obama would not be President, otherwise. We're feeling the effects in the executive branch first, in part because it's a national election.

The world is complicated enough, I believe, that the Republicans can change things. It's not like events in politics are linear and completely predictable. Funny things can happen if you play the margins correctly. Thing is, though, Republicans have made an art form over the decades out of ossifying themselves, and the remedies to their current situation, where the margins are creeping in the Democrats' direction will require them to change with the times.

I've learned that this is often the price of social interaction. Sure, you can be the kid who always pronounces himself bulletproof on the playground, but then nobody will want to play cops and robbers with you. Take a chance on people, go out and have a night out with your friends. It's not the worst thing in the world to see how others see the world, to understand what underlays their conscience, their philosophies. One of my biggest reasons to go to Baylor was to get in touch with people other than folks just like me, to see the world through other eyes.

That's allowed me to reach out to, and understand other people.

The Republicans, though, in response to what I'd have to say was a pretty bad decade of setbacks, have tried to derive strength from stubbornness. We won't change! We know what's right, and we're not budging! Worse yet, they've gone and convinced themselves that the rest of the country is suicidally self-destructive, rather than simply in disagreement about how best to serve the interests of the country.

Is everybody else grateful for how thoroughly paralyzed and dysfunctional the system has become, in the absence of their willingness to compromise? Not really. Folks want something else- more to the point, demand has been created for it.

Most Americans could care less for which party is in charge, as long as things are working. They will indulge all kinds of political theories and political ideas contingent on their working. They accepted the bigger government approach for decades, so long as it seemed to work, and the same for the smaller government approach. In the universe of possible policies, the ones that are most sustainable are the ones that work. Success is difficult to argue with.

I think many of the tactics over the past few years have been aimed at trying to get along without having to come to grips with that truth. Rather than change the platform to stop alienating blacks and Latinos, the Republicans have tried to constrain their voting blocks with some pretty miserable and transparent voter suppression efforts. It doesn't help that they accuse those populations of being complicit in fraud as they do it, or that they pull stuff like cutting voting hours for often working class voters, or reducing polling places for people trying to vote, so they wait in lines. Actions are speaking louder than words, and the targets are hearing something loud and clear that confounds much of their attempted outreach.

People my age come from a time where politics at least seemed more centrist, where pragmatic policy decisions and real-world success for policies were more important than whether it fit an ideological pigeon-hole or not. We might get frustrated with Democrats and Obama over how policies are failing, but we at least have some faith that they got the common sense to respond to us. Our alienation from the right, over the last decade or so, has been the product of repeated failures by the GOP to value positive policy results in the real world over optics. No, I don't want you to accuse me for the hundredth time of not supporting the troops, I want you to get our soldiers the armor and the numbers they need! No, I don't want you to do flybys of New Orleans, and pose for a speech in front of equipment you take with you. I want you to rescue those people who are roasting in the Superdome! No, I don't want you to keep telling me how Bin Laden's dead in some cave, I want you to either find his body, or find the man himself.

Republicans have a problem with my generation because of how many promises they made, made and broke, and then covered for with dishonest rhetoric. Folks complain about Obamacare not reaching one hundred percent on that keep your doctor and keep your plan promise, yet they don't not the years of tax cuts which did nothing but speed up the concentration of wealth and put us in deeper deficits. They were complaining about the Obamacare website, but that was about ten years after their own initiative, the Medicare Drug Benefit, came in overly expensive, unpaid-for, and it's own kind of mess in terms of its sign-up.

Republicans tried to be bulletproof, even as they've pointed their fingers at everybody and told them they were dead. All take, no give. People are not unaware of this. At least, not outside their party. Inside though, inside the walled garden of the GOP's media environment, they are either unaware of it, or convinced that what others believe is just a trick meant to undermine their faith in the right and the true- bias. The Media Bias theory has become so perniciously pervasive that people, when they split from the party, often don't rejoin the rest of society. They go further down the rabbit hole, further into the dream world.

It's there, in the dream world, that people, submerged in a world of propaganda, cut off even from the mainstream of their own tradition, can both indulge the purest forms of their principles, and wrap themselves in layer upon layer of comforting perceptions and rationalizations. They can believe that the rest of the country's just itching to join them and overthrow their political enemies.

The thing the GOP needs to realize is that the rest of the party is also slipping into the Rabbit Hole. The Tea Party is taking ridiculous people, making them leaders, making the recommendation of people the rest of America either thinks are reckless morons or shameless ideologues the litmus tests of electability.

There's a point these people will be able to get away with this, as susceptible voters endure in the electorate, and a point past which they won't, as this part of the population grows old and passes away. And that's not even taking into account the folks they lose as they try to push purity past people's tolerance for it. Change is coming. The old system did not survive the recent crises unscathed, undamaged. People's faith in this country's institutions haven't been restored.

There's a difference between successfully resisting change and actually satisfying the demand or defusing the problem that's driving that change. What the Republicans are doing now is resisting. In the back of their minds, they know that if they don't get everything they want, things will start rolling again. Like Sisyphus, they have no choice but to keep rolling a rock uphill that they know will get away from them again.

Only resolution of basic problems for the average person, whether by private or public means, will grant them reprieve for that punishment straight out of Tartarus.

I mean, in a way, I pity conservatives these days. As I listen to them talk, I can't help but reflect on two things: just how terrible and hopeless the current situation makes them feel, and just how unnecessary that anxiety, that mortal fear is. There are things that deserve their fear, like Climate Change, like economic inequality, things that really do have the power to make many of their lives more miserable.

At the same time, though, people like me, faced with these problems, don't live in a state of despair. We have means to change our situation, we believe, and our philosophy tells us government policy and power can be a part of that. Certain fearmongers among the right push the notion that dealing with either of these would land a Soviet economy on our nation, and crush freedom forever (or some such melodramatic junk.) I think, though, within the space of possibilities, that there are ways to satisfy both the impulse to do things according to conservative philosophy, and to get things done right, to handle the problems that ought to be handled, and remain true to one's values.

Reconnecting with the rest of America might not be the glorious battle for the nation's soul that some might want. Compromising with the left might not feel right to those who long framed their opposition as evil. Plotting a new course, rather than desperately trying to keep to the old ones might feel dangerous and wrong. This current course, though, doesn't lead the GOP to the outcome advertised. It leads it to a future where they expect the nation to be with them, but only look around to see the grey-haired, bewildered remnants of a party stuck in it's past, trapped in a revolution winding down towards its oblivion.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2014 6:02 PM
Comments
Comment #378477

Daugherty seems to believe he has reinvented the wheel. Never mind that his eight-sided wheel was rejected by our founders. His is the audacity of belief based solely upon desire and wishful thinking.

Wearing blinders is great for skittish horses and liberals, but mature confident conservatives with a solid constitutional foundation will continue to promote our individual freedom and limited federal government for the enjoyment of all.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 19, 2014 4:53 PM
Comment #378481

I might add that those pushing MMGW have lost another highly credentialed advocate. Conservatives know the politics behind MMGW while the liberal faction believes it can defraud trillions from us by its continued deception.

Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the ‘Consensus’”

“Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 19, 2014 5:30 PM
Comment #378585

I was interested, given Bengtsson’s resume, so I read the article and investigated. The article summary is as follows:

1) Begstonn believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). He states

The problem is that the global warming is mainly caused by the emission of carbon dioxide and thus directly related to energy production by fossil fuels that has dominated and still dominates the energy production by more than 80%.
2) Bengstonn’s problem is that he feels that “the really important question is to know how much warmer it will be and how fast this is likely to happen?” is not adequately answered and he feels that global warming is a longer term process than most other scientists posit.
3) He further says “because of the strong public interest we are now facing a dilemma as the public and the political community have become too much involved in the climate change debate influencing the actual science and this not necessarily in a positive way as it implies an arbitrary selection of priorities and preferential issues.”

So, there are a couple of critical points that brietbart conveniently lies about, misrepresents or skips.
1) Bengtsson is a meteorologist NOT a climatologist. The difference is we are talking about long term effects of CLIMATE change, i.e. the earth is getting warmer, not “will it rain tomorrow in my town”. Two completely different sciences.
2) He believes in AGW
3) He’s worried that the issue is too political and solutions are being driven via politcal, not scientific, methods
4) There was too much peer pressure promoting agressive solutions
5) His solution was to join the Global Warming Policy Foundation, whose stated mission is “to challenge “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming”

To repeat, Lennart Bengtsson is a meteorologist who believes in AGW Breibart lied twice in one sentence.

Posted by: Dave at May 21, 2014 10:29 AM
Comment #378594

Royal Flush-
You know, my position actually runs along the lines of this: what you call big government, by and large, is the product of decades worth of people’s experience with an industrialized, corporatized economy, and the measures they had to take in order to feel they could live with that.

People learned those lessons, and dealt with those problems with legislation intended to prevent recurrences. Whether such laws were all for the best is legitimately debatable, but that’s why we have a legislative system that allows revisions, reconsiderations.

This broad-based deconstruction, while profitable for the few in the short term, really will only bring back the problems that prompted the legislation in the first place, and what doesn’t get fixed after that will become a festering wound in the side of conservatism, an object lesson in it’s failure to deal with the real world.

As for your scientist?

Your premises for denying global warming are all too often political or social, relying not on the development of a valid countertheory, but instead on pointing to one or two examples of scientists supposedly disputing the consensus, and saying that it’s wrong on that count.

Thing is, I know science, and science doesn’t work that way. There are always dissenters. They aren’t always treated fairly, granted, but that doesn’t mean what they believe is wrong or right. There are plenty of people who believe in Homeopathy. Perhaps the people who criticize them are rude or overbearing. However, the social mistreatment of them doesn’t lend any validity to their claims that dissolving things that cause health problem to the point where it’s nearly impossible for an atom of the original substance to remain creates a cure for similar health problems. It’s neither here nor there.

Even if some work that challenges the consensus is rejected for more than just scientific reasons, that doesn’t relieve the scientists doing that maverick work of the responsibility to do their homework, to knock down consensus items on good evidence and best practices, to create countertheories with every bit the evidence and the theoretical underpinnings as the theory they hope to challenge.

To fall for your line of reasoning is to degrade the quality of science so that playing the victim card can substitute for doing truly scientific work. There’s been plenty of work done to establish that the consensus is right. The people who hope to challenge that consensus will have to either prove their point, or drop their claims. That’s the way real science is done. Politics, on the other hand, can get away with superficial sowing of doubt, with reliance on social browbeating, and the language of personal objection.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2014 2:35 PM
Comment #378602

Politics, on the other hand, can get away with superficial sowing of doubt, with reliance on social browbeating, and the language of personal objection.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2014 2:35 PM

Well, I can certainly agree with that. Politics is driving science in the case of MMGW. There are simply too many examples of this to ignore.

You said you “know science”. What an absurd statement. It means about as much as you knowing politics. You have a jaundiced view of both. At least I have a degree in science, not television and comic book production.

Dave, you need to do some more research into Professor Bengtsson’s views on MMGW. Professor Bengtsson has long expressed skepticism about the certainty professed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the fount of “official” climate science. He has in particular questioned its downplaying of the significance for its models of the lack of warming in the 21st century.

In an interview with Dutch journalist Marcel Crok, Professor Bengtsson said “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.” He rejected the claim that there was any scientific consensus, and said that skepticism was the proper stance of a scientist.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 21, 2014 5:28 PM
Comment #378603

The complex and only partially understood relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming leads to a political dilemma. We do not know when to expect a warming of 2 degrees Celsius. The IPCC assumes that the earth will warm up by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celcius in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration. These high values of climate sensitivity, however, are not supported by observations. In other words: global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models. There is no alternative to such computer simulations if one wants to predict future developments. However, since there is no way to validate them, the forecasts are more a matter of faith than a fact. –Lennart Bengtsson, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 April 2014

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 21, 2014 5:36 PM
Comment #378609

Royal Flush-
Why did you pick this fellow out of so many scientists to be held up as the superior scientist? As you question the science on political grounds, you should shine that political light back at yourself.

For one thing, how did you ever hear of him? Scientists don’t exactly get rock-star level of attention.

I think we can guess how you heard of him: through politically oriented sources, in particular, Breitbart. Sources intentionally set up to provide rebuttal to a perceived liberal media bias.

So, while you accuse us of putting forward Anthropogenic Global Climate Change for political reasons, you get your information about figures like Bengtsson from sources that are built in the spirit of political advocacy.

Did such sources report, with equal vigor and vim all the “skeptics” who decided that AGCC was factual?

Nope. In fact, if you research the guy, you’ll find that he’s had to walk back much of what biased sources like Breitbart’s source said. He hasn’t turned against the consensus that warming is underway, or caused by man, only with its pace. His complaint is that his paper wasn’t published. But was it not published for a good reason? Two independent reviewers found his paper to be badly flawed. Publication is merit-based, not based on some fallacious notion of letting sides have equal time and space, no matter how many problems there are with a participant’s logic or data.

Of course, you give yourself the out of saying that the refusal of publication was politically based. Ah, how convenient.

Remember my earlier argument: bad treatment or good, socially speaking, doesn’t bear on whether he’s right or not. Guess what? You’re not even considering that question, or arguing it! You’re simply asserting that he knows better, without really proving that his hypothesis, his notion of how things are going, has actually stood up to scrutiny in some way.

