Compassionate Warmonger

Remember that guy that you made fun of because he got all caught up in the Y2K scare and wasted his money on water purification equipment, dried food and backup generators?  Turns out he may be having the last laugh.

Last month, the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse released a 200-page report detailing the potential effects of an Electromagnetic Pulse, (EMP), attack on the continental US. 

At this point you may be wondering what EMP is and how it ties in with the survivalist who’s having a laugh on us. 

Electromagnetic Pulse is a brief, intense surge of electromagnetic radiation emanating from a nuclear explosion.  The electrical and magnetic fields within this pulse often cause fatal voltage surges in electrical/electronic equipment, leaving previously functioning systems degraded or disabled.  The pulse moves at the speed of light and is effective across the entire visible horizon from the point of detonation.  On a lighter note, it doesn’t harm people, physical structures, etc., just anything with wiring that runs - entirely or partially - on electricity.  

So no one dies, we light a few candles, how bad could it be? 

Bad indeed - quoting from the official Commission report:

“Should significant parts of the electrical power infrastructure be lost for any substantial period of time, the commission believes that the consequences are likely to be catastrophic, and many people may ultimately die for lack of the basic elements necessary to sustain life in dense urban and suburban communities.”

But how likely is it that a terrorist would be able to disable “significant parts of the electrical power infrastructure”?  Wouldn’t something like this be more of a local phenomenon?

If you refer back to the definition of EMP you’ll see that one of the key factors determining the scope of the event is “the visible horizon from the point of detonation”.  A nuclear bomb blast in, or directly above, Kansas City would have a fairly localized EMP effect, (as well as catastrophic heat, radiation and blast effects to the inhabitants).  The same explosion occurring 275 miles above the city would leave the townspeople untouched but could create an electromagnetic pulse that would disable or serious degrade the great majority of all machinery and electronics across the continental United States.

So imagine it’s a half an hour after this has occurred.  Your hometown has gone dark; the same for telephone service, radio, and TV.  You have no real idea what has happened, nor does anyone else.  You try to take a drive around to assess the situation but realize the ignition system in your car’s been fried as well.  The family dines by candlelight on canned food that night, and you begin the long wait for emergency responders from the unaffected area to arrive and set everything straight.  Except - and here’s the scary part - there is no unaffected area.  Everyone else is sitting around waiting for the same people, who are themselves waiting for hypothetical people to arrive from somewhere else as well.  Picture post Katrina New Orleans and stretch it out to cover the majority of the North American continent - that’s the worst-case scenario.

But there’s no floodwaters, no hurricane force winds, nobody’s been harmed - where’s the calamity?

There’s no calamity the first night, maybe not for the first 72 hours.  But at some point there’s no more water pressure at your house.  You check with a neighbor, same thing.  Pretty soon you realize there’s no more water pressure anywhere.  Word gets back to you from the guy a couple of blocks over who works at Water and Power that whatever happened destroyed the distribution turbines and all the PLCs and wiring in the computers that run the system.  There’s water in the reservoir 75 miles away, but it’s not going to be showing up at your house anytime soon.

The perishables in the refrigerator are gone or spoiled and the canned food starts running low so you grab your wheel barrel and walk a few miles to local supermarket.  You arrive an hour later to find scores of your fellow citizens, nervous and forlorn staring at the looted remains.  There’s nothing much left of value and as you’re poking around inside you hear gunshots in the distance.  Who’s shooting at who?  No way to tell, so you hightail it home to your thirsty frightened family and take stock of your remaining food and drink, only now beginning to appreciate the magnitude of the situation.

Think about the area you live in.  If you had no outside sources of food or water how well would you fair?  I’m sure there may be an outdoorsman in Arkansas that would make out OK, but he’s not the norm for great majority of America.

You’ve heard of “Just in Time” inventory systems?  That’s the world economy.  People growing crops, using machinery and electronics to water them, a vast network of sorting, storage and transportation equipment that move that ear of corn to your local market where it is casually examined and placed in your cart for purchase.  Everything of value that you consume or depend on likely has its own amazingly complex supply chain. 

So what can we do other than add this to a list of 21^st century existential worries?

There are several things - some short term, others ongoing.

