Jan
6
Class Warfare - Yes; Solutions - No
Filed Under Healthcare | Leave a Comment
With Congress currently working on healthcare reform, many pundits on TV, online, and in print have been analyzing what effect the current Democrat bills would have. While all of the consequences of enacting either the House or Senate legislation are important, I think it also underscores a key flaw of the healthcare reform bills. Rather than solving existing issues with the current healthcare system, it is simply creating new ones. Analysts must devote their time to figuring out all of the new obstacles being enacted without proposing solutions to the problems already present.
Also, the healthcare bills and their subsequent amendments seem to be driven not by reality and economics, but by anger and emotional class warfare. Take this amendment offered in December by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas):
Washington – U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) today unveiled her plan to cut the current $1 million tax shelter for insurance companies’ executive compensation. Current law allows businesses to deduct up to $1 million annually per executive as a business expense. Lincoln’s proposal would limit this amount to $400,000—the President’s salary—for health insurance companies that will profit as a result of health insurance reform.
Compensation, even for executives, is a business expense. It should be included with all other expenses and deducted from income when filing taxes. Moreover, there is no credible reason why executive compensation should be at all considered when enacting any kind of healthcare reform legislation. Blaming insurance issues on executive compensation is like blaming the coach’s salary for a holding penalty.
It also shows that expansive entitlements and legislation will innevitably lead to more and more political control over our personal and professional lives.
There are plenty of other examples out there of these kind of class-warfare shenanigans (when we’re allowed to see what’s going on). The question I would have for voters is this: Do you want your healthcare being decided by politics, as this amendment suggests, or by reality between you and your doctor, and the applicable costs at hand? I would assume many would choose the latter. Unfortunately, however, the Democrat Party seems to be favoring the former.
Nov
22
Doing My Part
Filed Under Blogging and Computers | Leave a Comment
As part of my effort to protect freedom for the next generation, I’ve become the tech specialist for the Republican Young Professionals of Pasco County. I used blogger to put up the website here. Take a look!
It’s also important to point out that zoominac.com is my personal blog, and the opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not necessarily represent those of the RYPPC. ‘Ya mean?
Nov
19
But This Time Around….
Filed Under Healthcare | 1 Comment
On an episode of Democracy Now! last week, host Amy Goodman spoke with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) about the recently passed House healthcare bill. Kucinich was lamenting the fact that the legislation was not sufficiently socialist for his standards, as it did not include a public option:
And we’re being told all the time, Amy, that our options keep getting limited. We were told last year the only way people could get unemployment benefits is if Congress votes for war, the only way we can pass a hate crime is if Congress votes for war, the only way we can get housing is to give Wall Street a bailout. And that didn’t put people back in—most people back in their homes who lost them. You know, we’re going to get jobs by giving Wall Street a bailout; that didn’t work. Businesses are going to be helped by giving Wall Street a bailout; that didn’t work.
Obviously, Kucinich and I are on completely different ends of the political spectrum. However, I share his disappointment with the results of government action as opposed to what was promised by legislators when bills were passed.
What I don’t share is Kucinich’s continued faith in government to solve our problems. Many on the left and far left complain that Washington and the politicians who run it are “controlled” or “bought and paid for” by “corporate interests” and the like. Such influence shapes bills that come out of congress to the benefit of these special interests. My solution would be to greatly reduce the bills coming out of congress period. If the government is so corrupt and tainted by whatever boogeyman the Democrats are pointing out today, then wouldn’t the most prudent course of action be to let the government have as little control over our live as possible?
Kucinich and the liberals disagree. They believe that the problem is not the system of government itself, but just the specific individuals that are currently in power. Just give ME a chance, and I’ll fix it, they say.
This time it will be different!
Faith in “reform” that amounts to nothing more than expanded government relies on your trust in politicians. The video below pretty much sums up my feeling here:
Trust me.
