This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
People think climate change is solely an environmental campaign. And I . . . consider myself strongly in support of the environmental goals of this country. But a lot of people look with a different view on that. This says, "Hey, wait a minute, irrespective of your feeling about environmental concerns, here's a practical effect. Your sons or daughters or next door neighbor might be sent out on a military mission" [John Warner, quoted by Jill Lawrence, Q&A, Politics Daily, 2009.09.04].
Go ahead, stick your head in the sand on climate change. But do you want to stick your sons' and daughters' boots in the sand?
Warner makes the case that climate change has already imposed great costs on us, from spreading bark beetles and devastating forests in Idaho to tipping political instability to chaos in Somalia and Darfur.
Studies show that drought, famine, floods and other consequences of global warming will be worst in regions that already are relatively unstable politically and/or economically. The potential impact includes toppled governments, terrorist breeding grounds, island nations immersed in rising seas, threats to U.S. military installations in coastal areas, and more military and humanitarian demands on the U.S. military -- in many instances the only institution with the resources to make a difference [Jill Lawrence, "National Security Concerns Could Power Energy Bill to Senate Passage," Politics Daily, 2009.09.04].
Clean energy isn't just a green issue. It's a red-white-and-blue issue. Claims that ACESA and other enivronmental efforts show contempt for America are simply absurd. In supporting clean-energy legislation, Senator Warner is doing the same thing as when he signed up for the U.S. Navy in January 1945, and when he volunteered for active duty in the Marines in Korea in 1950: defending the country he loves.
This guy probably is one of the ones who darn well knows what he's doing, and that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is nothing but a load of hot air.
ReplyDeleteWarner was a liberal RINO before and he's still a liberal.
This crap isn't a "green" issue, and it definitely isn't a "red-white-and-blue" issue.
It's a "Red" issue, a Marxist one perpetuated to cripple great nations like the United States through naivete and ignorance.
And to be clear on one other thing, you insult real patriots when you throw around someone's military service like it absolves them of the guilt of supporting nonsense that harms our country, or perhaps (in your mind, at least) puts some badge of respectability on idiocy like AGW.
Military service is to be appreciated and respected, but it does not function as a shield to insulate bad, harmful ideas from criticism. Plenty of people have served their country, only to go on to do it great harm whether intentionally or through stupid mistakes.
Trying to cripple our country and gouge the American people through the cap and trade global warming tax and other environmental extremism is un-American and un-Constitutional.
Any good patriot would know that.
I used to think I believed there was global warming, just not conclusively anthropogenic. In the last decade I've been moving towards dismissing even the warming part as a farce in the scientific community. Something that persists because it has been latched onto by generations of progressives to push their goals.
ReplyDeleteCory, I have to side with these guys. But I'll grant you this much: The proposed "clean-energy" legislation is indeed a "national security" issue. Less freedom equals less security.
ReplyDeleteI've been reluctant to say the following until now. But here goes: I suspect that some of the people holding power in Washington actually want to inflict a measure of misery on the American people as an end in itself. And, come November 2010, I intend to do everything in my power as a voter to get them out of there.
I do believe that global warming is real. I do believe that human activity contributes to some extent. But I cannot prove it. I believe that whenever someone says that they know it, that statement indicates delusion, dishonesty, or both.
Did you watch Gore when someone actually challenged him on the issue of polar bears, which are increasing BTW, not dying off because of global warming. Gore would not answer this guy's question and had the guy's microphone shut off.
ReplyDeleteI read a statement concerning global warming, and I didn't catch which of the cap and tax people said it, but they stated that global redistribution of wealth would be achieved through climate change legislation, i.e. cap and tax. This is the truth, and finally it is out there. As long as Gore et al stand to make tons of money off this, their promoting of it is dishonest, ingenuous, and very dangerous to our nation. And, if Gore, Pelosi, et al truly believed the dangers inherent in their climate change spiels, they would walk and walk, which they do NOT do. Pardon me if I don't believe them, but I don't.
Global warming might be occurring; it does in natural cycles on earth since earth was formed. So does global cooling. Maybe man has something to do with it a little, maybe not. But this cap and tax is not the way to address it.
And the notion that it saves or creates jobs, and that SD will get 5,000 (I think that's the latest speak from these guys) is a fairy tale. In Europe it has cost many more jobs than it created. So if SD gets 5,000 new jobs, how many will be lost? Food for thought, and I hope people do think. Congress gave up thinking a long time ago!
Stan, I'll need a little substantiation to the contention that there are folks looking to inflict misery as an end in itself. I don't see that motive, certainly not among the vets on the bus for Operation Freee. Can you expand on that? Why would anyone adopt that motive?
ReplyDeleteCory, I can't prove that there are sadomasochists in power in Washington (and that's essentially what I suggested in my earlier comment). I honestly hope that my suspicions are baseless.