1. The US military should continue to harden it forces against the threat of EMP.  Some work has been done, but large segments of the military infrastructure could be crippled by a relatively small attack.
2. The government should shift priorities in Homeland Security and begin to give this scenario a higher ranking for planning and corrective action. 
3. Key utilities, medical assets, emergency responder bases, etc. must be identified and hardened against the possibility of an EMP attack.  New installations and/or equipment replacement in identified assets should be routinely EMP resistant.
4. Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons - especially to rogue and/or terror sponsor states like Iran - must remain a primary foreign policy objective.
5. Missile defense research and development must remain a primary foreign policy objective.
6. Efforts - both military and diplomatic - to bring rogue states and non-state actors into the realm of the rule of law, where through reason or coercion, terrorist attacks are prevented, must remain a primary foreign policy objective.
7. The United States should establish and clearly communicate a policy and response to an EMP attack.  The “non-lethal” nature of this threat, as well as the lack of a defined policy may tempt potential adversaries into pursuing this avenue for lack of sufficient deterrence.

The scary part of this scenario, (as if you need another), is that the very things that made a ballistic missile attack against the US by a rogue nation unlikely, (that being, lack of sophisticated missiles, telemetry and guidance, etc), are not significant factors in this type of attack.  In the “scud in a bucket” scenario, a nuclear weapon is paired with an existing, low precision, missile system and launched from a ship off the coast of the US to detonate mid-flight at the apogee of it’s trajectory, somewhere over the continental US.

There are even indications that Iranian military and political leadership have considered this very scenario.  Would they actually try it?  How close are they to being able to achieve it?  No one really knows. 

The possibility of an EMP attack is a very real threat to the economy and physical infrastructure of this country.  There is considerable debate as to the severity of an attack with many factors to consider, (single vs. multiple warheads, warhead yield, distance from the blast, type and configuration of the equipment exposed, etc.).  But even if the worst-case scenario is overstated and an attack simply severely degrades the infrastructure of half the Eastern seaboard, the result would still be catastrophic.

The odds of this happening on any given day are exceedingly low, but the consequences if it were to occur are unthinkable.  We must begin to respond to this threat in a long-term, coherent fashion, or one day you may wake to find that the world as you’ve come to know it has ceased to exist and that you’re settling in for what may be a very long wait for things to get back to the incredibly complicated, interconnected miracle that we call “normal”.

 Originally published in American Thinker - 8/17/08

This past week the Thomas More Law Center won the latest round against the ACLU in a twenty year legal battle to remove a large cross which stands atop a National memorial cemetery in San Diego. 

The ruling judge - Larry Alan Burns - wrote:

“The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice.  As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is Constitutional.”

Assessing the temporal nature of the victory, Richard Thompson from Thomas More said:

Sadly, I fully expect the ACLU attorneys to appeal this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  So this fight is not over.”

And so it goes, maybe for another twenty years, but in the end why do I feel that if I had to bet, the smart money would be on the cross coming down within my lifetime.

The late William F. Buckley defined conservatism famously as, “standing astride history and yelling, Stop!”  Truer words have never been spoken.

Picture a plane in flight - a really long flight.  Although most are content to watch the movie or read a book, some begin to speculate that with a couple of key improvements, the plane could be a lot better.  After talking amongst themselves for a few hours they decide that the only way to move forward is to dismantle it mid-flight, and rebuild as they go. 

An opposition group points out that no one has ever done this, we’re thirty-eight thousand feet up in the air, we don’t fully understand everything the engineers who built it knew. etc., etc.

Meanwhile, someone up in business class finds a wrench and starts taking some of the bolts off the door.  Horrified, one of the stuffy “traditionalists” manages to stop him after he’s removed a few more.

“What’s the big deal? - yells the passionate reformer as the wrench is plied from his hand and the bolts re-attached, “It’s not like the plane crashed!  We’re still flying.  What are you so uptight about?” he shouts as he’s locked in the bathroom.

Many are relieved, but some admire the detainee. 

“It took a lot of guts to do that”, they say.  “Who says a door’s gotta be designed that way?  There’s lots of ways to make a door.  How can we progress forward if they won’t let us change things?”   

Eventually two groups split evenly down the middle, one feverishly working to take things apart, another constantly trying to stop them. 

