It's been a great year for conservatives. After the beat-down we took in 2008 when the "free" press smelled the blood in the water following a 6 year siege on the Bush administration, we rebounded better than even 1994.
Conservatives were right in opposing Bama's trillion-dollar "stimulus" plan, which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%. It's now 10%, and the stimulus has been a near total waste.
Conservatives have been vindicated on "global warming." The email hack exposed the fraud at the core of the movement, and the data - the facts - have been exposed and we are proven correct. Man has had a negligible effect on the climate, and not even Al Gore can prove otherwise with actual science fact.
Conservatives were on the right track with the war on terror. Another Muslim extremist tried to blow up a plane this month, and yet many liberals refuse to go forward with targeted security measures, even as more practical voices on the Democrat side call for changes to the system. Iraq is no longer a story - Bush was ultimately successful, but Bama is trying to ruin prospects in Afghanistan with his arbitrary withdrawal deadline.
Sarah Palin has been vindicated for her faux pas during the 2008 campaign. We now know the communists at CBS roasted Palin under the lights for hours, and chose to air only the bits that cast the Governor in poor light. Meanwhile, her world tour has been an enlightening look into her unfiltered principles. Its clear McCain was the wrong candidate at the wrong time.
Nearly half of Bama's top-level appointments are tax cheats. That's criminal behavior. These people have broken the law, and now they help run the country. Any guesses where the money's going? That's right, the press has been negligent in reporting the Bama administration's ties to lobbyists. My guess is we won't hear about it next year, either. Nevertheless, Team Bama is exactly what conservatives knew they were - crooks from the seedy underbelly of the ages-old Chicago political machine.
Conservatives have been right all along about health care. The Dems tried at first for rushed chaos, but then crossed line after line on Bama's home state shores when the American public demanded more transparency and simple stuff, like that Congress should bother to read its own bills before voting. The country revolted, and Reid had draw the curtain on the whole process, draft the bill behind closed doors with no Republican input, and then collect a party line midnight vote to get it passed 2 days before Christmas when no one was looking. The nightmare will continue into 2010, when the Candidate-In-Chief's signature will sentence this country to economic despair and a short road to full-blown Socialism, and ultimately Communism.
2010 should be the turning point. Conservatives need to win back majorities in at least one house this year, and then take back the presidency in 2012 for any hope to turn the corner and head off the socialism train.
I'm optimistic, and looking forward to a great 2010!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
The Happiness Pool
Merry Christmas!
I hope this season you are happy, but not too happy, because liberals would remind us that one person's happiness comes at the expense of another.
Think about that. Their is a fairness quotient that drives the progressive ideology - make everyone equal and there will be no jealousy or envy, and then everyone will be happy. In that way there is a pool of happiness - a finite amount, and if someone is very happy you can be sure that someone else is equally miserable. In the mind of a progressive these extremes are linked by the societal pressures which permeate everyday life.
Consider people who are deeply religious. Studies show that those who attend church regularly are generally happier than those that don't. It's because they appreciate what they have relative to what's needed. Needs include God and family, food and shelter, and the opportunity to work to provide for oneself and one's family. Societal pressure says, you deserve more, regardless of your motivation to earn or achieve it.
Simple principles are akin to happiness; there's no mystery, and government cannot create happiness by trying to take it from some and give it to others. Atheist displays at city hall do not make atheists happy because they do it to spite Christians. Those people only sow contempt. They envy the happiness of Christians and are driven by their own unhappiness to want to steal it from others. The government does the same thing. I try not to fall into the "Taxation is theft" crowd, but think about it. If you're a small business owner you have a heavy tax burden. Imagine you own a winery. You work hard to build the trellises, plan the grapes, prune the vines, harvest the fruit, mash the grapes, add the sugars, tend the fermentation, separate the blends, bottle and package everything, then market it and transport the end product, and after all that work the federal government comes in and says, now give me my share. You're share of what? Government did not help in any aspect except to regulate how you have to do everything and then come in and demand their cut. They don't deserve one single penny, and yet if you refuse they shut you down. There's no equity in that, and then your hard-earned money goes to provide services you're unlikely to use, except for perhaps the security provided by the military.
So in that sense the governrment is little different from the mob. Ok, I get it, government is little more than voter-sanctioned organized crime. They are happiness thieves, like the Grinch who stole Christmas, but without the happy ending.
