By John Bertosa
For the past eight years liberals followed the rule to never praise President Bush unless you do so quickly and quietly and then follow up loudly with 10 criticisms. But sometimes, Bush would make a proposal that not even liberals could immediately criticize so they would instead fill their voices with immense doubt and skepticism and in almost a singsong voice say "It sooouunnds gooood but weeee'lll seeee...."
And give them credit, it worked. Bush was so villified that during the campaign Obama could simply say that he's not Bush and he didn't have to get his hands dirty in a personal fight with McCain. And even liberals like Dan who didn't resort to such nonstop hateful vitriol would still benefit from it in the form of a Democratic President.
So, I would like to start doing my part to help the Republican nominee in four years by only grudgingly complimenting President Obama on the most minor of things while heartily voicing my criticism of everything he does or, more easily, fails to do. Instead of the GOP candidate having to get in a nasty fight that would lessen her standing, she will just have to say "I'm not Obama." while staying above the fray.
But, like any inauguration there isn't really anything to criticize here. After all, on a president's first day he can promise to be everything to all people and he is surrounded by people who voted for him and media outlets who can't resist the feel good vibe.
So to use the tactic right out of the Liberal Playbook...
I hope President Obama uses this wave of popularity as evidenced by the crowds at the Inauguration and soaring approval numbers to bring this country together and not tear it apart. But weeee'lll seeee.
Following the inauguration attended by well over a million people, possibly two million, the Washington DC police reported absolutely no arrests. People of all races and ethnicities happily mixed that day. I hope President Obama will continue this era of good feeling and not pursue actions that lead to one race or another being upset, but weee'll seeee.
In his inauguration speech, when President Obama said "Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed," I hope he was including liberals' interests and decisions that would be unpleasant for Democrats and not just those involving Republicans, but weeee'll seeee.
And in his Inauguration speech, when he says "And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account" I hope he will follow through. But weeee'll seeeee.
I hope that President Obama's promise of bringing change to Washington will lead to the elimination of the bitter partisanship that has been nonstop since the Bush-Dukakis race 20 years ago. That there will be a breath of fresh air for all. But when I see all the ties to the Clintons coming into the Obama Administration, I'll just have to say weeee'll seeeee.
But I am full of hope because this president not only has a mandate but his party controls both the House and the Senate (just like Bush) and he has the smartest and most able advisers that the Democratic Party can field. He does not have to rely on simply trying as he has the power of the greatest country in the world to do what he has promised. If Reagan and his callous idea of "a rising tide lifts all boats" could get us out of an even deeper recession while the opposing party controlled the House, then surely Obama and his more compassionate economic policies will make short work of this one. Everything appears to be in place for a wonderful eight years and the only thing that would prevent that is if the Democrats' ideas are not a true guideline to success.
Weeee'll seeee.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Time To Put Away Childish Things
By D.T. Holt
I’ve witnessed many of those moments in history that cause us to remember where we were or the circumstances of our lives when they occurred. Richard Nixon’s resignation of the Presidency in 1974, John Hinkley Jr.’s attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981, the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster of 1986 or more recently the impeachment of Bill Clinton and Hurricane Katrina all spring to mind. The element that all of these events have in common is that they were inherently negative moments in the history of our nation. Watching Barack Obama take the oath of office and become the 44th President of the United States, I was overwhelmed by the historical significance of the moment and overjoyed to realize that this too is a moment that will be an indelible mark in my life. Only this time, the event is positive.
There are those, mostly pundits on the far right, who seek to downplay the historical significance and positive nature of the Inauguration. Unable to put aside their political differences long enough to celebrate the image of an African/American being sworn in to the highest office in the land, they are left with nothing but bitter resentment for an election lost and a nation seemingly at odds with their political ideology. I am not expecting conservatives to forgo their ideals and embrace Obama’s political agenda, in fact I would lose respect for them if they did, but to ignore this moment or worse yet to pretend that it’s significance is being overstated to further the agenda of the so-called “liberal media” is to ignore how far we have come as a people, a nation and a democracy.