As for validation? Look, the guy himself says that there is no alternative to computer simulation. Do we have to rely on faith? No! We can apply the model to the real world, either by running simulations of events we saw turn out a certain way, to see whether the model follows that behavior to the extent that’s possible, or by running the model and seeing how things develop over that given period of time, to see how the results square. Models of this kind have empirical tests, and you would be naïve to think that Scientists have not applied them.

I know for a fact that they have.

As for “Global warming hasn’t been a problem so far if we rely on observations?”

The man is naïve if he has that sort of attitude, especially given the system he’s talking about.

It’s like saying “New Orleans isn’t going to flood anytime soon, because after all, Katrina was the storm of the century.”

Or, “El Nino will not come this year because we haven’t observed one for a while.”

Or, “Terrorists won’t attack the homeland because they haven’t attacked us since 1993.”

Or, “The Real Estate Market has seen consistent growth in home values over the last decade.”

Unlikely events occur. Trends that seemed irreversible, reverse; Complex Systems flip from one seeming equilibrium to another. Nothing obligates the status quo to remain, when systems are this complex. When they depend on multiple factors, or depend on a few in a very fed-back way, appeals to the normalcy of a system’s behavior can be very deceptive.

These systems can flip to new normals. What we see on our timescale as normal could in fact be just a departure from the long-term trend. That warming has recently been flat doesn’t necessitate that there’s nothing to cause warming, that CO2 isn’t a problem. We have to look behind the curtain of the obvious to find what the causal conditions are, to see whether the current behavior of the system is there because it hit an equilibrium point, or because a cooling trend in natural variation has dampened the warming trend going in the opposite direction.

You pay little heed to that possibility. Instead, you default to an explanation that unsurprisingly lets you declare that Climate Change and CO2 emissions are not a problem.

For all I know, Warming could just be a ghost in the machine of our equations. But that’s going to have to be proved in a more systematic fashion than the “toss things against the wall and take them all seriously” approach so many so-called skeptic use.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2014 7:00 PM
Comment #378610

SD writes; “You’re simply asserting that he knows better, without really proving that his hypothesis, his notion of how things are going, has actually stood up to scrutiny in some way.”

Really! Reread his statement, it isn’t his hypothesis, but rather a profound disagreement with the computer modeling that is taken as fact. Here it is again…please comment.

“The complex and only partially understood relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming leads to a political dilemma. We do not know when to expect a warming of 2 degrees Celsius. The IPCC assumes that the earth will warm up by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celcius in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration. These high values of climate sensitivity, however, are not supported by observations. In other words: global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models. There is no alternative to such computer simulations if one wants to predict future developments. However, since there is no way to validate them, the forecasts are more a matter of faith than a fact. –Lennart Bengtsson, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 April 2014

Please tell me that this is hypothesis. He addresses a problem with how unscientific the so-called consensus is. In other remarks he addresses the political nature of those pushing for trillion dollar solutions.

SD wrote; “Complex Systems flip from one seeming equilibrium to another. Nothing obligates the status quo to remain, when systems are this complex. When they depend on multiple factors, or depend on a few in a very fed-back way, appeals to the normalcy of a system’s behavior can be very deceptive.”

Thanks, you displayed your reliance of your own slavish adherence to a computer model.

Sorry Doughty, you’re the one who is naive. You can’t detect the politics in the so-called science of MMGW. You are blind to so much that it is frightening.

You are blind to what is happening to this nation under the guise of government power and expertise.

You are stumbling to make ends meet and blame everyone but yourself. Millions are totally reliant on government largess. The VA, which is entirely government run, is failing the very ones which it is charged with helping. obama flails around trying to find an excuse why he, the CIC, is ignorant of what is happening. He has been promising to fix all our problems and so far has fixed nothing. Worse yet, he has made things much worse for nearly every American.

Our foreign policy is in shambles, our economy is limping along, employment is static, and our debt has reached unimaginable levels. This is success?

And to top it off, you place total credence in a science/political body under the auspices of the UN. Get a grip on reality my friend. I am doing everything I can to give you help…but you must open your blinkered mind.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 21, 2014 7:52 PM
Comment #378612

Trying to use logic with some people is futile.
But they will get and have what they deserve … especially due to debt of nightmare proportions which too many ignore. It is only a matter of time.

Posted by: D.a.n at May 21, 2014 11:49 PM
Comment #378613

Stephen Daugherty wrote once: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.

more ….

A certain degree of autism is most likely at the root of this.

Posted by: D.a.n at May 22, 2014 12:09 AM
Comment #378619

Royal,

I suggest you read his article, the link is here

He clearly states that:
1) He believes in AGW, he has no uncertainty in that
2) The IPCC is focused on immediate and costly actions
3) The rate of observed change doesn’t justify those actions

His complaints remain
a) that the IPCC is focused on immediate actions while he believes we have more time to act.
b) he’s not happy that the climatologists won’t publish his opinion piece without more evidence.

It’s a simple disagreement, but one in which he is in a very small minority of scientists.

Posted by: Dave at May 22, 2014 9:14 AM
Comment #378638

Royal Flush-
His statement is a claim. You are so bound up in the rhetoric, you don’t understand a key, basic tenet of science: all claims are put to the test. If you’re going to try and knock something or someone down in science, you need to have done your homework, done your modeling, done your research, your data collection, your calibration as well or better than your opponent.

The point of science is not to raise idle objections to whatever the consensus is, it’s to sharpen the accuracy and precision of what is claimed to be true at any given opportunity. The objection to a scientific theory or hypothesis must itself be sound and valid, or otherwise the theory survives.

Nothing can be absolutely validated in the real world. All claims, all theories, are subject to revision on the discovery of new facts. Say somebody claimed that only the Sun has planets. Guess what? There’s plenty of proof otherwise, now. The theories have to be revised, have to be altered to fit the new facts.

So, any theory you could name is just one future fact away from invalidation. That includes the ones that actually have strong predictive value.

However, the new facts must be gathered properly. They got a result at CERN recently that seemed to show Neutrinos, a tiny kind of particle, going at more than the speed of light. Rather than trumpet this finding as the absolute truth, these folks called out for help to disprove their finding.

But why? Oh my God, that would be a blockbuster thing to find out! Einstein’s Theories of Relativity would have to be revisited, the whole particle zoo reconsidered, a new kind of physics built up to explain it! Isn’t this exactly the sort of Paradigm Shift that Thomas Kuhn talked about?

Why? Because it only would matter if it were right. There are all kinds of reason to get a result, and scientists know that if they screw it up, it’s their reputation at stake. So, they checked all kinds of different things, and eventually found that some sort of electronics issue was responsible for the apparently speedy neutrinos. No need to rewrite the basic laws of physics, the current theory explains the discrepancy fine.

What you “conservatives” don’t get is how conservative scientists tend to be. They aren’t being alarmists by talking about Global Warming. They’ve done their homework. But you radicals expect to come in, with questionable claims and questionable science and dispute everything as if you were on equal standing with them. Well, I’m here to tell you that you are not on equal standing with them until you take just as much care and do just as much homework as they do. You don’t get to pretend that your claims just automatically carry weight. Authority in the sciences must be EARNED.

And you can’t be bothered. Your claim that our science is wrong, Bengtsson’s claim that the progress of warming is probably going to be much slower than other scientists are predicting, are both claims that have to pass through the gauntlet of tests necessary to determine whether their objections actually hold weight. If you’re claiming the sun is doing the warming, rather than the greenhouse effect, you have to show that the sun’s actually supplied enough heat to account for the difference in overall warmth, for example.

You folks are using political arguments and rhetorical tricks to substitute for the substance you can’t supply, and then you ask us, no, demand, that we give you folks the funding and opportunity to mount your fishing expeditions to find the disproof of Global Warming you unskeptically claim must be out there.

I’m here to tell you, you don’t get that kind of respect for free in the Scientific community. Folks did a lot of good work to establish the facts, solidify the theory, and shape it into something that fits reality, explains it as well as can be expected.

Unless you can do better than that, you don’t get to act as if you’ve already tossed Global Warming theory on the ash-heap of history. You do not get to assume your correctness on this issue.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2014 7:17 PM
Comment #378640

First, SD wrote; “You’re simply asserting that he knows better, without really proving that his hypothesis…”

Now, SD writes; Royal Flush-His statement is a claim.”

Hmmm…does Mr. Science know the difference between “hypothesis” and “claim”? Obviously not…so sad.

Here is the most absurd statement that SD has recently made. “Well, I’m here to tell you that you are not on equal standing with them until you take just as much care and do just as much homework as they do. You don’t get to pretend that your claims just automatically carry weight. Authority in the sciences must be EARNED.”

In writing such garbage he totally ignores what I wrote and what is fact…I am not an expert but Bengtsson is.

“In an interview with Dutch journalist Marcel Crok, Professor Bengtsson said “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.” He rejected the claim that there was any scientific consensus, and said that skepticism was the proper stance of a scientist.”

Now, the PhD Doughty wishes to disagree with a true expert who at one time was in the MMGW camp until he realized how skeptical the computer models were to be viewed.

Settled science…my ass. SD, pay attention, I am trying to help you from becoming an even bigger fool.


Posted by: Royal Flush at May 22, 2014 8:02 PM
Comment #378673

Royal Flush:
Merriam-Webster Defines “Hypothesis” in a number of ways, including these:

a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

The last one is the more scientific of the definitions, and could properly be applied to Bengtsson’s work. We could apply “b” to what you and him have said in the public sphere, since you are both advocating that we take a certain course of action on account of what you believe.

“Claim”, as a noun, is defined a number of ways, including this:

a statement saying that something happened a certain way or will happen a certain way : a statement saying that something is true when some people may say it is not true

We can almost certainly say that Bengtsson’s work and his public statements are claiming something about the way warming has occurred, and the very heart of this claim is how he extrapolates that interpretation into the future. He is essentially saying that the slowed down warming of the last few years represents the nature of the future trend, that warming will continue to proceed at a slow pace. By the definition above, his statements, his paper, can be described as a claim. Additionally, his work would be of interest to few people, and none to you, if he were not disputing what others were saying, satisfying the latter definition of saying something is true when others might say otherwise.

What he’s saying about Global Warming is both claim and hypothesis. Similar things can be said about what you say.

You don’t make things any better for yourself by appealing to the fact that Bengtsson is supposed to be an expert. I mean, what have we got on my side, chopped liver? We have plenty of experts, in fact, many, many more experts on our side! That’s what we mean when we talk about the scientific consensus. Why does your one expert get to trump my many?

Truth is, number of experts aren’t what justifies belief in a given theory or hypothesis. Does it not strike you that the man, seeing his paper rejected, has taken the fight into the political sphere?

The guy’s work fails a basic step in getting published. He says it must be political. In the meantime, though, have others come forward and definitively verified what he put forward? Scientific work has to go through quite a bit of a process to become accepted as consensus, or at least as legitimate. The Journal he tried to publish in said his work failed that.

Why do you propose we ignore that? Why should we lend his work credibility, and disbelieve what others have said?

I don’t think you have a real answer to that. Your movement in general lacks that answer. You’ve taken your personal beliefs, and are trying to write them large. Science, though, says what we want to believe, what we don’t want to believe, and what we don’t know what to believe about all have to be put to the test, and if they survive that test, then and only then do they deserve some credibility.

That is true, then, for both sides. Doubt isn’t just used to carve away falsehood on the established theory, but also on any challengers. There’s no point in being extra careful about your main theory, only to lurch into uncritical belief about it’s replacement. Einstein’s General Relativity theory about gravity didn’t even begin to replace Newton’s until Sir Arthur Eddington made the first confirmation of gravitational lensing (since Newton’s gravity didn’t affect light.)

Appealing to one expert is problematic, because experts can still be wrong, can be outliers on their field. That’s true even for people who made important discoveries, like Linus Pauling, Brian Josephson, and even Newton himself. Newton believed in Alchemy, for crying out loud!

The process that Bengtsson did an end run around through the media, and which your people only care to reference to provide hooks for your rhetorical devices, is meant to counter that possibility, and to force scientists to do more than just vaguely propound on what might be true. That process is what divides science from philosophy, accountable investigation and speculation from sophistry.

It forces them to build up their theories with greater precision and care, and to pay heed when the real world tells them through their experiments and observations that what they believed to be true wasn’t.

You just want that kind of authority for free. You envy it, suspect it on a political level, and convince yourself that others have as much disdain for its constrictions as you do.

You’re pushing narrative here, not science. You’re pushing the lone whistleblower, the Galileo, whispering, “And yet it moves.”

Lucky for me, my training is in narrative, which complements my life-long interest and awareness of the sciences. So I know just what a propped-up façade, what a rhetorical device this is. It might make a good movie plot, this one person discovering something and challenging the world, but it’s a fairly unrealistic narrative concerning how science actually works, a Dan Brown Novel notion of it. I have some familiarity with the actual process, so your narrative strikes me as naïve, self-serving. It takes more than just one person critiquing the models to dispute their legitimacy on a solid basis.

But you? You and your folks don’t want to be bothered. You have a political mission to fulfill, and you are given the talking points and the attitudes necessary to do that.