I hope this season you are happy, but not too happy, because liberals would remind us that one person's happiness comes at the expense of another.
Think about that. Their is a fairness quotient that drives the progressive ideology - make everyone equal and there will be no jealousy or envy, and then everyone will be happy. In that way there is a pool of happiness - a finite amount, and if someone is very happy you can be sure that someone else is equally miserable. In the mind of a progressive these extremes are linked by the societal pressures which permeate everyday life.
Consider people who are deeply religious. Studies show that those who attend church regularly are generally happier than those that don't. It's because they appreciate what they have relative to what's needed. Needs include God and family, food and shelter, and the opportunity to work to provide for oneself and one's family. Societal pressure says, you deserve more, regardless of your motivation to earn or achieve it.
Simple principles are akin to happiness; there's no mystery, and government cannot create happiness by trying to take it from some and give it to others. Atheist displays at city hall do not make atheists happy because they do it to spite Christians. Those people only sow contempt. They envy the happiness of Christians and are driven by their own unhappiness to want to steal it from others. The government does the same thing. I try not to fall into the "Taxation is theft" crowd, but think about it. If you're a small business owner you have a heavy tax burden. Imagine you own a winery. You work hard to build the trellises, plan the grapes, prune the vines, harvest the fruit, mash the grapes, add the sugars, tend the fermentation, separate the blends, bottle and package everything, then market it and transport the end product, and after all that work the federal government comes in and says, now give me my share. You're share of what? Government did not help in any aspect except to regulate how you have to do everything and then come in and demand their cut. They don't deserve one single penny, and yet if you refuse they shut you down. There's no equity in that, and then your hard-earned money goes to provide services you're unlikely to use, except for perhaps the security provided by the military.
So in that sense the governrment is little different from the mob. Ok, I get it, government is little more than voter-sanctioned organized crime. They are happiness thieves, like the Grinch who stole Christmas, but without the happy ending.
Avatar Review
White man bad.
Native American good.
Military bad.
Science good.
Machines bad.
Trees good.
God is nature.
$500 million buys you a helluva show.
Native American good.
Military bad.
Science good.
Machines bad.
Trees good.
God is nature.
$500 million buys you a helluva show.
Framing The Argument
Unfortunately for everyone who values personal freedom, the Republicans were totally denied the opportunity to frame the issue of health care in their terms. It was always about helping the litany of sad stories and never about the 99% of the rest of us who were not jeopardized by the health industry's capitalist streak.
If only they had been better served by our unbiased free press in showing how health care reform, as put forth by Democrats, is an attack on personal freedoms and our very society; it places the majority at risk for the sake of the minority, and it exposes everyone to the inevitable regulation of every aspect of our lives in the name of health care.
You think the insurance companies ask a lot of qualifying questions? Just wait until Uncle Sam gets in the mix. Tax law will be a light read compared to what it will take just to cook breakfast. At first we'll barely notice the transgressions, but government will be working hard to regulate the food industry, including farmers, and that's going to mean more fees for those who produce, further driving down profit and ultimately the will to produce. Listen to small farmers today - they can barely make it as it is, and the carbon neutral/food agency nazis will drive out any who have persevered.
Next the food pyramid will be strictly enforced. All public school children will be forced to buy the school sanctioned meals, with their correct portions of protein, grains, and fruits and vegetables, and of course, serving size. Many years from now there will be no grocery stores, only vast government run food distribution centers that deliver the approved portions of what you are deemed to need, at a nominal fee.
Is it such a leap to merge genetic science with health care and imagine a future where only those who's DNA is approved may reproduce? We can't afford to take a chance that something as arbitrary as love between a man and a woman may result in offspring with "pre-existing conditions."
Liberals, lacking the ability to see the long-term consequences of their short-term decisions because of the emotional requirement, only think of the good this will do for the small percentage of Americans who for whatever reason actually cannot get health insurance and who otherwise could not receive care. So what's the value of that? If this costs 50 Trillion dollars over the next 25 years, will that be a good deal? Take $50 Trillion out of the economy and tell me we're still a nation of prosperity. No way. We're a nation of dependents.
We'll depend on government for everything, and that's the ultimate goal of progressives, for only when government regulates all aspects of life can society be made to be truly fair for all people. That's been the goal of the Democrat party for nearly 100 years, and it's taken just long lifespan to bring this nation to the precipice.