Nov
5
From AP, via Tom Jackson on TBO:
TALLAHASSEE - Gov. Charlie Crist is saying he did not endorse the $787 billion federal stimulus bill, a statement that might confuse some voters. [Confuse is putting it mildly; irritate, astonish, infuriate, flabbergast, now those are more appropriate terms—Ed.]
Crist appeared with President Barack Obama in February to support the bill, asked Florida members of Congress to vote for it and previously told The Associated Press that he would have voted for it if he had been in the Senate.
But when the Republican governor talked about the bill Wednesday on CNN, he said he didn’t endorse it. Crist told CNN he understood that the bill was going to pass and wanted to use it for the benefit of Florida.
Crist has tried to distance himself from Obama and the stimulus bill since entering the 2010 Senate race in the spring.
Crist is a complete joke. He hugs the Spender in Chief at rallies and works to hamstring Florida’s economy in the name of the “environment” when it’s politically convenient. Then he runs deceptive radio ads to make him look like Mr. Conservative:
Florida’s airwaves are alive with the sound of Governor Charlie Crist’s radio advertisement trumpeting his grade of “A” on Cato’s “Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors.”
I am pleased that Gov. Crist values Cato’s ratings because we work hard to make them accurate and nonpartisan. But the radio ad is making many fiscally conservative Floridians scratch their heads because of the governor’s recent policy actions.
The governor earned his Cato grade in last year’s report mainly because of his large property tax cuts and moderate spending approach. The grade was based purely on quantitative data on revenues, general fund spending, and tax rate changes.
However, since I wrote the report in mid-2008, the governor seems to have fallen off the fiscal responsibility horse.
In particular, Crist approved a huge $2.2 billion tax increase for the fiscal 2010 budget, even though he had promised that $12 billion in federal “stimulus” money showered on Florida over three years would obviate the need for tax increases.
Crist is a spender, a central planner, and a nanny-statist. Marco Rubio better pull this thing out.
Nov
4
Moving Forward
Filed Under Conservatism | Leave a Comment
Last night’s elections were good news for recovering conservatives: Christie in NJ, McDonnell in VA, and Hoffman barely loses on a third party ticket to the Democrat endorsed by the party-money-taking RINO Scozzafava. The races, especially in the case of NY-23, have brought about a lot of chatter about how the GOP should move forward, how it can remain viable and principled, and what level of moderation we should be willing to accept in places where conservatives are typically not found.
AOSHQ had some thoughts on the future of the Republican party and the supposed conflict between conservatives and moderates:
I do not think these two camps are as far apart as their proponents seem to think. It is often the case that maximalists accuse, or suggest, that pragmatists aren’t interested in electing more conservative candidates, or of supporting more conservative primary challengers to confirmed RINOs. And it often the case that pragmatists (including myself) seem to talk as if the maximalists are unaware that a Tom Coburn type candidate wouldn’t fare so well in liberal New Jersey or arch-Democratic Maryland.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Mike Flynn at Big Government that fiscal, and not social conservatism will be the real divining rod in the politics of the future (emphasis mine):
This year, the Washington Post—the most effective arm of the Virginia Democrat Party—thought it found the silver bullet to kill the gubernatorial campaign of republican Bob McDonnell. They unearthed a 20-year old thesis McDonnell wrote in college that contained some pretty embarrassing statements–at least by today’s standards—about whether, for example, families are better off if the wife doesn’t work outside the home. The Democrats based almost their entire campaign, and the Post based most of its coverage, on McDonnell’s thesis. It must chill them to the bone that McDonnell is set to win by one of the larger margins in state history. It isn’t that the public, or even McDonnell today, agrees with what’s in the thesis; they just don’t care.