ReplyDeleteI've heard the idea that we Americans ought to share our wealth with the rest of the world, and with that I heartily agree, even if it means that in general we ought to adopt a less wasteful mode of living. Such action would involve sacrifices, but if done voluntarily, these behaviors can actually make people happier in the long term. Conservation, green energy, and all the rest really will be good for us, I think, and that is true in spite of the pain that we might have to endure to get to the goal of energy independence.
... Despite the pain, not because of it! ...
Let's consider exercise, for example; some people I know drag themselves to the Lead Recreation Center (formerly the YMCA) and openly admit their dislike for exercise; I, contrariwise, am addicted to my twice-daily 45-minute swims. Some people would gag on the sort of diet to which I adhere; but I like the cessation of allergies, the remission of migraines, the reduced general aches and pains, and the complete absence of hypoglycemia. I enjoy the benefits to the extent that lean beef, fish, veggies, and whole grains (to the exclusion of nearly all other foods) appeal to me.
Many would consider my regimen a means to unhappiness. I find it exactly the opposite. But I live in the above-described mode by choice. No one forces or "nudges" me in that direction. If they did, I might react against it, just as a little kid will react against the forbidden behaviors.
I have come across people who eat and exercise as I do even though such a lifestyle makes them profoundly miserable! It's sheer masochsism ... and it happens. Some people get bent out of shape because others eat too much sugar, or use too much gasoline, or drive big SUVs, or have big houses -- not because these behaviors harm the general population, but because it offends their self-righteous nature. This, carried to an extreme, becomes sadism in the sense that it arouses a desire to hurt those who flaunt their wastefulness, to injure them out of sheer spite. I know this only because I have felt such dark desires in my own heart (and Lord forgive me, have on one or two occasions acted out on it).
So, at the risk of rambling, I've attempted to point out that I have no solid evidence whatsoever that my earlier suspicions represent reality. Neither do I have any proof that God exists (or does not exist). But, after warming this keyboard to the extent that it might actually endanger a polar bear or two, I must say that I just "get this feeling." There are sadomasochists all over the place, and it only stands to reason that a few of them will fall into positions of power. Maybe I would be happier if I stop watching Glenn Beck. Maybe I am a masochist because I watch Glenn Beck now and again. If you were to mount a case for that theory, I should find it difficult to refute.
:-)
That's an interesting observation, Stan. I won't pummel you for proof; I'll acknowledge that we're dealing with narrative here, a story that helps make sense of what's going on, not necessarily an objective representation of what's really going on.
ReplyDeleteSo let's speculate: suppose the sadomasochistic types you posit exist, and that sadomasochism could act as a significant influence on the policies various leaders advocate. Would that sadomasochism be exclusive to one side of an issue, or one party? Wouldn't it be just as easy to construct a narrative in which opponents of green reforms or health reform or welfare are similarly motivated by a desire to inflict a measure of misery on others? And if there were policymakers motivated by a desire to inflict misery, wouldn't it be easier to do so by cutting social benefits, closing schools, or leaving policyholders with no recourse against big insurance corporations than to propose a big energy bill that promotes better energy technology and long-term security?
This sadomasochism hypothesis provides some interesting mental exercise (not quite as strenuous as your two swims)... but I'm not sure it works as a criterion we could use to deem one side of the debate as more worthy of our support. Does that make sense?
"So let's speculate: suppose the sadomasochistic types you posit exist, and that sadomasochism could act as a significant influence on the policies various leaders advocate. Would that sadomasochism be exclusive to one side of an issue, or one party?"
ReplyDeleteNo!
"Wouldn't it be just as easy to construct a narrative in which opponents of green reforms or health reform or welfare are similarly motivated by a desire to inflict a measure of misery on others?"
Yes!
"And if there were policymakers motivated by a desire to inflict misery, wouldn't it be easier to do so by cutting social benefits, closing schools, or leaving policyholders with no recourse against big insurance corporations than to propose a big energy bill that promotes better energy technology and long-term security?"
Maybe not easier, but more obvious.
"This sadomasochism hypothesis provides some interesting mental exercise (not quite as strenuous as your two swims)... but I'm not sure it works as a criterion we could use to deem one side of the debate as more worthy of our support. Does that make sense?"
Yes!
Power corrupts, and it the phenomenon plays no favorites with respect to liberals vs conservatives, Democrats vs Republicans, communists vs fascists.
I might suggest, however, that some people and groups are more subtle about it than others. I might even go a little further and say that Democrats are more artful in their approach to the abuse of power than Republicans are!
Linking to the soda tax issue (I reference this post from my comment there), I'm proud of myself today because I had only one Diet Mountain Dew! Wait -- are they going to tax "diet" sodas? Even if they aren't, I'd love to get off that stuff. At $1.75 a pop, I could save over $600 a year by replacing a single daily 20-oz bottle of aspartame cocktail with a big glass of water -- tax or no tax.
That's me and Al Franken: masters of artful subtlety. 8-D
ReplyDeleteSince we've got Republicans like Warner and Graham joining Dems on clean-energy legislation, your masochism hypothesis could mean we're in for a real doozy.
Well, at least the aspartame doesn't appear to be clouding your mental processes. :-)