The progressives are relentless, demanding their freedom to do as they please, decrying the scare tactic of a “plane crash” constantly invoked by the traditionalists.

The traditionalists fight back with all their strength, never gaining the upper hand, locked in a permanent holding action. 

Meanwhile, the great majority of the passengers are largely oblivious.  They occasionally take notice of a scuffle, sometimes going as far as to take sides and throw their considerable weight behind one group or the other.  But for the most part they go about their business as if the whole conflict where a dream, secure in the conviction that a plane - once in flight - stays in flight, no matter what. 

A very influential communist named Antonio Gramsci noted wisely that free people in a capitalist country would never revolt of their own accord.  The ties of culture and tradition - not to mention the benefits of capitalism - were too strong to support an alien ideology that a revolution could coalesce around. 

He reasoned that as a precursor to Communism, a campaign to de-legitimize the existing society was required.  Tradition and authority should be attacked wherever they presented themselves.  Existing structures and conventions should be challenged, undermined, redefined.  Marriage, church, family, national identity - everything must be eroded and weakened to pave the way for the glorious revolution.  He called this strategy “The Long March Through the Institutions”. 

Gramsci died in 1937 but his ideas soldier on.  Marriage redefined by lawsuit, the continued exorcism of religion from public spaces, the glorification of youth and disregard for the wisdom of elders.  This list could go on for pages - look around you and everywhere you turn someone is swinging a wrecking ball at the foundations of civilization.   

And the amazing part - the dark beauty of Gramsci’s vision is that these “progressives” are not even aware that their real purpose is destruction. 

They really think they’re improving the plane.

Once, while debating a liberal, my continued resistance to his myriad social and economic innovations led him to exclaim – “Why are you always against everything?  Why can’t you be for something?”

I responded that I was for all sorts of things; market based economics, protection of property rights, individual freedom and accountability, etc. etc.  What he couldn’t understand – what most liberals can’t fathom – is that opposition to their social experimentation is not based on a fear of moving forward, but instead an attachment to a set of cherished, and practically speaking, very efficient values and social structures.

A few thoughts for “progressives” to contemplate:

1. Movement, in and of itself, is not necessarily movement forward.
2. There are things in this world that are close to the optimum.  As such, significant changes will most likely have a negative outcome.
3. Human nature and institutions are inherently limited in their perfectibility.  Any philosophy that does not incorporate this as the base assumption is capable of a great deal of damage.
4. It is much easier to deconstruct standards and traditions than to establish them.  Once demolished it is often impossible to rebuild them, even if the demolition crew acknowledges their mistake.

Contemplating the endless series of lawsuits filed by a panoply of Left-wing “progressive’ organizations – of which, the battle over the cross on Mount Soledad is but a single skirmish – I’ve come to realize a false hope I’ve long held as a conservative.  That being – the idea that there is some golden future in which the Left wakes up and realizes what they’re doing.  A day when common sense prevails and seemingly intelligent people understand that you don’t build things up with a wrecking ball. 

In the end, this dream is as childish as the utopian fantasies which populate the minds and hearts of the Left. 

Ultimately, the stakes are enormous, the opposition indefatigable, and there is very little chance of a final and lasting victory.  But what else can you do?  You fight to keep the plane in the air.  You try to teach people that things come apart a lot easier than they fit back together. 

You hope for the best, but sadly give up the dream that it’s ever going to end.

 Idling behind a Lexus this morning I saw the latest bit of agitprop from the Obama campaign - a “Got Hope?” bumper sticker.  The first question that popped into my mind was, “How bad can it be if you’re driving an ES 350?” 

It seems that the racially polarized, economically dysfunctional country our Obama supporter is so keen to change has treated him pretty well.  Maybe he’s in it for the other guys.  You know - the 95% who keep making their mortgage payments on time, the record breaking numbers of college graduates, the millions of Americans who consume Ipods, flat screen TVs or hundreds of other accoutrements of a society so wealthy it has no historical parallel. 

I hate to burst the dystopian bubble the Leftists have persistently inflated during the nightmare known as The Bush Administration but - people have never had better food, medicine and housing than they do at this very moment.  A typical home in America today has central heat and air, the cheapest car is a paragon of safety and efficiency compared with its ancestors, and people are routinely treated for, and survive, conditions which were fatal less than half a century ago.

