The Globe “news” story on the front page found a way to turn the Pope’s visit into an anti-Bush global warming story; your headline claims, “Benedict may discuss warming…Stances have differed from those of Bush.” You quote an Archbishop: the Pope “will insist on the moral imperative that all, without exception, have a grave responsibility to protect the environment.”
This is a typical global warming alarmism tactic: accuse those who disagree with a political program to limit CO2 of not caring about the environment. No one has explained adequately how limiting a non-toxic gas essential for plant growth puts you on the side of helping the environment.
Furthermore, the Globe overlooks the many significant criticisms the Pope has expressed of global warming hysteria. His speech on December 12, 2007 “condemn[ed] climate change prophets of doom,” calling them “scaremongers.” The Daily Mail reported: “The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.”
Is the Pope’s stance on global warming really fundamentally at odds with that of President Bush?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Intolerance in Flyover Country
I was talking to friend who listens to NPR a lot and she said, it really bothers me how those people in the Midwest are so sure that they are right. There's an intolerance that I find troubling. I wasn't sure what she was talking about, so I asked where she meant. She answered, "Of course, it's strange, because when I go to Ohio to visit my relatives, the people there are so nice." I asked her if she really thought the liberal Democrats in New England were open to other (more conservative) points of view. She seemed relieved to think that the center of our country might not be inhabited by fanatics.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Vote with your wallet
A bumper sticker spotted in my neighborhood says, "I'm for Solar Power and I Vote."
It's a perfect summation of environmnentalism. Not: "I'm for solar power so I bought solar panels for my house." Rather: "I'm for solar power, so I'm going to use the government to force you to pay for it."
It's a perfect summation of environmnentalism. Not: "I'm for solar power so I bought solar panels for my house." Rather: "I'm for solar power, so I'm going to use the government to force you to pay for it."
Friday, April 04, 2008
Gad Zooks!
Douglas Zook’s letter on Plum Island displays everything that is wrong with global warming alarmism, in sharp contrast to the letter on the same subject by John A. Bewick. Mr. Bewick makes the sensible conclusion that “Anyone who lives on [a barrier beach] should do so at his or her own risk, not that of the taxpayers.”
Professor Zook, however, brings global warming into the argument, starting with the completely unfounded claim that global warming “will promote more damaging coastal storms.” He then incites class warfare, saying that the Plum Island’s “grotesque beachfront mansions” are bringing on their own destruction by being excessively luxurious. Finally he uses the moral authority of his totalitarian crusade to bring in the power of the state, demanding that “the land should be taken by eminent domain and made an extension of the Parker River Wildlife Sanctuary.” It’s frightening—he sees Al Gore’s movie and thinks he has the right to have someone's house demolished. It confirms Czech President Klaus’s fear that “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now [is] ambitious environmentalism.”
The most frightening words in this letter are Professor Zook’s title, “Professor of science education and global ecology, Boston University.” Some education.
Professor Zook, however, brings global warming into the argument, starting with the completely unfounded claim that global warming “will promote more damaging coastal storms.” He then incites class warfare, saying that the Plum Island’s “grotesque beachfront mansions” are bringing on their own destruction by being excessively luxurious. Finally he uses the moral authority of his totalitarian crusade to bring in the power of the state, demanding that “the land should be taken by eminent domain and made an extension of the Parker River Wildlife Sanctuary.” It’s frightening—he sees Al Gore’s movie and thinks he has the right to have someone's house demolished. It confirms Czech President Klaus’s fear that “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now [is] ambitious environmentalism.”
The most frightening words in this letter are Professor Zook’s title, “Professor of science education and global ecology, Boston University.” Some education.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thank goodness it's just a flap
The Globe finally started covering the Jeremiah Wright story after Obama’s speech gave them something they could equivocate about. Today’s front page headline is, “Voters' views diverge over Obama flap.”
Nice to dream about this catastrophe being a “flap,” but I don’t think it’s going to play out as a minor fracas. I think it’s the end for Obama.
A common theme expressed by people who still plan to vote for Obama is that “the black anger Wright has expressed is understandable.” To begin with, I don’t think there’s much justification for black anger in 2008. This fall I volunteered to drive a number of African-American kids to interviews at prep schools in the area—Phillips Andover, Governors, Holderness, etc. The admission directors were all so eager to increase their “diversity” percentages. To think of these kids as somehow discriminated against is ridiculous. It’s true these were a tiny percentage of kids from bad inner city (i.e., black) schools who managed to get out, so the counter-argument would be that institutional racism holds the rest back. I don’t buy it, but, as the Obama voter said, I haven’t walked a mile in their shoes so I don’t understand. It’s possible.
More importantly, even if some lingering justification for black anger remains in today’s America, Jeremiah Wright would not be at the center of this controversy is he was simply an angry crusader seeking to right the wrongs done against black people. This describes Martin Luther King, not Jeremiah Wright. His sermons are filled with hate, racism and twisted lies about his own country. He makes perpetual whiner and liar Al Sharpton look moderate and rational. Wright is in league with Louis Farrakhan, and they both are evil men.
