Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Conservative v. Liberal World Views - Part I


The essence of humanity is free will. In other words the ability, to make a decision, is the primary characteristic which distinguishes a human from the rest of creation. An ideological world view is continuum representing the degree to which an individual is free to make decisions. It follows that a world view which encourages a person’s ability to make decisions would be the ultimate in allowing a person to realize his full potential as a human.

I submit that Conservatism has these corollaries:

• Each adult of sound mind is primarily responsible for his own happiness and welfare. Accepting personal responsibility is the most important principle of all because it underlies most of the other principles. Before accepting personal responsibility, a person must rely upon decisions of others to achieve happiness, as does a child. When a person accepts responsibility for his actions he stops blaming others for his failures; he enters life as an adult; he is empowered to achieve success.

At that moment, he stops seeing the therapist who encourages him to blame his parents for his deficiencies. He rejects the “legal lottery system” which encourages him to bring bogus lawsuits against fast food chains blaming them for forcing him to be fat or allowing him to drop hot coffee on his crotch. When a person accepts responsibility for his actions he stops seeing the President and other authority figures as his surrogate parents, who are primarily responsible for taking care of him.

• Success in a person’s life can be measured in terms of the degree to which a person achieves goals he sets for himself. Therefore, a person must set goals in order to become successful.

• Freedom is paramount. Economic, social, religious, political, and all other freedom is precious because it provides a framework which allows an individual to make decisions. Some folks believe freedom is free—like air. It’s not; it is a fragile candle flame flickering in a world filled with hostile tyrants. That’s why Conservatives honor patriots with the nobility and compassion to lay down their very lives when necessary to defend the right of their friends to enjoy freedom and safety. Eternal vigilance against tyranny is the price of maintaining freedom.

• Making good decisions requires rigorous thought and access to accurate information. Accurate information is also known as “facts” or “truth”. Truth is a constant which exists independently from a person’s perception. An honest, thoughtful person continually strives to grasp the truth and maintains a healthy skepticism toward unsubstantiated information.

Information which is in conflict with other facts must be resolved in order to be useful. Individuals who do not value truth are purposefully deceitful, intellectually lazy, consumed by emotion, or insane. Such individuals are often guilty of lies, hypocrisy, and spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories and rumors. These individuals relish their ability to hold and act upon inconsistent ideas. They sometimes become dishonest shysters, politicians, or sociopaths who embrace deceit as a sophisticated art form. They are experts at mentally “compartmentalizing” such conflicting beliefs. They are adept at rationalizing any whim using an ever changing moral relativist philosophy. They often maintain an air of superiority with meaningless explanations like Emerson’s “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.

• A person’s freedom should be restricted only to the extent that it interferes with another person’s freedom. Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

• A person starts life as an innocent blank slate. A healthy society is one which provides the best opportunities for a child to grow into a productive adult. The demise of the intact family has led to a plethora of social problems, arising from confusion and disillusionment which children experience when deprived of this stability. A stable two parent family provides the best foundation for raising a child. This is the main reason that marriage has been held in such high esteem for millennia and remains the cornerstone of a healthy society.

• When did your life begin? Technically this is unknowable by mere mortals. Religious scripture suggests that a person’s soul exists even before conception. But let’s begin with what we know about the development of a human’s body. We can agree that a person becomes human at sometime between and including conception and birth. Many people believe that conception marks the beginning of life. This is probably the most logical conclusion because it is a discrete event at which moment all the genetic instructions are in place to produce a human being. However, only the mother, and whomever she cares to share the information, is aware of her pregnancy in its early stages. Furthermore, many people reject that, regardless of morality, the government has any role to play in regulating the early stages of pregnancy. But how about when the fetus becomes viable? I have friends who, as a couple, gave birth to fraternal twins-a boy and a girl-slightly before the third trimester of pregnancy. Today the twins are in first grade. I think that society is correct in restricting the ability of doctors to destroy an infant in the course of a premature third trimester delivery.

