March 05, 2006
Earth in the Balance - And Liberals in the Dark
Global warming protestors should be upset about a recently publicized phenomena--U.S. cities being plunged into darkness by daily changes in our planet. Has mankind affected the Earth so much that this is the result, or are we to accept wing-nut claims that this is just part of nature? Just read excerpts from this article explaining the problem, likely causes, and reactions.
the Onion: Rotation Of Earth Plunges Entire North American Continent Into Darkness
NEW YORKâ€â€ÂMillions of eyewitnesses watched in stunned horror Tuesday as light emptied from the sky, plunging the U.S. and neighboring countries into darkness. As the hours progressed, conditions only worsened.As the phenomenon hit New York, millions of motorists were forced to use their headlights to navigate through the blackness. Highways flooded with commuters who had left work to hurry home to their families. Traffic was bottlenecked for more than two hours in many major metropolitan areas.
"Vast gravitational forces have rotated the planet Earth on an axis drawn through its north and south poles," said Dr. Elena Bilkins of the National Weather Service. "The Earth is in actuality spinning uncontrollably through space."
"I looked out the window and saw it getting dark when I was still at the office working," said Albert Serpa, 27, a lawyer from Tulsa, OK, who had taken shelter with others at Red's Bar and Grill. "That's when I knew I had to leave right away."
Ronald Jarrett, a professor of economics at George Washington University who left his office after darkness blanketed the D.C. metro area, summed up the fears of an entire nation, saying, "Look, it's dark outside. I want to go home," and ended the phone interview abruptly.
Why should you be concerned? Because the threat to life, the anecdotal evidence, and the prevailing claims of Bush's culpability on this are just as valid as similar proof and claims on global warming. If you can accept one, then you can believe the other. Save the Earth! Show your degree of logic and intelligence by writing letters to the editor to oppose the darkening of our hemisphere every single day. Don't accept crazy claims that the setting sun is a natural occurence, do demand billions for research...and, be sure to blame Bush! The Democrats need issues.
Posted by Woody at March 5, 2006 10:50 PM | TrackBackOuch!!!
Posted by GM Roper at March 6, 2006 05:50 AM
Let's just say for a moment that global warming is a myth... or if not a myth, a natural occurance that man can't control or affect in any way. It would still make since for us to drive cars that get better gas mileage thus reducing our dependence on Arab oil, wouldn't it? It would still make sense to drive cars that give off less pollution thus improving air quality especially in big smog-ridden cities like Los Angeles, wouldn't it? And it would be GREAT if these cars were American made, wouldn't it? Then we'd be improving our economy as well! You could probably offer tax credits to automobile manufacturers for building these kinds of card and also offer tax credits to the people who buy them. You guys like tax cuts, right? Sound good? Super! Now, go lobby your Republican congressman and tell him this is what you want. Tell him it doesn't have anything to do with global warming but if there were such a thing then it might help with that, too...
Posted by E. Nonee Moose at March 6, 2006 01:04 PM
E. N. Moose, I don't want government to micromanage free enterprise, but I prefer to let the market direct business and consumer decisions.
If American car manufacturers don't make the kinds of cars that Americans want at the prices that Americans want, then auto management will have to make some adjustments--including reducing out-of-control labor costs supported by unions and, yes, supported by government regulations put in place by Democrats long ago.
If consumers want cars getting better mileage instead of heavier and safer cars, then the market will produce them or go out of business. If consumers want non-polluting cars, then manufacturers will have to make more efficient engines and, perhaps, make one kind of car for congested L.A. and another for rural Wyoming, where that demand is less.
In most cases, government mandates and artificial price supports and artificial buying incentives are not the way.
Regarding global warming...I don't discount that mankind has some effect on global temperatures. What I do question is the lack of good science to justify the trillions of dollars demanded to throw at a little understood problem and a problem for which China and India get a free pass--despite their horrible records on pollution. Let's know what we're doing before we just burn money.
Posted by Woody at March 6, 2006 03:51 PM
So, economically speaking, you're a Libertarian?
Posted by E. Nonee Moose at March 7, 2006 08:12 AM
Moose, it's hard to label my economic policies. I'm conservative, but not libertarian. It isn't practical to let business go unbridled. I'm for anti-trust laws, as an example.
I do recognize that tax laws and other laws can direct behavior, but I'm often against those policies when they direct behavior to simply win votes or gain contributions but makes little sense economically. For instance, tax credits and money poured into generating electricity with wind power is mostly waste in my opinion, but it makes people "feel good."
I grew up in a steel town, so I give strong support regarding reducing polllution. However, there are points at which it makes no sense to spend another dollar or cost another job when the resulting gain is hardly measurable or even matters. I can't see spending trillions of dollars on global warming without knowing the cost-benefit analysis. To government, cost vs. benefits is rarely a concern if votes are involved.
In my work, I see incredible paperwork required by government. We need to let people concentrate on business and not filling out forms. (Look at what has happened to school teachers who have to spend more time on forms than teaching.)
So, I share some economic positions with libertarians...and, I share some with liberals. So, on economic matters I'm centrist but to the right of center.
You didn't ask, but on issues involving individual issues, I'm definitely not libertarian. I can't see eliminating all the laws against drugs or perversions that affect society. In addition, I support more social programs than you might imagine. I just want them run efficiently.
Sorry, but this seems to have turned into a rant. How strange for me....
Posted by Woody at March 7, 2006 10:07 AM
I can't see spending trillions of dollars on global warming without knowing the cost-benefit analysis.
Okay, but I never suggested that you do that.
What I offered was a compromise... yeah, I was taking a 'liberal approach' to what was primarily a 'liberal issue' but in the process also offered more than a hat-tip to principles and values that should appeal to conservatives. Sure, I know you don't like the government micromanaging things but can you honestly say the other goals weren't worthwhile? It was a compromise and that's what liberals and conservatives have to do to GET THINGS DONE. And there's not a lot of that going on right now. Which is a pity.
As far as politicians doing things just to get votes, you know as well as I do that American politics is very ugly right now and its the take-no-prisoners approach that seems to appeal to the most likely voters. The polarized left and the polarized right are the ones running this show right now and the vast majority of us somewhere in the middle are getting sick and tired of candidates pandering to their more vocal and extreme constituents instead of actually trying to accomplish something.
Sorry, but this seems to have turned into a rant. How strange for me....
'Sokay... I seem to bring that out in people... ;)
Posted by E. Nonee Moose at March 7, 2006 08:58 PM