It has been less than 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Less than 50 years have passed since the Voting Rights act of 1965 brought millions of disenfranchised black Americans equal voting rights in the South. It has been less than 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka brought an end to the “separate but equal,” racially based segregation of our public schools. The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a mere 40 years ago. It is not possible to overstate the significance of how far we have come in a relatively short span of time. To suggest that the focus of the media on the sheer magnitude of this event is somehow politically motivated is to pretend that racism no longer exists in America.
None of this is to suggest that we all should have voted for Obama because of his race or skin color. His success or failure as a President will rightly be based upon the merits of his accomplishments and he will not be a great or even good president because of the historical significance of his having been elected. Those who have pointed out that he is a relatively inexperienced newcomer on the national scene and has yet to prove himself are correct in their assessment. President Obama has before him the task of earning his place among the important leaders in our country’s history and his achievements as a community organizer, Senator and Presidential candidate do not automatically make him a great President any more than does his race.
I do believe that President Barack Obama will be a great President but not because of some knee jerk reaction to the importance of his achievements thus far. It is because he is the first leader in my memory who uses words like “us” and “we” far more often than “I” or “me.” He neither has nor pretends to have all of the answers but his single minded focus on uniting our country behind the ideal of forming that more perfect union that the Preamble of our Constitution so eloquently calls for makes him the type of leader that we need in this time of fractured politics and angry rhetoric. We have approached our government as a spectator sport and let our differences paralyze us for far too long. It’s time to move forward and, as President Obama quoted from the Bible, “put away childish things.”
“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation. But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
From the Inaugural Address of President Barak Obama, January 20, 2009
I’ve witnessed many of those moments in history that cause us to remember where we were or the circumstances of our lives when they occurred. Richard Nixon’s resignation of the Presidency in 1974, John Hinkley Jr.’s attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981, the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster of 1986 or more recently the impeachment of Bill Clinton and Hurricane Katrina all spring to mind. The element that all of these events have in common is that they were inherently negative moments in the history of our nation. Watching Barack Obama take the oath of office and become the 44th President of the United States, I was overwhelmed by the historical significance of the moment and overjoyed to realize that this too is a moment that will be an indelible mark in my life. Only this time, the event is positive.
There are those, mostly pundits on the far right, who seek to downplay the historical significance and positive nature of the Inauguration. Unable to put aside their political differences long enough to celebrate the image of an African/American being sworn in to the highest office in the land, they are left with nothing but bitter resentment for an election lost and a nation seemingly at odds with their political ideology. I am not expecting conservatives to forgo their ideals and embrace Obama’s political agenda, in fact I would lose respect for them if they did, but to ignore this moment or worse yet to pretend that it’s significance is being overstated to further the agenda of the so-called “liberal media” is to ignore how far we have come as a people, a nation and a democracy.
It has been less than 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Less than 50 years have passed since the Voting Rights act of 1965 brought millions of disenfranchised black Americans equal voting rights in the South. It has been less than 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka brought an end to the “separate but equal,” racially based segregation of our public schools. The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a mere 40 years ago. It is not possible to overstate the significance of how far we have come in a relatively short span of time. To suggest that the focus of the media on the sheer magnitude of this event is somehow politically motivated is to pretend that racism no longer exists in America.
None of this is to suggest that we all should have voted for Obama because of his race or skin color. His success or failure as a President will rightly be based upon the merits of his accomplishments and he will not be a great or even good president because of the historical significance of his having been elected. Those who have pointed out that he is a relatively inexperienced newcomer on the national scene and has yet to prove himself are correct in their assessment. President Obama has before him the task of earning his place among the important leaders in our country’s history and his achievements as a community organizer, Senator and Presidential candidate do not automatically make him a great President any more than does his race.
I do believe that President Barack Obama will be a great President but not because of some knee jerk reaction to the importance of his achievements thus far. It is because he is the first leader in my memory who uses words like “us” and “we” far more often than “I” or “me.” He neither has nor pretends to have all of the answers but his single minded focus on uniting our country behind the ideal of forming that more perfect union that the Preamble of our Constitution so eloquently calls for makes him the type of leader that we need in this time of fractured politics and angry rhetoric. We have approached our government as a spectator sport and let our differences paralyze us for far too long. It’s time to move forward and, as President Obama quoted from the Bible, “put away childish things.”