True this is a controversial topic, but it is far from irrelevant. Today the U.S. Senate is torn apart in debate over nominations to the judiciary. The reputations of good people are smeared; and it all stems from the debate on abortion. Is this the way it is supposed to be? Is this what we can expect in 25 years? 50? 100? This issue was supposed to have been resolved by the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, but we continue to fight about it. Personally I think this decision was a fairly good compromise. However, in so ruling, the Supreme Court exceeded its duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which obviously is silent with regard to abortion or even the right to privacy. Furthermore the court violated the 10th amendment which stipulates that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

We need to respect the Constitution by amending it to include a provision addressing abortion. But before we do this must be willing to discuss it and reach a national consensus with regard to the question of when life begins. We need to stop calling each other bad names, respect each other, and reach a workable solution. If we believe in individual responsibility, we should remove this burden from our court system and put it back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

• Superficial characteristics such as race and gender are irrelevant to most discussions about human potential. Society should recognize and deal with each person as an individual and not as a member of some arbitrary group.

• People are fundamentally good. However, a person consistently will do what ever is in his best interests. These two concepts are in harmony provided a person embraces the golden rule, as taught by Christianity and which appears as a theme in most religions. Greed is defined as wanting something for nothing; greed cannot be determined merely by observing a person’s accumulation of wealth. In other words, a person deserves to have anything he wants in life, as long as he is willing to exchange it for something of equal or greater value. The ultimate greedy person is a criminal who steals what he wants from another person.

• Capitalism, which is more descriptively termed “Free Enterprise”, is the economic system most consistent with the fundamental nature of humanity. It affords the most choices, is the most responsive to changing human needs, is the most efficient--has the least administrative baggage, and is best able to harness human productivity by providing a system of incentives which balance risk with reward. In a Free Enterprise system, wealth is freely created because each willing party to a transaction benefits. Free Enterprise is in harmony with the natural forces of supply and demand.

• Socialism, in its various forms and euphemisms, represents the removal of economic choices from the domain of the individual. Because it is inconsistent with human nature, generally socialism must be implemented through force, thereby reducing personal as well as economic freedoms. Socialism is basically an attempt to shift ever more wealth and power into the jurisdiction of a centrally planned government at the expense of individual freedom. As a consequence less wealth is created and each person has less ability to realize his full potential.

Socialists see wealth as a static pie to be redistributed among constituents. Therefore they discourage incentives for producers to create additional wealth, and society becomes poorer overall as a result. Many Socialists contend that they just want to provide for this one very good cause du jour. In reality most Socialists never met a higher tax they didn’t embrace, never met a government program too ambitious, and are unwilling to answer a simple question: What is the maximum proportion of taxation, as a percentage of income, which is fair for the government to take? At this moment, I am discouraged that neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to curtail rampant government spending until the economy begins to suffer.

• Government is valuable to the extent it builds a safe environment which supports freedom and affords an individual the opportunity to reach his full potential. The most important function of government is to provide a national defense to protect its citizens from international threats. Other valid functions of government are to provide a police force, fire fighting, coordinate the building of roads and other common infrastructure, and other functions which are impractical to be provided by the private sector.

However, most human needs are best met by the private sector. Why? If the government fails, how do you know? You don’t; standards to measure success are avoided at all cost. If the government fails to efficiently provide goods and services can it go out of business? No usually it raises taxes which you are forced to pay. If the government saves money do taxpayers receive a refund or are efficient government employees rewarded? Don’t be ridiculous; at the end of the year government frantically strives to spend any unused funds, so that its budget will not be cut the following year. There are government programs still in place to solve problems which haven’t existed for decades. Government waste is notorious. Government programs are not consistently scrutinized by independent audits.

Inefficiency is not a just a characteristic of the U.S. government, which is probably one of the more efficient governments; it is a characteristic of all government. And the farther government gets from the people who pay taxes, the less responsive it becomes; so local government is preferable to federal government.

The private sector will almost always be more efficient in providing goods and services because it has measurable goals and it must survive. It must be accountable to its shareholders; it must provide superior products at lower costs, or it will be driven out of business by its competitors. What happened to Enron when it became corrupt? How about Enron’s partner Arthur Andersen, once the world’s largest auditor? These entities no longer exist.

• Unlike Libertarians, Conservatives also believe that providing a social safety net is an important function of government. Government should guarantee a minimum level of subsistence for all its citizens. However, the state of being poor or disadvantaged should be viewed as a result of temporary circumstances. Each person, regardless of current social status or background or temporary setbacks, has the potential to become a productive, happy, fulfilled member of society, and is capable of achieving success. It is government’s function to ensure equality of opportunity not attempt to achieve equality of results.