Taking your position wouldn’t help me in any way, shape, or form. I don’t see improvements coming from the way you deal with the sciences, I just see a bunch of politically motivated philosophical shortcuts, a variety of bad habits I have no wish to get into.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2014 12:43 PM
Comment #378675

SD writes; “Why should we lend his work credibility, and disbelieve what others have said?”

His “work” as you refer to it, is more in the nature of questioning the work of others. His belief is that computer modeling upon which all the “consensus” depends, has not proven reliable. We both know for a fact, that the consensus is puzzled by the computer modeling missing its mark with the reality happening today in global temps.

That is why so many other theory’s are being propounded to explain the computer modeling failure. If computer modeling can’t project accurately even ten or twenty years into the future, why should it be called “settled science”?

Scientists enter data, the computer digests the information according to instructions from those entering the data, the results are called science. The problem is…computer modeling itself is not science despite your many protestations that it is. Liberals make the “TOOL” the science.

SD writes; “It takes more than just one person critiquing the models to dispute their legitimacy on a solid basis.”

Well Duh! What a scientific observation. I mention only one, because he is notable in his acumen, and honesty and is the latest to uncouple himself from the sheeple. Many thousands of other scientists share his view.

Perhaps SD isn’t aware of how the majority of adult Americans feels about all the MMGW hype. It is way down on the list of what most folks want government to be involved with in a major way. They don’t wish for scarce resources to be devoted to unproven perils.

Despite the knowledge that SD himself will not partake of the trillions proposed being spent on taming the untamable, he chooses to support those who will participate in the windfall of government waste. But then, he also knows that it will not be himself that will foot the bill.

SD is almost always cavalier about saving others without any cost or effort by himself. His is nearly always the first voice to advocate “new rights” and “group rights” not found anywhere in our Constitution. But, isn’t that the liberal way?

His simple mantra is…”wouldn’t it be nice if…”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 23, 2014 3:09 PM
Comment #378686

Royal Flush-
A model can be made scientific by building it in accordance with scientific laws, running the simulation, and correcting the flaws and including the principles necessary to get it to behave like what you’re studying. It’s not like they’re just programming neat little videogames that don’t have to map to reality.

However, they are having to map something that by its nature confounds long-term precise prediction. Small variations in initial conditions can create huge differences in final results, over time. Climate gets past this in part by being a long term average itself, but it doesn’t entirely get past it. Things in climate themselves move in chaotic, turbulent ways, ways that can be understood, but not anticipated with absolute certainty.

A lot of simulation is about repeating the model with small, random variations, to create a kind of matrix of likely results, like those spaghetti paths for the Hurricanes you see during the season.

Point is, you’re kind of expecting something pretty naïve, like a person expecting an equation to precisely locate where a bullet will hit. You don’t, and can’t know all the factors that will play a part. You take as many readings with as much density as you can, and you try to take into account as much as possible.

You say, why should we do anything about this? God, you say I’m the one whose mantra is, “wouldn’t it be nice if…”

In fact, it’s you who has that mantra, you and your party. Wouldn’t it be nice if that tech boom never ended? Or the real estate boom? Or if the markets weren’t vulnerable to collapse? Or if we could implicitly trust the participants in the market to be rational and do what’s in the public’s best interest (or their own at least?)

It’s you who said “wouldn’t it be nice if technological advances and sticking to this policy rather than showing weakness by changing meant the war would end more quickly?”

It’s you who said, “what’s the worst that could happen if we started torturing people?”

Your economic politics have left the media, the banks, and all kinds of other institutions more sclerotically locked in the hands of fewer and fewer men, cancelling out much of the value of the competition you folks hold up. We end up having to bail out folks, socializing the losses to avoid a systemically lethal collapse.

I mean, the more I look at your policies, the more I just conclude that they come from a tremendously naïve mindset that implicitly trusts the authority of private business to do what’s right.

Your views on Global Warming are a consequence of that naïve trust. I don’t share it. I know way too much about the history of the markets, in my lifetime and beyond to credit people who act like markets don’t have their big earthquakes, their 8.0’s. I know way too much about the history of the environment, of drug manufacture, of dozens of other fields to believe we don’t need some government, properly configured.

I don’t trust the federal government to do everything right, but that’s another problem, and I do address it. People should be more participatory, but your system seems designed to beat them down into simply resigning themselves not to use the power that their constitution provides them to keep the powers that be from overwhelming their interests in the environments, economies, workplaces and other places that they dwell.

My mantra isn’t “wouldn’t it be nice?” It’s “Anything that can happen will happen, so you better be careful and watchful about what you just let happen on its own.”

Of course, since I’m not thunderously stupid, I can’t boil down my entire philosophy so easily, but when it comes down to it, my philosophy is based on observing how things really work, rather than assuming that your logic operates without first making sure it maps to reality. My philosophy is based on doing your best to get the best information, then learning your best how to deal with it.

In short, my philosophy is built on a combination of a strong use of the imagination, and a diligent effort to observe the present and recall the past. It’s not the naïve sense of the world, your viewpoint is, because it’s built so heavily on assuming the best case scenario, on discounting the strength, power, and after affects of the big 8.0 level disasters, not to mention their frequency over time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2014 9:23 PM
Comment #378687

Royal Flush-
A model can be made scientific by building it in accordance with scientific laws, running the simulation, and correcting the flaws and including the principles necessary to get it to behave like what you’re studying. It’s not like they’re just programming neat little videogames that don’t have to map to reality.

However, they are having to map something that by its nature confounds long-term precise prediction. Small variations in initial conditions can create huge differences in final results, over time. Climate gets past this in part by being a long term average itself, but it doesn’t entirely get past it. Things in climate themselves move in chaotic, turbulent ways, ways that can be understood, but not anticipated with absolute certainty.

A lot of simulation is about repeating the model with small, random variations, to create a kind of matrix of likely results, like those spaghetti paths for the Hurricanes you see during the season.

Point is, you’re kind of expecting something pretty naïve, like a person expecting an equation to precisely locate where a bullet will hit. You don’t, and can’t know all the factors that will play a part. You take as many readings with as much density as you can, and you try to take into account as much as possible.

You say, why should we do anything about this? God, you say I’m the one whose mantra is, “wouldn’t it be nice if…”

In fact, it’s you who has that mantra, you and your party. Wouldn’t it be nice if that tech boom never ended? Or the real estate boom? Or if the markets weren’t vulnerable to collapse? Or if we could implicitly trust the participants in the market to be rational and do what’s in the public’s best interest (or their own at least?)

It’s you who said “wouldn’t it be nice if technological advances and sticking to this policy rather than showing weakness by changing meant the war would end more quickly?”

It’s you who said, “what’s the worst that could happen if we started torturing people?”

Your economic politics have left the media, the banks, and all kinds of other institutions more sclerotically locked in the hands of fewer and fewer men, cancelling out much of the value of the competition you folks hold up. We end up having to bail out folks, socializing the losses to avoid a systemically lethal collapse.

I mean, the more I look at your policies, the more I just conclude that they come from a tremendously naïve mindset that implicitly trusts the authority of private business to do what’s right.

Your views on Global Warming are a consequence of that naïve trust. I don’t share it. I know way too much about the history of the markets, in my lifetime and beyond to credit people who act like markets don’t have their big earthquakes, their 8.0’s. I know way too much about the history of the environment, of drug manufacture, of dozens of other fields to believe we don’t need some government, properly configured.

I don’t trust the federal government to do everything right, but that’s another problem, and I do address it. People should be more participatory, but your system seems designed to beat them down into simply resigning themselves not to use the power that their constitution provides them to keep the powers that be from overwhelming their interests in the environments, economies, workplaces and other places that they dwell.

My mantra isn’t “wouldn’t it be nice?” It’s “Anything that can happen will happen, so you better be careful and watchful about what you just let happen on its own.”

Of course, since I’m not thunderously stupid, I can’t boil down my entire philosophy so easily, but when it comes down to it, my philosophy is based on observing how things really work, rather than assuming that your logic operates without first making sure it maps to reality. My philosophy is based on doing your best to get the best information, then learning your best how to deal with it.

In short, my philosophy is built on a combination of a strong use of the imagination, and a diligent effort to observe the present and recall the past. It’s not the naïve sense of the world, your viewpoint is, because it’s built so heavily on assuming the best case scenario, on discounting the strength, power, and after affects of the big 8.0 level disasters, not to mention their frequency over time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2014 9:24 PM
Comment #378689

Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say Pollen and Bleu | Pollen & Bleu | Rivertrees Residences | Rivertrees | coco palms pasir ris | coco palms | coco palms condo | the rise @ oxley | the rise @ oxley residences | rise @ oxley | handbags | handbags Singapore | ladies bags excellent

Posted by: the rise @ oxley residences at May 24, 2014 11:36 PM
Comment #378807
SD wrote: Of course, since I’m not thunderously stupid,…
Sure about that? Posted by: d.a.n at May 26, 2014 6:54 PM
Comment #378808

lol…thanks d.a.n., I missed that.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 26, 2014 7:34 PM
Comment #378809

Once again, it appears to me that Daughty is attempting to reinvent the wheel. Being dissatisfied with our founders and the government they created, he is constantly searching for a better liberal way. It is obvious that the constitution does not favor what they desire, so they must try and constantly change it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 26, 2014 7:38 PM
Comment #378814
Wouldn’t it be nice if that tech boom never ended? Or the real estate boom? Or if the markets weren’t vulnerable to collapse? Or if we could implicitly trust the participants in the market to be rational and do what’s in the public’s best interest (or their own at least?)

Isn’t that what the Federal Reserve was enacted to do, Stephen Daugherty? Wasn’t the Federal Reserve put into place to stop the collapse of markets? In response to the Housing market collapse of 1907 to be exact. And yet, in spite of the Federal Reserve, the market still has wild fluctuations and collapse after collapse after collapse.

Perhaps the Democratics lied to us when they said the Federal Reserve Act was going to cure the country of the ills of a fluctuating market and collapse. Perhaps it was just pie in the sky thinking when they said it would work in the public’s best interest.

It’s no coincidence the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve act were all passed in the same year.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 27, 2014 10:37 AM
Comment #378821

Royal Flush-
Is this what you’re reduced to, in the final analysis?

You folks like to believe that they handed everything to us written in stone. But that’s not my read at all. They built this government to be two things: stable, yet adaptable. They created it to be more powerful than the loose confederation it replaced, but at the same time, constrained when it came to people’s business.

It gives us a rarity in this world, a strong government with a free people.

But your side wants to use the constitution as a means to end discussions, when really the Constitution was meant to maintain those very discussions indefinitely. Whatever they wanted in the beginning, they created an open-ended form of government that they had to know could and would change into something else over the years than what they created. They thought we were adult and rational enough to handle such a kind of government, and my philosophy boils down to proving them correct.

Yours boils down to infantilizing the citizen, telling them that however bad the abuse from the powerful gets, they can’t use the government that is their legacy from the framers to rein in the bad behavior. Yours boils down to using people’s worst fears to motivate them to disappear down a hole and pull their accessibility to anybody elses’ thoughts or opinions after them.

Weary Willie-
First, the Federal Reserve arose during a time when Republicans were the leading power. Second, it did create greater stability, limiting the degree of the boom/bust cycles that had plagued the country since the end of the Civil War.

You folks are always acting like the good ole days were actually all that good. But I think of it as inexperience nostalgia. No, it was not better when a club of politicians chose our Senators, rather than the states as a whole. No, it was not better when it was constitutionally problematic to make the tax code more progressive, and lay less of the burden on those who could pay the least.

No, it was not better when our money supply, the strength of our economy, depended on how much Gold we had around, and that getting too good at exporting things meant we risked a monetary shortage, and a contraction to boot.

Yes, there have been problems with all the solutions from time to time, but it doesn’t make taking the opposite approaches sound.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2014 7:10 PM
Comment #378822

Daughety has a jaundiced view of our founders and our founding documents. Read any of the numerous papers the founders wrote and you will find their greatest fear was too much government and too little freedom and liberty for our citizens. Freedom and liberty do not equate to handing out money and favoritism to the loudest group. Group rights are not found in the constitution, only individual rights.

This is exactly the path that doughty and his liberal friends are promoting. Bigger and more intrusive government.

The federal government is involved in areas in which the founders gave no license. So, what do the liberals do…why simple, change the meaning and intent of our constitution.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 27, 2014 7:39 PM
Comment #378823

RF,
What do you think about the part of the Constitution where blacks are considered property? Or women or not allowed to vote? Or American Indians are not considered whatsoever? Those three groups alone constitute a majority of the population, both then and now, and yet, despite their wisdom, the Founding Fathers ignored them. If you bother to reply, make sure you mention how blacks are property, according to the Founding Fathers, and how “all men are created equal,” but not women, and how American Indians and not considered- well- not at all. Open season on their rights!

It took a long time to do better than the Founding Fathers and make improvements. Liberals have done just that. We are still working on it today.

And thanks for your willingness to screw humanity into the ground re Global Warming. Really heart warming stuff. Pure conservatism on display. Way to go.