Conservatives, independents, and libertarian-leaning Republicans like myself will often be determining their support on fiscal issues, and I think that fiscal conservatism is something that can win nearly everywhere. I will not, however, join the chorus of bashing the “religious right” and looking to cast out a very important segment of the party. Nor will I, as Ace warned in his post, push my unorthodox positions (pro drug legalization and pro gay rights) as electoral winners. They are my positions, and I can try to persuade others to agree with me to the full extent of my ability, but I will not claim that they are viable political tools. As the Maine results showed, support for traditional marriage is still popular, even in liberal leaning states. And many who take an individualist or libertarian view on the issues are pro-life, which is where I stand.
I understand that there will need to be varying degrees of political positions for Republicans throughout the country. However, there must be a brand that voters can identify and count on in our party. We must stand for something, but we cannot stand for anything. Arlen Specterand Dede Scozzafava have no place on our side.
So where do we draw the line? We needn’t be open to everything, essentially political whores who see our next John in every voting block. Nor must we be the extremist caricature that the media paints conservatives to be. I think there are certain principles that every Republican in the country can and should support, which give voters a clear and consistent choice in contrast with the socialist Democrats, while still inclusive enough to win elections and, ya know, actually do something. Every Republican candidate in the country should believe that:
- The size of government should not be increased - We may disagree with what the ideal size of government should be. Some believe it is a hedge that needs trimming. I think it is a pit viper that should be strangled. However, we can agree that the whole thing is too damn big as it is, and no more should be added. That means no to Obamacare and the stimulus. Republicans can disagree to a lot of things while still holding to this maxim.
- All things being equal, the people who earn the money should be the ones to spend it and will do so better than the government can.
- Whatever path society follows in the future, government should be neutral. Government should be reffing the game, not calling the plays.
- The three branches of government should stick to their roles prescribed by the founders, especially in regards to the judiciary.
- The United States should have the most powerful military in the world, as deterrence through strength is the surest path to peace. Liberal democracies have a natural bond that should not be shunned in international relations. The United States is not perfect, but overall has played a positive and liberating role in history. The United States was a victim on September 11, 2001, not a perpetrator. There is NO excuse for terrorism, nor any apology necessary for our self defense. The 9/11 attacks were not meant to be a solitary event - they were not the beginning of Al-Quaeda’s war on the United States, and they were not the end (can you hear me Ron Paul?).
In addition, with Obama’s clowns in office, this period will present a great oppurtunity to the GOP to pick off the low hanging fruit - things like transparency, honesty, ethics, and competence. All around winners.
To borrow from our Dear Leader, let me be clear. The stakes of losing elections, even for the sake of purity, are very high. However, we can not elect RINO candidates whose only accomplishment is to put GOP fingerprints on legislative clusterfucks like Medicare Part D, NCLB, TARP and Obamacare, allowing us to be indicted when these things inevitably blow up in America’s face. There can be room for dissent on issues, but we must offer a choice, not an echo.
Oct
31
Panic! At The Capital
Filed Under Healthcare | 2 Comments
Let’s talk about preferences.
I have preferences, and you can find them listed on my Facebook. Likewise for a good friend of mine. I like playing Wii, history, and Seinfeld. My friend likes running, Donnie Darko, and filmmaking. We both like the Discovery Channel, writing, and football.
When it comes to music, my friend and I have different preferences. Especially regarding one of my favorite bands, Panic! At the Disco. Music expert, I’m not, but I love Panic. Their songs are catchy, their lyrics clever, and their stage presence unparalleled. My friend has railed online several times against Panic. Their tunes are pop garbage, their lyrics nonsensical, and garb bizarre. So it goes with different preferences.
My friend also has a preference for health care reform and a public option, put forth by Democrats. My preference is for a free market to provide health care in the way it provides us shoes, microwaves, and software. My friend prefers that younger individuals are forced to subsidize health care for older ones. I prefer that individuals are allowed to subsidize their own older days with increased tax-free health savings accounts in their youth. My friend prefers the government dictating what coverage is necessary for individuals. I prefer consumers dictate what their own needs are, via a dynamically competitive private insurance market, sans the interstate barriers and coverage mandates that make up the status quo. My friend sees the current health care challenges as the failure of the market. I see them as stemming from the absence of it.