• Individuals can be compassionate; government cannot. Charity is best provided by individuals not government. Individual and faith-based charity is consistent with human nature because it harnesses the euphoria experienced when a person selflessly gives of himself to assist those less fortunate. Try this test: Write a check for Katrina disaster relief large enough that it takes your breath away. Volunteer to personally assist disaster relief victims. How do you feel? Now write a large check to pay for your income taxes on April 15th. Then tally up how much of your salary you get to control after paying federal, state and local income taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Then consider how much of your taxes will actually reach people for whom you are grieving. Realize that much of your tax dollar will pay for bureaucrats’ generous salaries, benefits and pensions, and be otherwise wasted to buy votes.

Each person holds a world view which is essentially a projection of the way he views himself and his role in the world. A couple of hundred years ago the vision, of humanity freed from the chains of tyranny, was a radical idea held by "Liberals" of the period. In contrast, today the objective of Liberalism is to reduce each citizen's choices by building ever larger and more intrusive government. So today the flame, to nurture and protect the radical experiment in human freedom conceived by the founding fathers of the United States, is carried by Classical Liberals also known as "Conservatives".

The breath-taking picture on this post is of a statue, at the George Bush Library at Texas A&M, called "The Day the Wall Came Down". The bronze by Veryl Goodnight of Santa Fe, New Mexico depicts Freedom as enormous bronze mavericks trampling down the old Berlin wall bringing sweet liberty to the East Germans.

May precious Freedom ring throughout the world. Happy New Year!

58 comments:

Freedom Fan said...

On December 14, 2000, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved Fox News Canada...- Volt

So Fox News is welcome in Canada provided they create an entirely different program for Canada.

When government gets to decide what shows can be broadcast, its people no longer enjoy freedom of speech.

In the U.S. we don't realize how free we really are even in comparison to other western countries.

However, our freedom is under constant assault.

Freedom Fan said...

Section 319 [of Canadian law] deals with hate speech:

1. If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.

2. If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if:

The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.

If the person can establish that the statements made are true.


If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid.

-JMM

Freedom Fan said...

When government gets to decide what speech is considered "hate speech" and therefore forbidden, the people have lost their freedom of speech: The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid.

Why do clergy folks get special powers of speech? If I form my own religion and become a "pastor", may I then say whatever I want?

Voltron said...

Speaking of Liberal vs. Conservative views...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/10/BAGPQNG2MM1.DTL

It appears that singing the "Star Spangled Banner" can get you beat up in San Francisco....

"Members of the Baker's Dozen, the renowned, all-male a cappella singing group from Yale, are pummeled outside a New Year's Eve party after singing "The Star-Spangled Banner."

The attackers allegedly include graduates from Sacred Heart Cathedral, one of the city's oldest and best-known private schools.

The attack happens outside the home of two prominent San Francisco police officers -- former mayoral bodyguard Reno Rapagnani, now retired, and his wife, Leanna Dawydiak -- who were both accused and later cleared of leaking internal SFPD personnel documents during the Fajitagate debacle."

TalllTexan said...

" QUAGMIRE WORFEUS said...
TalllTexan said...
Not quite. Congress passes bills that the president signs into law. Repealing a law would require a presidential signature as well.


Whether the President signs it or not is the "constitutional crisis" I spoke of. But the President is merely the executive. Congress passes or repeals the law.

And if Congress repeals the authority, and the President refuses to accept congresses decision, then he will be in a very weak position.

The President will be in a bad position, and I think he'll be forced to accept it. If not, then I think we could see some drastic actions being taken on both sides, and we may come to a point when our own military needs to get involved. We have an amuk executive who tricked the country into illegally occupying a soverign nation. We need to articulate that on a congressional level.

I am not a consitutional lawyer, and I am not going to get into a word game with you tonight about what might happen, or might not if congress does this. I know what I think, and I've told you. Frankly, I think if I have to hear one more of your right wing neocon crap biscuits, I'll puke.

I'm at the end of my rope tonight TT.

Check with me tomorrow to see if I'm in the mood to get into one of your stupid tit for tat debates.

3:25 PM"

Sounds like another veiled threat by Worf to lock us out if we express our views.

Johnny moo moo said...

Volt

Thanx for the post in the previous thread.

We both learned something without ripping each others turbans.....Im not used to this...lol!