Yes I’m aware that there’s a mortgage crisis - if by crisis you mean a lot of people buying houses way beyond their means while a sub-set of financially myopic lenders goaded them on.  But looked at another way, for those of us who didn’t drink the Kool-Aid and purchase radically overpriced real estate so we could use the equity to finance trips to Vegas, what’s so horrible about falling home prices?  For many, when speaking of housing, couldn’t we reasonably substitute the word “consequences” for “crisis”?

Yes I’m aware there’s an insurance coverage crisis - not access, (which is available to anyone who presents themselves in a emergency room), or quality, (which no one really debates is still the benchmark for the world) - but I do find it puzzling that the majority of the people you see in public emergency rooms can somehow afford cell phones, top of the line running shoes and late model cars. 

As a matter of fact, the U.S. Census bureau estimates that 20% of the uninsured can actually afford insurance, and another 25% are eligible for government coverage, bringing the estimated total of 47 million uninsured down to 26 million.  An issue to be worked on - most definitely.  But a county that current does, or can, provide access to the best health care in the world for 92.5% of its populous, (including a large percentage of non-citizens who significantly skew the statistics), is, by definition, not a country with a health care crisis.

As to the issue of food, do you know what the food crisis looked like in the early twentieth century?  It looked like a lot of very thin, hungry people.  No talk of barring trans-fats I can assure you.  As Greg Easterbrook points out in “The Progress Paradox”, if you traveled back in time and spoke to your not so distant relatives about the crisis of obesity in poor people, they would be completely confused because in their day being poor meant going hungry.  If there is any crisis surrounding food in the United States it is the result of incredible prosperity and abundance; all in all, not a bad problem to have.

When you look at these “big picture” type issues you can generally divide society into two opposing worldviews; the romantic and the tragic.

The romantic looks at the United States, compares it to perfection, finds it wanting, and demands that we start over from scratch.  Arguments for moderation and caution are dismissed as greed or indifference.  “Obviously anyone who can accept the wretched state of healthcare in this country is an idiot or a monster”. 

Romantics are generally the ones you see with the communist inspired art advocating one word solutions like Hope or Change.  It doesn’t get much more transparent, (or vacuous), than that.

The tragic perspective takes exactly the opposite approach.  Instead of saying - “What a mess, how can I make this better?” - the response is something like, “Thank God this works so well, lets be careful not to screw it up!” 

And when you think about it, there’s a hell of a lot we can all be thankful for.

Thank God I was born here and not in North Korea.  Thank God I’ve never seen a tank come rolling into my town.  Thank God there’s so much to eat, and so many jobs, such great schools, etc, etc, etc.

There are a great deal of things - even, as I’ve shown, in our “crisis” areas - that work very well in the United States of America.  This is not pre-ordained.  It’s perfectly possible for self-righteous, naïve idealists to destroy an excellent system in the process of “improving” it.  Anyone who doubts me should take some time and read up on the imposition of socialism to British healthcare.  How about Stalin and collective farming, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, and don’t even get me started on the Schwarzenegger Administration…

Even though liberals like to see themselves as the thinking man’s alternative, anyone with moderate intelligence and the willingness to do even minimal research will inevitable conclude that there is much, much, more right than wrong about present-day America.  The glass is, most assuredly, well more than halfway full. 

Next time you feel hopeless and swept up in an emotional desire for change remember the ultimate conceit in the words - “It can’t get any worse”. 

Trust me - It can.

Originally published on American Thinker - 7/30/08

Barack Obama gave a lengthy interview this week to ABC News in which he expounded on his ever-evolving position on the troop surge in Iraq.

Before discussing, a little context is in order.  Here’s a rundown of previous statements on the topic -

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Also from January 2007:

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

May 25th, 2007:

“And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.”

July, 2007:

“Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan.”

September 13th, 2007:

“After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he’s been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed.”

 

“Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”

In early 2008, as statistical proof of The Surge’s incredible success became indisputable, Mr. Obama abruptly reverses his assessment of the situation and his recollection of his own recent history -

January 5, 2008:

“I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”

And now we’ve evolved to this -

July 21, 2008:

When asked if - knowing what he knows now - would Mr. Obama support the Troop Surge.  He replied, “No.”  When asked to articulate he added -

“These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult,” he said. “Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with — is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues.”