When it comes to solutions, my friend and I clearly have different preferences, just like with Panic! At the Disco. But how are they different?
Differences settled over coffee and on Facebook are absent of force. Differences settled on Capitol Hill are dependent on force. Private preferences for something like health care allow good ideas to be tested. More importantly, however, they allow bad ideas to be refused. There is no recourse with a government solution. When government agencies run against your personal preferences, your personal preferences don’t matter. Innovative ideas won’t be tested, because they don’t have to be. The status quo is a guaranteed sale.
I can’t force my preference for Panic! At the Disco on my friend. He controls his iPod. But if things go the Democrats’ way, my friend will force his preferences on me. There’s nothing compassionate about that.
Oct
9
This Just In
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment
In addition to his inexplicable Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama was awarded the Heisman Trophy, selected most likely to succeed at New Brighton High School in Bethesda, Maryland, won the Next Food Network Star contest, and won the Conn Smythe trophy.
Oct
1
It’s A Shame
Filed Under Crime | 2 Comments
That Ol’ Sparky wasn’t still around to get this done. Or just a simple noose.
TBO - Jessica Lunsford’s killer, John Couey, dies of cancer:
HOMOSASSA - News of the death of John Evander Couey, condemned to die for killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford in a case that sparked legislation across the nation clamping down on sex offenders, was met with mixed - but strong - emotions Wednesday.
“God done this in his own time,” said Ruthie Lunsford, Jessica’s grandmother, who said Couey’s death Wednesday morning from anal cancer came as a surprise. “I am not crying.”
…
According to prosecutors, Jessica - her parents always called her Jessie - was abducted from her home in the middle of the night in February 2005.
Couey kept her in the closet of his nearby mobile home and sexually molested her before binding her wrists and ankles with speaker wire, stuffing her inside two black plastic garbage bags and burying her alive in a 4-foot-deep hole.
Couey, 51, was on death row at the Florida State Prison near Starke until Aug. 12, when medical personnel there sent him to Jacksonville Memorial Hospital, which has a contract with the Florida Department of Corrections to treat inmates when prison doctors can’t. He died at 11:15 a.m. Wednesday, corrections spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger said.
John Couey was probably the most vile creature to ever crawl out of the swamps of Central Florida. He was a perverted animal whose soul was as dark and black as the tomb he burried his victim alive in. The case was also a stunning example of the failures of the modern judicial system. Couey was arrested 24 times before he met Jessica Lunsford, yet was still a free man. If society shares any blame in this tradgedy, it is from our failure to let people face the consequences of their actions, and on the state’s obsessions with endevours that do not protect against force and fraud.
I’m not a religious person, but for people like John Couey, I hope there’s a hell.
Sep
30
Roman Polanski: Convicted and… Convicted
Filed Under Media | Leave a Comment
Via Hot Air, Patterico reports on the Los Angeles Times confusing “accused” with “convicted”:
Excuse me? He is more than merely “accused” of unlawful sex with a minor. He pled guilty to it. And, moving on the teaser on the right for Patrick Goldstein’s piece, it will not cost the L.A. District Attorney (for whom I work but do not speak) much to “prosecute” Polanski — because we don’t have to “prosecute” him. We need only represent the People at the sentencing for the charge to which Polanski pled guilty.
The online version of the article is here. One can expect the minions of liberal Hollywood types making excuses and apologies for Polanski, as covered by CNN. However, like the L.A. Times, the professional media is also more than happy to gloss over what happened. As the CNN article reported:
The filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled before he could be sentenced. He settled in France, where he holds citizenship. Investigators in the United States say Polanski, then 43, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl
Glossing over the serious and largely accepted charges of drugging and rape by writing “investigators say” is weak. Really weak.
To me, the Reuters article by Jason Rhodes takes the cake:
ZURICH/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Roman Polanski, whose work on films like “Chinatown” has often been overshadowed by his tumultuous life, was arrested in Zurich on a 1978 U.S. warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.