Voting for Bama and his Democrat villains one more time might just be enough to push us over the edge.
If only they had been better served by our unbiased free press in showing how health care reform, as put forth by Democrats, is an attack on personal freedoms and our very society; it places the majority at risk for the sake of the minority, and it exposes everyone to the inevitable regulation of every aspect of our lives in the name of health care.
You think the insurance companies ask a lot of qualifying questions? Just wait until Uncle Sam gets in the mix. Tax law will be a light read compared to what it will take just to cook breakfast. At first we'll barely notice the transgressions, but government will be working hard to regulate the food industry, including farmers, and that's going to mean more fees for those who produce, further driving down profit and ultimately the will to produce. Listen to small farmers today - they can barely make it as it is, and the carbon neutral/food agency nazis will drive out any who have persevered.
Next the food pyramid will be strictly enforced. All public school children will be forced to buy the school sanctioned meals, with their correct portions of protein, grains, and fruits and vegetables, and of course, serving size. Many years from now there will be no grocery stores, only vast government run food distribution centers that deliver the approved portions of what you are deemed to need, at a nominal fee.
Is it such a leap to merge genetic science with health care and imagine a future where only those who's DNA is approved may reproduce? We can't afford to take a chance that something as arbitrary as love between a man and a woman may result in offspring with "pre-existing conditions."
Liberals, lacking the ability to see the long-term consequences of their short-term decisions because of the emotional requirement, only think of the good this will do for the small percentage of Americans who for whatever reason actually cannot get health insurance and who otherwise could not receive care. So what's the value of that? If this costs 50 Trillion dollars over the next 25 years, will that be a good deal? Take $50 Trillion out of the economy and tell me we're still a nation of prosperity. No way. We're a nation of dependents.
We'll depend on government for everything, and that's the ultimate goal of progressives, for only when government regulates all aspects of life can society be made to be truly fair for all people. That's been the goal of the Democrat party for nearly 100 years, and it's taken just long lifespan to bring this nation to the precipice.
Voting for Bama and his Democrat villains one more time might just be enough to push us over the edge.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
How Democrats Compromise
Right now the Dems are scrambling to get ducks in a row on health care to get something to Bama by Christmas. The Campaigner-In-Chief has met with the full Dem caucus twice in the last two weeks to address the concerns of "Problem Democrats." These half-dozen or so moderate Dems are holding out on a commitment to health care reform as it exists today because of some of the more controversial components, including federal funding for abortion and the so-called "Public Option."
The new tactic by Reid is to stuff the Senate bill full of ridiculous items only Russ Feingold could love, thereby creating a scenario where the subsequent removal of those items can be spun as a compromise.
Here's how it works:
"Conservative" Democrat senator from the Heartland says, "I won't vote for any bill with a public option." Some east coast snob senator retorts, "Don't worry about getting reelected, just vote for the public option." This statement gives away too much truth: constituent principles take a back seat to consolidation of power. Then Harry Reid steps in and says, "How about instead of a government run public option, we give everyone a big bar of gold, and they can use it to buy their own health care!" (Thanks to AlGore's "A Convenient Set of Lies" for the bar of gold idea.) Now this idea is obviously ludicrous, and yet the Dems spend a week debating it as if it were a plausible or practical plan. Now "Conservative" Democrat from the Heartland says, "I'll lead the fight against this unwise bar of gold idea," and Harry Reid responds, "Well if we can't give everyone a bar of gold I'm willing to meet you halfway. I propose a government run public option." Now the "Conservative" Democrat agrees, and will claim to have defeated the reckless bar of gold idea and agree to "compromise" and vote for the public option.
It's all smoke and mirrors - the Dems get what they want all along and the shifty "conservative" or blue-dog Dems from Republican-leaning states get to hold high the banner of principle and pretend to have represented their constituents, while what really happened was that they folded to the pressure put on them by party leadership and Bara Bama.
God, I hope John Stossel picks up on his one.
The new tactic by Reid is to stuff the Senate bill full of ridiculous items only Russ Feingold could love, thereby creating a scenario where the subsequent removal of those items can be spun as a compromise.