“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation. But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
From the Inaugural Address of President Barak Obama, January 20, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Climate Change
By D.T. Holt
Ah yes, the question of the age: is Global Warming real and if so, have human activities contributed to it? Well, before we start talking about it, we should probably call it Climate Change, which is the term preferred by the National Academy of Sciences. Also, let me say that I am not a scientist and my knowledge of this subject falls in the range of a very casually interested observer, which is a polite way of saying that I know next to nothing about Climate Change or Global Warming. You’ve probably already guessed it but, full disclosure, my fellow blogger John Bertosa is also not a scientist. Although I do know that he is ridiculously smart, I won’t speculate about his expertise in this specific subject. Because my knowledge in this area is limited, I think my best approach to rebutting John’s argument is to look into some of the claims he makes in his post.
The first point that caught my eye was the assertion that scientists have been pressured to sign on to the prevailing theories of man’s culpability for Global Warming. Interestingly, when I searched for information relating to this claim, I found a lot of accusations that scientists were pressured to skew their findings on Climate Change to support the Bush Administration’s skepticism on the subject. According to a Reuters news article dated January 31, 2007, a survey by Union of Concerned Citizens “found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.” I did not find a reference to the Congressional testimony that John refers to in his piece, which only proves that I was unable to find the reference, and is not indicative of whether or not it exists. It is, however, important to note that accusations of political pressure can be found on both sides of the issue and the mere existence of these accusations does not, in and of itself, give them credence.
I also had difficulty finding a source for the idea that global temperatures have been cooling since 1998. What I did find was a report by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies which states that “the highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year.” It also points out that the margin for error makes it a virtual tie with 1998, which was the previous warmest year. This doesn’t seem to support the idea that the earth has been getting cooler since 1998. Even if the global surface temperature had lowered in every year of the last decade, my understanding of Global Warming in particular and Climate Change in general is that scientists are looking at trends over much longer periods of time than ten years. While the temperature could easily have fluctuated up or down in recent years, that does change the fact that over significant time, the global surface temperature is trending up.
Finally, I would like to look at John’s opinion that the liberal position on Climate Change is similar to our supposed religious stance that “humans are in control, not some superior being.” As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that there is such a thing as an all encompassing liberal position, but I can say that those of us who do not believe in a superior being most certainly do not believe that “humans are in control.” The Theory of Evolution revolves around the idea of natural selection. To put it simply no one is in charge of the earth, nature takes its own random path. In his comparison, John misrepresents the liberal viewpoint on Climate Change, stating “global warming follows the same argument -- the belief that humanity is in control of nature, that we can constantly have mild weather if we only tried.” I don’t believe that anyone, liberal or conservative, is seriously saying that Climate Change is an entirely man made phenomenon. The prevailing theory is that man has contributed to and possibly hastened Climate Change, not that he is entirely responsible for it.
I agree with John’s viewpoint that there are natural cycles to the earth and it only makes sense that at least some of the Climate Change we are seeing is a natural occurrence. Human beings have only occupied the earth for a fraction of the planet’s existence and it is arrogant to think that we could be entirely responsible for its survival or demise. Joe Biden’s comment that Global Warming is “man made” is a ridiculous oversimplification of an extremely complex subject. Sadly, this sort of thing has become the standard level of political debate for both major parties during an election year. However, the wealth of evidence that man has contributed to Climate Change coupled with a myriad of other negative consequences of pollution makes the lowering of Green House Gas emissions and an overall heightened concern for the preservation of our natural resources our responsibility as citizens of this planet that we neither control nor own.