Again, the serious implications of the case are glossed over. Only once, and briefly at that, is the drugging issue raised, and the word “rape” does not appear once in the article. Disgusting.
Kate Harding at Salon takes the proper tone (also via the Hot Air post), reminding us that Roman Polanski Raped A Child:
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention.
Harding pretty much sums it up. A certain documentary may have brought some legitimate concerns to light about the original trial, but Polanski didn’t stay to fight. He ran off to Europe, his career in touch. As the Reuters article states, “But after his plea, Polanski fled the United States because he believed a judge might overrule his agreement and put him in jail for years.” He should have been in jail for years. The fact that someone who drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old was free this long is an affront to the victim, society, and the rule of law itself.
Sep
28
Vote-Buying on High Speed Tracks
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
In Sunday’s Tampa Tribune, this Ted Jackovics article harped on High Hopes For High-Speed Rail, hoping for a rail line that would connect the two major cities in central Florida, Tampa and Orlando:
TAMPA - As key political factors fall in place, Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando are leading contenders to launch the nation’s first true high-speed rail corridor, with 150 mph trains running by 2014.
On Friday, 40 states will file detailed high-speed rail project applications with the Federal Railroad Administration. In December, President Barack Obama will announce which will get money from the $787 billion federal stimulus plan to generate jobs.
If Florida gets the $2.5 billion it seeks, it will represent a stunning reversal of political fortunes - after 25 years of promise and setbacks - that will provide thousands of new jobs as early as 2011, when construction on the 95-mile Tampa-Orlando segment could begin.
…
Potential drawbacks - including construction and operations costs and how much demand there might be to pay $30 for a 64-minute ride from Tampa to Orlando International Airport - appear to have been relegated to the background.
Why? The prospects of jobs - at a time when it’s common for hundreds of people to vie for a handful of positions.
“High-speed rail will bring an unprecedented number of new jobs to Florida, with the overriding goal of supporting the federal recovery plan,” said U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, who has participated in several White House discussions on the topic this year.
The fact that a government boondoggle may employ people does not necessarily mean that it will “create jobs,” a fact that escapes the Obama Administration, Rep. Castor, and those who would prefer the landscape and transportation options of Floridians be planned by their superiors. How many jobs are lost when the government diverts dollars away from productive business and into things like high speed rail? Many proponents of such largess tout what a great “investment” such projects are, yet are inexplicably quiet when asked why private capital has not swarmed on such opportunities.
But perhaps “investments” and “jobs” are not the motivating factor behind the billions of dollars in subsidized trips to Disney World that are on queue:
Construction could begin as early as 2011, providing the Obama administration with potential political gains in an important presidential election swing state.
The I-4 corridor, as the inter Tampa-Orlando area is known, is the swing area of one of the major electoral swing states. The fact that President Obama will be trying to buy off the votes of Lakeland, Bartow, and Kissimmee should be disquieting. Many in Florida, and especially at the Trib, are more than happy to take billions of dollars in transportation welfare. However, one would wonder if such cheerleaders will be so supportive when Florida is sufficiently bought and paid for by the Democrat party, and Floridians’ tax dollars are sent to bribe some other state.
Sep
14
Quote Of The Day
Filed Under Liberalism | Leave a Comment
From Warren Meyer’s Coyoteblog, regarding Van Jones:
Apparently, as one of Obama’s 129 czars, this guy whose job it is to redistribute billions of dollars from one group of individuals to another and issue diktats to be followed by private citizens and businesses, is *gasp* a communist. Well, no sh*t. All of these various czars have communist roles so why is it surprising Obama might have picked a communist to hold one of them. The only surprise was that Van Jones was dumb enough to admit it in print rather than hiding it in leftish double-speak like most of the rest of the administration.
Communism in the Obama administration (and the Democrat Party, for that matter) is not a question of presence, but degree.