Here's how it works:
"Conservative" Democrat senator from the Heartland says, "I won't vote for any bill with a public option." Some east coast snob senator retorts, "Don't worry about getting reelected, just vote for the public option." This statement gives away too much truth: constituent principles take a back seat to consolidation of power. Then Harry Reid steps in and says, "How about instead of a government run public option, we give everyone a big bar of gold, and they can use it to buy their own health care!" (Thanks to AlGore's "A Convenient Set of Lies" for the bar of gold idea.) Now this idea is obviously ludicrous, and yet the Dems spend a week debating it as if it were a plausible or practical plan. Now "Conservative" Democrat from the Heartland says, "I'll lead the fight against this unwise bar of gold idea," and Harry Reid responds, "Well if we can't give everyone a bar of gold I'm willing to meet you halfway. I propose a government run public option." Now the "Conservative" Democrat agrees, and will claim to have defeated the reckless bar of gold idea and agree to "compromise" and vote for the public option.
It's all smoke and mirrors - the Dems get what they want all along and the shifty "conservative" or blue-dog Dems from Republican-leaning states get to hold high the banner of principle and pretend to have represented their constituents, while what really happened was that they folded to the pressure put on them by party leadership and Bara Bama.
God, I hope John Stossel picks up on his one.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Doing the Hokey-Pokey On Pearl Harbor Day
68 years ago this morning the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the event that caused most Americans to change their opinion on entering another great war on behalf of the rest of the world. Without that event, the political will of the American people would have remained largely isolationist, and FDR would have had a hard time getting men across the Atlantic, and by the time most people understood the scope of the Nazi threat it may have been too late. FDR fought the hell out of that war - he clearly understood what was at stake and what was needed to win, and manipulated the domestic situation to meet the global need. His fiscal policies in response to the Depression may have doomed this country to economic disaster in the long run, but his effective response as a wartime leader likely saved it in the moment.
1 week ago today Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama committed another 30,000 soldiers to fight in Afghanistan. Bama clearly has almost no idea what it takes to win a war he doesn't actually believe in against an enemy he's trying to curry favor with. His "Hard deadline" to withdraw in July 2011, is proof enough of that. Once again, he's just trying to please all sides by seeming hawkish and judicious at the same time. He wants to put troops in them take them out - it's more of a game of hokey-pokey than an effective military strategy.
So this weekend Gates and Hillary were on every talk show saying that the date to withdraw is fixed, but the numbers are not, so the date really means absolutely nothing. Bama can fulfill that promise by taking exactly 1 soldier out of Afghanistan on that date.
Why does anyone believe anything that comes out of Bama's mouth? He talks out of both sides like it was an art form. Meanwhile, the troops get that the message is mixed, so the surge has no effect on morale except to make another 30,000 people miserable living in the dusty mountains of an impoverished country halfway around the globe.
Tell us what we're fighting for! Give the men an objective and the resources they need and then let them go do it! And stay the hell out of the way! Quit dancing, Bama!
1 week ago today Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama committed another 30,000 soldiers to fight in Afghanistan. Bama clearly has almost no idea what it takes to win a war he doesn't actually believe in against an enemy he's trying to curry favor with. His "Hard deadline" to withdraw in July 2011, is proof enough of that. Once again, he's just trying to please all sides by seeming hawkish and judicious at the same time. He wants to put troops in them take them out - it's more of a game of hokey-pokey than an effective military strategy.
So this weekend Gates and Hillary were on every talk show saying that the date to withdraw is fixed, but the numbers are not, so the date really means absolutely nothing. Bama can fulfill that promise by taking exactly 1 soldier out of Afghanistan on that date.
Why does anyone believe anything that comes out of Bama's mouth? He talks out of both sides like it was an art form. Meanwhile, the troops get that the message is mixed, so the surge has no effect on morale except to make another 30,000 people miserable living in the dusty mountains of an impoverished country halfway around the globe.
Tell us what we're fighting for! Give the men an objective and the resources they need and then let them go do it! And stay the hell out of the way! Quit dancing, Bama!
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Politics of Science
Ever since the uncovering of emails two weeks ago indicting the global warmers for misconstruing data and thereby perpetrating perhaps the greatest scientific fraud of all time, the few conservative media outlets, most notably Fox News, have been on a fast-break to make up for years of being put down as being climate-challenged.
Every few hours Fox runs the story again and features another guest-expert who had previously been nothing but a skeptic and now looks like a hero. This is a welcome change in the debate, and now a majority of Americans fall into the skeptics camp, and the warmers are a dwindling if feisty minority.