Well, Im gonna chill with a coffee and read FF's post.

Do you think we should vote for Worfs/Lydia's blog? Despite some rather nefarious and absurd accusations by a bunch of astonishingly hypocritical Cheeto dwellers, we are veterans there.

Johnny moo moo said...

TT

Worfs angry today coz his blow up doll walked out the door on him for good after catching him performing fellatio on another blow up doll.......dont worry, he'll get over it!

:D

Voltron said...

Yeah Johnny, we might as well vote for 'em. Like you said WE post there too.

And TT? Worf's probably still mad about our electric car debate last night. I'm sure he claimed victory but he had to keep narrowing the field down for his arguments...LOL

First it was (and I'm paraphrasing here) The government should mandate ALL new cars produced are to be electric. Then it went to only sunshine states, then only old retired people...
That and he couldn't even back up his argument that electric cars were practical and efficient.
Of course I was chided for looking up facts to back up my argument, and he was the better man for going by his [faulty] memory.

So if he isn't in the mood for debate, it might be his rear end is still a little sore....LOL

Voltron said...

Hey Johnny, he can always buy another one

Johnny moo moo said...

FF said

"It follows that a world view which encourages a person’s ability to make decisions would be the ultimate in allowing a person to realize his full potential as a human."

Agreed! I am convinced, beyond doubt, that placing limits on freedom of speech halts the true human evolutionary learning process......it stagnates mankinds destiny and does not challenge us to overcome....period!

........................

FF said:

"When a person accepts responsibility for his actions he stops blaming others for his failures; he enters life as an adult; he is empowered to achieve success."


Agreed........but only to a point! This analogy severely lacks the same narrow logic as "Choose love, not fear."

Should the beautiful Anne Frank accept full resposibility for her own actions insofar that she failed to prevent her untimely demise at Bergen Belsen at the hands of the SS?

Is she guilty of bringing this upon herself or is she entitled to be remembered as a symbol of mans injustice towards one another?

Sometimes FF.....not everytime......but sometimes good ol fashioned luck can determine an individuals success.

Voltron said...

As a side note to voting for Lydia's blog, you can also vote on best posts....

We could find a good post that one of us made on Lydia's blog and nominate that!

TalllTexan said...

Carl is having a hissy fit.

"Carl said...
TalllTexan said...
The override provision can only happen after a veto, and you'll need 2/3 of the House and 67 votes in the Senate, which "you libs" don't have.

You said "requires", you fradulent felonious stalker.

I can't wait for the FIRST MOMENT you raise an overspending or overbudget issue here, dickless, I am SO going to rip you a new one. YOu think MOUNT PILEOTURDS was bad, you tiny-dicked baby?

You ain't seen nothing yet. Careful, son, I may have called the GAO already on you. He's a Clinton appointee....

6:09 PM"

Johnny moo moo said...

Volt said

"Hey Johnny, he can always buy another one"

LOL Volt........that one is too good lookin for Worfie. Also, its smilin and I dont think Worf likes that?

Voltron said...

Johnny, I'm sure Worf has wiped the smile off many a sheep's face...LOL

Johnny moo moo said...

Also, I suggest everyone ignore the simpleton freshie, hes tryin to be one of the guys or something......craves attention badly!

Like, lets rehash old issues discussed a thousand times to satisfy every newbie who barges into the room...not interested!

Johnny moo moo said...

Volt

Have you decided on a computer yet?

Voltron said...

I'm thinking of having my boy help me build the Abit motherboard.
I could do it myself, but he loves the technical stuff and he's very good at it. Probably start it this weekend.

A friend had an emachines with a 2.5 gig chip in it. His mobo took a dump and he gave me the box to tinker with, and bought a new one.

If the processor is still good I can use it and probably overclock it to somewhere around 3 gigs at least.

Johnny moo moo said...

What about ram memory? And, three gigs isnt very much......are you going to upgrade to cable instead of dialup?

Voltron said...

He's got some memory lying around from other computers his friends have given him, so that shouldn't be a problem.

No to broadband just yet. Waiting until I see a better deal.

Johnny moo moo said...

I think I would go insane if I had dial-up.

What state are you from again?

Voltron said...

FF, read this on "chickenhawks"...

Voltron said...

Illinois

Johnny moo moo said...

Oh yeah thats right....close to Chicago I believe? Have you ever been to Canada?