Ah yes, the question of the age: is Global Warming real and if so, have human activities contributed to it? Well, before we start talking about it, we should probably call it Climate Change, which is the term preferred by the National Academy of Sciences. Also, let me say that I am not a scientist and my knowledge of this subject falls in the range of a very casually interested observer, which is a polite way of saying that I know next to nothing about Climate Change or Global Warming. You’ve probably already guessed it but, full disclosure, my fellow blogger John Bertosa is also not a scientist. Although I do know that he is ridiculously smart, I won’t speculate about his expertise in this specific subject. Because my knowledge in this area is limited, I think my best approach to rebutting John’s argument is to look into some of the claims he makes in his post.
The first point that caught my eye was the assertion that scientists have been pressured to sign on to the prevailing theories of man’s culpability for Global Warming. Interestingly, when I searched for information relating to this claim, I found a lot of accusations that scientists were pressured to skew their findings on Climate Change to support the Bush Administration’s skepticism on the subject. According to a Reuters news article dated January 31, 2007, a survey by Union of Concerned Citizens “found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.” I did not find a reference to the Congressional testimony that John refers to in his piece, which only proves that I was unable to find the reference, and is not indicative of whether or not it exists. It is, however, important to note that accusations of political pressure can be found on both sides of the issue and the mere existence of these accusations does not, in and of itself, give them credence.
I also had difficulty finding a source for the idea that global temperatures have been cooling since 1998. What I did find was a report by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies which states that “the highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year.” It also points out that the margin for error makes it a virtual tie with 1998, which was the previous warmest year. This doesn’t seem to support the idea that the earth has been getting cooler since 1998. Even if the global surface temperature had lowered in every year of the last decade, my understanding of Global Warming in particular and Climate Change in general is that scientists are looking at trends over much longer periods of time than ten years. While the temperature could easily have fluctuated up or down in recent years, that does change the fact that over significant time, the global surface temperature is trending up.
Finally, I would like to look at John’s opinion that the liberal position on Climate Change is similar to our supposed religious stance that “humans are in control, not some superior being.” As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that there is such a thing as an all encompassing liberal position, but I can say that those of us who do not believe in a superior being most certainly do not believe that “humans are in control.” The Theory of Evolution revolves around the idea of natural selection. To put it simply no one is in charge of the earth, nature takes its own random path. In his comparison, John misrepresents the liberal viewpoint on Climate Change, stating “global warming follows the same argument -- the belief that humanity is in control of nature, that we can constantly have mild weather if we only tried.” I don’t believe that anyone, liberal or conservative, is seriously saying that Climate Change is an entirely man made phenomenon. The prevailing theory is that man has contributed to and possibly hastened Climate Change, not that he is entirely responsible for it.
I agree with John’s viewpoint that there are natural cycles to the earth and it only makes sense that at least some of the Climate Change we are seeing is a natural occurrence. Human beings have only occupied the earth for a fraction of the planet’s existence and it is arrogant to think that we could be entirely responsible for its survival or demise. Joe Biden’s comment that Global Warming is “man made” is a ridiculous oversimplification of an extremely complex subject. Sadly, this sort of thing has become the standard level of political debate for both major parties during an election year. However, the wealth of evidence that man has contributed to Climate Change coupled with a myriad of other negative consequences of pollution makes the lowering of Green House Gas emissions and an overall heightened concern for the preservation of our natural resources our responsibility as citizens of this planet that we neither control nor own.
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Green Scare
By John Bertosa
One of the lowest points of the Republican Party's history was McCarthyism in the 1950s in which the fear over communism led to extreme acation and intolerance to opposing viewpoints.
It also led to some government leaders using this concern and fear for their own personal gain.
Now, it was this selfishness, intolerance and extreme actions that were wrong, not the fight against communism. The fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent opening of its records did confirm that they were seeking to insidiously influence American Society by using sympathetic Americans. But, that did not exscuse the motives and actions some took to combat this.
And now, liberals and their Democratic Party have their brand of McCarthyism -- Global Warming.
Testimony before Congress has come out in the past two years (as temperatures cool down both physically and emotionally) that scientists are being pressured to sign onto the theory that global warming is man-made or else not receive funding for their endeavors. Those in the general public are ridiculed as being ignorant just as those who questioned McCarthy were considered sympathizers.