On the other side, MSNBC has all but ignored the story, but finally this morning they found someone who would take the flag off a fallen comrade whose corpse, like the earth, is cooling, and wave it with the same bravura as if the whole email incident never happened. Indeed, the liberal media has focused on who hacked the emails, as if that was the crime, in a sad attempt to hide the elephant in the room with a washcloth.
The guest on Scarborough this morning eviscerated the Wall Street Journal for linking science to cash, which is a valid point, but he went to the extreme claiming WSJ was only fixated on the money angle, and seemed to be indicting science as a whole, in which case, "This country is doomed." As if an indictment of science could do worse than we're doing for ourselves already.
The obnoxiously biased, liberal pro-warmer was trying to put the skeptics back on the defensive, but what he doesn't realize is that we're really not skeptics anymore. Anyone who is still clinging to the 'earth is warming because of man' line is now the belligerent, or as Bara Bama put it, is like someone clinging to God and guns.
Science is not the problem. Science is a process, and is untainted. It is a pure quest for fact that begins with a theory - The earth's climate is heating up and man's emission of CO2 is to blame - and ends when the facts fail to prove the theory. Science does not allow for the Theory to remain even after the facts have proven otherwise. This problem is with the scientists.
For a long time scientists have been held up because they are just smarter than the rest of us, or so we are led to believe. The truth is that on the whole, the scientific community is only marginally more intelligent than the rest of society and no more capable or driven. Most theoretical climatologists work on the government dime - this is not something WSJ invented, it is fact! As such, these men and women are funded to research projects that titillate politicians, and for the last 10 years that has meant global warming. The scientists, whose livelihood requires continued funding from the same government sources, cannot quickly dispel the myth of warming just because the data doesn't work for them, so they fudge a few things and voila! The planet is warming (even though it's actually cooling). To disguise the obvious discrepancy, the warmer community changed tactics, going for "Climate Change", instead of just warming, thus justifying the fact that they really have no idea what the planet is doing now that all their fancy computer models are broken.
Is it so unlikely to say scientists can be biased or predisposed to support a political ideology over the scientific process? Consider that many of these scientists were environmentally-minded from a very young age, and chose to pursue earth sciences because of their formative experiences. To such a person, Earth is a god and environmentalism the true religion. Liberals blast conservative Christians all the time for our faith and our beliefs, and yet are incredulous when we question theirs. Yes, some people still believe the Earth is only 8,000 years old because the Bible says it's so, but most of us believe in the facts produced by science. Too bad the environmentalists still believe their religion over their science, but the tide has finally turned, and not because the icebergs are melting.
In desperation, the guest on MSNBC this morning appealed to common sense. How can one look at the smog in cities like Los Angeles or Beijing and not think that's harming the environment. This tactic is the warmer's last hope, as even now that the lies have become public, that in fact, the link between man's CO2 emissions and global temperatures is unknown or at worst insignificant, the warmers make their stand and fly in the face of the science they themselves created. I'll be honest, I like fresh air and clean water, but now I also want my due, and I want those nasty warmer bitches like Al Gore to be exposed as the hypocrites they are. What may have started innocently enough as a chance to improve our environment has turned into something very sinister, and following the money is exactly the right thing to do. Al Gore stands to make tens of millions of dollars or more selling worthless carbon offsets if Cap & Trade were to ever materialize, and the rest of us would suffer for it and almost no one would be any better off.
This debate is important for two very big reasons. One, we can bring visibility to the failures of scientists - not science - and expose the politicization of the scientific process. This will lead to better science in the long run. Two, we can expose Gore and his lackeys in the scientific community for the frauds they've always been. This will help restore common sense and intellectual honesty to the nations policy debate, which will align with more conservative principles. Both of these things are good for America and the world.
I read a headline this morning where two of the Oscar committee members demanded Al Gore give his trophy back. That's funny, but I say he keeps it - his performance in An Inconvenient Truth was some fine acting to have fooled so many people!
Every few hours Fox runs the story again and features another guest-expert who had previously been nothing but a skeptic and now looks like a hero. This is a welcome change in the debate, and now a majority of Americans fall into the skeptics camp, and the warmers are a dwindling if feisty minority.
On the other side, MSNBC has all but ignored the story, but finally this morning they found someone who would take the flag off a fallen comrade whose corpse, like the earth, is cooling, and wave it with the same bravura as if the whole email incident never happened. Indeed, the liberal media has focused on who hacked the emails, as if that was the crime, in a sad attempt to hide the elephant in the room with a washcloth.
