The Coming Fascist State

Image Description

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” —-C.S. Lewis

If the government gets into the business of regulating and controlling carbon emissions it will be an unparalleled concentration of power far exceeding the New Deal under Roosevelt. The government will be in complete control over what businesses and average citizens consume and produce. It is the gateway excuse to rule, regulate and control your daily life in a fashion that we have never tolerated before but are now expected to meekly accept as we attempt to bailout the bathtub with a teaspoon. Never have Americans been so willing to hand over the most fundamental financial, transportation and quality of life decisions to a central authority on such questionable grounds.

We have been brainwashed that climate change is mainly caused by human activity and that somehow carbon taxes, economic socialism, monitoring lawn mower emissions, criticizing cow flatulence and flailing away at the faceless evil that is “oil” will somehow make a difference on climate changes we are only barely beginning to understand, let alone significantly influence one way or another.

Rather disturbingly, presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama made the following statement while campaigning in Oregon.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” “That’s not leadership,” Obama declared. “That’s not going to happen.”

I’m sorry, excuse me? I’d be happy to see him or one of his cronies point out to me where in the constitution an Obama administration has the right to tell me how much food I can feed my family, or how many miles my car must get per gallon to be legal or whether or not I can turn the air conditioner on. The soft tread of fascism is being heard behind all the “chicken little, the sky is following” environmentalist rhetoric, and those who have bought their propaganda hook, line and sinker are among the most dangerous people to be found in the political arena.

To them human beings, economies, jobs, quality of life, national allegiances, energy prices, free enterprise and other arcane notions such as liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness take a back seat to the theorized change in the habits of polar bears (they are increasingly rapidly, not declining but let’s not confuse an issue with the facts) and the possible inconveniencing of some caribou.

It won’t be the neocons who usher in an unprecedented wave of government taxes, regulations and controls into every aspect of American life, but the crying, fainting, ignorant masses who so blindly cry for change without understanding what kinds of change await them if their candidate is swept into office. Be careful what you wish for.

The average middle class American is the target of this new pogrom of the new millennium. Americans are routinely vilified and called lazy, wasteful, gas guzzling ingrates. Americans are somehow almost solely blamed and held responsible for the thawing of permafrost and the cause of the nightmarish embodiment of all evil called global warming simply because hard working people have the sheer audacity to heat their homes, travel to work, grab a hamburger or turn on a fan if it gets hot.

I have often stated that if true fascism ever materializes it will come from the Left, not the Right. It will not spring from Bush’s meager attempts to listen to Al-Qaeda phone calls or build bases in Iraq but from those who so vigorously proclaim that they will do whatever it takes to save the planet from ourselves no matter what the cost. The ones to watch are those who blatantly and unapologetically seek to institutionalize government authority and control over every single aspect of your life. The Green movement is really the watermelon movement; green on the outside, red on the inside, and armed with a fascist mentality when it comes to government intrusion, regulation and control over industry, business and ultimately every aspect of your daily life.

You shall know them by their words and deeds. They are the ones who cheer soon to be $5.00 a gallon gas prices and tell us that we have been spoiled for far too long. They are the ones who wring their hands and gnash their teeth over whether or not they are carbon neutral and loudly clamoring for carbon credits and consumption taxes. They lecture about flying on airplanes or daring to use the internal combustion engine to go see grandma for Thanksgiving. Their antagonism and hatred for the American way of life is palpable and omnipresent. Obama is their chance to seize power, fulfill their vision and enact their agenda. Now is their time for ‘change’. But it won’t be for the better.

Environmentalism is as much a religion as it is a scientific faith and author and columnist (not to mention Democrat and Mormon, he’s an interesting combination) Orson Scott Card makes that point well in Obama’s Real Religion
.

Barack Obama's comments, however, reveal him to be in the religious-faith category. The Environmental Puritans believe that any opposition to their dogmas is heresy, and that anything that doesn't match their vision of how humans should live is a sin.
Since their vision of how humans should live is "without making any difference in how the world would be without humans," we are all, alas, sinners. However, some are more sinful than others, and the United States is the most sinful of all…
… Still, the Environmental Puritans agree with the ayatollahs on this one point: America is the Great Satan. And Obama echoes that view when he refers to our gasoline consumption, our eating, and our air-conditioning and heating as if they were sins for which we are accountable to the rest of the world.

In the very sudden frantic hurry to somehow, someway “slow the oceans from rising” and save the glaciers we have offered complete control of our economy and way of life to a few who are dedicated to dismantling the free enterprise system, destroying the American way of life, exerting near complete control of your life from womb to the tomb while significantly lowering your standard living in a probable fruitless attempt to stem global warming that may or may not be from human activity, the retreat of the last Ice Age, the warming of the sun, or any of a number of other phenomenons.

The fact that no one is even suggesting inconveniencing the growing, polluting and oil guzzling behemoth that is China and the surrounding nations in Southeast Asia should be the most obvious of warning signs to make one pause and think about what is at stake in this ideological grab for unprecedented power in the name of ‘saving the planet’ from ourselves.

Fueling this anger, and the attempts to tax, regulate, strangle, impoverish, inconvenience and generally control the average American citizen is to me an inexplicable anger towards Americans for achieving a lifestyle and standard of living that is the envy of the world, the pinnacle of Western Civilization and the marvel of history. For some reason, the idea that the average American citizen is not living at the low standard of the average Kenyan brings out a rage that is fueling entire political and ideological movements and has engulfed an entire major US political party. It’s most potentially influential and manipulative adherent is leading in the polls and may take the helm of the most powerful nation the earth has ever seen.

Obama has gladly donned the mantle of the radical, environmentalist Left and thinks nothing of calling for radical changes in the role of government, the wholesale curtailing of basic freedoms, the dramatic restructuring of the economy while merely shrugging at how the dramatic rise in gasoline prices is shredding the lives and businesses of millions of Americans and local communities.

Raised a Muslim as a small boy, drifting aimlessly as a youth, and converting to black liberation theology Christianity as an adult, Obama had trouble finding the religion that worked for him. He seems to have finally found his true religion, the faith of environmentalism, and will not hesitate to use his role as a secular messiah to the spiritually lost masses to usher in what is in reality a fascist state.

As my oldest daughter would say, “Too bad, so sad”.

We would be far wiser to plan ahead as to what needs to be done with populations, cities and crop planting if the oceans are significantly rising and the climate is indeed shifting as is claimed. The current cry about global warming and climate change is far less about actually dealing with the situation one way or another than it is about taking away the concept of the choice of the individual and the installment of unquestionable government regulatory over every aspect of the economy, business, consumption and by extension every aspect of your daily life.

But the average person is being brainwashed to accept anything and everything because it is “for the planet” and those few who will have the courage or insight to point out the socialist and fascist character of the takeover of Western Civilization in the name of protecting the planet will be branded as selfish, ignorant, consuming, fundamentalist, knuckle dragging, archaic ingrates who have failed to see the light and are not willing to sacrifice everything on the green altar of climate change.

If Al Gore is indeed the high priest of global warming, Barack Obama is the Messiah like figure promising the masses that he will lead them into the Promised Land.

I leave you with the following quote by Charles Krauthammer:

"Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect... And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment---carbon chastity---they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat."
Posted by David M. Huntwork at June 23, 2008 2:35 AM
Comments
Comment #256434

David, this is quite an extremist, alarmist, and paranoid article you write. And gratuitously partisan as you never mention McCain’s name once whose position on this is similar to Obama’s.

Your sophistry by attributing to Obama the environmentalist extremist views is blatant. Such deception and contortions of reality and fact do not serve either your article’s goal, nor the reader’s need for reliable information.

Dispense with the Fox News trick of mentioning Obama’s name and then quoting extremists to imply the extremist’s views are Obama’s. If you have a case to make with Obama’s position, do your homework and quote Obama.

This article doesn’t even attempt to provide an informative and balanced reporting of facts and reliable information on where the candidate’s stand. This article belongs in a Fox Newspaper rag. I have come to expect quite a bit more from WB articles, personally.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 4:50 AM
Comment #256435

Oh, love your innuendo. A nazi swastika and several mentions of Obama’s name. Another cute FOX News type trick of deception.

I CAN’T BELIEVE you didn’t include THE FACT that McCain is four score behind the Cap and Trade policy. That must make McCain a Nazi fascist too according to your article’s reasoning. What a sham of an article, pretending to provide useful information when it is nothing more than a partisan smear piece of the worst kind.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 4:56 AM
Comment #256437

I agree 100% David Huntwork. I noticed that DRR didn’t dispute anything you said.

Posted by: BOHICA at June 23, 2008 5:42 AM
Comment #256444

Let’s see. If you’re going to write an alarmist screed opposing a candidate for something you think he’s going to do, you have two essential logical requirements:

  • Establish that the guy you don’t like is going to do something bad
  • Establish that his opponent won’t

Congrats, Dave Huntwork! You went 0-2! Add in that you started the piece with an invocation of Godwin’s Law, and we can pretty much say that this article is exactly the type of dung that David Remer described: “extremist, alarmist, and paranoid”.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 23, 2008 8:42 AM
Comment #256445

,-(1) Corruption, oppression, totalitarianism,
| (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
| (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
| (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
| (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
` - - return to step (1)

It may be an 80 year cycle; one we’ve seen before?

As for the two presidential candidates, neither one of them have much to brag about. Especially with regard to border security and enforcing existing immigration laws (which is why the supporters of BOTH candidates avoid the issue like the plague).

The carbon tax is a bad idea.
We can’t tax our way out of every problem.
Fuel prices will become painful enough and soon enough without the federal government abuaing its power to tax to make it more painful.
Carbon Tax disadvantages:

  • (01) It is yet another regressive tax. It also punishes certain industries and professions more than others.

  • (02) It is price-based tax. While increased price may lower demand and emissions, no definite limits on emissions can be guaranteed. If demand is strong enough, emissions will still rise despite the tax.

  • (03) In order to achieve significant carbon emission reductions to put a dent in climate change, carbon taxes would have to be extremely high, and voters ain’t likely to stand for it. Especially the middle class that is already being hammered from every angle. Especially if progress toward alternative solutions is non-existent; a high likelihood based on do-nothing Congress’ track-record.

  • (04) Carbon taxes are bad for the economy. A carbon tax that may be effective in a boom economy would be grossly excessive in a recession.

  • (05) It is pointless if there are no suitable alternatives on the horizon.

  • (06) Carbon taxes will increase economic disadvantages for the middle-income and lower-income groups that are already being hammered by numerous deteriorating economic conditions: one-simple-idea.com/NeverWorse.htm

  • (07) It would be difficult to tell what effect the tax is was having on emissions.

  • (08) A quantity (versus price based) system will be difficult to measure, and ripe for abuse.

  • (09) As tax-happy as most politicians are, they are not likely to commit career suicide by implementing carbon taxes large enough to put a dent in the current emission levels. We need altnernatives, and action to move toward those alternatives: One-Simple-Idea.com/BiofuelsAndEthanol.htm

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 8:53 AM
Comment #256446

By the way, over-population is a serious part of the problem, with the world population growing by 211,000 per day!

Over-population exacerbates all other problems, and is one of the largest factors harming the environment.

Yet, what is the U.S. doing? Importing 5 million per year of the more impoverished, less educated, and less skilled. That makes a lot of sense, eh?
Why?
profits and votes, disguised as compassion.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 9:03 AM
Comment #256449

David M,

“Americans are routinely vilified, called lazy, wasteful, gas guzzling ingrates. Americans are somehow almost solely blamed and held responsible for the thawing of permafrost and the cause of the nightmarish embodiment of all evil called global warming simply because hard working people have the sheer audacity to heat their homes, travel to work, grab a hamburger or turn on a fan if it gets hot.”

While I have no doubt that Americans are, for the most part, hard working “compassionate” people, but it is this sort of whining hyperbole that comes from someone that apparently believes America is the “greatest country God ever gave this planet”, without having been anywhere else to compare it to.

We Americans do less with more than any other country on the planet, and assume that the 10% we put in the Sunday collection plate absolves us of any, and all guilt.

We do things because we can, not because it is necessarily the right thing to do, and we do it because we see it as our right to do so.

“I’ve got mine, and screw the poor sucker that can’t get his own.”

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 10:03 AM
Comment #256456
Rocky wrote:We Americans do less with more than any other country on the planet, and assume that the 10% we put in the Sunday collection plate absolves us of any, and all guilt.
It’s a fundamental human flaw; not only an American problem.

Being able to recognize it and knowing how to deal with it appropriately (more Education, Transparency, and Accountability) is part of the solution.

  • Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability

  • Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

It’s a problem with fundamental root causes that cycles through all societies (to varying degrees).
Nations rise and fall.
Progress is slow: 2.00 steps forward, 1.99 steps backward, and we’ve been going backwards for several decades.
The root causes are the same as they have been for millennia:
    apathy, complacency, greed, ignorance, selfishness, misplaced loyalties, irrational fears and hatreds, and laziness

In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.

Yet 40% to 50% of voters don’t vote.
Too many voters fuel and wallow in the partisan warfare (as exemplified by the spin from the extremes), because it is easier to blame the OTHER party, than admit THEIR own party is little (if any) better (a problem with roots in laziness and blind partisan loyalties).
Too many voters merely pull the party-lever, without even knowing the canidates on the ballot, much less their voting records.
Too many voters repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election, despite giving Congress dismally record-low approval ratings.
Too many voters refuse to see themselves as culpable, when they are the largest group that is truly most culpable.

When will things get better (if ever) in the U.S.?
Probably, only when economic conditions have deteriorated so much that the painful consequences finally provide the much-needed motivation for enough voters to finally stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians for perpetuating the numerous abuses that have been hammering them for decades.
Sadly, too often, humans choose to get their education the hard and painful way.

This cycle has happened several times in the U.S., and countless times around the world, and it will most likely happen again. Unfortunately, the decline may take many decades to unfold, and many decades to recover from (if ever).

If we want to hasten the process (for improvements), those of us that recognize this fact of human nature can help energize others to become more educated about the issues, voting records, motivations, and human psychology. Only education can help compensate for lack of virtue and conscience, by providing the knowledge that things will get more painful if we stay on the current course.

Either way, the voters will get their education.
The only question is, will it be:

  • the smart, peaceful, responsible way

  • or the hard and painful way (again)
Based on the huge list of deteriorating economic conditions that will have long-lasting consequences for many years (or decades) to come, it’s most likely going to be the hard way, but the sooner the better, because it will only get more painful the longer we ignore the nation’s pressing problems, growing dangerously in number and severity.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 10:58 AM
Comment #256459

Alarmist? Probably. True? Absolutely.

And I quote directly from Obama’s mouth on how he views such horrendous things as SUV’s and air conditioning and how that “is not going to happen” in an Obama administration.

The Paul Revere’s are never appreciated in their own time. Mark my words today, and remember what I said tomorrow. The Green state is coming.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 23, 2008 11:25 AM
Comment #256462

Dan,

“It’s a fundamental human flaw; not only an American problem.”

Baloney.

Most of the people of the rest of the world make do with what they have. When I was in the Orient people there didn’t waste so much as a piece of burnt toast.
They get by with bicycles and smaller cars, and mass transportation because they have to. These are things that were nearly unheard of in America until our present fuel crisis.
We so loathe spending any more time than we have to surrounded by our fellow humans that we only give up our “right to privacy” in our cars under duress. We have been taught to look down on, and be offended by people that smell differently.
Hell, Americans spend more time in the shower and washing their hands than the rest of the world combined. We have lawns in our front yards where the rest of the world makes do with parks.
Now I will agree that this is all very picayunish, but it’s the small things that eventually add up to the big problems.

It is our “too much is never enough” attitude that has placed us squarely where we are today, and until we figure it out, we will continue to have these problems.

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 11:47 AM
Comment #256464

David -

Ever see ‘Pinky and the Brain’? Well, you are apparently likening Obama to the Brain and those who are buying into what he says as Pinkies.

Most telling was your sentence: “The current cry about global warming and climate change is far less about actually dealing with the situation one way or another than it is about taking away the concept of the choice of the individual and the installment of unquestionable government regulatory over every aspect of the economy, business, consumption and by extension every aspect of your daily life.”

You’ve GOT to be kidding me - it’s NOT so much about saving the global climate for human habitation, but more about taking away FREEDOM?!?!?

According to you, then, there’s a vast cabal of left-wingers led by Obama the Brain who is saying, “Heh heh heh…see, Pinky, they THINK we’re trying to save the planet, but what they don’t know is we’re TRYING to take over the WORLD!”

Typical Neo-Con trick.

Here’s the FACTS David:

1 - Bush’s Executive Order 51 gives him the authority whenever he declares a ‘national emergency’ to take effectively dictatorial powers.

2 - Bush’s quote: “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

I’ve seen this trick many times, David - do something bad, or even just plan to do something bad, then do one’s damnedest to try to accuse the other guy for trying to do the same thing - no matter how false the accusation may be.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 23, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #256465
Rocky wrote:
    d.a.n wrote: “It’s a fundamental human flaw; not only an American problem.”
Baloney.
Rocky, Your comment is ignoring thousands of examples and several millennia of historical records that show that nations rise and fall, and the real root causes are often very similar, and extremely difficult to deny that human flaws are at the root of our problems. It is most certainly going to be very a tough position to defend.

For example, you speak of excesses and wastefulness. Do you how many historic examples of that behavior exists? Do you know how many declines are preceeded by fiscal irresponsibity (the first signs of something wrong)? How many nations can you name that became essentially bankrupt, and shrinking to mere shadows of their former far-reaching expanse and glory?