Those who defend the scientific theories that global warming is man-made first wrongly treat these theories as fact and they wrongly treat these scientists as unquestionable. A person's career, no matter how noble, can never overcome the frailties inherent in humanity. Otherwise priests and police officers could never do any wrong.
Fortunately for the saner observers, claims by Nobel Prize-winning Al Gore and his followers are starting to be shown to be laughable. Global temperatures have been cooling since 1998, not rising. Better examinations of cores taken from glaciers show that earth went through several similar warming periods in the past 1000 years. Also, none of the computer models being used as the basis for global warming predicted such a cold year for 2008.
Now, when religion is debated, liberals always seek to take the point that emphasizes humans are in control not some superior being. And the issue of global warming follows the same argument -- the belief that humanity is in control of nature, that we can constantly have mild weather if we only tried.
They ignore the natural cycles of our earth. Just as a clock rotates for an hour which leads to the turning of a day which leads to a week which leads to a month and so on for a year,the same goes for other parts of nature. Except for San Diego, the world has seasons throughout the year, every year, so why shouldn't we expect the earth to have greater rotations that span centuries or even millenia.
So why ignore this? Why not let people like Joe Biden who responded during the vice president debate with the ultra-simplistic "It's man-made, it's man-made, it's man-made" have their way?Because their solutions to lower air pollution puts a financial burden on industries and that can and will mean job cuts to compensate. And as the current national financial situation shows, it's not worth tampering with for a climate situation that will swing back within decades, if it hasn't already done so.
So, be aware that the earth's climate is changing, but also be aware of the damage done by hysteria and be aware of those who try to prosper politically by it.
One of the lowest points of the Republican Party's history was McCarthyism in the 1950s in which the fear over communism led to extreme acation and intolerance to opposing viewpoints.
It also led to some government leaders using this concern and fear for their own personal gain.
Now, it was this selfishness, intolerance and extreme actions that were wrong, not the fight against communism. The fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent opening of its records did confirm that they were seeking to insidiously influence American Society by using sympathetic Americans. But, that did not exscuse the motives and actions some took to combat this.
And now, liberals and their Democratic Party have their brand of McCarthyism -- Global Warming.
Testimony before Congress has come out in the past two years (as temperatures cool down both physically and emotionally) that scientists are being pressured to sign onto the theory that global warming is man-made or else not receive funding for their endeavors. Those in the general public are ridiculed as being ignorant just as those who questioned McCarthy were considered sympathizers.
Those who defend the scientific theories that global warming is man-made first wrongly treat these theories as fact and they wrongly treat these scientists as unquestionable. A person's career, no matter how noble, can never overcome the frailties inherent in humanity. Otherwise priests and police officers could never do any wrong.
Fortunately for the saner observers, claims by Nobel Prize-winning Al Gore and his followers are starting to be shown to be laughable. Global temperatures have been cooling since 1998, not rising. Better examinations of cores taken from glaciers show that earth went through several similar warming periods in the past 1000 years. Also, none of the computer models being used as the basis for global warming predicted such a cold year for 2008.
Now, when religion is debated, liberals always seek to take the point that emphasizes humans are in control not some superior being. And the issue of global warming follows the same argument -- the belief that humanity is in control of nature, that we can constantly have mild weather if we only tried.
They ignore the natural cycles of our earth. Just as a clock rotates for an hour which leads to the turning of a day which leads to a week which leads to a month and so on for a year,the same goes for other parts of nature. Except for San Diego, the world has seasons throughout the year, every year, so why shouldn't we expect the earth to have greater rotations that span centuries or even millenia.
So why ignore this? Why not let people like Joe Biden who responded during the vice president debate with the ultra-simplistic "It's man-made, it's man-made, it's man-made" have their way?Because their solutions to lower air pollution puts a financial burden on industries and that can and will mean job cuts to compensate. And as the current national financial situation shows, it's not worth tampering with for a climate situation that will swing back within decades, if it hasn't already done so.
So, be aware that the earth's climate is changing, but also be aware of the damage done by hysteria and be aware of those who try to prosper politically by it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)