A few things are clear from this review of the candidate’s own words -

1. Mr. Obama is on a nodding acquaintance with the concept of “truth”.  It appears that everything he says and does must be viewed “in context” and that the framing of that context is the sole province of Barack Obama. Take the whole Reverend Wright issue for example.  Over the course of six weeks we were told that - he had no idea these things were said; he had a vague idea they were said; he knew they were said but could no more disown them than his occasionally racist grandmother; he had been personally disrespected and was through with Jeremiah Wright.  Quite a bit of “context” to get from his initial statements to the end point a mere month and half later…
2. Mr. Obama is entirely unwilling to admit he’s ever wrong about anything.  Once again, the eerily prophetic, (no pun intended), experience with Reverend Wright and Trinity United is instructive.  Absent from this extended public discussion was any admission that he had exercised poor judgement, reached faulty conclusions, learned a lesson etc.  As we learned when he disowned the very man that “he could no more disown” a few weeks later - Barack lives in the eternal now, and at this point in time, this is what he thinks.  End of story, end of discussion.
3. Barack Obama will shamelessly say just about anything required to get elected.  Given the list of quotes assembled above I don’t feel the need to expand on this topic…
4. The Media are at best useless, at worse, complicit.  This sort of post-modern, contextual concept of truth, although horrifying to many of us, is actually quite in vogue on the Left.  A deconstructed, evolving narrative - far from being seen as evasive or dissembling - is seen as a “higher truth” that the flyover folks in Kansas and Nebraska obvioulsy don’t get.  The fact that Mr. Obama blatantly contradicts his own factual assertions is immaterial to the fact that he “gets it”.
5. This late in the game, no one really knows where he stands on anything.  The beauty of shamelessly appropriating all sides of an issue is that you’re never really wrong.  The problem is - should Mr. Obama get elected - he will have to pick one side.  You can’t simultaneously support and abandon Iraq.  You can’t prohibit the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons but refuse to consider using force to stop them.  You can’t have it both ways - ask George Bush, I’m sure he could give you an earful on the topic of hard choices. 

If Barack becomes the 44th President there will quickly come a day when he realizes that, although his buddies in media really love this post-rational journey he’s on, the rest of world looks to President of the United States for fixed principals, clear convictions, and a fairly static view of reality.  Given what we’ve seen to date it’s far from clear that Mr. Obama is intellectually or psychologically disposed to meet the challenge.

Originally posted on American Thinker - 7/27/08

While sharing a drink with a co-worker in the lobby of our Vienna Hotel the conversation was disrupted by a steadily rising thump of bass notes from the street outside.  A minute or two later we could hardly hear each other over the techno-beat and decided to investigate.  Lo and behold we emerged outside to find the Vienna’s first annual “March Against Racism and Discrimination.”

Parading past on the historic RingStrasse were an assortment of unshaven grubby men, and their liberally pierced and tattooed ladies, stretching back as far as the eye could see.  Huge vans filled with sound equipment pumped a deafening concoction of manic dance beats interspersed with otherworldly screeches and wails. 

Blazoned across the front of these traveling discotechs were signs reading; “Say No to Fascism!; No Racism/No Discrimination!; with an occasional anarchy symbol tossed in for good measure.  The protesters marched, enveloped in this sonic tidal wave, filled with self-congratulation for the righteous stand that they had taken against racism in Vienna.

Meanwhile back in the lobby, Middle Eastern men, comfortably attired for the summer weather in shorts and tee shirts, stood next to their wives dressed in full length, jet-black burqas.  Still an unusual site in America, (Thank God), women in this attire are relatively commonplace in many European capitals. 

I’m sure these enlightened fighters of discrimination marched past several of these ladies who silently watched them through the narrow slit in their garment.

And what did they think – if they bothered at all?  Probably something about tolerance and diversity, a rainbow of cultures, etc., etc.  The idea that this – subjugating half the human race to cover their entire body so that their connection to the world is reduced to dimensions of a mail slot - somehow didn’t register as “discrimination” in their minds.