Posted by: phx8 at May 27, 2014 8:59 PM
Comment #378824

Welfare has enslaved the poor and with continued handouts and will continue to enslave them and that’s what liberals have done phx8. Global warming, any body can make a computer say what they want, the old saying a computer is only just as good as the things that are feed into them another thing liberals are good at, feeding lines of BS. I believe we need to help, and that is HELP the poor not enslave them. We also need to take care of this planet we live on but not to the extremes liberal want us to.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 27, 2014 10:08 PM
Comment #378825

KAP,
Most government programs intended to help people are temporary. They can hardly be characterized as enslavement. I have no problem with the rare examples of longer term ‘handouts’ if it means preventing children from starving, or mentally or physically handicapped people from being thrown to the wolves. But those are rare cases.

Global Warming is not just a matter of one computer model. There are dozens. Furthermore, the evidence crosses the fields of virtually every scientific discipline- chemistry, physics, biology, paleoclimatology, and so on. We see it in the fossil record. We see it correlate with astronomy. We see it in the migrations of animals and the dispersal of plants. That is why almost every scientist tells us the same thing: humans are warming the planet by introducing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

What we should do is open to debate. The amount of excess energy trapped in the air and oceans is staggering. The situation cannot be changed quickly or easily.

But long after Obama and Bush and you & I are gone, the problem of Global Warming will persist. Like it or not, it is the issue of our age.

Posted by: phx8 at May 27, 2014 11:13 PM
Comment #378826

The key word phx8 is intended. Generations of those so called TEMPORARY are still receiving benefits Democrats have kept those TEMPORARY people hostage by those TEMPORARY benefits through welfare programs. As far as those dozens of computer models BS in BS out. Yes the problem of GW will persist after my great grand children. Until other sources of energy can be utilized abundantly and cheaply we’re stuck with what we have. As I said I am all for helping the poor but when the poor refuse to help themselves that’s where I draw the line.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2014 12:04 AM
Comment #378827

KAP,
Name a program which is giving multi-generational benefits. Welfare was reformed during the Clinton administration, and that reform limited the duration of benefits. No one can receive welfare benefits for more than five years. States have the option of limiting benefits to less than five years, or extending it beyond five for up to 20% of their caseload, at the state’s disgression. Food stamps last one month to up to three years, and the vast majority of those people are either the very young, the very poor, or the elderly- hardly people who would be considered ‘enslaved’ to anything more than a difficult situation. So what program are you referring to?

Models are just that- models. They are not perfect, but they are still useful. When you fly on an airplane, it is based upon a model that was tested and re-tested. Would you rather engineers not bother using models? Models for climate predicted we would see the most warming in the arctic first, and that is exactly what is happening. If models were the only criteria, then maybe it would be worth re-considering, but that is NOT the case. The evidence that human beings are causing Global Warming is overwhelming and extends across virtually every field of science.

Posted by: phx8 at May 28, 2014 12:22 AM
Comment #378830

You named it phx8, Welfare!!! Even though Clinton supposedly limited the program people still game the system. I know people in my town that are second and third generation recipients. You said “Models are just models. They are not perfect” useful yes but NOT gospel so why do liberals take them as gospel and try to push them as gospel? Weather cannot be predicted accurately on a daily basis yet you predict doom and gloom because of a computer model.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2014 10:03 AM
Comment #378831

KAP,
Weather is what happens on a daily basis. Climate extends over a long period. For example, it can rain in the desert. Rain is weather. The long-term dryness of the desert is its climate.

By the way, no one has mentioned this, but Global Warming is making the front pages for a reason. Another El Nino seems to be brewing- odds are at least 65% that we will see one this summer- and if so, we could see a year of record setting temperatures, drought in the southeastern US, flooding in CA, and so on. Last year was the 4th hottest on record worldwide (although it was actually cooler than usual in the US). The hottest remains 1998, an El Nino year. Increased temperatures this year built on a higher temperature base could result in all kinds of hot weather and a lot of attention for Global Warming. It is no coincidence the subject is appearing more and more often in the news and on the Obama administration’s radar.

Posted by: phx8 at May 28, 2014 11:51 AM
Comment #378832

According to IB Times there is at least a 70% chance of El Nino in August, phx8. If we can go back in time before records were kept do you think that the same weather patterns could have existed? Could all of what you wrote above happened prior to records keeping? If so why all the doom and gloom? I believe we should do all we can to protect this planet but throughout history I believe climate changes have occurred. Famines and droughts have occurred, floods have happened, heat waves and cool spells have happened. I believe most of what has happened in climate history has happened naturally. I believe man has had a minimal impact on climate change.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2014 1:06 PM
Comment #378834

The same weather patterns you mention have existed for a long time, of course. The difference this time is that humanity has introduced enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Those gases trap heat. The ocean is the largest absorber of that heat. And what that means is this El Nino could be intensified like nothing we have seen before.

Last year, the strongest hurricane in recorded history made landfall- Typhoon Haiyan. Unofficially, it packed the strongest winds ever recorded. Haiyan was powered by heat trapped in the ocean. That trapped heat is measurable, by the way, and not just some model. That typhoon killed a lot of people in the Philippines. What Global Warming does is intensify events like Haiyan by providing a more powerful engine in the form of trapped heat.

You can believe what you want, but facts are facts, and your belief is wrong and contradicted by facts.

Posted by: phx8 at May 28, 2014 3:56 PM
Comment #378836

Explain phx8, if these same patterns have existed for a long time possibly before the industrial age and internal combustion engine came about and before the time of record keeping what makes this any different than before? You say facts are facts but those facts can be refuted by other facts. Climatologist differ some say what you are saying others say different. Who’s facts are the real facts????????????????????????????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2014 4:46 PM
Comment #378838

PHX8 writes; “What do you think about the part of the Constitution where blacks are considered property? Or women or not allowed to vote? Or American Indians are not considered whatsoever?”

The constitution was written by our founders to allow amendments. This has been done and not by the insistence of liberals only.

I have no idea what phx8 is talking about regarding his comment about my intentions and MM global warming.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 28, 2014 5:29 PM
Comment #378839

We are all aware that there is a considerable amount of pseudo-science circulating in many scientific disciplines. If one just considers all the different nonsense about food, one can understand the confusion and obfuscation regarding global climate.

From time to time we are told eggs are bad, then good, bacon bad, then OK, coffee bad, then good…ad absurd um. Not long ago the scientific community consensus was global cooling. Then it was man made global warming and now it is global climate change. I expect next it will be the collapse of the universe.

Never mind that I, or any conservative I know, have never argued that global climate doesn’t change. The trick for the left is to blame man’s activities as the primary cause and to propose unproven solutions enforced by government, with force if necessary, and involving huge expenditures of money and scarce resources along with curtailment of individual rights and property.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 28, 2014 5:48 PM
Comment #378840

KAP,
What makes the current example of Climate Change different from previous changing climates is that we can identify the causes of most of the past changes. They align with predictable astronomical cycles: axial tilt, precession, and orbital eccentricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

These natural cycles fit the historical record of climate change very nicely, but not perfectly. There are at least two examples of a major climate changes that do not fit the astronomical cycle. Those exceptions may be related to natural catastrophes- a meteor impact, and a massive volcanic eruption in India.

The Milankovitch cycles are natural cycles. They occur slowly, over long periods of time. What is happening this time around is not slow. It is occurring very fast in comparison with past changes of climate. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it has been in 800,000 years, and probably the highest it has been in the past 20 million years.

Some of the CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels (among other things) has been absorbed by the ocean, causing measurable acidification. If the acidity increases too much, it will prevent the creatures at the base of the ocean’s food chain from forming their shells, and that will collapse the entire food chain.

The temperatures have already changed as a result of human activity.

“The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a
warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.”

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

There are mountains of evidence, KAP. The facts ARE “the real facts.”

Posted by: phx8 at May 28, 2014 6:20 PM
Comment #378841

phx8, We can find mounds of evidence for GW and mounds against GW depending on how you google. So what you claim as fact may not be and vice versa. We don’t know what the world was like 800,000 years ago or even 200 years ago, it’s only THEORY or some scientist’s speculation and what he/she thinks is happening. We can argue this til the cows come home so it’s time to agree to disagree.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2014 7:00 PM
Comment #378843

“The temperatures have already changed as a result of human activity.”

And you know this to be fact because…?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 28, 2014 7:43 PM
Comment #378845

Royal Flush,
Read the IPCC 2013 “Summary for Policy Makers”.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

KAP,
We DO know a great deal of what the climate was like 800,000 years ago. One of the revolutionary developments in climatology came in 2001, when scientists drilled into ice and extracted ice cores hundreds of thousands old. The ice trapped molecules of air, from which the make-up of the atmosphere could be analyzed. Since then, many other cores have been extracted from other environments. Air molecules and pollen types can be used to determine temperatures, atmospheric composition, and more for various locations, including the ocean floor.

Posted by: phx8 at May 28, 2014 9:27 PM
Comment #378847

Like I said phx8 THEORY, How do they know it was 800,000 years and not 8000, or 800 or 80. One science teacher I had once said “Science disproves itself daily.” It’s like weather and climate can change quickly or can change slowly. No phx8, I will NOT accept the doom and gloom theory that liberals and democrats are using as scare tactics.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2014 10:43 PM
Comment #378848

phx8, I just happened across some graphs showing earths climate history. One graph showed todays climate almost equal to what it was like some 300,000 years ago with co2 concentrations a little more back then we have today. I also saw graphs that showed doom and gloom and some not so much. It seems to me that nobody knows exactly what is going to happen with any certainty. As I stated earlier there are mounds for GW and mounds that refute GW. I even saw one that stated “Fear means more money.” Gee I wonder what group would do that, could it be Liberals!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2014 11:34 PM
Comment #378849

Kap,
We are way past the point where this is supposedly just “theory.” Climatology and Paleoclimatology have been among the fastest developing scientific disciplines over the past 15 years. And the evidence keeps adding to the case proving the issue of human induced Global Warming. Here is an excellent article on ice cores:

http://climatechange.umaine.edu/icecores/IceCore/Ice_Core_101.html

“An ice core is a cylinder-shaped sample of ice drilled from a glacier. Ice core records provide the most direct and detailed way to investigate past climate and atmospheric conditions. Snowfall that collects on glaciers each year captures atmospheric concentrations of dust, sea-salts, ash, gas bubbles and human pollutants. Analysis of the physical and chemical properties of an ice core can reveal past variations in climate ranging from seasons to hundreds of thousands of years. Ice core records can be used to reconstruct temperature, atmospheric circulation strength, precipitation, ocean volume, atmospheric dust, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, marine biological productivity, sea ice and desert extent, and forest fires.”

And

“Comparison between ice core temperature reconstructions and ice core CO2 records revealed that glacial periods (colder) coincided with lower CO2 concentrations, while interglacial periods (warmer) with higher CO2 concentrations. The similar temperature and CO2 trends are consistent with the nature of greenhouse gases (GHGs); the higher the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere the greater the amount of heat that can be “trapped” in the atmosphere. It is important to note, that the similar trends in CO2 and temperature is not a just a simple cause and effect relationship as other factors are influential (e.g. orbital changes, ocean solubility of CO2, land surface changes, ice sheet extent). However, most of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and temperature.”

Let me repeat… “the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and temperature.”


Posted by: phx8 at May 28, 2014 11:43 PM
Comment #378851

Just think what 14 billion people will be like.

Posted by: D.a.n at May 29, 2014 1:15 AM
Comment #378859

Then why so many differences in the graphs? phx8

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 29, 2014 9:27 AM
Comment #378860

KAP,
Can you link or just type in the address of a graph that proves your point? Additional data may cause graphs to change as better information becomes available, but I have not seen any inconsistencies on things like atmospheric CO2 measurements.

Posted by: phx8 at May 29, 2014 9:45 AM
Comment #378862

phx8
Here’s a story detailing what is happening right now to the humpback whale population due to malnutrition:

Whale Strandings Linked to Malnutrtion

I appreciate your patience in trying to offer explanations to people who seem to want to just stick their collective fingers in their ears and yell “LA,LA,LA,LA, I can’t hear you”.

But hey none of them will be around and neither will you and I when the payment of our digressions becomes due in 50-100 years from now. So it is easy for them to use the old Republican fall back IGMGFY (google it, it’s not nice but it’s all I see from them anymore).

Posted by: Speak4all at May 29, 2014 10:32 AM
Comment #378863

Earth’s climate history graphs.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 29, 2014 11:24 AM
Comment #378864

Speak writes; “But hey none of them will be around and neither will you and I when the payment of our digressions becomes due in 50-100 years from now.”

Hmmm…sounds like what I have been saying about our national debt and the left’s ignoring it.

I have great news for all the MMGW adherents…a new and deadly peril is approaching. We must spend money now to avoid devastation.

Video: A Galaxy Far, Far Away…Will Hit Ours

Recently Hubble Space Telescope measurements have confirmed that the Milky Way will collide with a sibling galaxy known as the Andromeda nebula in about two billion years.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000002906469/colliding-galaxies.html?emc=edit_th_20140529&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=55454588

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 29, 2014 2:40 PM
Comment #378865

Yeah, real funny RF. I just love how Republicans are so concerned about taxing our grandchildren but don’t give a damn about what sort of world we leave them to live in. I don’t believe for one second all of that nonsense about “taxing our poor grandchildren”. The only people Republicans are worried about taxing is themselves, they could care less about anyone else. Minimum wage increase,IGMGFY. Climate change, IGMGFY. Poor people getting free stuff, IGMGFY. Sufficiently financing changes for the VA,IGMGFY. Any assistance to people in need, IGMGFY.