The guest on Scarborough this morning eviscerated the Wall Street Journal for linking science to cash, which is a valid point, but he went to the extreme claiming WSJ was only fixated on the money angle, and seemed to be indicting science as a whole, in which case, "This country is doomed." As if an indictment of science could do worse than we're doing for ourselves already.
The obnoxiously biased, liberal pro-warmer was trying to put the skeptics back on the defensive, but what he doesn't realize is that we're really not skeptics anymore. Anyone who is still clinging to the 'earth is warming because of man' line is now the belligerent, or as Bara Bama put it, is like someone clinging to God and guns.
Science is not the problem. Science is a process, and is untainted. It is a pure quest for fact that begins with a theory - The earth's climate is heating up and man's emission of CO2 is to blame - and ends when the facts fail to prove the theory. Science does not allow for the Theory to remain even after the facts have proven otherwise. This problem is with the scientists.
For a long time scientists have been held up because they are just smarter than the rest of us, or so we are led to believe. The truth is that on the whole, the scientific community is only marginally more intelligent than the rest of society and no more capable or driven. Most theoretical climatologists work on the government dime - this is not something WSJ invented, it is fact! As such, these men and women are funded to research projects that titillate politicians, and for the last 10 years that has meant global warming. The scientists, whose livelihood requires continued funding from the same government sources, cannot quickly dispel the myth of warming just because the data doesn't work for them, so they fudge a few things and voila! The planet is warming (even though it's actually cooling). To disguise the obvious discrepancy, the warmer community changed tactics, going for "Climate Change", instead of just warming, thus justifying the fact that they really have no idea what the planet is doing now that all their fancy computer models are broken.
Is it so unlikely to say scientists can be biased or predisposed to support a political ideology over the scientific process? Consider that many of these scientists were environmentally-minded from a very young age, and chose to pursue earth sciences because of their formative experiences. To such a person, Earth is a god and environmentalism the true religion. Liberals blast conservative Christians all the time for our faith and our beliefs, and yet are incredulous when we question theirs. Yes, some people still believe the Earth is only 8,000 years old because the Bible says it's so, but most of us believe in the facts produced by science. Too bad the environmentalists still believe their religion over their science, but the tide has finally turned, and not because the icebergs are melting.
In desperation, the guest on MSNBC this morning appealed to common sense. How can one look at the smog in cities like Los Angeles or Beijing and not think that's harming the environment. This tactic is the warmer's last hope, as even now that the lies have become public, that in fact, the link between man's CO2 emissions and global temperatures is unknown or at worst insignificant, the warmers make their stand and fly in the face of the science they themselves created. I'll be honest, I like fresh air and clean water, but now I also want my due, and I want those nasty warmer bitches like Al Gore to be exposed as the hypocrites they are. What may have started innocently enough as a chance to improve our environment has turned into something very sinister, and following the money is exactly the right thing to do. Al Gore stands to make tens of millions of dollars or more selling worthless carbon offsets if Cap & Trade were to ever materialize, and the rest of us would suffer for it and almost no one would be any better off.
This debate is important for two very big reasons. One, we can bring visibility to the failures of scientists - not science - and expose the politicization of the scientific process. This will lead to better science in the long run. Two, we can expose Gore and his lackeys in the scientific community for the frauds they've always been. This will help restore common sense and intellectual honesty to the nations policy debate, which will align with more conservative principles. Both of these things are good for America and the world.
I read a headline this morning where two of the Oscar committee members demanded Al Gore give his trophy back. That's funny, but I say he keeps it - his performance in An Inconvenient Truth was some fine acting to have fooled so many people!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
On Political Discourse
More and more we hear from the media that the political discourse in this country is nastier and more partisan than ever before. This is typically attributed to the awfulness of the Bush administration - God knows Bush deserved all the shrill hateful fervor directed toward him on websites such as MoveOn, DemocratUndreground, DailyKOS, and other completely partisan liberal hate sites. The message is that Americans' failures to communicate is the fault of Bush and Republicans.
Honestly, I don't mind sharing some of the blame with my liberal counterparts - this blog is my place to vent and I have made my positions more than obvious. I'm also not in denial that on many things politic I think I'm right, and that's true for most of us. The problem today is that people just cannot accept being wrong, and too often many out there have no interest in listening to the other side and risking challenging their worldview. In that regard I have the great fortune of being married to a wonderful woman with many opposing viewpoints who challenges me to refine my ideology every day.