Thus, to say it is “baloney” is not supported by several millennia of historical facts. Many societies have done the same thing. Many societies will repeat the same mistakes. That’s not to say there isn’t progress, but it is very slow.

But the rise and fall is all very much rooted in human nature (our strengths and our flaws).

In fact, there are other nations now repeating the mistakes made by the U.S. Prosperity has a way of bringing its own demise … giving credence to the theory of a cycle:

,-(1) Corruption, oppression, totalitarianism,
| (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
| (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
| (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
| (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
` - - return to step (1)

The only way to mitigate the damages is via education. We can get it faster and smarter, or slower and more painfully. It’s our choice. In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.

On the bright side, the motivation to become more educated (if it doesn’t come too late) is almost inevitable. Most voters will finally become less apathetic, complacent, partisan, greed, selfishness, irrationally fearful, delusional, and lazy when enough of the voters are jobless, homeless, and hungry. Then they will most likely do as they did in year 1933, when most unhappy voters ousted 44% (206 members) of the incumbent politicians up for re-election in Congress.

Rocky wrote: It is our “too much is never enough” attitude that has placed us squarely where we are today, and until we figure it out, we will continue to have these problems.
True. And at the root of it is greed, selfishness, and laziness, partisan loyalties, apathy, complacency, irrational fears and hatreds, and delusion are a human flaws, which you call “baloney”.

Americans are not the only nation to have visited these problems, dysfunction, and decline.
Many nations have already been-there and done-that.
In that respect, Americans are no different than other peoples around the world … we’re all simply in different stages of the cycle.
The cycle isn’t always identical, but it always involves the rise and fall of nations.
The U.S. may survive this decline as it survived the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression.
But it won’t be without pain and misery that we brought upon ourselves due to our most fundamental human flaws.

At any rate, the voters are culpable too, and have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment #256469

David,
Do you think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

Fascism has many definitions, but what you are suggesting does not meet those definitions. For example, fascism is usually closely associated with corporatism, because of the close links which usually exist between a fascist state and corporations. Other characteristics of fascism usually include nationalism and militarism, neither of which fits with your use of the word. I think you are trying to suggest environmentalists are totalitarian.

There is also the peculiar assertion that confuses science with religion, and acknowledgment of Global Warming with religious faith.

So let’s return to the orginal question.

Do you think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #256473

The coming fascist state will rule with an iron fist in the name of the invironment.

In the back of my mind, I’m thinking that the democratic congress is so corrupt the radical left will not have their way….at least I hope so.

Posted by: StephenL at June 23, 2008 1:29 PM
Comment #256475

d.a.n.,

“And at the root of it is greed, selfishness, and laziness, partisan loyalties, apathy, complacency, irrational fears and hatreds, and delusion are a human flaws, which you call “baloney”.
Americans are not the only nation to have visited these problems, dysfunction, and decline.
Many nations have already been-there and done-that.
In that respect, Americans are no different than other peoples around the world … we’re all simply in different stages of the cycle.
The cycle isn’t always identical, but it always involves the rise and fall of nations.
The U.S. may survive this decline as it survived the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression.
But it won’t be without pain and misery that we brought upon ourselves due to our most fundamental human flaws.”

You assume that we all as humans are flawed, but I don’t for a second believe that all of us, at this moment, even here in America, suffer from all of the same flaws that you would assign to all of us.
I will give you that in the ebb and flow of time, perhaps America is on the downside, and that we are on the downside because of the greed, etc that is displayed by some of our fellow country men.
I will not give you that it is beyond repair, nor will I give you that it is even displayed by all Americans.
I would not presume to paint all humans with the same broad brush of absolutism as you.

I see humans as basically good, you appear to see them as basically bad. That is the crux of the biscuit.

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 1:50 PM
Comment #256476

Thank you David for an excellent and thought-provoking piece.

The man-made global warming theory is indeed the launch pad so long sought by the liberal goons who would govern with an iron fist. And, you are correct, for many it has become the new religion. A God centered religion provides its believers a reward in heaven, the new green religion provides the “feel-good” reward combined with power here on planet earth.

MMGW is all about power and control over the lives and actions of all humanity with the practitioners believing that the ends do justify the means.

I am still waiting for a MMGW promoter to tell me what is the correct temperature for the planet. Yet, we must blindly believe that despite great global climate diversity in the past, we must at all cost prevent any climate diversity in the future. How silly, how arrogant, how perverse, that some would believe they have the wisdom to make that determination.

Soon, the MMGW’s will be advocating putting venetian blinds on the sun.

Posted by: Jim M at June 23, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #256479
If the government gets into the business of regulating and controlling carbon emissions it will be an unparalleled concentration of power far exceeding the New Deal under Roosevelt.

Is this not including the current administrations numerous subversions of our checks and balances system?

The government will be in complete control over what businesses and average citizens consume and produce.

The control would only be to the extent of say, the government regulating use of toxic material or where chemical plants can be located. And as far as I know, no one complains about those things even though they control what businesses and average citizens consume and produce.

I have often stated that if true fascism ever materializes it will come from the Left, not the Right. It will not spring from Bush’s meager attempts to listen to Al-Qaeda phone calls or build bases in Iraq but from those who so vigorously proclaim that they will do whatever it takes to save the planet from ourselves no matter what the cost.

To be fair, Bush has done far more restrictive and probably illegal activities than you have listed.

Raised a Muslim as a small boy, drifting aimlessly as a youth, and converting to black liberation theology Christianity as an adult, Obama had trouble finding the religion that worked for him.

Subscribing to a religion is a pretty important life-changing event wouldn’t you agree? You can hardly blame someone for not finding what is right for them in their youth. But more than that, Obama was not raised Muslim. Not that that matters. If it happened when he was a small boy he would not have had much say in the matter would he?

They are the ones who cheer soon to be $5.00 a gallon gas prices and tell us that we have been spoiled for far too long.

I hope you realize that gasoline at the pump is increasing in price because there is no longer an abundance enough of it. Whether or not anyone “cheers” the price of gas on is irrelevant to how expensive it is.

We would be far wiser to plan ahead as to what needs to be done with populations, cities and crop planting if the oceans are significantly rising and the climate is indeed shifting as is claimed.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. We can both plan for coming climate shifts and attempt to moderate them. At the very least, moderating pollution and ensuring an abundant, persistent energy source comes out neutral if you consider the costs.

One last thing: you consistently set up this straw-man throughout your article that suggests that Obama wants to just cut back on everything and destroy the current system. This is categorical nonsense. How exactly do you think Obama would go about controlling what you set your thermostat to anyways? How exactly do you think he would go about controlling how much you or your family eats?

I just cannot see what reasonable argument could exist that Obama is going to destroy our current system, let alone move us to a fascist one.

Posted by: Zeek at June 23, 2008 2:09 PM
Comment #256481

Excuse me, when I said, “abundance enough of it” I meant “abundance of it.”

Posted by: Zeek at June 23, 2008 2:11 PM
Comment #256489

Jim M,
Like David, you confuse several issues.

First, no one disputes climate change occurs naturally over long periods of time. Second, the point scientists have been making is that it is highly likely- that is, the likelihood of being correct is BETTER than 90%- that human activities are causing the current episode climate change.

I believe you and I have discussed the question about perfect temperature before, & I believe Stephen D also participated. I’m sorry you didn’t like the answer. But please don’t pretend you’re posing a question which leaves the opposition gobsmacked. The problem is not that a perfect temperature should be maintained, or that there is such a thing as a perfect temperature, but that rapid climate change can be devastating to humans and all life on the planet, and once begun, difficult to stop. It is not about maitaining a temperature. It is about preventing rapid, devastating change.

Third, the issue of whether anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring is separate from the issue of what, if anything, we should do about it. I don’t know of anyone who thinks it can be stopped at this point. The amounts of eneries are vast and the momentum behind the change is huge, and the only question is by how much, if at all, we will stop making the problem worse.

So! What you and David seem to be saying is that you do not like a problem which is worldwide in nature, because it requires international cooperation, therefore you will deny the problem, and then, just for good measure, condemn international cooperation as some sort of totalitarian plot.

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 3:38 PM
Comment #256490
Rocky wrote: You assume that we all as humans are flawed,
Yes, to varying degrees, that is easy to prove. No one is perfect. Surely you aren’t going to try to defend that too?
Rocky wrote: … but I don’t for a second believe that all of us, at this moment, even here in America, suffer from all of the same flaws that you would assign to all of us.
Where did I ever say “all of us” suffer “all of the same flaws”?

We all have different flaws to varying degrees. That’s a fact. Otherwise, please show me the perfect person(s) who are perfect.

Rocky wrote: I will give you that in the ebb and flow of time, perhaps America is on the downside, and that we are on the downside because of the greed, etc
Yes, the U.S. is in decline, and has been for years, and that is not hard to see or prove, with so many pressing problems growing dangerously in number and severity.

It’s not only an issue of greed alone.
It is also an issue of other human flaws.
For example, there are the complacent and apathetic that tolerate and permit the greedy to get away with it.
That’s a lack of accountability.
Without accountability, there is increasing lawlessness, irresponsibility, and corruption.
Also, there are blind partisan loyalties which are rooted in laziness.
It’s easier to blame the OTHER party, rather than admit THEIR party is little (if any) better.

Rocky wrote: I will give you that in the ebb and flow of time, perhaps America is on the downside, and that we are on the downside because of the greed, etc that is displayed by some of our fellow country men.
True. By “some” are greedy. Some are complacent. Some are apathetic. Some are ignorant. Some are lazily partisan and misplace their loyalties. Some are delusional. Some are irrationally prejudiced and fearful. Some are lazy. Some are near perfect.

If you’re read my many posts, I often use the terms “too many voters”. Rarely do I say “everyone”, “always”, or “never”. After all, no one is perfect, but some (probably few) are near perfect.
But greed is not the only problem.
While most people are law abiding, too many are too apathetic, complacent, and lazy, which permit greed to spread.
Thus, the apathetic, complacent, and lazy are complicit.
Still, we are all culpable to varying degrees.
Even the most perfect among us have a duty to help energize and educate the electorate.

Rocky wrote: I will not give you that it is beyond repair, …
I did not write that it was beyond repair.

However, it is very unlikely that reforms will be painless or quick (i.e. 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward).
That’s why I often say “the sooner the better”.
It’s not a black-and-white, yes-or-no, on-or-off, painless-or-painful only situation.
There are degrees of most things.
We’ve been on the wrong course for a while, and repairing the situation will not be painless.
And the longer we wait, the more painful it will become.

Rocky wrote: …, nor will I give you that it is even displayed by all Americans.
Again, none of us are perfect.

But I’ve rarely spoken in such absolutes as “all”, “beyond repair”, “always”, or “never”, etc.

However, we are all culpable to varying degrees.
Even the most perfect among us have a duty to energize and educate others.

Rocky wrote: I would not presume to paint all humans with the same broad brush of absolutism as you.
Nonsense. I’ve done nothing of the sort.
Rocky wrote: I see humans as basically good, you appear to see them as basically bad. That is the crux of the biscuit.
Nonsense. I’ve done nothing of the sort. Things vary over time, including corruption, courage, responsibility, etc. That is clearly exmplified by the following which I posted above and elsewhere:

,-(1) Corruption, oppression, totalitarianism,
| (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
| (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
| (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
| (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
` - - return to step (1)

I have also stated many times that most people are law abiding.

Thus, your comments and conclusions that I see people “as basically bad” is not substantiated any facts, and actually refuted by many of my statements in this alone and numerous other threads.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 3:41 PM
Comment #256500

d.a.n.,

Your posts are so long, and so filled with recycled material, I took your suggestion and I don’t read them all the way through any more.

Look, you may think you are doing all of us a favor by repeating the same information over and over, but for me at least, I find it difficult to sort through the detritus to get to the hard facts.

So, from where I stand your opinion is absolute, and nothing seems to change that. Therefore it has become increasingly impossible for me to have even the most basic discussion with you.

I mean no offence, I am sure that some folks appreciate the reams of statistics that you seem to produce without end.
You are who you are, and I am OK with that.

At any rate, I’m done.

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #256501

How typical … make a personal issue of it, rather than debate the issues or back up conclusions with facts.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #256505
David M. Huntwork wrote: Fueling this anger, and the attempts to tax, regulate, strangle, impoverish, inconvenience and generally control the average American citizen is to me an inexplicable anger towards Americans for achieving a lifestyle and standard of living that is the envy of the world, the pinnacle of Western Civilization and the marvel of history.
The U.S. has been the “envy” of the world.

But for how much longer, with $53.2 Trillion of nation-wide debt?
Especially when 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% of all wealth (a trend that started worsening in 1976)?
And the tax system is regressive. Before we add new taxes, we should first make the tax system more fair.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 5:11 PM
Comment #256512

d.a.n.,

Believe what you want, it ain’t personal, nor is a criticism of you personally.

Regardless of how many “facts” I back up my conclusions with, you will always win, because you will always deluge me with so many words I won’t be able to keep up.

So what’s the point?

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #256517

phx8, a minor correction. You said: “Second, the point scientists have been making is that it is highly likely- that is, the likelihood of being correct is BETTER than 90%- that human activities are causing the current episode climate change.”

My reading of consensus scientific opinion is that mankind is ‘Contributing To’ and ‘Exacerbating’ the climate changes being measured. There is no consensus that I am aware for saying mankind triggered the changes we are measuring, only making them worse and faster.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #256523
Rocky wrote: d.a.n., Believe what you want, it ain’t personal, nor is a criticism of you personally.
Think so? It certainly sounds like focus on me instead of the issue of debate (which was the human traits at the root of many of our problems, and your incorrect and unsustainable conclusion that I think people are “basically bad”.
Rocky wrote: Regardless of how many “facts” I back up my conclusions with, you will always win, because you will always deluge me with so many words I won’t be able to keep up.
Cop-out. If there was proof, you’d quote it. Your conclusion that I think people are “basically bad” is unsubstantiated.

Making excuses now that I “will always win”. The truth of the matter is you can’t prove that that I “think people are “basically bad”.
In fact, my comments in this very thread before you wrote that are dispell your conclusion.
After all, no one would speak of courage and responsibility, or progress (though slow; e.g. 2.00 steps forward, 1.99 steps backward) if they believed people were “basically bad”.

Rocky wrote: So what’s the point?
That’s completely up to you. Above you said you were done …
Rocky wrote: At any rate, I’m done.
… but apparently not.

Do you want to provide facts and logic to back up your “baloney” comments, or your false assertions that I “think people are basically bad”, or continue to make a personal issue of it.
That’s all.

What’s silly about this is that you were the one criticizing Americans by saying …

Rocky wrote:
Baloney. Most of the people of the rest of the world make do with what they have.

… in which I responded that it’s not only an American problem, and that there are cycles of (1)corruption; (2)courage and responsibility; (3)liberty and growth; (3)selfishness and fiscal irresponsibility; (5)and apathy and fiscal & moral bankruptcy; return to step (1); i.e. a cycle, of sorts, that has occurred in many societies many). How do you reconcile my opinion of people with courage and responsibility with your assertions that I ““think people are basically bad”?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #256524

phx8 thanks for adding a new word to my vocabulary…”gobsmacked”. I love it, does that mean you have smacked me with a gob of something? I wonder what I’ve been smacked with, certainly not truth, honesty or wisdom.

phx8 says, “rapid climate change can be devastating to humans and all life on the planet, and once begun, difficult to stop. It is not about maintaining a temperature. It is about preventing rapid, devastating change.”

phx8 uses the faulty computer models fed distorted information by humans to arrive at his hysterical conclusion. Science can’t “prevent” the common cold yet he would have us believe that the puny efforts of man can “prevent” what he believes is rapid devastating global climate change.

We all have read the lies and gross manipulation used by AlGore to instill fear in the masses, especially the uninformed and easily led liberal “feel-gooders” around the world. Politicians of both parties, those paradigms of truth and wisdom, are climbing on this horse as it promises votes and unlimited money and power.

As usual, the fearful are being led around by the nose and don’t even realize how their unfounded fears are being used to manipulate them. When they find their food supply dwindling, more jobs disappearing, and their electricity turned off perhaps they will wake up…or not.

In response to my question, “What is the planets perfect temperature?” phx8 said, “The problem is not that a perfect temperature should be maintained, or that there is such a thing as a perfect temperature…”

That was not an answer phx8, that was a cop-out and the answer is, there isn’t a perfect global temperature, it will be whatever it is, with or without man’s activities. But your response (not answer) revealed much. There is no defined common goal which at some point the alarmists could be satisfied as having achieved, but rather just an unending series of boondoggles and imagined fixes to continue to fleece the people of the world from their money and to destroy their freedom.

Since no one can define a goal, the goal will never be reached and that suits this conspiracy quite well.

Just as many liberal goons believe we can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis, but rather can tax our way out, they believe the same about MMGW. If we tax the people of the world enough we will achieve perfect harmony with our global climate.

The answer for these hysterical and freedom-hating folks is always the same, more taxes and less freedom. First they create a perceived problem and then proceed to tax the hell out of us to fix it and take away more of our freedom in the process.

Posted by: Jim M at June 23, 2008 6:21 PM
Comment #256526

David M

Well I think you have made it quite clear how you feel about Obama. I hope you aren’t losing any sleep seething over the man you would prefer to present as a Muslim in liberal clothing.