Posted by: Speak4all at May 29, 2014 2:54 PM
Comment #378868

Royal Flush-
You WISH I had a jaundiced view of the Framers. I don’t. You say I do, because you keep on appealing back to them to justify your opinion in some kind of overriding, pre-emptive way, so you can declare the debate over, and make manifest your own beliefs. That’s the bitter irony. You’re hobbling the democratic (small-d) discussion of ideas so you can get what you want without having to actually convince any outsiders of what you believe.

I believe in freedom and liberty, but not as philosophical abstracts, but as things you have to carefully balance and preserve in a real world. For you, there’s only the step of applying your brilliant, right-thinking, infallible beliefs. In mine, the question of whether or not people are free on a practical level is important.

The Framers couldn’t have anticipated where live in America would be two hundred years hence, but in their wisdom, they designed a system where they wouldn’t have to predict that, we would have the freedom to elect people who understood that, who could legislate laws appropriate to the age, with folks appointed to interpret the Constitution who were familiar with the questions of the age and day in question.

The Framers gave us license to be adaptable! They also gave us a system that allowed that to be done on a stable basis. That’s the brilliance of what they did: it isn’t the brainless either/or prescription you folks obsessed on, it’s a both/and proposition. A society with both law and order, and freedom and liberty.

We were meant to govern this country like ADULTS. Adults make decisions for themselves, interpret things for themselves. Children constantly have to ask their parents what is right and wrong, because children haven’t fully learned from the past, or formulated the ability to see things for themselves in the present.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2014 3:17 PM
Comment #378869

Royal Flush-
Yeah, I was aware of that. No, I wasn’t making alarmist claims about that. Your problem is, you’re looking a pretty profound, pretty well backed threat in the face, and you’re relying on 19th century science to reassure you that it’s not a problem. Your notion that it might not even happen would be acceptable before they discovered that CO2 traps heat. They’ve known about that for some time.

It might have been an acceptable belief before they found that old ideas of graceful climate changes were pretty much unsupported by the evidence.

It might have been acceptable to think that only the atmosphere mattered in all this, but we’ve found the oceans play an interlocking role. It might have been acceptable once to think that little changes in the atmosphere don’t matter, but we’ve recently discovered otherwise.

The only way to really believe what you do is to get most of your science news through the Right Wing media, or from nowhere at all. There are really too many individual discoveries and observations, too much evidence out there, to accept your notion that this is all alarmism.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2014 3:26 PM
Comment #378870

Daughertyy refuses to believe what the constitution says and what out founders intentions were. His refusal is based simply on desire to remake our nation.

Our founding documents leave plenty of room for us to adopt to new challenges. It is clearly spelled out what the federal duties, obligations and authority are to be. And what is not granted to the federal government is reserved exclusively for the individual states.

I mentioned earlier just two areas in which we are failing on a tremendous scale…education and poverty. It is not the federal responsibility to dictate the parameters for either and is the single best reason to cite for the federal failure in managing both. The feds have politicized both and have no expertise in either.

Never ever does Daugherty explain why the feds must do things which our founders left to the states. He thinks I am against government and I am not. I simply what the government our founders provided. It works the best in its original and amended form and the left need not tinker with it.

Our states founded the federal government, not the other way around.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 29, 2014 3:33 PM
Comment #378873

Royal Flush-
Do you just have these written down somewhere, for you to cut and paste into your comments?

I explain it all the time. Repeatedly. Technology. The telescoping of time and distance. The changes made in the nature of the corporation after the Civil War. The change in political paradigm post-civil war, caused by the fracturing of the union, and the ordeal of its repair.

Our experience, as a culture, as a society, with the changes that industrialization and later computerization brought to society.

When societies drift inevitably from their original circumstances, when frontiers become settled, and the balance shifts between rural and urban, people are faced with a troublesome problem: the old rules no longer serve to maintain the balances and the character of society as they once did. What might be conservative in terms of law and interpretation fails to be conservative in actual practice, in terms of actual conditions.

You can’t run a city like you can a village. You can’t be as indulgent with the body-mangling machines of industry as you can be with the kinder, gentler mechanics of pre-industrial farm life. You can’t preserve people’s freedoms in the face of a huge corporation, a big monopoly, the same way you can in the face of a small, mom and pop business.

Long story short, if you want the proper principles to be expressed in this new system you’re dealing with, you have to take those principles and find ways to express them in that new system. Really, it’s not that radical: there were rules against cheating people in the old days, in laissez faire times. Just figure out how to make the same principle apply to today’s corporations. Killing people through negligence was wrong even in the time of Hammurabi, the tablets declaring a death penalty for builders whose houses fell in on their residents and killed them.

But noooo. You don’t want that. You want to pretend that as things scale up, we should ignore the problem, ignore those principles when it comes to big businesses. The rules, you say, must be applied differently when we get up there, and we can’t adapt to current circumstances, as things like building a house or building transportation get more sophisticated, and new hazards arise.

You just don’t seem to register that for me, the results matter as much as the principles, that my pragmatic philosophy feeds back practice to improve the rules that generate the practice. You already have decided that you know how things run best, and you’re not paying attention to anybody or anything that says differently.

The Constitution isn’t being reinterpret so that it’s real meaning is destroyed, but so that it doesn’t become a document adhered to in the text alone, it’s application so outdated and obsolete that the average person hardly feels its protections.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2014 4:56 PM
Comment #378874
You’re hobbling the democratic (small-d) discussion of ideas so you can get what you want without having to actually convince any outsiders of what you believe.

Wow! Does that sound familiar? Democratics had 2 years to deal with the problems Speak4all listed and what did they do with them? They squandered them on a pie in the sky, boondoggle, takeover of the health care system.
They did it without actually convincing any outsiders what they believe. They hobbled their opposition with a bias media. They wasted 2 years, all their own, and ignored the problems they campaigned on for 6 years.

Stephen Daugherty, you keep saying the constitution is outdated. It is not outdated, it is being ignored. It is being ignored because the Progressive ideology cannot survive in the environment the founders invisioned. It is not the advancements that render the constitution moot. It is not the technology that renders the constitution moot. It is not the population or the size of the country that renders the constitution moot. It is the Progressive’s ideology, an ideology that must control, that is rendering the constitution moot.

Which came first in the U.S.? Was it freedom or was it the laws and programs Progressives created to control the population? I submit it is not freedom that is to blame. It is the Progressive’s need to control and dominate that is to blame.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2014 5:22 PM
Comment #378877

Democrats are still working to resolve those problems and will continue to do that long after you and I are gone. It’s the Repulicanics and TeaPartyics that work against any address to those issues I listed. No, No, No only works for so long and then you have to come up with reasons.

Progressive liberalism has been and will be successful. This country was founded by progressive liberals. How progressive and liberal was it to tell the Crown of England we will form our own country and will no longer be your subjects. Now that was progressive liberalism at some of it’s finest. Not only that, but this group of colonists not only stuck their collective thumb in the eye of the King of England but they also crafted an excellent document that was able to guide them and their posterity to successful governance for 230+ years. Quite an accomplishment and it is still being celebrated today by evidence of our way of life and its success. I understand the frustrations of the King of England what I don’t get is the frustrations of the Republicanics and Teapartyics. We were given a document that knowingly could be changed and has been changed to the betterment of not only those of us fortunate enough to live in this great country but the rest of the world stands in awe of that. Let’s all stick our collective thumbs in the eyes of Republicanics and Teapartyics in celebration of that.

Posted by: Speak4all at May 29, 2014 5:39 PM
Comment #378878

What Daughty and other liberals just can’t seem to grasp is the our Constitution is about protecting individual liberty and freedom from government encroachment.

Please tell me boys, if these guarantees in the constitution weren’t meant to protect us from government…then whom?

These sorry libs can’t distinguish between making laws and following the constitution. For them its the same thing I guess. Their favorite comment seems to be the constitution is merely a guideline.

Bullshit my friends. The states didn’t ratify “suggestions” or “guidelines”. It took much persuasion and many written explanations by our founders to get the states to ratify the national founding documents. Read the Federalist papers for a clue.

Because we have an almost uncontrollable behemoth for a national government doesn’t make it constitutional. To argue complexity as a reason to wipe your ass with the constitution is about the silliest argument a liberal could endorse Daughty.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 29, 2014 6:08 PM
Comment #378880

Weary Willie-
Just like you seem to want to rewrite the English language in terms of the word “Democrat,” you seem to want to rewrite my opinions to reflect YOUR biases.

I keep on saying I’m just fine with the Constitution, just not your interpretation of it. It’s a conflation that you folks keep pushing. It’s not one I credit.

The Right Wing had MONTHS worth of negotiations, MONTHS, during which the Obama Adminstration let them have tons of input on the law. It is not the Administration’s fault that it then became required on the part of every Republican to categorically reject all parts of the bill, and then act en masse to scuttle ANY bill Obama might pass. You folks made this YOUR political goal, and since then have made destroying it a priority over all kinds of important matters. I don’t think you folks attempted infrastructure bills sixty times in a role, or any kind of real job bill beyond your repackaged ideological wishlist items.

We cannot be blamed for the fact that you decided that being obstructionists, and making Obama a one-term president (Mitch McConnell’s stated goal, not my exaggeration) were more important than negotiating a bill with us. We didn’t push you out of the plane, you JUMPED.

So we did the best we could without you. I don’t know how many times since then where we’ve had to essentially bail the Republican party out because their Right Wing is so damn uncooperative that they can’t even get on board with voting for their party’s compromises with the Democrats.

When the GOP is in this state of pathological partisanship, and Democrats control Two out of the three lawmaking units under our constitution, the constitutional experts of the right SHOULD be able to figure out that they’re strangling their own ability to get input. We were not going to let you run us right over so you could get your “input”, that is complete control. Compromise was going to be necessary, and your people wouldn’t acknowledge that.

I have never said the Constitution is outdated. I view it as a core, around which our laws and our legal precedents develop. Now, very occasionally, an amendment might be necessary, but for the most part, we want to preserve the core for as long as possible before we act in that way. We want to see what we can do to face our modern problems, while staying true to the Constitution’s rights, guarantees, and obligations. What my folks and I have promoted is a willingness to carve things back to that core, and redevelop the law and the jurisprudence to fit our modern times, using the original principles as the rootstock of the newly grafted legislation and jurisprudence.

The Framers might not have done things that way, but then, they didn’t bind us to do things exactly like they did them. They installed people accountable to ourselves in government, folks who would lose their jobs if they tried to take a public whose minds were changing, and disregard their opinion.

They assembled that system to allow change in a stable fashion. Change which has occurred, and has shifted parts of American government away from what they originally thought of. But that was the responsibility they handed us with the Constitution: Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

We learned from experiences, and applied that knowledge to how things developed. American government was always meant to be a work in progress, adapted to the times, able to shift with the age, with the Constitution functioning to keep that government from going out of control.

You’ve developed rather strong opinions, and that’s alright. What’s not alright is that you’ve conflated your opinions with pure constitutional truth, and have declared our disagreement apostasy from the Constitution. That I can’t allow you to allege unchallenged, because I take pride in my Country and its constitution, and I bear it none of the ill will that your bullying brethren allege of us. I’m sick to death of your people playing mouthpiece for folks like us, claiming in our names opinions and ideas that are most definitely not ours.

What progressives like me want is for the promise of the Constitution, the promise of having a government that’s supposed to bring equality and prosperity to all, to be fulfilled. We don’t want the talk of “All men created equal” to simply be a sick joke for the folks who aren’t normal, WASPy, and male. We don’t want to live in fear of our corporations or our government, or our neighbors. We want our children to grow up strong and well educated, to be able to rise in income and status as their own actions allow them.

We don’t believe in looking the other way as big businesses make the rest of us suffer so that the few people at their heads can live a life of overwhelming luxury. We split from England so that we wouldn’t have an aristocracy lording over us, fixing our destinies in place regardless of what our personal virtues and aptitudes might be able to earn us.

Progressivism is about taking the inevitable forward march of science and technology and making it something else than a death sentence for a fair, egalitarian society where one’s health and prosperity aren’t held hostage to the interests of the elite. We want to make that change and advance work for the vast majority of Americans, not just the lucky few.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2014 6:45 PM
Comment #378882

SD wrote; “What progressives like me want is for the promise of the Constitution, the promise of having a government that’s supposed to bring equality and prosperity to all, to be fulfilled.”

The founders demanded “equality” before the law for every citizen. Now come the libs who have twisted it to mean equality outside the law. No government can legislate or demand prosperity. It doesn’t work that way.

Liberals seem to believe that our founders had no clue regarding education, poverty, or marriage. They believe we have evolved above the founders ideas.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 29, 2014 7:01 PM
Comment #378884

SD wrote; “We want our children to be able to rise in income and status as their own actions allow them.”