Mike has and he said he seen heads laying on the road or something.

Voltron said...

More in the center of the state Johnny. And no I've never been to Canada. Don't feel bad, I've never been out of the country...LOL

Johnny moo moo said...

Bummer......you should have taken your vacation so you could party with Johnny moo moo in Cancun.

Think of it Volt, all you can drink Coronas and beautiful girls in bathing suits.

:D

We leave in a few days.

Voltron said...

Sounds nice Johnny. Ah, maybe one day.

Voltron said...

Anyways, gotta go for now. Catch you tomorrow! Goodnight.

Johnny moo moo said...

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."

Nietzsche

Johnny moo moo said...

Nite Volt.

Freedom Fan said...

FF said: "When a person accepts responsibility for his actions he stops blaming others for his failures; he enters life as an adult; he is empowered to achieve success."

Agreed........but only to a point! This analogy severely lacks the same narrow logic as "Choose love, not fear."

Should the beautiful Anne Frank accept full resposibility for her own actions insofar that she failed to prevent her untimely demise at Bergen Belsen at the hands of the SS?

-JMM

Obviously one cannot accept responsibility for other folks' actions.

The essence of Conservative thought is that each individual accepts responsibility for his own actions.

This leads to the attitude that each of us is primarily responsible for his own happiness.

However if a person is not free to make decisions, then his free will and assertiveness do no good whatsoever. Anne Frank's plight was an extreme example of oppression -- the absense of freedom to choose.

In contrast, a Liberal may be totally free, but remain a prisoner of his own mind because he is trapped in a helpless victim mentality which blames others for everything wrong, real or imagined.

The entire point of the essay it that Conservatives strive for and celebrate Freedom because it enables each of us to realize his full potential and become truly human.

Johnny moo moo said...

FF said

"In contrast, a Liberal may be totally free, but remain a prisoner of his own mind because he is trapped in a helpless victim mentality which blames others for everything wrong, real or imagined.

The entire point of the essay it that Conservatives strive for and celebrate Freedom because it enables each of us to realize his full potential and become truly human."


I hear you FF.........your always an excellent opponent!

Do you honestly believe in your heart that mankind is capable of evolving into a civil & peaceful species, defying our very genetic makeup?

Johnny moo moo said...

Someone at the Stalin Blog has deleted several of my posts regarding my smelly socks that go CRUNCH after drying for a few hours?

Boring to you perhaps, but not to me.

Johnny moo moo said...

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!


Some libs use the words FUCK, COCKSUCKER, and NAZI.

I simply talk about my smelly feet and I get banned???

Oh well, "life goe's on."

At least thats what my psychiatrists told me?

Johnny moo moo said...

Worfs a useless, commie, christian piece of garbage......period!!

Freedom Fan said...

Do you honestly believe in your heart that mankind is capable of evolving into a civil & peaceful species, defying our very genetic makeup?
-JMM

I trust each person to consistently do what is in his best interests. However a spiritually mature person will try to measure each deed by Christ's Golden Rule.

This is why free enterprise works; each transaction results in the creation of wealth for both parties. A viable economic system must be in harmony with man's basic nature.

A greedy person acts only in self-interest even when it will harm another person. In the West these people go to jail to protect the civilized folks.

In a Muslim country, there is no concept of the Golden Rule; there is only compulsory, blind devotion to the teachings of Muhammad, who was a very wicked person -- an ancient bandit and murderer.

Under sharia, women have no more rights than chattel; freedom for all is restricted in the extreme. People are forced to pray five times per day, which intereferes with the flow of a productive daily life.

Muslims do not decide what to do for themselves in accordance with broad guidelines of fairness; instead minutiae of each moment of living is spelled out by the imams and mullahs. For example, Muslims have rules for which direction to face when sitting on the toilet and how to wipe.

By oppressing free will, the Muslim religion is an abomination which reduces man to become less than human and encourages him to persecute innocent fellow humans for their beliefs. In a Muslim country it is considered to be godly to punish those who fail to embrace Islam properly.

Liberals like to pretend that Christianity and Judaism are "just as bad". They're not. Muslims kill people for not being Muslims because this is what Muhammad commanded. Modern Christians do not kill others for not believing their religion; the Bible does not teach this. The Quran does.

The main reason Liberals like to pretend that Christianity is so awful is because Christians oppose abortion and homosexual marriage -- two sacred cows to Liberals.