Standing up to Islam, or more precisely - the strain of Islam that traffics in burqas, honor killings, and compulsory marriage of teenagers - is a messy fight.  It’s a fight were the opponent sometimes swings back, occasionally with deadly accuracy.  No, better to combat battles like segregation and apartheid; injustices like making black musicians stay in a different hotel than their white bandleader; or disgraceful bans on inter-racial marriage.

Except – and here’s the bitter pill for all my leftist friends to swallow – those fights have ended.  Sorry you were too young at the time.  I know the movies and documentaries make it all look pretty exciting, but it’s over. 

Of course there are groups in the world that still segregate and discriminate on the basis of gender, religion and nationality.  They say things like, “Israel is a one bomb state”, or “Behead those who defame the prophet!”  They terrorize Jewish students at public schools in Paris, they throw deadly riots on the basis of satirical cartoons, they even go so far as to summarily execute innocent people and publicize the event on the Internet.

How’s that for an enemy of tolerance?  How’s that for a fight worth fighting?  How’s that for a stand that takes some guts and moral courage?

But in the end these questions are drowned out in a wall of dance music and the good feeling that comes from taking an irrelevant stand against something that virtually everyone already condemns. 

In reality, what the Left defines as discrimination is largely extinct and what constitutes real discrimination today is – thanks to their morally relative worldview - off limits to even discuss. 

Meanwhile, back on the sidewalks of Vienna, ladies in burqas walk obediently behind their husbands, sweating in the warm summer sun, thankful for the fact that everyone is so “tolerant” of their unique cultural heritage.

Next time you hear a liberal politician speaking, check your watch and count the seconds until you hear a call for unity.  The problem — we’re told — is that we are divided, and consequently, more interested in fighting than in solving problems.

Barack Obama offers a good, if somewhat self-congratulatory, example from a speech he gave after winning the North Carolina primary election  -

“…it’s possible to overcome the politics of division and distraction; that it’s possible to overcome the same old negative attacks that are always about scoring points and never about solving our problems.”

The idea of “unity” has emerged as a potent talisman for Left.  Much the same way a charge of racism bring things to a screeching halt, unity and divisiveness (its evil counterpart) are used with great effect to stifle inconvenient conversations across America

How reasonable are expectations of unity?  Why should it be essential that we come together and work toward solutions? 

As often the case when we travel through the looking glass into left wing politics, almost everything on the topic is exactly opposite of what a rational person might assume. 

Unreasonable Expectations of Unity

Morality: Calls for unity are frequently heard in the context of issues concerning religious morality. Opposition to abortion and non-traditional marriage are both often characterized by the Left as “wedge issues”, as if religions dating back several millennia were specifically crafted to provide talking points in some 21^st century political contest.

The term “wedge issue” is noteworthy.  What exactly does this mean?  The fact that there are two separate opinions on a subject and a politician is attempting to clearly distinguish his or her position on such is supposed to be a bad thing?  Isn’t that the point of politics?  Isn’t this the point of freedom of speech, debate, and assembly? 

Another oft-heard complaint is that the opposition is inflexible and not open to compromise.  The fallacy here is that every issue has a middle ground in which the Left and right can meet without surrendering their principles.  In our own checkered past of slavery and Jim Crow is it not a blessing that the abolitionists and civil rights protesters were unwilling to seek that “middle ground”?  Does anyone, in hindsight, look back fondly on the Missouri Compromise? 

More often than not, when religious citizens have agreed to compromise the “end-point” of negotiations becomes nothing more than a way-station from which to launch further demands after a brief intermission in the debate.  This dynamic is clearly evidenced by the evolution of California’s Domestic Partnership laws into a, previously unknown, constitutional right to marriage.  

Ideological Unity: As well as demanding unity on issues of faith, liberals are also often outraged at divisions of an ideological nature.  This statement on Illegal Immigration policy from Barack Obama’s website illustrates the point :

“Barack Obama has played a leading role in crafting comprehensive immigration reform. Obama believes the immigration issue has been exploited by politicians to divide the nation rather than find real solutions.”

Note the use of language.  People who do not agree with Mr. Obama’s immigration policies are “exploiting” the issue to “divide” the nation — as opposed to Barack Obama who is interested in finding “real solutions”. 

The obvious point to be made here is that liberal “unity” often involves conservatives adopting left wing policies. Isn’t that what most of the fighting’s really about?