Finally, something I can agree with. The problem is, that’s not what most liberals really want. Liberals support unions. Unions don’t allow its members what SD writes. Unions support seniority as justification for income increase, not job performance.

The left daily tells us that the income of some people must be curtailed and given to others. Anyone with too much income becomes a liberal target.

His basic fault is in believing his false ideas about the constitution and equality.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 29, 2014 7:52 PM
Comment #378885
I have never said the Constitution is outdated.
The Constitution isn’t being reinterpret so that it’s real meaning is destroyed, but so that it doesn’t become a document adhered to in the text alone, it’s application so outdated and obsolete that the average person hardly feels its protections.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2014 4:56 PM

I must be interpreting it wrong.

Stephen Daugherty, the progressive movement has been in control of our government for over 100 years. It has dominated our media, our education system and our society for the last 50 years. How can you blame the last 5 years of “Republican Obstructionism” for the condition our country is in?

I think you and your party are in denial.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2014 8:54 PM
Comment #378893

Last weekends Memorial Day observance got me to reminisce about my time served. We were a very different bunch of seamen, not from the same backgrounds, ethnicity or race. We served together though, side by side. I have been thinking all week about this and just wanted to make a point that with all of our disagreements on this blog (which are honest expressions of what we believe) we are more alike than we are different. For the same reason that my fellow servicemen and I were able to be so different yet more alike than different. What a great country we live in, we can disagree yet remain united by our citizenship and beliefs. But disagreement is what we are passionate about because we have learned from our predecessors that this is how we have come to be a country that is remarkably successful for all of it’s pitfalls and injustice at times. I look forward to disagreeing with my fellow countrymen, thanks and keep up the good work. Those commenting or reading here who aren’t fortunate enough to be part of this great experiment in government that began more than 230 years ago might be puzzled by our disagreements but we know it is what makes us stronger.

Posted by: Speak4all at May 30, 2014 10:34 AM
Comment #378897

Well said Speaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 30, 2014 11:59 AM
Comment #378898

Royal Flush-
You twist my words like that, then expect me to believe that yours are safe hands to put the Constitution in.

Bull. It’s not the constitution you follow, it’s your own thirst for power, and you’ll say anything about me or other liberals that you want in order to get that power. You guys can’t even look at school lunches, at the subject of feeding our kids healthy food without taking the other side out of your reflexive rejectionism. It’s ridiculous.

As for Unions? Well, we allow people to band together to make huge companies, whose power and economic strength far outclasses the average citizen. Why are citizens expected to bargain with that by themselves? In the old days, you could bargain with your employer more directly, and they had to deal with the potential for social ostracizing if they didn’t work and play well with others. Now, workers are more of a commodity, and are treated like such.

I hear about unions, and one thing I hear is that they require their members to stay educated in the field they are in, to pass tests of skill and competency. To the degree they are not, it’s a more reasonable compromise to required that they do pass certifications, that they do show competence, than it is to demand that they simply not represent people at all.

People cannot be expected to fight the world in order to maintain a decent place in it. Society should not be so hazardous to the good fortunes of the many.

Weary Willie-
I’m really not sure what you mean by “The progressive movement has been in charge.” There’s plenty that has gone on over the last century, especially recently, that bears none of the characteristics of any truly progressive cause.

In fact, much of the recent anti-government rhetoric has been set against such principles.

I think you’re looking for a reason to believe that the Conservative movement isn’t at fault, so you take that phrase, and you simply apply it with a broad brush without looking closely at the policy. There’s nothing progressive about citizens united, or about undoing the restriction on Wall Street. There’s nothing progressive about the level of collusion that today’s government agencies allow corporate America, nor about the way many of the wars of the last few decades have been pushed. Your tax cuts aren’t progressive, neither by the tax definition or the political definition, since progressive policy tends to be populist in its aim.

People just say crap for rhetoric’s sake, to kind of steer people mentally. But we owe it to ourselves to look more closely at their claims. Progressives would not have allowed the conglomeration of the banks or the fossil fuel industries, nor allowed the kind of privatization and market manipulating they engaged in.

You guys manage to force so many of these things to happen, but then you turn around and declare yourself the losers. It strains credibility. Conservatives and Republicans have rolled back much of the progressive movement’s policies, and corrupted much of what remains. We couldn’t even pass health reform without including the rather non-progressive, conservative insurance mandate. Progressives would have had a public option, at the very least, if not a single-payer system.

I’m rambling a bit, but I’m sick and tired of the terms being twisted around by people who only seem to want to shade the meaning of those words to further their agenda.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 30, 2014 12:55 PM
Comment #378901

LOL…sorry SD, I just get tickled when you dance around an issue you can’t defend such as union seniority trumping employee proficiency. Union members are not equal under union law, and that is truly sad. I have mentioned more than once the sad fact that the California Teacher of the Year was bounced by the union as she lacked seniority. And you call this progressive?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 30, 2014 3:29 PM
Comment #378902

France’s Reckoning: Rich, Young Flee Welfare State

Follow the link to a revealing video of the status of France today and the thousands who are leaving the workers paradise.

http://www.cbn.com/tv/3254023064001

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 30, 2014 3:32 PM
Comment #378904
Progressives would not have allowed the conglomeration of the banks…

Woodrow Wilson, a leader of the Progressive movement, persuaded a Democrat congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act and signed it into law! How can you say they would not have allowed the conglomeration of the banks when he started the biggest, most powerful, most secret, conglomeration of banks in this country’s history?!

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Progressives discount the vision of the founders.

The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics

It was a total rejection in theory, and a partial rejection in practice, of the principles and policies on which America had been founded and on the basis of which the Civil War had been fought and won only a few years earlier. When I speak of Progressivism, I mean the movement that rose to prominence between about 1880 and 1920.
While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.
At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.
“All that progressives ask or desire,” wrote Woodrow Wilson, “is permission — in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

Progressives have rejected the vision of the founders. It’s disingenuous of you to use them to promote your position. You believe conservatives have destroyed this country in the last 5 years without even considering what the progressive movement as a whole has done to this country’s political structure for the last 100 years. Conservatives are working inside a structure that has dominated the political landscape since Wilson and Roosevelt perverted it those many years ago. There is no way conservatives can be responsible for the level of dysfunction this country has devolved to.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 30, 2014 4:01 PM
Comment #378921

Royal Flush-
Do you know what a Union apprenticeship is? Have you googled union training program? Yes, because you haven’t heard of it, it doesn’t exist, right?

You would think that would be a problem the union would want to counter. At least I would think that, because I’m not trying to just characterize things. When we have a story we want to write, we fit facts to what we’d want to be true. Truth, though, is its own thing, and cares little for the politics of you or me.

Weary Willie-
Personal responsibility. You should take some. Rather than pretend that this is all the consequence of those anti-constitutional progressives, you should recognize that at least some of your policies went wrong.

Here’s the thing, and this gets tough when you have morons who only care about politics running around: There is what we believe, the standards we would uphold, and then there is the manifestation of that in the real world.

The Real World is unkind to beliefs not mapped properly to it. People can always justify why the government should have unlimited spying powers. There’s always a danger from this, a danger from that. People can also always justify why no secrets should be kept, or why damaging information should be released without an eye to what results.

People are great at rationalizing whatever they want to do. However, what counts is the real world. Is the government sticking itself into a matter it’s got no probable cause to be looking into? How do we write policy so that criminals and terrorists have the authorities keeping an eye on them, while the average person doesn’t have to wonder about anybody looking over their shoulder they don’t want doing so?

Or, how do we properly determine what remains secret, and what becomes known?

The Fourth Amendment doesn’t express itself. It has to be interpreted by courts, and policy has to be written both by Congress and by executive parts of governments on all three levels of the federal system. Excesses must be efficiently, effectively curbed, but justifiable searches, seizures and other matters must be allowed, even when some have a political beef with that enforcement.

The Constitution is an agreement between the states, between the people, not simply some God-delivered stone tablet of laws, of which people like you are the designated priesthood. You have your idea of what it must mean. I have my own.

Problem here is, you’ve let somebody juice you up with this notion that your interpretation is the only one, and its infallible. Fact is, that’s not what the Constitution was for. You think of it as the product of some political unit, but the provisions you cite on a daily basis were the results of compromises between all kinds of people, from all parts of the political spectrum of the day, and all different kinds of regions of the nation as it was then. Only after the fact do they seem one united group. You choose to lump them together in your mind as one group blessed with wisdom we can’t dispense with.

I choose to see them as fallible people who did their best, despite different interests and opinions to come to an agreement with people they didn’t necessarily even like. Some would have had a King. Others would have had only a Congress. Some would have stuck only with a senate, others would have had a House of Representatives, or something even more democratic.

The Convention was an arduous process of hammering out agreements.

But you people, you who claim the legacy as yours are too good to even bother. All you can do is claim that the other side doesn’t even want to follow the Constitution. It’s poor-me victimology, it’s conspiracy theory and a ton of excuses as to why you don’t simply stop trying to force what you want, what you think, on an unwilling country that’s moved on.

Our country has endured as long as it has, because it is not broken on account of a rigidity of politics that prevents change of any kind. We have drifted from the Framers, but that was part of the design. They knew, for the most part, that people’s hearts and minds would change, and instead of installing a king and an aristocracy, they created system that would change with those people, a system that also, most importantly, would learn from its mistakes.

If I could sum up my progressive stance, it goes a little like this: Science and technology are going to march on whether we like it or not. The world is going to change. The issue is, though, that these changes are going to affect the relationships between people and each other, people and the business world, and people and the government. These relationships are the subject of the Constitution and the bill of rights. If the laws, the jurisprudence, and other aspects of our government do not adapt to these changes, then the effectiveness and efficiency of government’s expression of the aims of that constitution, as spelled out in the preamble of the Constitution, will be undermined.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2014 8:06 PM
Comment #378925

As far as personal responsibility goes, I will assume you are not talking about me personally. I will take your advice to be directed at the conservatives who are trying to protect the constitution. Ill placed advice as it is, being conservatives haven’t had a say in the workings of the federal government since Roosevelt stacked the supreme court with New Deal judges and corporations became people real people hide behind. I’ll assume you are giving your advice to progressive-lite politicians who believe to get along they have to kiss the ass of liberals and Progressives who will destroy them with fake issues, hypocritical arguments, and outright lies if they disagree with them.

I don’t think you know what a real conservative is, Steven Daugherty. You seem to think that conservatism should have died along with the horseless carriage. What died was the equal partnership between the states and the federal government. What died was the 50 laboratories of innovation. You talk of personal responsibility, yet Progressive policies have substituted personal responsibility with dependency. That dependency is used to guarantee the votes needed to keep politicians in power. This dependency is needed to allow the political class to exist.

It is the pinnacle of arrogance to think this country got to where it is today solely because of progressive policies. How dare you think the American people couldn’t achieve better than this without the federal government holding their hand and dictating their actions.
Progressive policies of central control and federal domination have led to double-standards and hypocrisy. Laws are not written to apply to all citizens. They are written to separate people into classes and groups. Some are exempt, some are waived, some are simply ignored, some are targeted. This is what happens when a political class believes they can control all. How arrogant can one group of people be?

What do the people in Washington D.C. know of the real world, Stephen Daugherty? Your reference to the real world is laughable. I can’t imaging living in your “real world” of political correctness, having to evaluate what I want to say based on who I will offend. I can’t imagine justifying your “real world” assumption that feeling up little 3 year old girls at airports is necessary to “protect our freedom”! I don’t understand how the expenditures made to create and maintain the massive databases by the federal government are going to give us security. The federal government’s real world, Stephen Daugherty, is the accumulation of power and control.

The fourth amendment doesn’t express itself? What does that mean? I don’t know how you can believe the fourth amendment is vague and without definition. It is not the fourth amendment that is at fault, Stephen Daugherty. It is the people who interpret it using unambiguous shades of gray to render it, and other amendments, moot that are at fault. Laws allowing law enforcement to write their own search warrants go against the fourth amendment. It is not the fourth amendment that allows it, it is the people who interpret the fourth amendment that allows it. Why aren’t you questioning those people instead of the constitution? It is not the fourth amendment that allows law enforcement to silence the victims of these illegal searches, it is the people who interpret it that punish them if they speak out. Why don’t you believe the interpretations are at fault, Stephen Daugherty, instead of insisting the fourth amendment “doesn’t express itself”?

I reject your assumption the constitution should be ignored because of technology. In fact, I believe the tenets of the constitution as the founders designed them are enhanced by technology. I do not believe the freedom of speech should be curtailed because speech reached a greater number of people now. I believe technology has rendered the Social Security system moot and does not belong under the auspices of the federal government. I believe technology has made the 17th amendment counter productive. I believe the 16th amendment is retarding this country’s progress. The original funding mechanisms are more than adequate to sustain a constitutional federal government.

What you think of as progress many conservatives think of as shackles. The real difference between Conservatism and Progressivism is what your ideology cannot control, the thought process. Conservatism and Progressivism clash in the most fundamental ways. Progressives want to control. Since conservatism and the constitution stand in the way of that, they believe both must be destroyed.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 1, 2014 11:05 AM
Comment #378930

“real-world success for policies were more important than whether it fit an ideological pigeon-hole or no”

That is the root of the far-left vs right disagreement, Stephen. Is “real-world success” measured by money, or is it measured by individual rights and the freedoms they give? Is “real-world success” taking from one and giving it to another so that both will have a little? Or is it for all to have the freedom to fail or succeed on their own? Is “real-world success” punishing people for what they say and believe? Or is it having the freedom the say and believe what one wants?
Your referring to our Constitution as an “ideological pigeon-hole” is very telling.