The Globe quoted another Obama voter, who said, "I don't really care what someone's religious affiliation is," she said, asserting that younger generations are more tolerant of racial diversity.” I will forgive this member of the younger generation for being so clueless to think that hate speech against white America is “tolerant.” But we might consider changing the voting age to 30.
Nice to dream about this catastrophe being a “flap,” but I don’t think it’s going to play out as a minor fracas. I think it’s the end for Obama.
A common theme expressed by people who still plan to vote for Obama is that “the black anger Wright has expressed is understandable.” To begin with, I don’t think there’s much justification for black anger in 2008. This fall I volunteered to drive a number of African-American kids to interviews at prep schools in the area—Phillips Andover, Governors, Holderness, etc. The admission directors were all so eager to increase their “diversity” percentages. To think of these kids as somehow discriminated against is ridiculous. It’s true these were a tiny percentage of kids from bad inner city (i.e., black) schools who managed to get out, so the counter-argument would be that institutional racism holds the rest back. I don’t buy it, but, as the Obama voter said, I haven’t walked a mile in their shoes so I don’t understand. It’s possible.
More importantly, even if some lingering justification for black anger remains in today’s America, Jeremiah Wright would not be at the center of this controversy is he was simply an angry crusader seeking to right the wrongs done against black people. This describes Martin Luther King, not Jeremiah Wright. His sermons are filled with hate, racism and twisted lies about his own country. He makes perpetual whiner and liar Al Sharpton look moderate and rational. Wright is in league with Louis Farrakhan, and they both are evil men.
The Globe quoted another Obama voter, who said, "I don't really care what someone's religious affiliation is," she said, asserting that younger generations are more tolerant of racial diversity.” I will forgive this member of the younger generation for being so clueless to think that hate speech against white America is “tolerant.” But we might consider changing the voting age to 30.
Monday, March 17, 2008
With alibis like these...
Obama claims he wasn't in church for Jeremiah Wright's "I hate whitey" speech because he was addressing La Raza in Miami. So his alibi for not being with one hate-monger is that he was with a different group of hate-mongers.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
"Principles"
Herbert C. Kelman published a long piece in the Globe today titled, “’A Declaration of Principles’ for the Mideast.” I suspected it would be heavily slanted toward the Palestinian side when I read the phrase, “Herbert C. Kelman is a professor…” And when it continued, “of the Middle East Seminar at Harvard,” I knew for certain.
The piece pretends to respect both sides, but it includes such demands as, “the borders between the two states will follow the 1967 armistice lines.” The following quotes about the 1967 border were on Wikipedia:
Nevertheless, over the past 40 years, Israel has slowly been unilaterally retreating to the 1967 borders in Sinai, Gaza, Jordan, and Lebanon—with little to show for it in return from the Palestinian side.
Another of Mr Kelman’s principles is: “An end to the occupation and to the conflict.” The word “occupation” is what enemies of Israel use to describe the Israeli presence in lands taken when they defeated the aggressive Arab armies in the 1967 war. As for “conflict,” this is the sole reference to the decades of terrorist attacks on Israel. Cessation of suicide bombings and rocket attack was a prerequisite for discussion under the Bush Roadmap.
Kelman’s principles also include a divided Jerusalem and Israel’s recognizing the right of return for Palestinian “refugees”—both unacceptable to Israel. Kelman does concede that “Only a limited number, however, will return to Israel proper, in order to allow Israel to maintain its character as a Jewish-majority state.” Once an international agreement acknowledges that Palestinians in the countries surrounding Israel have the right to “return” to Israel, however, Israel will be in the position of turning away poor refugees—certainly cause for a new Intifada.
The piece pretends to respect both sides, but it includes such demands as, “the borders between the two states will follow the 1967 armistice lines.” The following quotes about the 1967 border were on Wikipedia:
Prime Minister Golda Meir said the pre-1967 borders were so dangerous that it "would be treasonable" for an Israeli leader to accept them (New York Times, December 23, 1969).
The Foreign Minister Abba Eban said the pre-1967 borders have "a memory of Auschwitz" (Der Spiegel, November 5, 1969).
Prime Minister Menachem Begin described a proposal for a retreat to the pre-1967 borders as "national suicide for Israel."
Nevertheless, over the past 40 years, Israel has slowly been unilaterally retreating to the 1967 borders in Sinai, Gaza, Jordan, and Lebanon—with little to show for it in return from the Palestinian side.
Another of Mr Kelman’s principles is: “An end to the occupation and to the conflict.” The word “occupation” is what enemies of Israel use to describe the Israeli presence in lands taken when they defeated the aggressive Arab armies in the 1967 war. As for “conflict,” this is the sole reference to the decades of terrorist attacks on Israel. Cessation of suicide bombings and rocket attack was a prerequisite for discussion under the Bush Roadmap.
Kelman’s principles also include a divided Jerusalem and Israel’s recognizing the right of return for Palestinian “refugees”—both unacceptable to Israel. Kelman does concede that “Only a limited number, however, will return to Israel proper, in order to allow Israel to maintain its character as a Jewish-majority state.” Once an international agreement acknowledges that Palestinians in the countries surrounding Israel have the right to “return” to Israel, however, Israel will be in the position of turning away poor refugees—certainly cause for a new Intifada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