The premise of this entire rant is absurd at best. The man addresses legitimate ecological concerns and you label him a fascist. I think your analogy could be ranked right up there as ultra extremist. And no, not realistically true.

Do you really believe that Obama is attempting to force you to regulate your life or suffer the consequences? All he was saying is that times are changing. The cost of energy and lack of immediately ready alternatives to offset those costs will whether we like it or not change the way many of us live. At this very moment people all over this country and the world are conserving energy. Many people are driving less, turning their thermostats down, using fans instead of air conditioners, shutting off lights, moving or considering moving closer to their work places, etc, etc, etc. They are not doing it because someone said they must. They are doing it because inflated energy costs have made conservation a must for all but those for who cost is of no concern. We are regulating ourselves out of a practical need to do so.

I am somewhat anxious to see if Jack responds to the implication that he supports fascism. He has presented several articles recently with deep support of a “fascist?” carbon tax in addition to further drilling. Personally I do not support a carbon tax or off shore and ANWR drilling and I am indeed a liberal.

Posted by: RickIL at June 23, 2008 6:36 PM
Comment #256527

d.a.n.,

“in which I responded that it’s not only an American problem, and that there are cycles of (1)corruption; (2)courage and responsibility; (3)liberty and growth; (3)selfishness and fiscal irresponsibility; (5)and apathy and fiscal & moral bankruptcy; return to step (1); i.e. a cycle, of sorts, that has occurred in many societies many). How do you reconcile my opinion of people with courage and responsibility with your assertions that I ““think people are basically bad”?”

This discussion is entirely subjective, we are voicing our own opinions.

Yes, the civilizations throughout the history of the world are cyclical, they ebb, and they flow, that is fact.
Your assertion that humans are flawed is an opinion that I can only partly agree with.

What are we comparing these “flawed” humans to?

What is perfection?

The answer to both questions is entirely subjective.
I have never seen what I would call perfection in a human, so I have nothing to base a response.
I highly doubt you have ever seen perfection in a human either, so on what do you base your opinion?

There are no facts to base your answer on, and anything I can write as a retort is merely opinion on my part as well.

My reference to the Orient and it’s people is simply anecdotal. It was my experience when I was there. My reference to Americans is also anecdotal, through 56 years of observation of Americans.

There you go.
Dispute my observations, if you will, but remember that your opinion in this matter, just like mine, is totally subjective.

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 6:46 PM
Comment #256528

Quoting CS Lewis, David wrote:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”

I could not agree more completely. This is exactly how I view the moralizing conservatives on so many social issues. They want to dictate to the rest of us what to believe and how to live our lives.

Posted by: Steve K at June 23, 2008 6:48 PM
Comment #256531

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”

David, on one hand, I don’t think the IPCC report ever states what started the warming of the last half century, so you’re right. On the other hand, I don’t see what else could explain it. A lot of people have looked at a lot of possibilities and come up empty. Even the most likely possible causes, such as solar irradiation, have been ruled out as significant contributors to the warming of the last half century.

Natural causes do cause climate changes. But no natural cause can be found for the current warming.

Scientists have suspected Global Warming for a long time. In 1939, a fellow named Callendar did a presentation for the Royal Meteorological Society in London and used weather statistics to demonstrate Global Warming, and he even identified human industy’s burning of CO2 as the cause.

It has been suspected for a long time, and there is a long list of contributors to knowledge. But it wasn’t until fairly recently that the evidence became compelling…

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #256533

d.a.n.

Shakespeare once wrote: “…brevity is the soul of wit.”

I’m guilty of making long, winding posts too…but I know that the longer the post, the less it is read, and the more often it’s dismissed out-of-hand regardless of how important it is.

Just a little something to benefit both you and me….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 23, 2008 7:08 PM
Comment #256536


Much of the third world would love to have the opportunity to sift through our junk yards and landfills.

Posted by: jlw at June 23, 2008 7:29 PM
Comment #256537

phx8, the change we are experience may be a natural extension of the end of the last mini-ice age. Whatever factors ended the last mini-ice age, may still be at work. There is no longer any credible debate however, that we are exacerbating the natural trend, if in fact, there is a natural trend occurring.

But, there’s the logical nub of the issue. If mankind did not exist, there would still be a natural trend in play. So regardless of man’s influence, one must accept the precondition that there is a natural climate change trend at play underlying our contributions to the change.

Determining what that natural trend would be without the existence of mankind and its contributions to climate ecology, is like an individual trying to measure the inner workings of their own brain, objectively. It simply cannot be done. One can estimate, but, one can never be sure one’s observations aren’t tainted by the observer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 7:31 PM
Comment #256539

What is kind of weird about the whole idea that international cooperation = socialism = loss of freedom is that it is often put forth by the same people who favor war in Iraq. They support killing people in far off lands for oil, they support surrending constitutional rights in order to defend the US against those people from far off lands, who oddly enough do not like the US at all, they support making companies like Exxon the most profitable corporations in the history of business, despite the multitude of reasons to move away from oil, and towards alternative energies…

And yet, environmentalists = green swastikas

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 7:48 PM
Comment #256540
Rocky wrote: d.a.n., This discussion is entirely subjective, we are voicing our own opinions.
That’s not the issue, despite the lame attempt to obfuscate and divert attention from the issue.

The issue was the following “Baloney” response …

Rocky wrote: Baloney. We Americans do less with more than any other country on the planet, and assume that the 10% we put in the Sunday collection plate absolves us of any, and all guilt.
… to my reply …
d.a.n wrote: It’s a fundamental human flaw; not only an American problem.
… in response to your statement that …
d.a.n wrote: We Americans do less with more than any other country on the planet, and assume that the 10% we put in the Sunday collection plate absolves us of any, and all guilt.
We do things because we can, not because it is necessarily the right thing to do, and we do it because we see it as our right to do so.
And you say I’m seeing people as “basically bad” (see below)?

After all, it was you that said …

Rocky wrote: It is our [i.e. Americans] “too much is never enough attitude” that has placed us squarely where we are today, and until we figure it out, we will continue to have these problems.

Then you said …

Rocky wrote: … you appear to see them [people] as basically bad.
When it is your comment that criticized Americans as having a “too much is never enough attitude”?

Yet …

Rocky wrote: The answer to both questions is entirely subjective.
The issue isn’t about perfection.

Rocky wrote: There are no facts to base your answer on, and anything I can write as a retort is merely opinion on my part as well.
Again, the subjectiveness of perfection is not the issue, but merely a diversion.

I never asserted that anyone was perfect, so that’s a red-herring.

Rocky wrote: There you go. Dispute my observations, if you will, but remember that your opinion in this matter, just like mine, is totally subjective.
Opinions don’t mean much without facts to substantiate the opinions.

I’m not disputing your opinion, I’m disputing your facts.
All you have to do is provide something to back up your assertions above that:
(1) I think people are “basically bad”.
(2) many of “our” [i.e. Americans] problems are rooted in human flaws is (as you called it): “Baloney”.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 7:54 PM
Comment #256541

Steve K, Lewis chose the word “moral” very deliberately. It does not equate with appropriate or propriety.

All societies will and must, by definition of human nature, establish rules for appropriate behavior.

Moral judgments and rules are not ‘necessarily’ proscribed by, nor linked to appropriate behavior. The Aztecs had a religion that required vast human sacrifices to insure the societies viability and prosperity. Human sacrifice for them was a moral action dictated by their belief systems of how the natural world is governed, i.e. appeasement of the gods.

Empirically testable reality however, demonstrates that human sacrifice had no effect whatsoever on rains for the crops, or victories over their adversaries.

In the measurable world there are empirically demonstrable options that are more and less appropriate to the outcomes sought. In the world of morality, empirical demonstrations are at best, relegated to correlational statistical measurements which can never establish causation, and therefore can never establish that a moral act is in fact moral, causing a ‘good’ or desired outcome.

That is why I fundamentally, have little respect for those arguments that seek to break down the separation wall between government and religion. Government is about quantitative actions seeking a measurable outcome. Religion seeks actions for their own moral definition regardless of the consequences of those actions.

I have to laugh at these Republicans in the media and blogs who seek to portray Obama as some kind of religious figure with a throng of faithful bending and attending to his every word. Last I checked, folks seeking a change from adverse conditions was not EVER defined as a religious experience. An epiphany perhaps, but, not an act of faith. Changing causal conditions will change observable outcomes. No faith required.

The faith of Obama supporters is limited to the trust that changing from Bush to Obama will produce a net positive outcome for them greater than the choice of McCain replacing Bush. Which is precisely why the policy plans for, and assessment of causality of, our current state is so relevant in comparing these two candidates.

Those on the right and left who seek to make this election about ANYTHING other than the candidate’s policy plans and assessment of causality of our current state, subvert the purposes and intentions of democracy, and for a host of reasons having nothing to do with estimating what is best for the nation and her people, present and future. It is appropriate to regard such people and their ideological arguments as counterproductive distractions from the job at hand.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #256546

phx8

And yet, environmentalists = green swastikas

Sorry to butt in on your thoughts phx8 but I was just having a similar wonderment at the nuances of labels. I was wondering how it is that the desire to be environmentally conservative can be labeled as a liberal trait. Are not the words liberal and conservative in direct opposition to one another. What does it mean when so called conservatives fail to support conservation? Does that make them irresponsible conservatives or perhaps hypocrites? Or worse yet somewhat liberal in that they are bucking what is largely seen and understood as factual but not entirely precise science by many so called conservatives and liberals alike. Sorry for the short rant, but I am sooo confused. ;)

Posted by: RickIL at June 23, 2008 8:32 PM
Comment #256553

RickIL, it really boils down to Liberal Envy when the Liberals champion conservation in word and deed and Republicans can only pay idle and empty lip service to the fundamental tenet of their now Grotesque Old Party.

Anyone who thinks McCain will choose saving the environment for posterity, when given the choice between somewhat lower profits for corporations or less autonomy, and saving the environment for posterity is gullible at the very least.

I use the word Grotesque to describe what they have accomplished these last dozen or so years, in undermining the Constitution, embroiling the nation in unnecessary war and death and destruction, and creating such a monumental wealth gap as to force American corporations more and more seek customers overseas who can afford what they have to pedal. Also what they have accomplished in obstructing solutions since 2006. It seemed a most appropriate word choice to describe the reality of their Party, manifest in governance.

Though few Republicans could force themselves to utter the truth that they are envious of the Democrats political position in this election year, such Liberal Envy is nonetheless seething just below the surface of their best facade.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 9:35 PM
Comment #256556

The differences and resemblances of socialism, fascism, and good old fashioned totalitarianism are definitely debatable. They are in many ways an exercise in sematics, the Nazi’s were in fact National Socialists and did differ some from the type of fascism practiced by Mussolini’s Italy. It’s how you define it I guess. When a government seeks to highly regulate and basically control both private and public enterprise and nearly every aspect of an individual’s life that can be defined as “fascist”. It is interesting to compare the various comments from watchblog as well as from my own blog and also FreeRepublic where this column also appeared.

I particularly enjoyed this comment from PGWarner:

“Excellent post David! Your use of the term fascism here is of course completely accurate despite any claims to the contrary.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

If one would dare to edify themselves instead of wallowing look here… Why Do We Call Them ‘Democrats’? By Lance Fairchok”

Whether you want to call the womb to the tomb environmentalist nanny state fascist, socialist or totalitarianism makes no difference to me. Any way you look at it, it is a gross violation of the concepts this nation was founded and will only result in a serious trampling on the freedoms and liberties you take for granted today.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 23, 2008 10:21 PM
Comment #256557
We have been so brainwashed that climate change is mainly caused by human activity and that somehow carbon taxes, economic socialism, monitoring lawn mower emissions, criticizing cow flatulence and flailing away at the faceless evil that is “oil” will somehow make a difference in climate changes we are only barely beginning to understand, let alone significantly influence one way or another.

You make your argument, like it or not, from ignorance. “barely beginning to understand”. In other words, you in considered judgment think we’re short of the proof.

While it’s true that we have much to learn about the climate, we’ve learned much and greatly increased our knowledge and simulation capability. And as we’ve done so, the picture on global warming has only grown more conclusive.

The effects of CO2 have long been well known. It’s basic quantum physics: CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infra-red at long known frequencies. Even in 1800’s they knew it absorbed heat. The notion of Global Climate change due to carbon emissions is not new.

However, those who spoke of it earlier in the centurty believed it would take millenia for it to occur, and thought it would be beneficial.

They were wrong. The evidence proved them wrong. They looked at climate proxies like glacial ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, and found that instead of gentle changes brought on over long periods, climate changes tended to be strong and violent. The world warmed nine degrees, for example, in the space of a decade at the conclusions of one ice age.

Small stimuli make a big effect. The celebrated Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were triggered by relatively small differences in solar radiation and other influences and forcings. They can be small because the responses of the environment to these small changes create additional effects on top of the small temperature change.

The question over the past years is not whether CO2 can warm and atmosphere and warm it more the more you put in it. Venus demonstrates that to a “T”. It’s also not whether CO2’s increasing in the atmosphere. It is, and that’s been definitively measured.

The question is one of feedbacks, of whether the consequences of the warming CO2 undoes that warming. This is where the complexity of climate becomes important. The climate of a region can be changed by, say, the shift of a current. The shift of a current can be caused by a shift in the winds. El Nino, for example, results when winds blowing warm waters in the Pacific one way shift in the other direction. This process is delightfully entangled in the fact that winds take their cue from the temperature of the ocean water!

They found that such regional shifts there lead to others elsewhere, a change in the North Atlantic circulation and a failure in Indian Ocean Monsoons. Natural systems interlock with each other, not randomly, but with complexity so high that on the surface it seems random.

It’s not, though. We classify these systems as chaotic, but again, that’s not random. It’s a system that’s so sensitive to how you start it that a small, immeasurable difference in measurements can knock your predictions off course in the long term. Thus, the famed butterfly effect. However, weather, and climate by extention are still determinant systems. It’s just impossible to know enough and calculate precisely enough to get an answer that coincides with reality in a precise way.

The way we get around it with climate comes from the definition of climate itself: the pattern of the weather over the long term. That allows you to avoid having to be too specific to predict things, to model their future behavior.

It means, though, there is some inherent unpredictability in the system. We can say what’s likely to occur, though, within a range.

Part of what complicates predicting these things where we’re involved is… Well, that we’re involved. We have to model not merely for the status quo, but for what happens if we go in one direction or another with our greenhouse gas emissions. We can change this system.

Your objection probably works off of the notion that we can’t control this the way we could control, say, a smokestack. That’s true. We may be past such a point already, but for the time being, let’s stick to what we know will happen.

We know that there’s some global warming in the pipe, regardless of what we do. There’s heat and CO2 already absorbed in the ocean that’s going to get released. There’s melting in the ice caps, which makes our planet less able to reflect light and heat from the surface, and that’s going to happen to some degree. There’s decay in newly thawed tundra, and that’s going to add to the CO2, and that’s going to cause some havoc.

We don’t, however, have good evidence that we’re screwed at this point. We likely still have some influence on things, and it’s best that we take it now, rather than wait on it, wait for certainty that might never come, wait for the truth to slap us in the face. Sometimes you have to work off of an educated guess. Sometimes you don’t have the luxury of acting with all the information. That is certainly the case here.

All that said, the climate change deniers are working on even less information on that, using theories that are somtimes, not even validated yet with some kind of modeled mechanism. Global Climate change has been scrutinized and demonstrated to a much greater degree than that.

Some will play politics, poison the well by claiming some kind of conspiracy is afoot to force them to agree that an ecological disaster’s on the way. Ultimately, though, scientific methods and standards require us to do better than make arguments from ignorance. The point of science is not to push a conclusion, prove a conclusion, but to test its veracity so you know whether you’ve got a good explanation on your hands, or just a vain flight of fancy.

The superficial guise of science, in climate contrarianism, is being used to push points that have either been tested and found false, or which have not been fully tested and properly understood to begin with.

So at the end of the day, is all this political mumbo-jumbo, this fevered push of an ideological position a proper substitute for the judgment of the scientists? No. Politicians can spout any claim, any speculation they want. Rhetoric can distract people from poor science, even absent science. However, you can’t change nature with an argument. Science prevents us from putting ourselves in that awkward position by forcing us to face that reality head-on.

A hypothesis, a claim that’s never had to stand up to that, or which hasn’t stood up to that is not worth our trouble making policy over.

We’ve done the science again and again on Global Climate Change, and the results haven’t changed much. It’s time to admit that the theory is more right than it’s not, and that we need to act with that in mind to face our current situation, rather than ignore the possibility and hope it goes away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2008 10:27 PM
Comment #256561

Climate History (scroll down).

It’s hard to see how pumping 24 Billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can have no affect on world climate.

Pollution and world over-population (increasing by 211,000 per day) should be a concern too.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 10:54 PM
Comment #256565

“I wonder what I’ve been smacked with, certainly not truth, honesty or wisdom.”

Such an honest question for you to ask Jim M. Would you recognize truth honesty and/or wisdom if it smacked you because from what you have written here it doesnt appear that you would, but that’s just my humble opinion.

“We all have read the lies and gross manipulation used by AlGore to instill fear in the masses, especially the uninformed and easily led liberal “feel-gooders” around the world.

Jim M I havent read the lies and gross manipulations you write of, but Ive read the lies and gross manipulations you write. Your false hypothisis that liberal “feel-gooders” are uninformed and easily led is in fact one of the lies and gross manipulations I speak of. You simply do not have a clue when you spout this type of propaganda.