I don't believe the level of vitriol has changed much - if you read transcripts from political encounters from a hundred or even two hundred years ago you'll find plenty of name-calling and incivility. What's changed is that despite what many would claim, Americans now expend a lot less effort educating themselves and will often take the first thing they read and form an opinion based off it. Add to that the traditional media is now in its death throes, and is selling out to specific ideologies just to sell copy instead of spending the time to provide accurate, diverse, and unbiased journalism.
That's a real shame, but it's also the nature of this changing world where information is in great supply and often unfiltered. More than ever, people need to shut up and absorb several sources before regurgitating anyone else's talking points.
Honestly, I don't mind sharing some of the blame with my liberal counterparts - this blog is my place to vent and I have made my positions more than obvious. I'm also not in denial that on many things politic I think I'm right, and that's true for most of us. The problem today is that people just cannot accept being wrong, and too often many out there have no interest in listening to the other side and risking challenging their worldview. In that regard I have the great fortune of being married to a wonderful woman with many opposing viewpoints who challenges me to refine my ideology every day.
I don't believe the level of vitriol has changed much - if you read transcripts from political encounters from a hundred or even two hundred years ago you'll find plenty of name-calling and incivility. What's changed is that despite what many would claim, Americans now expend a lot less effort educating themselves and will often take the first thing they read and form an opinion based off it. Add to that the traditional media is now in its death throes, and is selling out to specific ideologies just to sell copy instead of spending the time to provide accurate, diverse, and unbiased journalism.
That's a real shame, but it's also the nature of this changing world where information is in great supply and often unfiltered. More than ever, people need to shut up and absorb several sources before regurgitating anyone else's talking points.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
What Do You Mean, No Global Warming???
Well this blows. I was really in favor of global warming - I'm pretty tired of these endless Wisconsin winters. And lately every year has been more bitter cold than the last. I guess I shoulda seen it coming. Now that I think back, it's been getting cooler every year where I live; I'm not sure we had even one 90 degree day this summer.
It's not all my fault - at some point the smart people who told us about the global warming changed the dialog to "Global climate change." I don't know what that means, I guess it's when some days it's warmer and some days it's cooler. Or like early in the year it's usually cold, and then the climate changes and it gets warmer and by the middle of the year it's very warm, but then the climate changes again and it gets cooler until by the end of the year it's cold again. That's all very complicated, so I don't worry too much about it.
Then they were saying the ice could melt and the oceans could rise, and I figured that wouldn't be too bad, because then there would be more water, and water is good. I don't live anywhere near an ocean, so if they rose I wouldn't be too upset.
Well now it turns out that these smart people weren't so smart, and the earth is either not warming or is actually cooling. So this really ticks me off, because of those Wisconsin winters.
I'm gonna try to make it right, though, and start burning tires in my backyard. I'll be encouraging my neighbors to do the same. Those scientists couldn't have been all wrong, so if everyone starts burning tires in their backyards maybe we can still get global warming back on track.
So please do your part! Start burning tires in your backyard so the earth will get warmer and I can be saved from more cold Wisconsin winters!
It's not all my fault - at some point the smart people who told us about the global warming changed the dialog to "Global climate change." I don't know what that means, I guess it's when some days it's warmer and some days it's cooler. Or like early in the year it's usually cold, and then the climate changes and it gets warmer and by the middle of the year it's very warm, but then the climate changes again and it gets cooler until by the end of the year it's cold again. That's all very complicated, so I don't worry too much about it.
Then they were saying the ice could melt and the oceans could rise, and I figured that wouldn't be too bad, because then there would be more water, and water is good. I don't live anywhere near an ocean, so if they rose I wouldn't be too upset.
Well now it turns out that these smart people weren't so smart, and the earth is either not warming or is actually cooling. So this really ticks me off, because of those Wisconsin winters.
I'm gonna try to make it right, though, and start burning tires in my backyard. I'll be encouraging my neighbors to do the same. Those scientists couldn't have been all wrong, so if everyone starts burning tires in their backyards maybe we can still get global warming back on track.
So please do your part! Start burning tires in your backyard so the earth will get warmer and I can be saved from more cold Wisconsin winters!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)