In Islam abortion and homosexual practices are also both haraam, but Liberals don't say a word. Obviously another reason brave Liberals criticize Christianity but not Islam is because Christians will not kill them for it. Muslims will.

Liberals charge that criticizing Islam is being "intolerant" and bigoted. Obviously it cannot be intolerant to criticize a belief in which intolerance is sine qua non. Tolerance of intolerance is absurd.

Each person has the right to believe whatever he wants; but he does not have the right to force someone else to believe the same.

Criticizing Islam is honorable; it is the new civil rights movement. The teachings of Muhammad extinguish any hope of developing spiritually, economically or socially. Even if Muslims were only voluntarily keeping themselves in chains mentally, it would still be worthwhile to criticize in order to help them grow and fully enjoy life.

TalllTexan said...

This is what Worf just deleted from the other blog, so I'll post it here, where, hopefully, it will have a longer lifespan.

Maybe we should take turns posting it until Worf tires of hitting the delete button.

=============
Worf, I've spent enough of my time on this wager crap, so, for the last time, if you can't provide independently verifiable links to the original passges (not quotes) on blogger (or some other site that can't be edited) that can establish a proper offer and acceptance, then there was no bet and no welch. Further, the wholesale deletion of posts makes even that showing a bit iffy because if I rescinded or modified my offer, and *someone* deleted it, it could be made to appear that there was a proper wager. The time to establish this was two months ago, right after the election. Not now, in mid January with you deleting others' posts left and right.

You see, your deleting of posts cuts both ways.

Unless you can provide this, this will be my last comment on the subject.
======

TalllTexan said...

Volt, FF, JMM -- Can you believe the crap going on at the Stalin blog? I think my posts speak for themselves, but it's almost like being in a Kafka movie

Rusty Shackelford said...

Where the hell is Col.Klink,wuffy and slow Mike?

Voltron said...

BEHOLD THE LIBERAL MINDSET...

"This is what I think is the spread of evil Mike.

Ignorance, forced on us all by our inferiors."

-Worf

"When this country is free of the inbred idiots, then knowledge will move forward in leaps and bounds, and THAT, is the "good"."
-Worf

"The force of religious idiocy in place of science, on our children, is a sin of the worst kind.

It is the propagation of ignorance.

It is missionary work for evil."

-Worf

NOTE THE DISDAIN AND DISGUST FOR THE IDEAS OF THE COMMON MAN AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEIR WORLDVIEW...

AND WHAT'S GOT WORFY'S PANTIES IN A BUNCH YOU MIGHT ASK?

That a PARENT got a school to quit showing Algore's "An Inconvienient Truth"......

AND US OVER HERE?

"And it seems the most ignorant always try and force their views on others, look at the trolls in this blog they are in an opposition blog trying hijack or sabotage the thread and ipart their world view to everyone, by intimidating or silencing the opposition."
-Mike

I GUESS BY POSTING OUR OPINIONS OVER HERE WE'RE SOMEHOW TRYING TO SILENCE THEM? AND HIJACK AND SABOTAGE THEIR THREAD?

How can you possibly argue with these people?

BUT WE'RE "EVIL" AND "IGNORANT"

Voltron said...

"And it seems the most ignorant always try and force their views on others,.."

Like Forcing Algore's movie on young minds full of mush?

Voltron said...

But I rather like Worfy's viewpoint the best.

We're his INFERIORS...why?

Because we have the audacity to disagree with him.

This is the true tyranny of the left. Anyone who does not agree is "inferior" and not fit to judge their actions.
They must free the world of us inbred idiots before the world will become the utopia they dream of...

They all smack of Imperial Elitistism.

Behold the creation of the ruling liberal elite.

Evidently scientists who disagree are also "inbred idiots" and they would have to be "freed" from those as well.

I'm actually impressed Worf didn't disparage people who live in trailerparks in that little diatribe...LOL

Voltron said...

I wonder if someone should point out that Christ was born to and cared for by people who technically were HIS inferiors...?

Voltron said...

I guess if we'd only realize that only they know best and settle down and let them lead the way we could all finally get along.

And of course out of pity they'd probably allow us a small government stipend just to keep our heads above water, so we could keep on voting for them...

Voltron said...