“Politicians of both parties, those paradigms of truth and wisdom, are climbing on this horse as it promises votes and unlimited money and power.”

Speaking of paradigms of truth and virtue, wasnt it Exxon that handed out millions to those that would give out false and mis-leading ingnormation reagarding climate change. Yet you make no mention of this but instead blame votes money and power. You take Exxons view of this issue and then talk about votes money and power, who are you kidding? Have you ever stopped to think that those on the right side of the aisle, yes those conservatives that have saw the possibility that man may be contributing to climate change, are doing so because they are man enough to admit when they were mistaken and can change their position on the issue as more and more evidence comes along?

“As usual, the fearful are being led around by the nose and don’t even realize how their unfounded fears are being used to manipulate them. When they find their food supply dwindling, more jobs disappearing, and their electricity turned off perhaps they will wake up…or not. “

Very true Jim M maybe they will wake up, but so far most of the idelogical driven conservatives are acting true to form and are in denial. Seems that a lot of younger evangelicals have slept off the conservative kool aid and have decided to be part of the solution though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1491-2005Feb5.html

“Just as many liberal goons believe we can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis, but rather can tax our way out, they believe the same about MMGW. If we tax the people of the world enough we will achieve perfect harmony with our global climate.”

Taxing people wont solve the MMGW problem Jim M., just as drilling for more oil wont solve the energy cris short term or long term. The short sightedness of your “solutions” may be espoused by goons but they aren’t liberal goons my friend.

“The answer for these hysterical and freedom-hating folks is always the same, more taxes and less freedom. First they create a perceived problem and then proceed to tax the hell out of us to fix it and take away more of our freedom in the process.”

Jim M hysterical and freedom hating sounds just like the conservative movement are you sure your not confusing the two?

Conservatives use to say the same thing about CFC’s yet it was proven that CFC’c damaged the Ozone layer. Laws were put into place to replace CFC’s and other than your perceived right to put holes in the Ozone layer what other rights did you lose?

BTW Where did the CFC’s come from? Humans. Yet for some reason you cannot fathom that enough of us polluting for a long enough period of time can cause damage to the earth? Keep away from the kool aid Jim M.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 23, 2008 11:38 PM
Comment #256570

David,
All we have are words to work with here. Words have meanings. Some words carry a lot of baggage. You chose to compare environmentalists and their concerns to Nazis, using a green swastika, and you chose to prominently use the word ‘fascist.’

You write: “When a government seeks to highly regulate and basically control both private and public enterprise and nearly every aspect of an individual’s life that can be defined as “fascist”.

No. Both the Nazis and the Fascists incorporated militarism and nationalism into their political philosophies. This is a salient point of fascism. Even granting your basic premise, that liberals seek to use environmentalism as an excuse to impose government control over every aspect of life, (and I obviously do not agree with that premise), even granting that, your premise does not even pretend that liberals are relying upon nationalism or militarism. Therefore, references to fascism and nazism are inconsistent with your premise, inappropriate, inaccurate and inflammatory. They are invoked to prevent debate and obscure the argument, not advance it, because references to fascism and green swastikas elicit an emotional and unreasoning response, not a carefully considered persuasive effort.

It is, unfortunately, characteristic of a contemporary portion of the political spectrum which stokes negative emotions to achieve its unspoken aims. The intent is not to persuade or convert or unite, but just the opposite; the intent is to essentially shout down the opposition and deny the validity of their concerns through the use of pejorative terms and negatively charged symbols.

To me, it looks like you claim to support freedom and liberties, yet you reject a government representing “we the people” in favor of a capitalist philosophy which favors laissez faire capitalism and unregulated, privatized Big Business, thereby allowing sectors like Big Oil to run amok and actually act contrary to the interests of “we the people.”

Don’t you just love that socialist phrase? “We the people.”

And in the name of laissez faire capitalism, deregulation, and privitazation, large corporations ruthlessly exploit the interests of “we the people,” both in the US and abroad, and their exploitation requires the violent suppression abroad through the use of the US military. We’re talking about corporatism, and militarism, and heightened nationalism, with an outside ethnic/religious group serving as the focus for hatred.

If you have spent a little time looking into the definition of the word ‘fascism’…

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 11:48 PM
Comment #256571

While I may agree that facism is coming to America, it certainly isn’t just the Greens bringing it.

In an overpopulated land, conformity is necessary. Criminal law enforcement is a growing business.

Birth control is the issue of moralist who think there is something wrong with using condoms and abortions. Perhaps we could blame them?

If you want frontier rules where little government is offered and government can control little, please proceed to the nearest frontier, if you can find it, and survive it.

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 24, 2008 12:02 AM
Comment #256575

j2t2,
The 1987 Montreal Protocol is a remarkably successful international agreement for the control of pollutants which were destroying the ozone layer. Today, almost every nation on earth participates. 191 countries! Yet no one has suffered any loss of freedom or liberty.

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2008 1:22 AM
Comment #256576

“j2t2 Said where did CFC’S come from.” A chemist named Thomas midgley he also invented Leaded gas. I posted several articles here a few years ago that crap cfc’s are still being used in older buildings and other areas and was still being used and made in third world countries also when you burn chlorofluoromethanes or cfc’s you get a very poison gas called PHOSGENE. ask the DuPont family they made billions on cfc’s.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 24, 2008 1:39 AM
Comment #256577

Mr. D. Remer, you may not like what I’ve written but I’ve merely expressed what many, many (if not most) conservatives think about the political agenda and enforcement plans of the environmentalist movement. Obama has made several alarming statements, one of which I quoted in the article, about his thoughts on governmental control over private citizens as well as private enterprise in his effort “to slow the rising of the oceans” if I may take the liberty of quoting him again.

As a conservative/Republican writing in the conservative/Republican column I share many of the conservative/Republican viewpoints on various issues with Watchblog readers. This column has been well received by many of my conservative collegues and fellow writers and bloggers and is little more than me be willing to say what many others are hesitant to articulate.

Besides a couple of typos, I wouldn’t change a thing. This just scratches the surface of the extremist, intrusive and totalitarian minded agenda that will begin to be foisted on the American people with an Obama presidency.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 24, 2008 2:02 AM
Comment #256581

A Nazi Swastika, maybe you should learn your Ideologies before you accuse others of getting a ideology.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 24, 2008 4:22 AM
Comment #256597

I suggest you read the book “Varieits of Fascism” by Eugen Weber before you attempt to lecture me on somehow not understanding ideologies, especially those with a fascist bent or those that include elements of historical fascist doctrine, tactics and concepts of the role of the state. I’d also suggest you do some reading up on what fascist states look and feel like. WWII Japan is now condidered to have been a quasi-fascist state and many writers now describe modern day China as the worlds most successful fascist state. Once again, arguing over semantics is the typical Leftist way of not actually addressing the issue and the premise of my article.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 24, 2008 11:05 AM
Comment #256598

That should read “Varieties of Fascism”.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 24, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #256600

“Yet no one has suffered any loss of freedom or liberty.”

Well phx8 have you considered these freedom’s and how they have been abused by banning CFC’s:
oh wait other than my perceived right to damage the Ozone layer and …but wait what about… oh jeez come on there has to be some liberties lost, some rights violated , the conservatives keep telling me thats what will happen if we have environmantal laws. Gosh you dont suppose they are just making this up so their corporate overlords can continue to prosper at the expense of everyone else you. How selfish of the corporist and how foolish of the conservatives to fall for that old line.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 24, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #256604

Do CFC’s really put a hole in the atmosphere?

Seems like we could use a few more holes to let all the green house gas escape….more CFC’s less global warming? hehehehehehe

Gump
“Sometimes, I guess there’s just not enough rocks.”

Posted by: Forrest Gump at June 24, 2008 11:34 AM
Comment #256619

“We likely still have some influence on things, and it’s best that we take it now, rather than wait on it, wait for certainty that might never come, wait for the truth to slap us in the face. Sometimes you have to work off of an educated guess. Sometimes you don’t have the luxury of acting with all the information. That is certainly the case here.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2008 10:27 PM

Stephen, I find your comment interesting and suggest you apply it to the reason we are in Iraq. It would also be an appropriate explanation of legal wiretapping and other actions taken by our government to protect us from global terrorism. I find the reality of GT much more threatening than imagined MMGW.

Just a side note on Obama’s new shield of candidacy modeled after the great seal of the President of the U.S. This great thinker, this man of wisdom, this man of the people, this humble man had the arrogance and impertinence to self-aggrandize himself by proudly standing behind a podium from which hung his crude imitation of the real thing.

Giving evidence to his fearful and pandering nature, his great shield was removed after one showing, bowing to howls of derisive laughter from the media and considerable outrage from everyman.

This would-be leader of our nation crumbled in hours from negative remarks. I believe this is a demonstration of his lack of even the most basic sense of humility in seeking office and of how quickly he will succumb to the actions and demands of our adversaries.

Obama reminds me of Barney Fife in the old Andy Griffith TV series. Barney is the bumbling deputy who believes he is really important and capable while unknowingly being nurtured and led by a force he can not comtemplate. He is allowed by sheriff Andy McCain, the wise and productive man who tolerates such behavior, to have only one bullet for fear he may harm himself.

Barney Obama so lusts for the presidency that he has begun fashioning crude accoutrement’s of the office in hopes that it will lend him some credence.

Posted by: Jim M at June 24, 2008 12:32 PM
Comment #256626

Will this be part of our fascist “health care for all” plan?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/06/23/kyung.fat.busters.cnn

So fat people would never get jobs?

Forrest Gump
“Hello. My name’s Forrest, Forrest Gump. You want a chocolate? “

Posted by: Forrest Gump at June 24, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #256630

Sooo…David -

Do you REALLY believe that the global warming crisis is more about taking control of everyone’s lives than about saving the planet?

Or is the global warming controversy (in the conservatives’ view) more about insisting that science must fit the political policy?

Here’s what the Neo-Con mindset did at NASA:

“…during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public. The report said most evidence supported contentions that politics was “inextricably interwoven” into operations at the public affairs office in that period and that the pattern was inconsistent with the statutory responsibility to communicate findings widely, “especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest.””

And here is where 73 percent of [U.S. government climate scientists] perceived inappropriate interference with climate science research in the past five years. The same article points out that two in five respondents (43 percent) perceived or personally experienced changes or edits to documents during review processes that changed the meaning of scientific findings.

In other words, David, your Neo-Con government WON’T LET YOU HEAR THE TRUTH…and you’re buying their lies.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 24, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #256631


Forrest Gump: Did you notice that the Japanese government ignored the real culprit, choosing to go after the corporations, which in turn took it out on the workers. If the Japanese government had really wanted to solve the problem, they would have run the American fast food corporations out of the country.

Tell the truth, you didn’t really give Bubba’s mom his share did you?

Posted by: jlw at June 24, 2008 1:46 PM
Comment #256636

Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s talk about how GOOD the conservatives have been for the economy: when Clinton took office, the Dow Jones was less that 4,000 - and when he left, it was over 10,000. That’s at least a 250% rise.

The high point of the Dow during Clinton’s term was in January 2000, when the Dow hit over 11720. Right now, it’s less than 200 above that point…or less than a TWO percent rise over the seven years he’s had office.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 24, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #256637

Forrest-
In the stratosphere, you have this concentration of Ozone that takes the bullet on dangerous high energy UV rays. This naturally reduces the ozone, which is then replaced by other reactions elsewhere.

What CFC’s do is get split up by that high energy radiation (at sea level they’re otherwise stable), which releases highly reactive compounds that take out multiple ozone molecules before they exit stage right. The natural reduction is compounded by this chemical reduction, and that thins our Ozone protection.

But worse than that, it turns out that many CFCs are excellent greenhouse gases, too. Too bad, so sad.

David Huntwork-
The last thing Republicans need to be doing right now is glorying in their own mutual appreciation. What good is that for you, if you can’t preach to anybody but the choir?

Republicans have built their power on a hatred of liberalims, and in the process made their party a mass of contradictions and contradictory impulses. You may talk about what fascists the Democrats and Liberals are, but you do that having the Republican president who shredded the constitution in the name of national security, with warrantless wiretaps, refusals of habeas corpus, and breach of our standards for treatment of prisoners.

You might talk of these things as being necessities, while decrying any curtailment of behavior in the market, any move to require environmental standards, any attempt to mandate the observance of civil rights as fascism.

This is just buzzword bingo, to be quite frank about it. You’ve been taught pile together the worst political slanders about any party together, and believe that this all applies to us. You’ve been taught to see us as the enemies of freedom, the betrayers of liberty, and so on and so forth.

But at the end of the day, we’re nowhere near that, whether in our intentions, or in our actions. The time has come for your people to quit making everything a political deathmatch, a battle for civilization, and start actually cooperating with the rest of us to improve America’s lot in the world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #256638

Forrest,
CFC’s not only put a hole in the atmosphere by breaking down ozone, they are also potent greenhouse gases. You’re attempt to inject humor might work better if you had some idea of what you are talking about. Instead, as Ralph Wiggum would say, “I’m ben-barrased for you!”

David,
“Once again, arguing over semantics is the typical Leftist way of not actually addressing the issue and the premise of my article.”

I’m sorry if your feelings are hurt. If you want to flame environmentalists and liberals by throwing around pejorative terms like ‘fascism’ and by showing green swastikas, that’s fine. Distasteful, especially the swastika, but if you want to metaphorically spray paint swastikas, well, go for it. But please don’t pretend criticisms, comments, and replies failed to address the issue, as if the only problem with the flaming was ‘semantics.’

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2008 2:15 PM
Comment #256641

Jim M-
Applying it to Iraq is foolish, because we had all the information we needed to conclude that Iraq was a boondoggle waiting to happen. What happened, essentially, was that some people ignored and surpressed information that did not fit their agenda, and so skewed the conclusion. Iraq wasn’t about ignorance going in, it was about arrogance blinding people to the inappropriateness of the policy.

The seal was a bold thing to try out, but I don’t think removing it constituted crumbling. It’s called judgment. When something doesn’t work like that, you drop it. No sense in compounding a negative, the way this administration does, trying to force people to like or get use to things they hate.

Now please don’t kid me about McCain. To be politically incorrect about it, McCain graduated near the bottom of his class, and Obama graduated magna-cum-laude. Maybe McCain just got bad grades because of his rowdiness, but just how debauched do you have to be, if you’re so wise and capable, to finish within a few digits of the bottom? McCain has hitched his wagon to the bottom fifth of a historically low Right Track/Wrong Track set of policies. That doesn’t seem smart or wise to me.

He’s let lobbyists become leaders in his campaign, and that doesn’t seem smart or wise to me.

He’s played games in the primaries with public financing, most likely breaking the very law that bears his name in the process. Then he starts beating up on the guy who’s outdone him on running a small-donor campagin without PAC money or lobbyist money. That’s neither smart nor wise to me.

You want McCain to school Obama on these things, but the greater likelihood is that the reverse will occur.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2008 2:23 PM
Comment #256646

David M. Huntwork,

Please don’t mistake my railing against the content of your article, as anything other than railing against the content of your article.

I also recognize and thank you for your reflecting the perspectives of many in the Republican Party and other conservatives. There is no greater defense against wrong headed views and perspectives than to have them fully exposed in public forums and well lit for scrutiny’s sake.

My critique was not against you as a WatchBlog writer, I love the WatchBlog format and learn more from it in terms of how people of different political stripes evaluate and think on the issues, than anywhere else.

I have come to expect at least the appearance of balanced exposure of two sides of any issue in WB articles. But, your article as it stands, also serves a valuable purpose: highlighting how extremist one sided perspectives are.

In other words, I will condemn the content of articles like this one, but, will support and defend your role as a WatchBlog writer exposing such views for all to see.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 2:49 PM
Comment #256647


It looks like there are two basic philosophies.

One philosophy says: one for all and all for one.

One philosophy says: greedy self-interest trumps everything but war.

Posted by: jlw at June 24, 2008 2:53 PM
Comment #256649

Stephen says, “The seal was a bold thing to try out, but I don’t think removing it constituted crumbling. It’s called judgment.”

Oh really Stephen, where is this so-called judgment with regard to corn ethanol? The only two adult people left in America who can’t see the error of this boondoggle are Mr. and Mrs. Obama. The Iowa corn farmers are laughing at him all the way to the bank. What a dangerous dunce! Starve a few million people around the world to gain a few political points. Just outrageous.

And, please tell me what is “bold” about attempting to aggrandize ones self with the unearned accoutrement’s of office? I would replace the word “bold” with stupid and arrogant. Next we’ll see the great one speaking from an Unholywood fake oval office signing autographs for donations.

Death, destruction and despair, people crying everywhere. I can fix it let’s be “Fair”. Elect Obama get your share.
Fix the planet, man’s to blame. Cap and trade, that’s my game. Do without and I won’t care. Elect Obama get your share.

Posted by: Jim M at June 24, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #256655

I can’t believe TPTB would let this article stand with a swastika on top of it. It says more about the person making the argument than the argument itself. For the historically ignorant, the bad people in Europe in the 1930s got many of their worst ideas from some bad people here in the good old U S of A, part of our historical tradition going back to Albert Pike and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Conservatives, as NIMBYs, do support conservation, and the strictest environmental regulations, on the local level, where it most directly affects them. They just don’t want the same benefits for others, in whose backyards they would like to locate a garbage dump, or an oil well.

This nation was founded with a vast array of resources, and a very small population. We now have a very large population, and need resources from elsewhere to be able to continue to live our lifestyles.