Regarding Van Jones’ Truther Pledge issue, I think he was screwed no matter what the case actually was. Either he believed George W. Bush was directly responsible for killing thousands of Americans on September 11th, or he doesn’t read what he signs, content that the cause being pushed has something to do with criticizing Republicans. Both are unacceptable.
Sep
11
September 11th
Filed Under Uncategorized | 2 Comments
Writers more eloquent than I will have plenty to say on the 8th anniversary of that horrible day. I’ll keep my comments brief, and say that we should take the time today to not only remember those we lost on 9-11, but the families and friends left behind.
Sep
10
On Rights
Filed Under Civil Liberties | 2 Comments
In a recent column about Western governments’ treatment of terrorists, the incomparable Thomas Sowell writes:
So many “rights” have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don’t meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn’t protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.
First of all, let me say that Dr. Sowell is someone who I greatly admire and with whom I agree a great deal. However, the argument above, while in the context of rightly argued condemnation of the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, is misguided when explaining the nature of rights.
The beauty of the American Revolution and the genius of our founding as a nation was the concept of natural, inalienable rights. These rights exist independent of government and its laws. We institute the government to protect these rights against those who would violate them. Therefore, government exists because of our rights, not the other way around.
To say that rights “derive from explicit laws” is to confirm the worst fears of those who opposed the bill of rights when the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was being debated. Many were worried that if amendments were added guaranteeing our right to free spech or due process, that the bill of rights would be viewed as an exhaustive list, and that rights that were not included on such a list could only be granted at the whim of politicians. To assuage such fears, the 9th Amendment was added, which reads:
The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If we are to concede to the viewpoint that rights can only be valid if endorsed by written laws, then the statists will have the authority to trample individual liberty in countless forms. Constitutions like those of the United States were meant to give explicit rights only to governments; that is governments may only do what is permitted to them by the constitution written by free individuals. Individuals (and state and local governments) hold all other rights.
My right to freedom of speech and worship does not come from the 1st Amendment - it is only codified by it. Likewise for my right to bear arms. However, if we are to operate on the assumption that my rights are only derived from what is explicitly stated in the constitution or by statute, then where is my right to trade and commerce with my fellow citizens? My right to donate to the charity of my choosing? My right to have children? My right to freedom of association and movement?
Nonsense. My right to these things are inherent by virtue of my existent. They are “self-evident.” No law can erase them.
Battles over the right to bear arms have largely focused on the wording and intent of the 2nd Amendment. This too is misguided. The right to personal protection is a natural right given by our creator, and exists regardless of what some law or circuit court says.
That is not to say that Dr. Sowell is incorrect in his assertion that Megrahi’s release was a gross miscariage of justice and an offense to the innocent. Nor that enemy combatants should pay, in many cases harshly and swiftly, for their attacks on our country. However, this is because such individuals, like any petty criminal down the street, did indeed have rights, but that by virtue of their actions they lost them. This is the argument conservatives should use that not only keeps Americans safe and our system of justice intact, but preserves our freedom.
If we fall into the trap that the statist has set that government may do whatever it wants, but that the rights of individuals are restricted to what is spelled out by law, then we have already lost the battle against a leviathan government. Where is the explicit right to property? To dissent? There is none. Nor do we need it to know these rights exist.
Sep
7
The Five Questions of Global Warming
Filed Under Environment | 3 Comments
Cap-and-Trade is just one of the many ways in which the federal government will try to be restricting the freedoms of individuals and businesses in the name of fighting global warming (now being conveniently called climate change). Environmentalism was once a fuzzy feel-good plank of the left, however in recent years many such as Thomas Friedman and Van Jones have realized the possibility of using broad public affinity for things like parks and animals as a tool to have government control the economy, and therefore our daily lives.