A telling post from Carl:

"We live in a country were roughly 60% (the percentage varies from year to year, but holds consistently around there) believe God created the heavens and earth, and specifically deny evolution as fact.

Now, this makes the Republicans look pretty dumb, since most of that party is made up of these people, whereas Dems don't have nearly as many of these morons floating around.

And then they wonder why we look down our noses at them when they try to engage us in "factual debate"..."

Voltron said...

"There is a huge contradiction in reason, but the modern phase, the anti-Christian advance, has abandoned reason. It is concerned with the destruction of the Catholic Church and the civilization proceeding therefrom. It is not troubled by apparent contradictions within its own body so long as the general alliance is one for the ending of all that by which we have hitherto lived. The modern attack is materialistic because in its philosophy it considers only material causes. It is superstitious only as a byproduct of this state of mind. It nourishes on its surface the silly vagaries of spiritualism, and Heaven knows how many other fantasies. But these follies are bred, not from a hunger for religion, but from the same root as that which has made the world materialist from an inability to understand the prime truth that faith is at the root of knowledge; from thinking that no truth is appreciable save through direct experience."
-Hilaire Belloc

Freedom Fan said...

NOTE THE DISDAIN AND DISGUST FOR THE IDEAS OF THE COMMON MAN AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEIR WORLDVIEW...
-Volt

Yes, Volt WR clearly demonstrates the typical arrogant liberal attitude described so eloquently in Thomas Sowell's excellent book, The Vision of the Anointed - Self Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.

This condescending attitude is typical among liberals because they must believe themselves to be little gods or czars who have the right to reduce the freedom of the common man (for his own good).

Liberals are the natural enemy of freedom.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.
-WENDELL PHILLIPS, speech in Boston, Massachusetts, January 28, 1852. Speeches Before the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society

Voltron said...

Hi FF, you just caught me before bedtime. LOL

A friends mom gave me a sleeping pill which I took about an hour ago. My head keeps bouncing off my desk.

I think I'd better sign off till tomorrow...

Freedom Fan said...

Nite Volt.

Freedom Fan said...

Guys,

Something very interesting just happened over at the other blog. I was having a little discussion with WR and GIJ. Then I posted this:

Spin it any way you want, GIJ. The greatness of the U.S. comes from its individual citizens, not its gray governmental bureacrats grasping for more and more power.

Libs do everything possible to diminish individual liberty, limit our choices, and transfer wealth and power to government.

The depression of the 30s was sparked by the Smoot-Hawley tariffs which started a trade war.

Roosevelt's Social Security taxes away 15.3% of our earnings in exchange for about a 2% average annual return. As a result our retirement savings are about one fifth what they would be if the return was based upon the average return for equities.

Any attempt to salvage SS from its collision course with disaster is met with shrieks from Democrat politicians trying to scare old folks. Some "progressives" y'all are. You should proly be known as "regressives" and reactionaries.


And the comment failed to appear; instead I got this message:

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.


All the while WR is posting goofy diatribes about Caesar. Is it just coinkydink that he fancies himself the Blog Czar?

Voltron said...

A RESPONSE FROM THE INBRED INFERIOR CONTINGENT:


Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray

With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:

6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”

The inferior inbred opinion

So, THIS is the "science" that needs to be taught in schools?

*spit*

Voltron said...

Damn. I feel like Cliffy...LOL

Rusty Shackelford said...

Please no more Col.Klink like cut and pastes.

Voltron said...

Sorry Rusty...LOL

Voltron said...

Also FF, nice to see you made good use of that link as well.

Too bad they'll never read it.

Freedom Fan said...

Volt, yes thanks for the great argument countering the global warming myths. Shoulda given you a hat tip, mea culpa.

An astounding 30% of carbon dioxide comes from fires used to cook food primarily in underdeveloped countries! Of course, I do my part when I make barbeque brisket.

Voltron said...

Carl is currently pontificating on the other blog.

Interesting that the only information that can possibly be true to an "open minded" liberal is that which comes from the DailyKOS....LOL

Freedom Fan said...

Yes Volt. And no one can be more "open-minded" than GIJ. If the information did not come from a liberal source, he rejects it like a reactionary.

BTW, I haven't been able to get on the LC blog since this morning. Anyone else have a similar problem?

Voltron said...

Haven't tried for several hours FF.

I seem to be able to access it now though.

Worf is talking about a commode.