I like baloney, sometimes called flat dogs. It’s one of my favorite foods.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 24, 2008 4:27 PM
Comment #256661

Jim M, your comment’s lack of informed facts continues, I see. Obama supports, as McCain does, America’s becoming energy independent. Ethanol replaces oil imported from OPEC nations. Obama wants America and farmers to move to switchgrass for ethanol production just as soon as that technology functions properly.

It is comments like yours which seem OFTEN to avoid researching the object of their criticism, that don’t seem to get it, reality that is, based on real facts and data.

McCain on the other hand wants more drilling to continue our dependence upon oil even though it is impossible for our drilling at home to ever meet our consumption demands. Which of course, means continuing dependence on OPEC oil.

Oh, yeah. McCain wants to replace the horrible waste products of fossil fuels with that other horrible waste product called radioactive waste, by championing a dozen more nuclear power plants, which never fueled a semi-truck or locomotive or automobile, yet.

If you want independence from OPEC oil, you have to back Obama. If you want energy dependence and grow another environmental waste problem for our children, vote for McCain. You will get what you vote for, and then some.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 6:10 PM
Comment #256669

OK David, I’ll vote for more nuclear power as it lights many of our cities, powers our factories and will recharge the battery operated autos that are coming on line. And, it powers the nuclear subs that patrol our oceans, protects America and helps us all be safer from those would do us harm.

You will vote to turn more food crop land into ethanol producing land and turn your compassionate heart from the starving masses. You will vote for more job losses, higher taxes and higher energy costs. People living in the northern climes will thank you for your vote as they struggle to heat their homes. You will vote for school and factory closings due to the high cost and scarcity of oil. Brownouts and blackouts will be common in many cities thanks to your vote David.

Posted by: Jim M at June 24, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #256670

Jim M.
I differ with him on Ethanol. One disagreement will not mean that his judgment is poor in my opinion.

And please don’t play this climate contrarian crap with me. The real problem here is that we have influence over the environment, but not control. Which is to say, we can roll the boulder up the hill, but we can’t exactly stop it once it starts tumbling down.

You folks are finding every excuse to follow what is essentially an industry line reinforced through political propaganda rather than scientific evidence. The evidence tells us that the folks sounding the alarm are right. The people saying otherwise are essentially giving out the “research” and “facts” funded by those with a vested interest in keeping a certain energy economy going, folks who could see their industry go into steep decline if we got what we needed cone.

You folks think you’re doing good for the economy. What you’re really doing is procrastinating, and making the the eventual reckoning more painful.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2008 7:09 PM
Comment #256671

FYI to all -

Obama is NOT categorically against nuclear power - he’s stated that he’s open to it - and while we would have to ignore the NIMBY’s and choose one location, say, Yucca Mountain, to be radioactive for millenia to come, that’s FAR less than the ongoing worldwide catastrophe that is the coal power-plant industry.

As much as I support wind/solar/geothermal power, NONE of those can supply as great a portion of our energy needs as nuclear power can.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 24, 2008 7:41 PM
Comment #256673

BHO was in fact the most pro-nuclear of all the Democratic candidates, and has always been supported by Exelon. In fact, Illinois is more reliant on nuclear power than any other state. In FL, the nuclear power plants belonging to Florida Power and the OUC provide very popular spots for fishing in the nuclear warmed water.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 24, 2008 8:08 PM
Comment #256674

Us folks are procrastinating according to Stephen. Perhaps, sure wish Us Folks could have procrastinated a little more when Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and a host of other liberal boondoggles were being voted on.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and we’re being told by the MMGW crowd that we now need human intervention to prevent any more cyclical changes.

As usual liberals are all bloated with their own importance believing that we don’t exist in the world, rather…the world exists in them. These same brain trusts would have us believe a catastrophe will occur if we drill in Anwar, a drilling footprint about the size of a postage stamp on a football field.

They run hither and thither wailing gloom and doom if their current favorite blend of pseudo-science isn’t met with massive worldwide dislocations of scarce resources. Yesterday it was “slient spring” and MM global cooling, today it’s MMGW and tomorrow it will be a comet hurtling toward impact with earth in just…1.2 million years. I can hear it now, we must change the orbit of the earth immediately or we’re all doomed. Or their favorite, we must “do it for the children.”

I heard Jay Leno crack that Obama was inviting Algore to his rallies to provide shade for him. (For some reason I find that mental image hugely amusing). Finally, someone has found a good use for big al since no one believes his b.s. any more.

Posted by: Jim M at June 24, 2008 8:10 PM
Comment #256676

Jim M, thank you so very much for displaying your value system in such a candid and frank manner about SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Considering the 10’s of millions of Americans whose lives have been saved from poverty, and the indignities of poverty, and incredible suffering in the absence of medical care over these last many decades, it is a marvel that you would reveal that you care not one whit whether they suffered or not, as long as you get to keep a bit more of your paycheck.

Think of a balance scale, your SS & Medicare deductions on one side, and those millions and millions of fellow Americans, soldiers, police, fireman, workers, moms and children who didn’t have to suffer on the other. You would boondoggle SS and Medicare to tip the scale in your favor. It is truly a marvel to find such candor these days.

Thank you.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 8:37 PM
Comment #256677

Jim M, for your education, switchgrass can be grown on land which is not suitable for most other food crops. So, your wishful thinking that I would choose to starve people for ethanol breaks down as an uneducated argument. In addition, starving for lack of an income or job, because foreign nation’s one day blackmail our economy and government over the oil they have to offer which we are dependent upon, is no less a suffering than starving for lack of food production. Absence of food supplies can starve people. But so can absence of funds to buy it.

I think you can connect these dots if you try a little bit. But, I know you have no desire to. So, I won’t expect any wonders in a reply.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 8:46 PM
Comment #256683

Switchgrass isn’t going to amount to all that it’s cracked up to be. In India, they want to do something similar with berries that grow on weeds. It might be something useful for individuals that want to grow their own fuel, but it will never amount to enough to be an energy source that any significant number of people can rely on.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 24, 2008 9:07 PM
Comment #256685

Jim M.

the ethanol thing reminds me of the crusade of the 1980s to save trees by switching to recycled plastic bags. that worked out well, but always remember it’s not the results that matter only your intentions. until recently most car manuals warned against using gas oxygenated with ethanol as it dries out seals and rubber fuel lines and causes them to fail, methanol works much better. so we starve a few million people, by using a food staple to replace oil when we could very easily drill for it here. remember it doesn’t matter because we had good intentions ;^)

Posted by: dbs at June 24, 2008 9:30 PM
Comment #256686

Mr. Huntwork can you provide some insight fo rm on the following questions?

“We have been brainwashed that climate change is mainly caused by human activity”

Is brainwashed the right word here David or is it an exaggeration? Can you back this up with any facts?

“The government will be in complete control over what businesses and average citizens consume and produce. It is the gateway excuse to rule, regulate and control your daily life in a fashion that we have never tolerated before but are now expected to meekly accept as we attempt to bailout the bathtub with a teaspoon.”

Is this your opinion or is the factual based upon some organizations plan or is this the kool aid talking? Can you provide any kind of proof that would convince me that its anything more than hysterics?

“The soft tread of fascism is being heard behind all the “chicken little, the sky is following” environmentalist rhetoric, and those who have bought their propaganda hook, line and sinker are among the most dangerous people to be found in the political arena.”

Who exactly are you talking about here David when you say they are the most dangerous to be found in the political areana? Can you name names so that we can confirm this statement?


“The average middle class American is the target of this new pogrom of the new millennium.

Isn’t the middle class the target of everything includingthe corporatist and the rich?

“In the very sudden frantic hurry to somehow, someway “slow the oceans from rising” and save the glaciers we have offered complete control of our economy and way of life to a few who are dedicated to dismantling the free enterprise system, destroying the American way of life, exerting near complete control of your life from womb to the tomb while significantly lowering your standard living in a probable fruitless attempt to stem global warming…”

What do you mean when you say sudden frantic hurry? Hasnt this been an ongoing issue for decades now? Who is this “we” you refer to when you say ” we have offered complete control of our economy…” cause I havent got that message yet. Who specifically has put this “complete control” on the table for the environment? Now I have seen our corporations take control of our economy and run it into the ground in a short amount of time but when you say its over the environment I havent seen this. Can you provide any factual information on this David?

“Obama has gladly donned the mantle of the radical, environmentalist Left and thinks nothing of calling for radical changes in the role of government, the wholesale curtailing of basic freedoms, the dramatic restructuring of the economy while merely shrugging at how the dramatic rise in gasoline prices is shredding the lives and businesses of millions of Americans and local communities.”

When you say Obama has called for the wholesale curtailing of basic freedoms can you provide the specifics of what he said? I haven’t seen this nor heard it, so assuming you claim is factual and not hysterical rantings it would certainly show Obama’s lack of experience. Im sure you have proof of this.


“The current cry about global warming and climate change is far less about actually dealing with the situation one way or another than it is about taking away the concept of the choice of the individual and the installment of unquestionable government regulatory over every aspect of the economy, business, consumption and by extension every aspect of your daily life.”

So the environmentalist dont care about climate change but instead domination of our country. Do you by chance have any kind of back up on this and can you tell us whose plan this? Do you have the inside scoop on the mechanics of how they plan to do this? Is the SCOTUS in on this?
I’ll be looking forward to your reply David.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 24, 2008 9:39 PM
Comment #256687

I’m not a leftist David H . And I’ve been on this earth over fifty years, believe me i would speak up on the left column just as fast as i did over here Just don’t label me.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 24, 2008 9:45 PM
Comment #256691

dbs said: “by using a food staple to replace oil when we could very easily drill for it here.”

First, there is no political solution to ANY problem that will not carry both opportunity and consequential costs offsetting to at least some extent, the benefits of the solution.

Second, the absence of more drilling here is purely voluntary by the Oil Industry. They have both record profits and millions of acres of on and off shore leases they purchased because of the likelihood of oil beneath those lease lots. The oil industry’s choice to not invest their record profits in the equipment and labor of drilling those leases, was and is a purely voluntary business decision.

Those are the facts. Interpret them how you will. But, one does not have to strain one’s brain to recognize that the American oil company’s have landed in a sweet profit spot of maximizing profits and limiting costs of drilling at a time when supplies worldwide are just on time meeting demand. Which in turn, is causing speculators to drive up the price of oil and American oil profits on the fairly safe bet that this equilibrium of supply and demand won’t last forever.

Testimony of experts before Congress this week revealed that more than 95% bidders on oil futures could not take delivery on oil if their bid ended up being the highest. They have no facilities whatsoever to take delivery.

Ergo, these high prices are, in large part, a result of speculators bidding up the price and selling before the bidding is over on the last day of the month. The last day of the month is when futures contracts expire and the highest bidders have to take delivery on the oil bid for.

This is crucial for voters to learn and understand. Because our oil crisis is not being caused by government withholding drilling leases on the East and West Coasts. That may be the case sometime in the more distant future. But, it is a patent lie by the Oil Industry and their buddy Republicans that legislation stands in the way of more drilling today. It just simply ain’t so.

Additionally, the Oil Industry knows full well that these lease prices are cheap today compared to what they will be in the future when there actually IS a shortage of oil to meet global demand. Which is why Oil Execs want government to make those East and West Coast leases available NOW at today’s much lower prices. Hence the lies about shortages and restrictions on drilling causing prices to rise.

I reiterate, there is not one oil tanker in the world pulling for a refill and being turned away even partially empty. There is no shortage. That is a lie and scam by oil companies and Republicans spread around in the hopes of freeing up low cost leases on the East and West Coasts today, in lieu of higher lease prices in the future when there actually is an oil shortage.

One has to wonder, if the Oil Industry is willing to lie and deceive for lower cost leases, is meddling in political affairs in Nigeria to disrupt oil production, out of the question? Far fetched perhaps, but certainly not out of the question. Corporations have done as bad and worse in the past.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 10:39 PM
Comment #256698

The earth has been a lot warmer in the past (as high as 73°F).
Wikipedia shows temperatures to have increased about 1.33°F from 1905 to 2005.
It is difficult to believe pumping 24+ Billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (annually; among other gases and particulates) isn’t contributing to that warming.
Some climate models predict temperature increases from 2.0°F to 11.5°F by year 2100 (raising average global temperatures from 54°F to about 66°F. I hate to think of it getting any hotter here in Texas. Last week, it was 108°F in Phoenix, so they’re probably not too keen about hotter temperatures either. The real problem may be is rising sea levels (submerging about 100 feet inland for every foot the sea level rises), with so many people living along coastlines all around the world. That could be a huge displacement of populations, and possibly chaotic, depending on how fast it occurs. Especially if sudden climate change can happen as quickly as some theorize (e.g. with a decade: www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986).
Especially with the world population growing by 211,000 per day.
Can we afford to gamble that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is nothing to worry about?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 25, 2008 12:11 AM
Comment #256700

here’s a good book David H, IKE by David Korda.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2008 12:23 AM
Comment #256701

:) ” Michael Korda”

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2008 12:27 AM
Comment #256702

d.a.n.,

“Last week, it was 108°F in Phoenix, so they’re probably not too keen about hotter temperatures either.”

Over the weekend it was 113F in Phoenix. I live in Prescott, in the mountains outside of Phoenix.

Prescott is at an altitude of 5300 ft.

It was 100F here in Prescott.

Posted by: Rocky at June 25, 2008 12:59 AM
Comment #256703

ohrealy-
I’m not sure what authority you make that claim on.

At this point, we have one well proven way of making hydrocarbon fuel. We know it works. We’re behind on most alternatives in terms of research, after decades of oil’s and coal’s domination of the energy markets.

I would prefer people make constructive arguments. Now there’s a chance this may not work out. I’m well aware of the casualty rate in technology, having followed it almost all my life.

What makes Switchgrass better is that it doesn’t have to displace food crops, it’s less needy than corn in its cultivation, and you can use the whole plant, basically, as a source for the Ethanol, instead of just the seeds of the crop, which is basically what corn is. That’s the point of cellulosic ethanol, that is ethanol that’s generated from starches in the plant’s cell wall, rather than from seed or stalk sugars.

Jim M-

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and we’re being told by the MMGW crowd that we now need human intervention to prevent any more cyclical changes.

Yes, the planet’s four and half billion years old. That has squat to do with how we affect the composition of the atmosphere, except it provide a long history for swampy plants to be crushed and baked into coal, and plankton to be brewed into oil in much the same way.

Essentially, what they did during that long history was lock up the sun’s energy in complex carbon compounds, whose fossil leftovers we burn to get all that free energy we don’t have to work for. Trick is, though, we have to put back a whole bunch of carbon that these plants did all the work of taking out of the atmosphere.

Or, put another way, all this CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere is more their work than ours. It’s not us changing the atmosphere, it’s all those dead plants and plankton we’re burning.

Science is telling us that we’re making a mistake, that all this carbon’s going back to doing the job it was doing long ago, when the sun was dimmer, the Carbon richer in the atmosphere. It’s doing exactly what it does, whether it’s some rhino burping or farting, or old Bessie behind the barn.

Is it about our importance? As far as scientists have been able to determine, political hot air has not been a major contributor to climate change. No, it’s that damn molecule we’re pumping out in gigatons, the ones that were absorbing and reradiating heat in the ancient climes of the dinosaurs and are just as indifferently doing the same now.

You ascribe our notion that this is warming up the earth to our self-importance. What seems self-important to me is this notion that somehow the laws of physics get laid aside when we’re doing something to the environment, rather than the environment doing it itself.

The real question is not whether nature reacts strongly and violently to this stimulus coming from humans, it’s whether it does so, period!

Full stop.

Go no further.

If small changes in solar radiation, in atmospheric CO2, in the earth’s orbit, in the air temperature in certain places can cause big changes in the arrangment of climates, then the identity of the culprits becomes irrelevant.

And indeed, Scientists have found that climate can be very sensitive to small changes, and change very violently in their wake.

A small cooldown in North Africa, for example, lead the grasslands of the Sahara to become desert within the space of two centuries. Fractions of degree difference in solar radiation may have brought about the Little Ice Age, and the Medieval warm period.

Climate’s not cyclical, so much as it’s metastable, which is to say, very much like a boulder than sits in its niche on a hill nice and happy until some moron leans on it and sends it rolling into the town below to great comic effect.

Which is to say that climate will seem nice and stable right up to the point we push it over the edge.

Given the track record for the Republicans in dealing with the various crisises of the past few years, I don’t really trust their judgment on the urgency of their problem. They are all too willing to believe that things will remain nice and pleasant forever, right up to the point where all hell breaks loose.

As for Al Gore? Nobel Prize envy, I’d guess. More people are concerned about the environment than ever before, and other political factors are conspiring to make it very difficult to sell us on the status quo.

The oil economy is dying. We can either walk out of its wreckage, economically speaking, or we can drag ourselves out, suffering the effects of Global Warming. I think it would be a shame to waste this rare synergy of factors.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2008 1:17 AM
Comment #256724

David R. Remer thinks my criticism of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is uncaring. With these three boondoggles breaking our financial back, does anyone not suppose we could have done a better job in fashioning these programs? Would anyone disagree with a “do-over” if we had the chance?

David also said, “In addition, starving for lack of an income or job, because foreign nation’s one day blackmail our economy and government over the oil they have to offer which we are dependent upon, is no less a suffering than starving for lack of food production.”

David, did it ever occur to you why we are dependent on foreign oil? Last I heard we have huge supplies of the stuff but some folks refuse to let us use it. You’re in that camp I believe! I would also presume that you’re against nuclear power as well.