A couple quick points my friend:
1 - The success of the Tea Party was due to its small town participation. Common folk who can make it to a local rally, but not to DC. Common folk who don’t have the money of unions, churches and ‘organizations’ to bus them all around the US.
The organizers of this event were dumb to think these people could drop everything and attend. Especially in this economy.

2 - The far-left is just as guilty as the far-right in shutting out people with differing views. I hang out at progressive/liberal sites alot and the rejection of friends and family who don’t hold those beliefs is the norm. For Gods sake man, you guys attack and attempt to destroy ANYBODY who fall in lockstep with your politics. Schools, churches, restaurants, bakers, athletes, students etc… have ALL felt your wrath.

3 - It is the far-left, not the right, who are trying to “transform,” the nation. For you guys to demand total compliance with no resistance, is ridiculous. For you guys to pretend that those who disagree with changing the Constitution are the ones who don’t support the founders, is pathetic.

Posted by: kctim at June 2, 2014 11:46 AM
Comment #378982

Weary Willie-
I referred to you personally.

You are not conservatives. Conservatives would deserve the name if they cared about more than just destroying anything liberals or progressives touched. Rollback, rollback. You throw the baby away with the bathwater, the improvements with the shortcomings.

You’re so ideologically locked that it doesn’t even occur to you that there’s little about the Republicans these days that anybody regards as truly conservative, in the old, non-political sense of the word.

You can argue about family values, but the values we’re familiar with, with the nuclear family able to support itself on forty hour work-weeks, take weekends off, are a consequence of progressive policies that beat back 16 hour workdays, that imposed a minimum wage, encouraged the kind of unionization that in turn gave people the disposable income necessary to run a consumer economy. We also gave people the financial stability in the markets necessary to allow people to grow that wealth over time.

It’s conservatives who decided that wages should be kept stagnant, that people should become dependent on debt in order to keep that consumer economy going. The illusion here is that we can run things that way and maintain that old 1950s/1960s level of consumption.

I don’t see conservatives advocating prudence. They push people to revel in doing the most unhealthy things, to be sexist, racist, elitist jerks to anybody who doesn’t embody their old fashioned ideal of what America was supposed to be.

It seems like much of what I valued when I was a child is under attack by the Republicans. My sense of my country was that we had defeated racism. Now I see it seeping back up, the Republicans encouraging it in order to get at Obama. My sense was that we’d put the kind of sexism that had women stuck barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen to sleep. Now there’ a new stunning example of it almost every day.

After all we did to claw our way out from under the prejudices of the past, it seems like we’re back to trying to make bigotry cool again. I could not be more disgusted.

We can congratulate ourselves that we have amendments that give people rights, but unless those amendments are expressed in laws, judgments and policies, they mean nothing. If a cop searches your house without a warrant, and the policy isn’t there to stop him when he does that, the right might as well not exist. It only matters in our lives when it’s expressed in laws that affect the real world where it needs to be affected.

America’s systems of commerce have changed. Go shopping, and tell me how much of what you’re buying comes from overseas, or at least some other state. Tell me where the company running that establishment is based. Technology has made it far easier, and therefore far more common for commerce to be interstate where it’s not international. Whether that’s transportation technology, energy technology, or telecommunications technology, there’s hardly anything in our lives now that doesn’t involve matters that make these sorts of cases federal. You want to pretend that the modern corporation doesn’t exist, that we don’t ship goods to and from this country and across the country, that people don’t deal with individuals, whether inside the company or outside of it that operate from out of state, go ahead. But My political philosophy requires one to acknowledge that a nation that runs much differently than it used to, must be governed differently than it once was, the Constitution still honored, still the law of the land.

You insist that the interpretation has to remain the same in order to preserve the Constitution. I insist that if it remains the same, then you are doing a half-ass job of interpreting it so it can be used to govern a modern society. And what? So the 1% get to play at being Vanderbilt and Rockefeller, barely constrained by the rule of law from monopolizing industries and charging what the market could bear, etc?

You keep on substituting terms, trying to make it sound like I hate the Constitution, and I’m getting rather sick of it. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of my argument. Americans today, in some way, are spoiled children. They don’t know how things were during the gilded age, the economic instability, the corruption… you seem like you want to race back to that. That seems to me less conservative, and more like a radical experiment in ill-informed nostalgia.

I mean, hell, you’re saying that if we dump the progressive income tax, you KNOW that the funding will be sufficient. BULL!!! You have absolutely ZERO experience of that. It hasn’t been done in almost A CENTURY! You might be much older than I am, but you cannot possibly be that old.

You can blast the people in Washington for not knowing what the real world is like, but that’s a bubble created by institutional boundaries that can and has been transcended. What Conservatives seem to be trying to do now is a paradox built on their fundamental ignorance of history: To have the conditions of the fifties and sixties return by enacting policy from half a century before, before the new deal policies that even by your admission actually define those times.

The real world is complex, ever-moving. We see only a piece of it, and we see even less when we see it through the vicarious eye of history. It is impossible to recreate a past age, especially with technology redefining society, business, and all kinds of other aspects of American’s lives. The pieces no longer fit together the way they once did. All you really do by rolling things back is expose us to the vulnerabilities that we once had. Only this time, so much more is at stake, because we are no longer the relatively poor country, with other great powers to prop things up in case we have trouble. We are the great power.

Part of being a progressive, I believe, is preserving what was best about the past, the virtues, the happiness, the prosperity, by adapting to the conditions of the present, and setting rules that create the space within which these things are possible. Once, industrialization threatened to turn the average person into a drone with no hopes of upwards mobility. We set about giving people the space to have the dignity they might have had, tending their own land, as it would be possible in the new times.

We cannot simply let the future grind on, and assume that it will turn out for the best. That’s easy for the rich to believe, with their power and resources insulating them from the problems that their company policies and behavior create.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2014 7:04 PM
Comment #378983

See, Stephen Daugherty, you have conservatives all wrong. Your belief that conservatives want to destroy everything liberal is something your side concocted to discredit them. Did you ever think that what welfare does, the church can do as well, if not better, than the federal government? Local government can do as well as the church. Why do you discount both alternatives and then insist conservatives want to throw out the baby with the bathwater and to destroy anything liberal?

I’ll venture to say it is to protect the bureaucracy that the federal government has assembled. A bureaucracy made up of people who vote Democrat to keep their jobs. This can be said for any other bureaucracy the federal government has assembled to solve a problem that never gets solved.

I’m not sure you should be talking about family values, Stephen Daugherty. I can recall the horrific ordeal your side put Dan Quaile through when he gave his “family values” speech. Your side came to the defense of a fictitious tv character to manufacture an issue and had the media relentlessly beat him up with it.

It was your ally, the feminist, that promoted the-working-woman-who-wanted-to-be-a-man mentality, who forced the woman into the workplace to generate extra tax revenue, who then left their children in the hands of the now government controlled childcare to be indoctrinated to become good little progressives. I can argue family values, Stephen Daugherty. Your side cannot. Your side abandoned family values a long time ago by allowing the wanton destruction of the unborn to go on unfettered.

It was also your side that insisted the employer and employee pay tax after tax that kept wages stagnate for the worker. Corporate taxes, the highest in the world, forced corporations to go offshore. Union pensions, another one of your side’s solutions to a problem that doesn’t go away, devolved into a money laundering scheme to keep Democratic politicians in office.

The hypocrisy your next couple of paragraphs reeks of is simply amazing, Stephen Daugherty! You insist, have been insisting, the Republican party wants to defeat Obama because he is black. That is a racist mentality on it’s face and you can’t see it. You bring it up to accuse the Republican party as a whole as being racist. Your side’s actions reek of racism. In fact, your bringing it up the way you do is racism.

To accuse a group of people of racism is racist. I admit there is personal racism on both sides, but what your side practices is institutional racism. It’s a racism ingrained into your party’s psychology. A psychology that looks down on people as groups, that believes they are incapable of making their own decisions, that exploits them for political purposes. Your side knows it is a racist mentality but they need it and uses it to stay in power.

It was your side that brought racism out of it’s dormancy. It was your side that insisted resistance to Obama’s policies were because he was black. It was your side that used the race card to push immigration policies. It was your side that manufactured the war on women when contraception was forced into the federal government’s realm as a health care issue. A fake issue to say the least. It defies logic for an entire party, constantly accused of being racist and sexist, to openly practice racism and sexism as much as your side insists it does. It simply defies logic and can be seen as a false and manufactured claim on the part of the Democratic Party.

Why does it being easier to buy something interstate or international make it a federal issue? In fact, technology making it easier to purchase something from another state, to get it using technology that ships it easier and faster, to be able to pay for it with a credit card faster and easier and safer should make the federal government being needed less, not more.

The commerce clause has been perverted to control the process of production and distribution, not facilitate it. The commerce clause was to guarantee fair and equal commerce between states, not to control the commerce of states and individuals by the federal government. Roosevelt used a temporary crisis to manipulate the commerce clause and to usurp the power of free commerce from the individual.

Stephen Daugherty, your side interprets the constitution as it does simply to get what it wants. The commerce clause was interpreted by your side to give the federal government control of commerce between the states and individuals, not guarantee free and equal commerce between the states. The manufactured shades of gray freedom of choice was interpreted to give women the so-called right to commit murder of their unborn children. The false notion of a separation of church and state was interpreted to mean freedom from religion and was manufactured to destroy the faith in God and replace it with a faith in the federal government. Your side is even insisting our republic is a democracy. All to get what you want. Power.

I have no idea how a desire to control every aspect of every person’s life, to treat them as all the same, can be construed to make people believe it is helping them achieve their dreams of a better life. You cannot give a person a better life by taking a better life from someone else. What point would a better life be if it is taken from them when they achieve it? The whole Progressive mentality is flawed, Stephen Daugherty. You may think it is working now, but it is doomed to fail as every other socialist structure has in the past.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 3, 2014 11:54 PM
Comment #379006

Weary Willie-
I can list any number of things that your side has done its absolute best to destroy that I could have listed as liberal achievements or policies. I’m not merely saying that you will destroy things that are liberal, your people are saying they’re going to do that, and to the best of their ability, they are doing that.

As for what I thought about what a church could do?

Have you ever thought about what they didn’t do? It’s not as if we didn’t try that system before. We once DID rely on what you could call faith-based and private care of the indigent sick, the poor, the elderly, the widows and orphans, and by itself it was so insufficient, especially during the depression when donations suffered with the rest of the economy, that Americans tried something else.

If you want a measure of how well it works, look at the fact that even the Tea Partiers comfortably rely on it with no notion of the irony of their bashing of big government after taking that money and that healthcare. Government hands off my Medicare, indeed.

Oh, yeah, Dan Quayle. You and I both know he wasn’t attacking that fictional character simply for her own sake, but blasting single mothers in general.

It was your ally, the feminist, that promoted the-working-woman-who-wanted-to-be-a-man mentality, who forced the woman into the workplace to generate extra tax revenue, who then left their children in the hands of the now government controlled childcare to be indoctrinated to become good little progressives.

As a child of a mother who went back into the workforce after raising her kids for years as a stay at home mom, in the wake of her husband’s heart attack, I am galled by your poisonous notion of what family values is.

My mother knows ten times what you do about family values. This is a woman who worked for world-famous doctors, who put herself through school and could tell you where in or on the body a part is simply by listening to what you called it.

You think of us almost as Martians, alien invaders who have messed up your neat little definitions of what families are supposed to be, and how women are supposed to act.

Oh, by the way: taxes didn’t keep workers’ wages stagnant. if taxes had that effect, wouldn’t the taxes on CEOs and others have kept their incomes from growing? No, stagnation of wages was a choice, as was the explosion of compensation for the upper tiers of the business world.

As for hypocrisy?

I’m sick to death of your side twisting words.

Frankly, I think the fact that Obama was a Democrat is the first reason why he gets such a hostile response. It’s why Clinton, white as he is, got it. Obama being black… No, that’s just made things worse, and given your side some unfortunate ideas.

Lazy. Stupid. Empty suit who needed affirmative action to get ahead. Foreign. Muslim. Oh, look, he’s playing the race card. Oh, don’t mind the pictures of watermelons growing on the front lawn, or Obama bucks with fried chicken on it. Or that picture of him with a bone through his nose, dressed as a fricking witch doctor. Oh no, that all’s not racist.

You seem to define Racism as noticing, pointing out, or protesting the fact that equal standards are not being employed. In my day, we used to call that complaining about racism. You know, you got this lady in this one story calling a black guy a “dirty f***ing n*gger.” but then saying he’s the racist.

Yeah. That’s how it seems to be working to me, this sort of Orwellian twisting of meaning. There is no inherent racism in accusing people of racism. Racism is the belief that certain people are inferior due to their race, and/or the application of a double standard at their expense.