When debating any issue, the biggest weapon available to someone is that of framing the debate. Too often Republicans like John McCain allow themselves to be sucked into a discourse about global warming where the only subject up for debate is how the government can save the planet. Not only is this poor debating and weak politics, but it completely ignores and sidesteps some very important considerations. Its very hard for conservatives to win a debate about global warming in a culture where the inevitability of ecological Armageddon is seen as a foregone conclusion and all who dare question the orthodoxy of Henry Waxman are seen as flat-earthers. A set of rational questions must be asked of the proponents of government solutions to global warming, none of them at all inflammatory or ludicrous. I believe before we can say “Yes” to any climate legislation, we must also answer “Yes” to each of the following five questions:
- Is the Earth warming?
- Is this due to human activity?
- Would global warming, on the whole, be bad?
- Is prevention a more effective response than adaptation?
- Should government be the one coordinating humanity’s response?
Make no mistake, I am not a scientist or any kind of climate expert. But I am skeptical by nature, and I find the simplicity in which liberals and environmentalists treat something as complex as the global climate appalling. Here are my thoughts on the five questions above:
- Is the Earth warming? - Is the average temperature of the globe warming, cooling, or staying about the same? Is the way in which we’re measuring this objective and not subject to geographic-bias, such as in urban areas with a lot of asphalt?
- Is this due to human activity? - There are far smarter people than I to answer this question. However, it is an important one. Does any warming trend present on Earth coincide with human industrial activity, or is it in line with long term ecological cycles? Have factors like volcanic or other geo-thermal activity been ruled out as a cause? What about solar activity? Is the Earth alone in warming, or are other planets experiencing similar phenomena? Are we confident enough in our knowledge of the global climate and things like the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, the interaction of solar heat and plant life, and the worldwide system of ocean currents to make policy decisions based on such knowledge?
- Would global warming, on the whole, be bad? - If we are entering a period of global warming, it would not be the first time humanity has been subject to significant climate change. There are marks left on the Sphinx of heavy rainfall in a place that is now an arid desert. The human race survived then, and in fact flourished. Currently, there are many places on earth too barren or cold to support the agriculture and industry necessary for human survival. Would any negative effects (i.e. loss of land due to rising sea levels) be greater than any positive affects (i.e. more arable land) of an increased global temperature?
- Is prevention a more effective response than adaptation? - Let us not forget that we already live in a world of severe natural disasters and climate extremes. Yet the chief human response to things like tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes has been not to prevent such things, but to adapt to them. Advances in human knowledge and technology have made buildings more resistant to such events and societies better prepared. Why not apply the same principles to global warming? Is it better to alter the economic and energy policies of the entire earth to combat rising sea levels, or just build a bunch of levees and call it a day? Trade-offs, costs, and benefits must be considerations made when regarding issues so important to the state of humanity.
- Should government be the one coordinating humanity’s response? - Let us say that we have answered “yes” to the five preceding questions, that yes, the planet is warming, yes, it is due to human activity, yes, it is bad, and yes, it would be better to prevent global warming rather than to simply adapt to yet another climate shift. Is government really the entity that should be in charge of something so important and threatening? Or should we have a system built on property rights and personal responsibility to mitigate the dangers posed by global warming?
Human beings live on every continent, under the ocean’s depths, and in outer space. We have met extremely arduous challenges over the relatively brief time we have been on this planet, and managed to not only survive, but thrive. To see global warming as any different, as environmentalists seem to, is not looking at the situation rationally or with perspective. But to look at it simplistically is even worse.
Sep
7
Hiatus Over
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Hello folks. For any regular readers to Zoominac, you’ll have already noticed that I haven’t posted in quite some time. Besides the regular goings-on in life, over the course of my hiatus I:
- Bought a new vehicle,
- Signed a lease for a new apartment,
- Started a new job and,
- Proposed to my girlfriend. She said yes!
So I’ve been a little busy in the past couple of months, but I should be back to a more regular posting schedule again. (Un)Fortunately, the Obama administration’s repeated attempts at expanding government, especially in the field of health care, will give a blogger such as myself plenty of material.