David says, “Testimony of experts before Congress this week revealed that more than 95% bidders on oil futures could not take delivery on oil if their bid ended up being the highest. They have no facilities whatsoever to take delivery.”

WOW David, what a revelation. When I was trading commodities I never took possession of tons of corn, pounds of gold, or stacks of Swiss Francs either. So What! Revelation to you perhaps, but please, give Americans credit for a few brains.

David also claims that big oil wants new leases in Anwar and offshore so they can lock in low prices now to gouge American’s at the pump in the future. Nonsense, the plan is to share revenue with the states that control the land or sea upon which drilling will take place. Take the prohibitions away and watch how quickly California, Florida and Alaska jump at the opportunity to share in the profits. Conspiracy…my ass.

“Can we afford to gamble that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is nothing to worry about?”
Posted by: d.a.n at June 25, 2008 12:11 AM

Why not d.a.n? We gamble that Iran and other terrorist nations will not obtain and use nuclear weapons against the free world which is much more likely than MMGW and certainly would be just as destructive. All of nature is cyclical and global temperatures are no exception.

Rocky, did you report unusually low temps around the country last winter?

Stephen Daugherty would have us believe the following; Algore produced a video full of lies and half-truths, the UN produced evidence based upon computer models skewed by those feeding the computers data, politicians found an unending source of tax money to correct this so called problem and now we’re told there is no need for more investigation as there is a “consensus” among some scientists. My friend, consensus is not fact, and the theory can not be tested without vast disruptions and dislocations of the globes financial resources, the results of which will be more devastating than the perceived problem.

Uh…what “rare synergy of factors” would we be wasting Stephen? OH, wait, I know…election of liberal politicians and a sound fleecing thru taxation of everyMan.


Posted by: Jim M at June 25, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #256726

I am now being told that G. Gordon Liddy read this aloud on his national Radio Program today. At least this is stirring up some debate, and that is good. The role of government intervention in every aspect of our daily lives and the proposed crippling of the US economy using the ‘save the planet’ mantra are not issues to be taken lightly.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 25, 2008 1:52 PM
Comment #256728

David H, quoting persons who were criminal in their role in government to justify your argument does your argument no good service.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 2:28 PM
Comment #256729

Jim M said: “David R. Remer thinks my criticism of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is uncaring.”

Don’t presume to know what I think. It makes you presumptuous. You would do better to respond to what I say, not what you think I think. How easily your comment above dismisses the millions upon millions of Americans helped and saved from poverty and suffering over these decades of greatest economic growth of any nation on earth.

Respond to these words of mine above, they reflect what I think far more accurately than your presumptions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #256730

Jim M, I hear you making the Oil Industry’s argument that the shortage is due to legislation and NOT their voluntary refusal to drill those millions of acres of undrilled leases they purchased with the full belief that there is oil contained within those leases.

So, which is it, Jim M, are the Oil Companies idiots for buying leases they KNEW had no oil on them, or, are they choosing not to drill on those leases to create the image of a shortage in order to jack up the price and their profits?

It’s a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious by an acknowledgment of the facts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #256731

Jim M said: “WOW David, what a revelation. When I was trading commodities I never took possession of tons of corn, pounds of gold, or stacks of Swiss Francs either. So What!”

Then you support the speculators jacking up the price of gasoline for you. Why does that not surprise me, Jim M? Could you be a Republican supporter, defender of all things corporate and wealth accumulating at the expense of others by hook or crook? Your comments here would lend one to think so. Nope, doesn’t surprise me a bit that you were one of those speculators, Jim M.

Greed is so easy to spot when folks are candid about their lack of compassion for the effects of greed upon others deprived by it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 2:42 PM
Comment #256732

That’s funny, I didn’t quote anyone to justify my argument. I only pointed out that this is getting some exposure and that is good. People see what they want to see I guess.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 25, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment #256733

For the first time, the United States Intelligence Community has weighed in with their “National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030”:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html

“Their report relies upon U.S. government, military, academic and United Nations studies of climate change.”

Sorry, no mention of environmental fascists or nazis by the US Intelligence community.

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #256740

David, well, referred to, would have been more appropriate than quoted. You referred to Liddy’s speaking up on the issue as a good thing. Do you advocate we listen to him on this? If not, then what good comes from his speaking up on this issue?

I am sure criminals against the public and its trust have all kinds of opinions on the issues. I could care less. There are far better and more worthy speakers on these issues than Gordon Liddy, and it is their debate and ‘references’ which would be more appropriate for consideration in public venues.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #256744

“Greed is so easy to spot when folks are candid about their lack of compassion for the effects of greed upon others deprived by it.”
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 02:42 PM

Now, Now David, be careful about who you label greedy. Are you aware that many of the nation’s largest union pension funds, university endowments and other worthy entities use commodity trading to strengthen and leverage their portfolios?

I fully understand and support a thriving commodity market. If I buy long and the commodity price drops below my strike price I loose money. And, if I buy short and the market rises above my strike price I loose money. Some uninformed folks believe there is no risk, only huge profits to be made. And even more folks don’t understand the tremendous service the commodities market performs.

David also said, “Then you support the speculators jacking up the price of gasoline for you.” This charge was his supposed answer to my comment that it is no revelation that most commodity players don’t ever take physical possession of the commodity they buy. And, most commodity players don’t physically possess the commodities they sell.

When someone responds in such a fashion to a simple direct statement is it any wonder we have confusion, misdirection, and false images of those with whom we disagree.

David said, “it is a marvel that you would reveal that you care not one whit whether they suffered or not, as long as you get to keep a bit more of your paycheck.”

In response I stated that he thinks I don’t care.

Then David said, “Don’t presume to know what I think. It makes you presumptuous.”

David, thanks for all the laughs you provide. By the way, what is a “whit”?

Posted by: Jim M at June 25, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #256747

G. Gordon Liddy, if you take a law and order point of view on him, is a convicted criminal. He’s an authoritarian who believes that the government has the right to burst in on your private domain, so long as the right letter follow the name of the folks who called for it.

He believes that one party’s power is essential to the security of the country. He has taken this belief to such a level that he has broken the law, in order to manipulate elections and the political process in ways that have little to do about the informed will and consent of the voters.

The critical flaw in gloating about this, Mr. Huntwork, is that your people have come to your current crossroads of shame and humiliation essentially by embracing Nixon’s shameful conduct as if it were something becoming a conservative, and declaring that the only thing problematic about their conduct was that they got caught doing it.

In the process, your people have become prey to the ages old temptations of power, because the pursuit of power at all costs encourages the protection of power at all costs. That’s what got you into trouble the first time, and that’s what’ll hurt you this time.

Liddy is an icon of the misuses of power, and your people have made an authority figure out of him, and other apologists for this authoritarian sensibility. The most twisted thing about it, is that even as they proceed to excoriate the other side for perceived excesses, most of them will apologize relentlessly for their side’s authoritarian behavior. Your people would have government intervening in every nook and cranny, but for your own purposes.

Worse yet, it’s a reality, not just an affectation of overheated rhetoric. Your people have decided that US citizens can be denied habeas corpus when they’re terror suspects. You folks have made torture an open policy of our country. You have pushed for warrantless interceptions of our communications in the name of national security, bypassing the legal authority, and even now trying to pass a law to immunize those who broke the law following your lead.

As for the proposed crippling of the economy? Again overheated rhetoric about my side is reflected in the sad, sober reality of your side’s actions. You can talk about environmentalists crippling our economy, but right now what’s dragging us down are a number of crisises revolving around the excesses of industries deregulated by the GOP, not the least of which is the record prices at the pump. The price of the Republican energy policy is being paid by the public, and it’s sucking the life out of our economy.

It’s about time, I believe, that we quit following your lead and start freeing this country from this parasitic energy policy.

Jim M.
Your solution is to open up more supply, regardless of the consequences, of a nonetheless inherently limited resource. It’s at best a temporary fix, and one that has the further liability of being several years out at best.

My solution is to steer this country onto resources, that while a little more expensive to start, are nonetheless stable in their supply over the long term. Solar and wind power will always have additional supplies ready. The same cannot be said for petroleum.

As for Global Warming? The scientists have been testing and debating the various models for years now. Testing climate is no more intrusive than measuring the weather. That’s how you demonstrate the quality of a model: do its predictions mesh with the results.

One common method of testing a theory and/or a model is to run simulations of the climate by plugging in past conditions at one point in time, and seeing if our approximation of the natural world approximates the results of the real thing. The models have gotten very good at that.

The consensus, like all those in science, is based upon people beating the crap out of theories and models with the evidence, and having those ideas still stand up. Such consensuses are what are sought in science: general principles that serve as solid (if not perfect) ground for further study and modelling of nature. The point of science is not endless petty debate. At some point, somebody’s explanation has to look better than somebody else’s on the evidence.

As for what the rare synergy is? So that our readers are not left with your misleading and malicious misinterpretation of my point, let me put it plainly: we are at a point where:

1) It is becoming more economic to go with renewables and alternatives than oil;

2) The fossil fuel economy still has enough life left in it to ease, rather than drop the burden onto alternatives;

3) Time is still left to do something about global warming, which may not be true later;

and 4) People are engaged and open to the idea of improving green technology.

There’s no time like the present. As for this Everyman person, I’d like to meet him. Does he run around in spandex with a crest on his chest? Do trumpets herald his arrival?

There is no everyman. There are a whole bunch of different people with different ideas about things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #256752

S.D., the land shown in that Scientific American article certainly doesn’t look marginal, so the switchgrass would be replacing food production. The point of the switchgrass is to grow it in places where it would not be replacing food crops. Having said that, I wouldn’t care particularly if they replaced the entire corn crop with this, but I think livestock feed prices would rise even more, and all food prices as well.

I don’t want to go into the entire history of agriculture here, but basically that land should be growing corn or soybeans, previously done in rotation, or a little further south, alfalfa and wheat, also in rotation historically. Marginal lands don’t produce bumper crops of anything. It’s basic agriculture. I used to think biomass or sawgrass was a good idea, but it’s just a new variation on the corn ethanol problem.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 25, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #256756

ohrealy,

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

This stuff grows where it wants to. You can see it cut and rolled up all over the northern prairie states. It doesn’t need any special soil to grow, but it is seasonal.

Posted by: Rocky at June 25, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #256757

Rocky, it’s cut and rolled up for feed, right? So if it’s used for fuel, it’s out of the food cycle for McDonald’s cattle or whatever normally eats it.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 25, 2008 7:29 PM
Comment #256758

Stephen Dougherty may I suggest you follow this link and give this article a read. As you are one who is seeking information from all sources, without personal bias, to form the basis of opinion I know you welcome all pertinent information.

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=459

Stephen attempts to inform me by saying, “There is no everyman. There are a whole bunch of different people with different ideas about things.”

Well Stephen, that is the definition of “Everyman”. Sorry you didn’t know that. It’s similar to referring to the DOW or Nasdaq as the “market”. It’s the composite of all those in participation and from that we derive a common consensus which translates into price.

Posted by: Jim M at June 25, 2008 7:47 PM
Comment #256759

orealy,

My point was that it doesn’t necessarily have to be grown. It just grows, and it will grow just about anywhere. We don’t have to take it away from cattle.

I traveled on I-90 through Montana a few years ago. The state has to mow it to keep the area around the interstate clear.

It also yields 1000 gallons per acre as opposed to 400 gallons for corn.

Posted by: Rocky at June 25, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #256762

Rocky, believe it or not, we’ve already gone through this all before, in the late 70s. In FL, they wanted to use the waste from the citrus crop, in GA, kudzu, and other things elsewhere. It’s just the latest scheme, like ostrich meat or raising alpacas. It’s not ever going to amount to enough production except for individual users.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 25, 2008 8:08 PM
Comment #256764

Jim M,
The linked article from “Nature” is very interesting. A climate model has been developed from other climate models, and it suggests a large scale cooling pattern in the Atlantic will moderate temperatures. However, it predicts temperatures will then rise quickly, and it matches the other climate models after that point.

It’s actually a pretty horrible scenario, because it would encourage humanity to make no changes to address Global Warming because it would be so easy to mistake the temporary plateau as the end of Warming…

After all the talk of fascists and nazis, I doubt anything effective will be done about Global Warming until a catastrophe forces action. Of course, at that point the worst consequences will already be a lock…

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2008 8:10 PM
Comment #256765

Jim M said: “Now, Now David, be careful about who you label greedy. Are you aware that many of the nation’s largest union pension funds, university endowments and other worthy entities use commodity trading to strengthen and leverage their portfolios?”

So your logic is if a lot of people do it, it is morally and ethically acceptable and desirable, eh? By your logic, crime, in this most criminal of nations on earth should be a respected and emulated activity. What is the statistic, 20 or 25% of Americans will have violated American laws in any given year? Hey, one in four are doing it, it must be made an option for everyone, right?

But the fact is, those people you refer to haven’t a clue where there money goes to grow. They hire professionals to make those decisions for them, professional speculators, and they make up a very, very, very small number of people in our society.

Congress and the Fed are going after the speculators, regardless of your sanctions of them. And that reflects the will of the people as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 8:19 PM
Comment #256766

Jim M asked: “By the way, what is a “whit”?”

n.

The least bit; an iota: doesn’t give a whit what was said; not a whit afraid.

[Middle English, amount, from Old English wiht. See wight1.]

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 8:22 PM
Comment #256773

ohrealy-
I think Rocky’s point is that you can grow grass in addition to feed. It’s not like corn where intensive agriculture is required. What’s more, where only what’s on the cob will be contributed to the ethanol production from corn, the full switchgrass plant is available for use.

As a lifelong student of science, I’ve learned its rather foolish to make predictions about technology. I’ll concede that it may not work, but can we at least try it before you pronounce a death sentence on the idea?

My feeling is, if we want to beat the curve on this, if we want to come out ahead, we need to get creative. If we can get cellulosic ethanol off the ground, then there are many options besides that for growing our fuel.

Jim M.-

The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.

We’ve always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade,” said Richard Wood from the UK’s Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature.
We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don’t get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions).”
Ocean buoys should produce more data about the Atlantic oscillation
Dr Wood cautions that this kind of modelling is in its infancy; and once data can be brought directly from the Atlantic depths, that may change the view of how the AMO works and what it means for the global climate.
As with the unusually cold weather seen recently in much of the northern hemisphere - linked to La Nina conditions - he emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.
Michael Schlesinger, the US scientist who characterised the AMO in 1994, described the new model as “very exciting”.
“No doubt we need to have more data from the deep ocean, and we don’t have that at present,” the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign researcher told BBC News.
“But imagine the payoff of knowing with some certainty what the next 10 years hold in terms of temperature and precipitation - the economic impacts of that would be significant.”

Climate scientists are not as dumb or blind as their critics would like to think. They already know that climate naturally fluctuates. They are not saying here that what others tagged as anthropogenic global warming was just a natural fluctuation. What they’re saying is that over the next few decades, a natural fluctuation might cool the planet and mask some of the warming until it ends.

I highlighted the relevant sections.

The great misunderstanding, promulgated either on purpose or by sheer ignorance by many climate change contrarians is that it’s either us or nature. In truth, it’s both, and always both. We’re a part of nature, and so is the CO2 we’re pumping out. Aside from a few isotopic quirks caused by the fact that much of this stuff has been buried for a few million years, the CO2 we put up there is identical to that which comes from a swamp, or which we exhale with the hot air of our arguments.

CO2 absorbs and re-radiates heat. Look at Venus to see how effective that is. Mercury’s closest to the sun, but Venus takes the cake because it’s atmosphere has a greenhouse effect on steroids. The 300+ parts per million here have a double digit effect on temperature. It’s that strong of a heat absorber, and our output of CO2 is dominating the system.

It doesn’t, however, run the system. The system works, just the same as it has for millenia. What we’re doing is influencing the system by giving back tons and tons of CO2 that plants and plankton in times gone by had taken with them to the grave. If they had burned instead of being buried, or been scooped up by some wierd creature we have a fossil for instead, they might have given away their carbon then.

The earth’s atmosphere is perfectly happy to accommodate our contribution. They take the checks we write with our fossil fuels just fine. It is, though, going to shift things around in response to the rise in atmospheric absorption of heat. And those shifts will cause other ones, and everything will get into a nice tangled set of feedback loops. We have control over this influence we have, but not control over the system as a whole.

The big oscillation in the Atlantic was going to happen regardless of what plans we made at this point or any other. The planet moves heat around, and that movies wind, pressure, rain and other things as well. What we will see is not a uniform rise in temperature, but instead a shift in patterns that comes about when the patterns of warmth, precipitation and other things feed back on themselves.

The oscillations and cycles will adjust accordingly the oceans won’t quit moving cold and warm water around, and that water won’t stop affecting climate and weather.

What the article says is that our contribution to this whole puzzle is going to ride the natural fluctuations, work into their feedback and processes. Things are going to warmer, and different in other ways than they might have been if we had not elevated the CO2 levels.

This is no cue to stop going green. It’s a cue to get past an oversimplified view of climate and to understand the real costs and problems that warming brings with it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2008 9:38 PM
Comment #256781

By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor

30 September 2005 01:12 pm ET

Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.

Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases still play a role, the scientists say.

””“But climate models of global warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity, according to Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke University.””

The findings were published online this week by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientists agree the planet is warming. Effects are evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the amount of frozen ground around the planet.

The new study is based in part on Columbia University research from 2003 in which scientists found errors in how data on solar brightness is interpreted. A gap in data, owing to satellites not being deployed after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, were filled by less accurate data from other satellites, Scafetta says.