I have WORKED under both women and minorities. Guess what? It’s unremarkable to me. I don’t harbor any sort of sentiment that these people can’t make decisions for themselves. Far from it! They’re making a lot of the decisions I’ve got to abide by.

These are people WITH THEIR OWN MINDS TO MAKE UP. And the fact that they’ve turned against you is not the result of us telling them to do that. It’s a result of your PATRONIZING, often PREJUDICED attacks coming back to bite you. You folks had a choice: you could court their votes, get them in by appealing to them, or you could continue to tell them that they were lazy good-for-nothing moochers, who rather than wanting to get a fair shot with equal standards, wanted to sponge off of all the real (read: white) workers of America. Now that worked fine in getting a bunch of whites who remembered a less complicated seeming era, but it cost you the trust and the sympathy of much of the Black Community.

How you’ve treated Obama hasn’t helped any. You’ve taken somebody they’re very proud of, who represents a breakthrough, something really to be proud of (would you deny Catholics their pride about Kennedy’s election?) And you’ve treated him like a piece of crap.

You talk about our bringing racism out of its dormancy, but I’ve seen tropes used against Obama that are so vile, so outside the mainstream, so old, that the only other place I ever saw them was in books and films I saw in a college course about old Racist stereotypes. I mean, when it’s that remote from your daily experience, that arcane and obscure of an attack, it’s almost like a radiocarbon date and a DNA test in one for how racist it is.

Hell, even little things, like somebody calling Obama “uppity”, a phrase associated with old southern racism from a time when Blacks had to know their place or risk ending up like Emmett Till or some other poor lynched fellow.

As for sexism? “Legitimate rape?” “put an aspirin between your knees?” The constant attack on even the established, normal, everyday use of Contraceptives?

I got news for you: women and minorities wanted to be in the workplace. Nobody forced them to be there. They wanted to do things not because they fantasized about being men, but because they are intelligent, they believe they can do the same jobs well, and often enough, being right about that fact. It’s you who assume that they upset the order of things just because we told them to for our own purposes. I assume they did it, because like me, they didn’t want any barriers in front of them that a white-skinned person of similar background wouldn’t have. And in case you accuse me of just wanting that just for them, like some pathologically white-guilted dupe, remember that Democrats also support anti-poverty plans aimed at poor people in general.

Why does it being easier to buy something interstate or international make it a federal issue?

What part of interstate commerce do you not understand? There’s a reason regulation of that fell to the Federal government. Otherwise you have a conflict between different state laws on the matter.

As far as technology that ships it faster? Did you forget about the Interstate Highway System, which superseded the old patchwork of state highways that use to exist? Or perhaps you forgot about the FAA, whose rather strict control of the skies ensures that those packages flying from airport to airport don’t crash. Without the Federal Government funded and managed infrastructure, or the Air Traffic Control and Flight safety organizations, we really wouldn’t have such a wonderful system for transporting goods and services.

You can Monday Morning Quarterback it, claim that things would have been better if you were in charge, but you weren’t and we have things pretty good when it comes to air safety and our immense highway system.

As for Credit Card Systems? Would all that be worth much if there weren’t standards put in place to make sure that information is kept safe and secure, or to ensure that if somebody steals it, you’re not liable for so much?

You say the Federal government is needed less by citing how simple and easy it is to do things that the Federal government makes easier and safer.

It’s time for America to stop kidding itself that everything just settles out properly, left to itself. If you read through history, you’ll see a long, sad history of that not happening, and that leading to the foundation of the parts of government you so resent now.

Your people have proven to be very incompetent when it comes to getting policy results. We should not be falling at your feet for advice simply because you think your methods would work better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2014 2:37 PM
Comment #379010

Correct me if I’m wrong, but did the government tell the credit card companies to stop using the slide imprint carbon copy method of recording transactions because the government developed an electronic credit card swiping machine that does it more accuratly and faster?

Was it the government that knocked on Bill Gate’s garage door and handed him the Windows software program and told him to install it on every new personal computer the government created and gave to IBM to sell?

What about the telephone? Did the government hand it to Alexander Bell and tell him to make a couple hundred of them to pass out to people? Did the government pass a law telling everyone they had to have a telephone in their house, you know, for the good of the children?

No, I’m not wrong. The government did none of this, but your attitude implies none of this could be possible without the federal government controlling the very environment it all started in. The exact opposite is the case. Innovation has stalled in this country because of government interference. We make no televisions in this country. We make no batteries in this country. I could go on and on of the items we no longer make in this country because of government interference and regulation and taxes.

Contrary to what you and others believe, the world doesn’t revolve around the federal government. Like I’ve said before, this country is what it is in spite of the federal government, not because of it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2014 3:13 PM
Comment #379014

Weary Willie-
Oh, you’re not wrong that private enterprise makes advances. But how about the consequences of those advances for fraud and identity theft? Since nearly all of those exchanges route across the country, the states really can’t take on the problem with any effectiveness.

And no, the government didn’t have to mandate phones in every home, but what about the laws that force the phone company to act as a common carrier, passing each call along without prejudice against one user or another? How about the fact that without the federal government, we’d have absolutely NO competition, lowering costs and forcing those companies to maintain certain standards?

I get that you like these black and white arguments that try and act like nothing that big business has done in the last century was in any way altered for the better or even forced by the government, but I can’t indulge that tendency on your part.

You say, for example, that TVs are not being made here because of regulations. One, that’s factually false. Two, to the extent it’s true, it isn’t about regulations getting in the way of profits, it’s American workers, who can’t work for pennies on the dollar like folks in poorer countries can.

As for batteries Hell, I’m not even going to bother with a specific article. The google search result speaks for itself.

The big corporations were perfectly willing to see this stuff shipped overseas, and often did. Obama’s manufacturing policies, though, have lead to a reversal in that, and jobs for Americans as a result.

This country, it’s businesses, it’s government, and its people interact with a hell of a lot more complexity than you credit it for. I’m not trying to make the opposite of your boneheadedly simplistic arguments. I’m saying that the Federal Government plays a role, one that can be positive if we get the policy right. It doesn’t have to solve everything, the way you think Private business should, just problems that are appropriate to it, that it’s best suited to tackle.

If innovation has stalled for any reason, it’s because a whole lot of MBAs think ideas grow on trees, so slashing R&D and giving themselves raises for their “efficient” thinking doesn’t seem harmful to them. Add to that the fact that we’ve had an unfortunately tendency in this society to equate being uneducated with being more honest and humble, and the fact that many corporations and religious groups have taken to corrupting and undermining scientific education because of how it challenges their bottom lines and their beliefs, and there you have it.

Of course, as with your absolutist talk about televisions and batteries, there’s still a lot of research and innovation going on. You just don’t bother to pay attention to anything but your political websites when you open your mouth to bash the federal government. No, you support the kind of people who’d actually cut the money that goes to basic research.

You’re so busy trying to fulfill your political fantasies that you fail to recognize that what you consider the facts to be is a shadow of what’s really out there.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2014 4:45 PM
Comment #379575


2014 comes,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.kkship4biz.net ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2009 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: guseryre at June 17, 2014 11:01 AM
Comment #380900

The human race is very young. In our time on this earth our minds and ways of thinking have not evolved the way it should. If you compare 5000 years ago with today’s modern day, you will notice that money and power have always ruled the world, from barbarians to colonial empires to modern day democratic societies, nothing has really changed. The same people are running the world today as they did 500 years ago, and they did it with the control of money which equals power. The most powerful people in the world control all countries with financial opportunities, these wealthy families are the ones who dictate the fate of all others whether we like it or not. In democracies today we have seen how our votes can be tampered with and big business is King, they deem the word socialism an evil word. I don’t even care about Socialism but it sound alot like the Terrorist word to me when I hear it on the news. Subconsciously portrayed to be a normal way of life in our religious books that money and wealth equal power so all Christians and Muslims are told that money has to exist and there is no other way . There is no other way to charge interest or cause bankruptcies, that’s for sure. This power is used to control the population. Money equals power and power runs the world Subsequently leading to subconsciously implanted things that are deemed to be normality’s, such as war, separation and distinction of class gauged monetarily. Meaning, money and trading have always been in the picture. If trading was promoted properly the world could have gone a different way but because of greed and ignorance many people around the world are programmed to have, been senselessly slaughtered for money, land, gold and other valuable items. People should be programmed to help their fellow man, view their fellow man or woman as equals. Our North American heritage is based on slaughter for land continued with deceit all in the pursuit of monetary prosperity. At the end of the day, there is one thing we learned from prehistoric times, it’s that no matter what we take care of our own families mainly our children. If you combine that with the need for money to be well off, then that means , man’s ultimate goal is the pursuit of money. It is obvious who controls the world, its those who don’t ever deal with consequences for their unwarranted actions. Its those who bomb and never get bombed, those who invade and never get invaded. Let be real, Its time for change.


Generation after generation we have all been taught that things are done a certain way, we don’t question it and if we do question it, most of the responses to our questions do not satisfy our needs, as a result questions are dismissed and acceptance to the flock of sheep who just follow each other blindly is eminent because that’s just the way it is and with life distractions like making money to feed the kids and paying rent come in the way we don’t have time to think, that’s why we buy houses we cant afford, maybe not but you know what I mean. Get a job, feed the family, happy wife, happy life? The happy attitude is fine if your college tuition is paid for and you get a car on your sixteenth birthday without a care in the world but what about the people all over the world like Africa and India who are starving, countries attacking other countries for oil without just cause causing innocent people to be killed and others injured or displaced from their homes. Its not a coincidence that all around the world there are many countries people revolting against their governments, most governments are being run terribly but if the controversies are religious based then that is a totally different issue altogether.


It is clear to see that religions are being used in ways to control the masses and with the acceptance of religious details causing separation from other religions, it also justifies the separation amongst the religion itself, causing separation even inside the religion’s. What this means is, if religion did not cause separation amongst us people then the same would be said inside each religion. This may be a little confusing to you the first time you read it but this ideology is the basis our governments and unseen leaders rely on to control the masses. Think about it: If we were all united as one all across the world, the working class and poor would not exist and everyone would have everything.


Why is it that in some countries education is paid for and in other countries its just too expensive or they don’t even have schools. Why are stock markets in place, for what purpose do they exist other than the small number of people who REALLY know the loopholes of the system (wink,wink), to help them make a whole lot of easy money.


I think its time for a change in the way we think, in the way we teach our children and the generations to come. Just like how we were taught that things are the way they are just because, its always referring to something negative, well we need to make it so that things are the way they are is referring to something positive. By the looks of things, the world is heading in the wrong direction and the wrong people are leading the charge. There is a way that we can elect people into the government we actually trust and know with smaller ridings around the world. Government officials should not be getting paid big bucks (Only Judges) for what they do, it should be done by people who actually care and they should get paid a reasonable amount. People who risk their lives like Firemen and Police who risk their lives everyday should be the ones that get paid astronomical amount of money not politicians or athletes. Athletics is an issue on its own, in my opinion the fans and the players should own the teams as well as the league and just share in the wealth because the fans and the players is what makes the game happen, not the owners as they stand today……….


These cities we live in are built on greed and financial gain when in fact there is no real gain. What do we gain by maintaining the stock market or the unfair banking and lending system. Why do you think Monday to Friday from 9am- 5pm are regular working hours? People are worked hard for little or no gain. Some are working from 6am – midnight, EVERYDAY, THAT IS NOT A LIFE!!!


In order to move forward in our thinking we must realize that monetary value was created by people thousands of years ago, it is not something that was here before people. People created it because that was the best that they could come up with. Prehistoric thinking, things that were done in the past were acceptable for those times, but does not work today in the status that the world is currently in. People may not realize it but it is obvious to many that the world is in transition, now with internet communication which allows us to understand what others around the world are thinking and feeling and understanding history and why people are the way they are. These days people are realizing that the world is being steered in the wrong direction and dynamic change is inevitable but no one knows what that change should be. People around the world are always willing to help their neighbors. Through the internet we are all neighbors now-a-days. People are relying on one another to help change the world for the better but don’t have any direction as the old thinkers still remain in control and people rely on them to keep order in society. The order that is maintained with the rulers of today are again monetary based meaning some areas are protected much more than others. Imagine a world without monetary value, imagine a world without money, greed and war. Imagine a world that’s not controlled by money but by the people. To even think about a concept that solidifies equality throughout the world is unheard of. To put a halt to world hunger, why try? Only a select few around the world who are capable with their own personal funding and recourses to help , to help as many people in need as they can.People like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, George Clooney , Madonna, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey. Its people like that who should be credited with ultimate status and appointed to run the world.


Real gain does not come from monetary value, it comes from what monetary gain provides us, like a home and food for our families. So if somehow people could eliminate the worry to pay for a home and necessities for their families, people can be spending their time learning, thinking and creating. People can live a life of spending more time with their children and families. Not to say people will not work , they will work, but it may not be in the same traditional way that we have know for years and years. Some things will take longer to change than others. Once the technology is created to free the minds of many who work mindless jobs that robotics can handle, then that will be the beginning of the technological boom because many more peoples minds will be available to educate and create. As new generations adopt this way of life ,many people will gain a broader meaning to their lives.


Posted by: Peter Printer at July 18, 2014 1:11 AM
Comment #381183

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 3:59 AM
Post a comment