The Duke analyses examined solar changes over 22 years versus 11 years used in previous studies. The cooling effect of volcanoes and cyclical shifts in ocean currents can have a greater negative impact on the accuracy of shorter data periods.

“The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming,” the researchers said in a statement today.

Many questions remain, however. For example, scientists do not have a good grasp of how much Earth absorbs or reflects sunlight.

“We don’t know what the Sun will do in the future,” Scafetta says. “For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity. Once that is done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred years.”

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 26, 2008 12:59 AM
Comment #256790

Rodney, quite right. And it should be added that while we adjust models for accuracy, the prudence of mitigating human contributions to global warming remains every bit a responsibility of our species to protect its life sustaining planet. This awareness of increased solar activity contribution to global warming mandates that we reduce our contributions with dispatch to very best of our collective and individual abilities.

Making a bad situation out of our control worse by actions within our control, would be advocated only by fools and those intent on getting theirs while the getting is good and to hell with the future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2008 2:38 AM
Comment #256793

j2t2 - I can’t do all the work for you. Do some research. I have merely hoped to make a few people pay attention to the power grab by people using ‘saving the planet’ in their attempt to enact far reaching control over nearly every aspect of the average American personal and public life.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 26, 2008 2:59 AM
Comment #256796

Thanks David R. with the sun factored it makes this CO2 situation even more serious a three headed hydra the arctic was white, white reflects light .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 26, 2008 3:09 AM
Comment #256804

David,

In order to save the planet and in this time of emergency I have decided to take the internet access away from you and all who publish skeptical information about Global Warming. This way we can mitigate damage done by your terrible misinformation and we now have a rational way of determining who gets to pollute by using home internet access and who doesn’t.

You still have the right to free speech, just not in public, not until you have the correct opinions!

Posted by: stephenl at June 26, 2008 7:38 AM
Comment #256809

j2t2, I have removed your last comment to David H. Flame baiting with personal jabs and innuendo is not permitted by our Rules for Participation. Observe our rules or lose the privilege to comment here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at June 26, 2008 9:05 AM
Comment #256817

David Huntwork-
We have a president who orders his people to edit scientific studies to reflect his contrarian viewpoint. SUVs remain common, as are coal-fired powerplants, and hybrids remain the exception rather than the rule. Since I measure power through the ability to get things done, I think its rather obvious at this point that we’re not the ones in charge currently.

When it’s economics, there’s always talks of tax and spend Democrats who want to break the backs of Americans and their businesses with their taxes. When it’s defense, it’s always the Democrats trying to weaken our defense and betray our country. When it’s regulation of finance and banking, it’s always the Democrats trying to paralyze the market and establish communism.

With the Republicans, it seems, it’s always telling people to be scared of Democrats, to run the other way when they come along with a convincing argument.

Fear is all that Republicans have to offer, and over time that fear has become an unreasoning paralysis in the face of incompetence, corruption, and the persistent preconceptions of a few writ large as policy.

Maybe you really believe we’re fascists. That’d be sad, though, because it shows the depths of self-induced paranoia that the conservative movement has sunk to. Maybe we involve more government and more regulation into things than you would like, but the view that we’re some kind of green version of the Third Reich is an exercise in silly hyperbole.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2008 10:31 AM
Comment #256821


David M. Huntwork: I see that the wrong symbol has been taken down. The proper symbol is a green peace sign.

I believe that is rediculus to suggest that the green movement is going to usurp the power of the corpocracy. Some large corporations may be harmed but, others are on the rise. The green movement will proceed in accordance with the rules of the corpocracy, watch and see.

Posted by: jlw at June 26, 2008 10:49 AM
Comment #256822
David M. Huntwork: “I have often stated that if true fascism ever materializes it will come from the Left, not the Right.”
Think so?

How about both?
Have you looked at voting records and political-compasses of many incumbent politicians in do-nothing Congress?
The problem is:

  • (1) that most incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly, from BOTH the Left and Right, are extremists,

  • (2) and the slumbering electorate (of which 40%-to-50% don’t see sufficient reason to bother voting, or the huge portion that blindly and lazily pull the party-lever, because it is easier to merely pull the party-lever without knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less the candidates’ voting records).

While the partisan-loyalists endlessly demonize and point fingers at each other, half of the voters tune out, and many voters wallow in it, it is increasingly likely that the only way we’ll stop doing that is when it becomes too painful … and we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg now.

In a voting nation, facism can only come about if the electorate allows it, whether it be due to apathy, complacency, greed, delusion, blind partisan loyalty, irrational fear and hatred, or laziness. While most people are law-abiding, there are always some who have surrendered to greed and selfishness (especially where power and opportunity exist) who are always trying to increase their own opportunities for self-gain, and the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies, while the nation’s pressing problems are ignored and allowed to grow dangerously in number and severity. Now the list is so, so long, that many of the painful consequences are most likely unavoidable.

So, if facism comes about, it’s not only the fault of the extremists on the Left or Right, but the more numerous electorate, of which half (or more) sat idly by and let it grow … at least, until it finally becomes too painful.

When the majority of the electorate is finally motivated by sufficient pain and misery, enough of the unhappy voters will (most likely) take responsibility and do the same thing that the voters did in year 1933, when they voted-out 206 members of Congress (38.3% or 44.1% of the incumbent politicians up for re-election):

  • Start-End _ Congress _ Re-Election _ Party Seat-Retention

  • Year-Year ____ # ______ Rate _______ Rate

  • 1933-1935 ___ 073rd ___ 61.2% ______ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted!)

  • … … … … … … … …

  • 1989-1991 ___ 101st ___ 90.1% ______ 99.6%

  • 1991-1993 ___ 102dn ___ 87.7% ______ 98.3%

  • 1993-1995 ___ 103rd ___ 73.5% ______ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)

  • … … … … … … … …

  • 1999-2001 ___ 106th ___ 89.2% ______ 99.3%

  • 2001-2003 ___ 107th ___ 89.2% ______ 98.7%

  • 2003-2005 ___ 108th ___ 87.9% ______ 98.1%

  • 2005-2007 ___ 109th ___ 88.6% ______ 98.7%

  • 2007-2009 ___ 110th ___ 84.9% ______ 93.1% (61 of 535 incumbents ousted)

  • 2009-2011 ___ 111th ___ ??.?% ______ ??.?% (?? of 535 incumbents ousted)

  • Source: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm#GreatDepression
Obviously, our species can learn from mistakes (eventually; 2.00 steps forward, and 1.99 steps backward)?
Too bad more (if any) of that education can’t somehow be passed along genetically, so that we don’t have to repeatedly re-learn the same lessons the hard and painful way.

The lesson isn’t that complicated.
While humans naturally seek comfort and security with the least effort and pain, when we succumb to greed and selfishness, most (if not all) of us suffer the painful consequences (often, including the perpetrators).
When will the abuses stop?
ANSWER: Sadly, too often, only when the abuses finally become too painful.
In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.
We may not always have the luxury of being such slow learners (especially with respect to the environment?).
But it may quite likely be that some politicians don’t want an educated electorate.
After all, if the electorate becomes too aware of their elected officials malfeasance and incompetence, the voters may repeat what happened in 1933?
So, you have to wonder why, despite the disdain of most American citizens, most politicians want to continue importing the less educated, less skilled, and impoverished by about 5 million per year?
It makes one wonder about the declining quality and rising cost of education?
Hmmmmmm … could it be one of the goals of facism is to keep the electorate ignorant?
After all, an ignorant electorate is much easier to manipulate. Cha-Ching!
Perhaps that is why most politicians choose to despicably pit unwitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, eh?
What else?

  • the pyramid-scheme monetary policy, the falling U.S. dollar, usury, and millions of foreclosures per year?

  • pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, and subsidies for the wealthy?

  • election irregularities, election fraud, an electoral vote that trumps the popular vote?

  • regressive taxation?

  • widening wealth distribution gap?

  • lawlessness; illegal immigration; constitutional violations; eminent domain abuse; D.C. trying to violate the 2nd Amendment?

  • unfair trade practices? Corporates selling out Americans (google “Nielsen H-1B”; Nielsen using American worker to train H-1B workers, and then firing the American workers). How about the Air Force giving military contracts to foreign corporations? How about American law-firms (e.g.: www.cohenlaw.com) teaching corporations how to avoid hiring Americans? Do American workers deserve this? Perhaps, if they sit idly by and allow it by allowing their elected officials to sell them out on almost a daily basis?

  • Unnecessary wars based on false intelligence (are boots on the ground in Iraq making the U.S. safer; is that the best way to make the U.S. safer?)?

  • Massive nation-wide debt ($53.2 Trillion to $66 Trillion)?
    • Total Domestic Financial Sector Debt = $15.8 Trillion

    • Total Household Debt = $13.88 Trillion

    • Total Business Debt = $10.16 Trillion

    • Total Other Private Sector Foreign Debt = $1.8 Trillion

    • Total Federal Government National Debt = $9.4 Trillion

    • Total State and Local Government Debt = $2.2 Trillion

    • __________________________________________________

    • Total = $53.2 Trillion (including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching, the total is $66 Trillion! (over $216K per person).

The list of abuses (which didn’t all come about by mere accident) is too, too long.
We are getting closer to a self-correction, but the longer it takes, the harder it will get.

Perhaps the slumbering electorate will be less apathetic and complacent when enough of the voters are jobless, homeless, and hungry?
We appear to be getting there.
Do you think the next few years are looking a bit ominous?
Are you worried about facism (which is often preceded and/or accompanied by lawlessness and corruption)?
How long before enough voters have had enough?
If the Great Depression is of any measure, we still have a ways to go before there’s enough pain to motivate enough voters to question the habit of repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election. No … it appears partisan-loyalties are still very strong. But don’t worry. The abuse of those loyalties will eventually sow the seeds of their own demise.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 26, 2008 10:54 AM
Comment #256826

David,

Your pseudo-intellectual attempt to cast fascism on the Democrats is laughable. And you made a fundamental error, common among the less-educated, in confusing communism with fascism. Redistribution of wealth and government-controlled business is communistic, not fascist.

You hold the bizarre position that it is liberals that attempt to lay the blame for rising fuel costs at the feet of the consumer, when this is a mostly conservative tactic that became popular when Bush, in attempting to explain high gas prices, blamed us for being too dependent on foreign oil (This no doubt as a lead-up to argue for more off-shore drilling). The facts as we know them presently are that there are two primary reasons for rising fuel costs: One being that the Enron loophole (Read about it, you may learn something) allows oil and other energy companies to speculate on the price of their own product, thus providing the incentive to drive prices up in a market they control. Second is reduced refining capacity compared to demand. The Enron loophole is totally supported by the Republicans and opposed by Democrats. Refining capacity could have been increased months or years ago, when the oil companies started posting quarterly profits in the tens of billions of dollars. But have they done that? To date, not that I know of. They would rather bend the consumer over a barrel in an attempt to extort off-shore drilling privileges.

With regard to fascism, you dismiss Bush’s actions as “…meager attempts to listen to listen to Al-Qaeda phone calls or build bases in Iraq…” In fact, Bush and his cronies have gone about systematically trying to give the Executive unlimited powers; seed the Justice system with ideological supporters while attempting to eradicate the rest; subvert the constitution by claiming the right to torture citizens and non-citizens alike, spy and collect information on citizens and non-citizens alike, suspend habeas corpus for citizens and non-citizens, and label anyone critical of the President as traitors or at least, un-patriotic. These David, are the true seeds of fascism and it is only by the grace of God and our forefathers’ wisdom that we have a Constitution that has been able to withstand this attempted takeover from within.

I suspect that you, like many of your fellow Republicans are experiencing tremendous guilt over your support of Bush and internal conflict over previously held ideals, which he has trampled. In psychology, there is a theory known as cognitive dissonance (Leon Festinger). This theory holds that we experience discomfort and internal conflict when we find ourselves in a situation where a newly adopted belief or idea conflicts with a previously held belief. In such cases, the theory holds, we seek to alleviate our discomfort by abandoning one of the ideas. Such is the case with Republicans like yourself, who, in realizing that you have supported someone like Bush whose radical ideas conflict so much with previously held ideals of governing, choose to abandon your own ideology and adopt this new radicalism in order that you may feel better about yourself (In other words, it is just too painful to admit that you have supported an incompetent President, so you adopt his philosophies to make him appear competent).

So, while I am sure it makes you feel good to honor us with your grandiose pontifications, in your attempts at higher thought, elementary concepts seem to have totally eluded you.

Posted by: Errol at June 26, 2008 11:47 AM
Comment #256828
Jim M wrote:
    d.a.n wrote: “Can we afford to gamble that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is nothing to worry about?”
Why not d.a.n? We gamble that Iran and other terrorist nations will not obtain and use nuclear weapons against the free world which is much more likely than MMGW and certainly would be just as destructive. All of nature is cyclical and global temperatures are no exception.
Jim M, A few nukes may be miniscule compared to global warming. Iran doesn’t have any nukes, and even if they get some, they aren’t likely to get a chance to use many of them. N. Korea is dismantling their nuclear reactor(s).

By the way, many peoples across the world might ask the same thing about the U.S. (especially after the false and trumped-up intelligence used to invade Iraq).

Have you really considered the ramifications of sea levels rising only a few meters?
And ironically, based on some theories, an interruption of the ocean currents might cause another mini-ice age.
What impact would either have on agriculture?
Esepcially if it happens suddenly.
How wise is it wise to ignore it (global warming, over-population, other environmental issues)?
Some of the stupid laws deserve our disdain (e.g. windfall profits taxes, carbon taxes, etc.), but is the disdain for exploring alternative energy sources justified?
After all, oil is not a finite resource.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 26, 2008 12:29 PM
Comment #256829

Errol,
The article is a classic example of psychological projection.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2008 12:31 PM
Comment #256832

phx8 said, “The linked article from “Nature” is very interesting.” I agree phx8, and I believe as we study more we will learn more about how our climate works. Frankly, I believe all the facts are not known and we should not rush to judgment or commit huge sums of money to a address something we don’t totally understand.

Posted by: Jim M at June 26, 2008 12:55 PM
Comment #256834

“Congress and the Fed are going after the speculators, regardless of your sanctions of them. And that reflects the will of the people as well.”

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 08:19 PM

David, I can only suggest that you do a little reading and research about the nature of stock and commodity markets and the huge benefits they provide. I won’t argue with someone who is information-challenged in this area.

Posted by: Jim M at June 26, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #256836

Jim M,
Until @ 2002, I felt there was not enough information on Global Warming to make a call. But I’ve seen enough, and the information makes sense. There is a lot of CO2 being put into the atmosphere, it’s a greenhouse gas, and it lasts a long time. Obviously I feel there is enough evidence to act. You do not, because climate is tremendously complex. Fair enough.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #256838

“Some of the stupid laws deserve our disdain (e.g. windfall profits taxes, carbon taxes, etc.), but is the disdain for exploring alternative energy sources justified?”
After all, oil is not a finite resource.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 26, 2008 12:29 PM

d.a.n. I don’t disdain exploring alternative energy sources, in fact I encourage such action (including Federal funding) along with producing more oil to meet our needs today. For me d.a.n. it is not “all or nothing”.

Some have advocated even higher energy prices despite the horrendous consequences in job loss, high food prices, and dislocations of wealth and resources. Their misplaced compassion is for future generations and not for those who must live thru their plan today.

We can protect the future and today with common sense and a reasoned approach. Simply because lowered energy prices in the past have thwarted work on new energy technology doesn’t mean it must happen again. We as a species do learn from our mistakes and can work for a common solution for the benefit of everyone.

Push the fear and bias from the minds of men and let them concentrate on solutions, not hysteria.

Posted by: Jim M at June 26, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #256851

Jim M-
I believe that there is a good basis for a sense of urgency. I also believe that if we had started dealing with this earlier, we might have gotten somewhere sooner, and urgency might not have been required.

The story of the past few decades seems to be of problems avoided rather than solved. I think it’s time we start solving problem, calmly, but with due haste, and quit finding reasons not to act. Our infrastructure, our economy and our culture are in trouble in no small part because we’re resting on the laurels of previous generations. It’s time to think and act for ourselves, and part of that will be removing as much of the potential for further human-caused climate change as we can. It will be much easier to act to prevent global warming and find it wasn’t a real threat, than it will be to fail to act, and find out that such contrary beliefs were false. The key term here is metastability, which will be to say that we will find it much easier to leave the boulder on the hilltop than we will find it to put it back up there after it has rolled into the valley.

We have the technology to curtail CO2 emissions now. We do not have the technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and reverse the climate changes it brings about. Given the risks of the latter occurance, it’s only prudent to take the path of greatest caution, rather than that of least resistance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #256852
Jim M wrote: Push the fear and bias from the minds of men and let them concentrate on solutions, not hysteria.
We don’t need irrational fear.

But we shouldn’t be oblivious either.
As for concentrating on solutions, I’m all for that.

However, many the nation’s problems are being allowed to grow in number and severity, as Do-Nothing Congress continues to be the place where good ideas and solutions go to die.

We not going to suddenly stop using oil altogether. It’s going to get expensive enough all by itself, which will provide incentives to develop alternatives. But people aren’t going to stop using oil until there are better energy alternatives, and better alternatives aren’t going to come about until we have better leadership, and better leadership isn’t going to come about without a better electorate … somehting too few voters are yet willing to recognize and still too busy trying to blame only politicians and/or the OTHER party.

Jim M wrote: We as a species do learn from our mistakes and can work for a common solution for the benefit of everyone.
Yes, but as history shows us, it is very slow (2.00 steps forward, and 1.99 steps backward), and it is usually only when the lack of learning becomes too painful.

We may not always have the luxury to learn so slowly.
So, as Stephen Daugherty wrote above, a bit more urgency may be justified. Especially with 1.3 Billion + 1.1 Billion people in China and India, growing ever more populous.
Thus, the goal is to learn a little faster, with less pain.
Especially with a world population that is growing by 211,000 per day.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 26, 2008 4:22 PM
Comment #256855

The latest Rasmussen and Zogby polls show overwhelming support by Republican’s, Democrat’s and Independent’s to Drill here, Drill now, Pay less…in the short term and long term.

Find out why oil companies leasing 41 million acres are only drilling on 10.2 million acres.

Go here for the full story; http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3538/Default.aspx

Posted by: Jim M at June 26, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #256856

” j2t2 - I can’t do all the work for you. Do some research.”
Seldom I ever post in blogs but this gem caught my eye.
You can not back your original post that your so proud was mentioned by a far right radio talking head with any facts? — Ive read though this whole thread and you have nothing but wild claims at all?
what a waste of time this would have been if it had not been for all the information I got from real people.
W.E. Savage

Posted by: A Savage at June 26, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #256862

S.D. and Rocky, back on sawgrass, the main biomass energy source is now, has always been, and will always be WOOD. In fact, we probably waste and throw more of it away than the energy we will ever get from sawgrass.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 26, 2008 5:43 PM
Comment #256885

Jim M, no wonder your comment positions appear so bizarre. You are relying Newt Gingrich.

Newt’s link is so full of deceptions and errors, its laughable. We are talking blatant errors and not so blatant. His article title says “New Poll Shows 74 Percent of Americans Support Offshore Drilling”, but then you read the article and find: ” A new Rasmussen Poll has revealed that a full 67 percent of Americans support offshore drilling.”

That poll however measures public ignorance on this topic. From the Rasmussen poll: “Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts. “

It is measuring ignorance. First, oil companies ARE drilling off shore. These respondents don’t know that. Second, these respondents aren’t aware that oil companies are voluntarily NOT drilling on leases they purchased for hard cash with potential oil reserves below them. Third, and this is the kicker, these ignorant respondents think NEW drilling will lower the pump prices right away or very soon. Which is completely fallacious.

Of course, Newt is attempting to capitalize on this public ignorance RATHER than inform folks of the realities and facts. You may want to find out who is paying Newt for propagate such distortions and deceptions, and perhaps, remove yourself from this propaganda influence.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2008 4:34 AM
Comment #256902

Jim M-
A good deal for America is not having to support its future on a limited non-renewable resource. I think you can agree with that. Any dependence, long term, of our nation on such a resource will eventually lead to our national and economic downfall.

This transition will not get easier the longer we wait to make it. Already, we are feeling at least some of the consequences of scarce supply meeting overwhelming demand.

If you don’t buy global warming, buy this: America’s long term economic security depends on us moving off of scarce fossil fuels before they become too thin on the ground to support our industrial efforts.

Ohrealy-
Actually, they’re working on that, too. The key is breaking down the protein lignin, which is one of the structural proteins that make woody plants woody.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2008 9:29 AM
Comment #256905

david

“Testimony of experts before Congress this week revealed that more than 95% bidders on oil futures could not take delivery on oil if their bid ended up being the highest. They have no facilities whatsoever to take delivery.”

“Ergo, these high prices are, in large part, a result of speculators bidding up the price and selling before the bidding is over on the last day of the month. The last day of the month is when futures contracts expire and the highest bidders have to take delivery on the oil bid for.”

i don’t disagree with these comments david. i think that being able to leverage such a large quantity of any commodity with minimal funds definitely adds to the volitility of the market. i’m not sure that disallowing speculation without taling delivery is the answer though. perhaps requiring a full deposit would cut the # of speculators.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2008 10:52 AM
Comment #256907

Joe Biden has apparently never gone fishing. He recently defended the tired old liberal lie about oil companies who have over 40 million acres of oil leases only drilling on about 10 million acres.

Have you ever noticed that the fishermen on lakes are usually gathered into certain areas on the lake rather than being equally dispersed?

The simple truth about fishing applies to drilling for oil. To be successful you need to put your bait where the fish are and to pump oil you need to drill where the oil is located.

Such simple, observable, and provable truth may escape Senator Biden, but it will hardly fool anyone who has ever been fishing.

David R. Remer is probably not a successful fisherman either as unlike fish in a lake congregating only at certain locations, he believes that oil, in an amount worth recovering, is found everywhere.

David R. Remer said in reference to the latest Zogby and Rasmussen polls showing overwhelming public support for drilling offshore and in Anwar, “First, oil companies ARE drilling off shore. These respondents don’t know that. Second, these respondents aren’t aware that oil companies are voluntarily NOT drilling on leases they purchased for hard cash with potential oil reserves below them.” And, “That poll however measures public ignorance on this topic.”

David discounts polls that reveal results he disagrees with by saying the public is ignorant. Sorry David, but these ignorant people will elect the next President and their most pressing issue is the affordability and supply of natural gas, gasoline, diesel and home heating oil. Whichever candidate has a plan to deal with this issue today, not ten or twenty years from now will win.

MMGW is not a pressing issue with these voters, heating and cooling their homes, food on the table and getting to work is what they will be thinking about in November as they enter the voting booth.

Posted by: Jim M at June 27, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #256909

For once, I agree with Jim M re oil speculation. Futures have participants who are investors as well as speculators. The speculators assume risk. It’s very possible for speculation to drive a market too far in one direction or the other. It’s also possible for Big Oil to temporarily control market prices for a short time. I think an example would be the oil markets before the 2006 midterms, when oil took an inexpliable dip prior to the vote, in an attempt to help the GOP. But it’s extremely difficult to control a market for a long period of time without broad, wide-scale collusion.

I don’t like Exxon. It’s always tempting to see a conspiracy. But in this case, I think that approach is more a form of denial, an unwillingness to accept a highly unpleasant situation. The dollar has fallen, there is fear of an attack on Iran, there is an inflation premium showing up in commodities across the board, and Peak Oil is slowly but surely being felt.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2008 12:23 PM
Comment #256922

S.D., thanks for that link. There is an link within that article that doesn’t work, on Macsoma, in Cambridge Mass, this is their main page: http://www.mascoma.com/

The prof they mentioned is from Dartmouth, but I still think MIT should be running the Energy Department.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 27, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #256927

Here’s another link with well-reasoned and factual statements regarding MMGW.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1403.cfm

Posted by: Jim M at June 27, 2008 2:08 PM
Comment #256948

Jim M-
1) The argument seems to be that unless such warming never happened before for any reason, it can’t happen because of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by humans. This is a red herring. So is the notion that if Global Warming occurs for natural reasons, that rules out human influence.

Global warming is the work of basic thermodynamics and quantum physics. CO2 is a proven trapper of heat. Whether it has a volcano, a swamp, a cow belch or a tailpipe as the source is irrelevant to that fact.

2) Is it catastrophic? Climate science has shown even minor changes to climate in areas to be catastrophic. The Sahara should be an example of that, in all its complexity. The Sahara ended up the desert to end all deserts because it cooled just a little bit. That cooling changed the rainfall patterns, changed the direction of the winds and so on and so forth.

The complexity of climate means that there’s no predicting necessarily who or where the winners and losers are. If you can’t predict where the rains will be suitable for crop raising, you can’t exploit it, and you may just find yourself on the wrong side of change. If a nation’s main bread basket dries out, you could easily call that catastrophic.

3) The more accurate and honest question is that we don’t know. However, it’s not something that ought to be dismissed out of hand. Hurricanes are essentially heat engines, and there are several things that global warming could do to make them worse, make them last longer, make them reach land with greater power.

Of course, at the same time, there are things that they could do to disrupt their formation, divert their course, and otherwise make them more rare.

Or, simply put, they might just shuffle them around, increasing the variability between relatively calm seasons and hellraisers like ‘05. The folks at your link aren’t being nearly as honest with you as the folks here are with their readers.

4) If there was ever a loaded, leading question, this was it. But far be it from them to pass up that opportunity. The answer would be a conditional yes, and the condition would be the not-necessarily likely scenario that both priorities would get into a zero-sum competition with one another. In the real world it is quite possible to both prepare for hurricane and regulate to stave off global warming.

And yes, a badly written law can do more harm than good, but the solution to that is to write a better law, not merely complain about the one on hand.

5) A recent look at the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets found they were melting faster than anticipated. Rather than melt slowly as one big sheet, holes and crevasses are allowing water to filter through the glaciers all the way to the bottom, speeding the process. The IPCC was being conservative, and as it turns out, far too conservative.

6) I suppose if they want to flatter and praise an administration that’s taken to having bureaucrats and political appointees edit the work of qualified scientists… The truth is, a transition to cleaner, lower-emission fuels won’t be cheap. We’ve built an infrastructure around oil and gas. You can’t say goodbye to that overnight, and this administration’s not letting go.

The real problem of this FAQ is that the people writing it, whether they believe it or not, are not taking a scientific perspective. They are taking the side of those who have paid them to write apologetic research and plaudits for the longest time.

If you’re a true skeptic, then the point should not be to back or advocate a specific viewpoint, but to go with the research as it is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #256967

To all conservatives:

1) There is only a limited amount of oil on earth. Eventually, with the exception of ethanol, we WILL run out.

2) Approving drilling in ANWAR or other new oil fields will take at least a decade (I’ve heard up to three decades) before it benefits the price at the pump.

3) Our auto companies are getting pounded because they believed (as they did in ‘72) that customers would not want small cars with good gas mileage…and the Republicans resisted raising the CAFE standards to force the carmakers to save themselves from the coming economic train wreck.

4) Cheney met only ONCE with environmental groups concerning the nation’s energy policy, but met FORTY times with oil execs for the same reason…AND KEPT THE MINUTES SECRET to this day!

5) And under McCain, nothing would change. Why? He is unwilling to rescind the massive tax cut on the oil companies while they reap the greatest profits in human history, while continuing to give NO subsidies to renewable energy.

People, this is silly. Your neo-cons want to continue to use a finite resource at record levels…and invest NOTHING for the coming day when that resource is gone.

Who, truly, has America’s best interests at heart?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 27, 2008 8:08 PM
Comment #256975

The auto makers revamped into larger vehicles in the 1990s.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 27, 2008 11:21 PM
Comment #256977

2005 Model Year Fuel Efficiency (MPG)
Ford Domestic Passenger Vehicles 28.2
Ford Light Trucks 21.5
Honda Domestic Passenger Vehicles 36.7
Honda Light Trucks 24.8 blog.sustainablemiddleclass.com/?tag=fuel-efficiency

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 28, 2008 12:17 AM
Comment #256982

Jim M said: “David R. Remer is probably not a successful fisherman either as unlike fish in a lake congregating only at certain locations, he believes that oil, in an amount worth recovering, is found everywhere.”

Jim M thinks the Oil companies are like fisherman, flocking in a herd to where someone else has found oil. Jim M, therefore, CAN’T explain why the Big Oil corp.s STUPIDLY bid hard cold cash and paid it to the government for drilling rights over areas where JIM M says there ain’t no oil.

Shows how much Jim M knows. The oil lease areas most likely to have oil are the ones purchased by the OIL Corp.s Jim. You really think they bid up the prices on leases without having a freaking clue as to the liklihood of oil in them? If so, by your thinking they are REALLY STUPIDLY run corporations in which case, we should nationalize oil and do a better job than. If the Oil Corp’s. are NOT STUPIDLY buying leases without hard data to estimate the liklihood of oil under them, then the OIL corp’s are hoarding reserves for a better price to be fetched down the road.

So, which is it, Jim M? Are Stupid Republicans and others investing in Stupid Oil Corporations who don’t know what they are doing when bidding up leases? Or, are the GREEDY little monopolists creating artificial scarcity by not drilling on those leases in an attempt to corner the supply at future time?

Or, perhaps, both? Pray tell, Jim M, the fisherman, are our oil execs and engineers just a bunch of idiots acting like fisherman who have to see a successful oil rig before knowing where to flock to drill? Rediculous, since, the oil leases themselves PREVENT under enforced law such flocking fisherman-like behavior. These are proprietary leases. Which MEANS everyone can’t just flock into an area of a successful lease which is OWNED by a single corporation and start drilling.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 28, 2008 3:25 AM
Comment #256998

David Remer said, “Jim M thinks the Oil companies are like fisherman, flocking in a herd to where someone else has found oil. Jim M, therefore, CAN’T explain why the Big Oil corp.s STUPIDLY bid hard cold cash and paid it to the government for drilling rights over areas where JIM M says there ain’t no oil.”

David along with many writing on this blog fail to understand the difference between leasing and owning land for the production of oil and gas.

Briefly, both competitive and non-competitive leases are for a 10 year duration which can be extended if actual drilling or production is taking place. If not the lease is ended.

A royalty of at least 12.5% is paid to the federal and state on all production. Successful lease-holders pay a minimum of $2.00 per acre leased with the same (of lessor) amount being paid annually for as long as the lease is held along with a fee per parcel leased.

David failed to understand my fishing analogy which is observable to anyone who cares to look. Just as you will find the successful fishermen in certain productive areas of a lake, you will find oil drilling and producing rigs gathered together in the landscape. A drive thru Texas, Oklahoma or other area producing oil or natural gas will prove to be a revelation to Daivd and perhaps others.

Finally, David appears to believe these leases are held in perpetuity and thus the oil companies want more so they can lock up the oil and gas resources for some time in the distant future.

They’re wrong, if the lease isn’t productive within the ten year time frame the leaseholder looses the lease with no return of royalty or lease charge.

It’s a very simple concept David, use it or loose it. No hoarding allowed. And, if you believe it is a slam-dunk deal for the oil companies to make huge profits why don’t you bid on some oil and gas leases?

Posted by: Jim M at June 28, 2008 12:39 PM
Comment #257030

David Huntwork, you quoted Obama as saying, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” “That’s not leadership,” Obama declared. “That’s not going to happen.”

But then you extended it and implied your translation as being what Obama meant. Really look at that quote. He’s saying logically that we cannot continue to go along as we are without doing something about it. He never said that he would regulate how much food you would feed your family, or how many miles per gallon YOUR SUV would have to use. You said that.
I infer a different meaning to what he is saying. He is referring to the fact that we can’t take leadership on energy consumption in the world by not doing anything about it. He is a major advocate of putting federal dollars into the development of alternative energy and making us a leader in the world in that respect. He wants to see us keep our quality of life and STILL consume less energy, and be independent of fossil fuels in the bargain.
You wrote your whole post with the assumption that you knew what Obama was talking about, when you did not. Try looking at what he said from other perspectives and see if you come up with the same conclusions.

Posted by: Cole at June 28, 2008 7:45 PM
Comment #257091

Our liberties are being chipped away bit by bit. Liberalism is about feeling good; you base you decision upon a good intent. Not the best for economies. The intent is “saving the planet.”

I like to think rationally. If it is good for the economy, then do it. The best thing for us is to drill for our own oil. It may not fix the problem right away, but it is the best long term solution. I would rather suffer now and solve the problem later longer than to solve the problem now and suffer even worse later in the future. The planet can wait.

The best way to get alternatives is to get the government out of business so that a brilliant inventor can find something that is more powerful and oil and cheaper to use. Let capitalism and free enterprise take their natural courses!

Right now, oil is still the best energy source out there. Nothing is as powerful as it is now. All the wind turbines in California generate as much energy as a plant in Fairfax County, Virginia that burns garbage! Congress needs to let us drill, lower taxes and get out of business.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at June 29, 2008 3:12 PM
Comment #257103

stubborn conservative -

1 - the liberties that are being ‘chipped away bit by bit’ are our rights to protection from unlawful search, seizure, and imprisonment (and torture), and that surest protector of democracy, freedom of speech.

2 - Keeping the government out of regulating the energy policy (e.g. CAFE standards) is the single biggest reason why Tokyo is kicking Detroit’s butt in the auto industry.

SC, having too much freedom is every bit as bad as having too little freedom - just ask any part of the world where anarchy is the daily reality of their lives.

That was one of the lessons I learned over my two decades in the military.

Take gun control, for instance: Are there free, safe, and orderly nations with a HIGH degree of firearm regulation?

Many.

Are there free, safe, and orderly nations with LITTLE or NO firearm regulation?

Not a single one.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 29, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #257113

stubborn conservative,

“The intent is “saving the planet.”

No.
The intent is to save the planet so that man might be able to survive. We are using up resources as if it is our God given right to do so, without even a thought as to the consequences of our actions. We pollute the water, soil, and air, and blame the “liberals” because they want to exert good stewardship of our limited resources.

You guys bitch and moan about the costs, yet what are the true costs in the end?

The planet will survive long after we’re gone.

Whether mankind will survive after we’re done trashing the place is another thing entirely.

Posted by: Rocky at June 29, 2008 6:26 PM
Comment #257142

Rocky - well said, and entirely true.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 30, 2008 6:42 AM
Comment #257150

“I have often stated that if true fascism ever materializes it will come from the Left, not the Right.”

I should point out that “Patriotism” is required for fascism to exist. Without the threat of being called a traitor, fascism will never grow.

Posted by: HenryJones at June 30, 2008 8:47 AM
Post a comment