Scientific Consensus: Al Gore has a lot to say on this subject.  The following screed aimed at the so-called “global warming denier” sums it up nicely:

“The debate is over! There’s no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm’s length because it’s an inconvenient truth, because they don’t want to accept that it’s a moral imperative.”

By definition, expecting unity in matters of science violates the core principles of the scientific method.  Although theories can be generally accepted, they are only as strong as their ability to refute alternative hypothesis.   

There was once a strong “scientific consensus” for the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe.  The preposterous notion that the planets revolved around the Sun was as far from the mainstream as you could get.

Too ancient an example?  How about the scientific consensus surrounding racial classifications and eugenics which were popular in Europe and America in the 20’s and 30’s?  Seems unthinkable today but these were mainstream opinions, backed by a healthy majority of biological and social scientists.

The idea that skeptics to all, or part, of the theory of anthropogenic global warming should just fall in with the rest of the crowd is a great disservice to renegades like Copernicus and Galileo who rejected the prevailing consensus to advance what - at the time - were very radical ideas.

Reasonable Expectations of Unity

There are at least two areas where an expectation of some degree of political unity is appropriate: solidarity in times of war and standards for citizenship and national identity. In both cases the Left’s previous demands for unity fall away to leave nothing but the rustling of grass and the sound of crickets.  In these cases we are told that not only is it an unreasonable expectation, it is indeed their duty to speak out.  Presto chango — a wedge issue becomes “the highest form of patriotism”.

Unity in a Time of War: It is not fair to ask citizens living in a free country to keep their opinions to themselves in the run up to a war.  This is usually a period of great debate with legitimate differences of opinion, tactics, and ideology on all sides.  Clearly this is no time to call for unity.

The same cannot be said of a country which is currently engaged in a conflict.   Unless the war in question is thoroughly barbaric and wrong, (think Hitler in Poland or the Japanese in Nanking), the reasonable expectation is to present a united front.  This does not mean that all citizens agree with every tactic, or even the majority decision to fight.  It means that once you’ve committed to the course of action you do your best to pull together and win.

Obviously there is always a role for reasonable criticism and self-examination, (i.e., Abu Ghraib, or rethinking tactics prior to the surge), but it should be done within the context of a country that is united in winning the conflict.

This license has been radically expanded, reaching points — as in the case of the New York Times publishing sensitive details of previously effective anti-terror programs - arguably just short of treason.

Unity of Identity as Americans: The motto on our coins - E Pluribus Unum - says it all.  Roughly translated as “Out of Many - One,” it is a sentiment which has served us practically as well as poetically.  For almost 200 years, it was unquestioned that immigrants would cede allegiance to their country of origin and adopt the language, customs and culture of America.  No one expected them to forget where they’d come from, but clearly it was well understood that assimilation was the desired end point.  Immigrants chose to come here and were allowed in with varying numbers. Americans generally welcomed them, providing they too loved and appreciated the country that had offered them shelter and opportunity in their time of need.

Somewhere around 1965 Liberals began attacking this social contract. Instead of E Pluribus Unum their motto was closer to E Pluribus Pluribus, “Out of the Many – Many”.  The rise of multiculturalism with its emphasis on the left side of the hyphen, (i.e., Mexican-American), and its relentless balkanization of the country into hostile competing camps has recast one of our great societal assets as an oppressive form of subjugation.

Despite their uninterrupted calls for the rest of us to forgo our inherent racism, in the end it is the Left which is incapable of seeing the world through any other lens.  Their 21^stcentury tribalism is about as far as you can get from unity, and it’s a great loss for all of us, because this unity — unity as Americans — is much more than an empty campaign slogan.  E Pluribus Unum is the promise of America, a country, which for all its flaws and shortcomings, is still more a shared ideal than any geographic location or common ancestry.

For all their talk of unity as a value, liberals employ it selectively and strategically to advance positions which are far from inclusive.  On issues of faith and policy the left-wing hand wringing around “divisiveness” often amounts to nothing more than a gag order for those they don’t agree with.  In the intersection of science and public policy the term “scientific consensus” is used with similar designs to stifle minority opinion, (which if unfounded would ultimately be discredited through the rigors of the scientific method anyway). 

Conversely, when we consider the cases where political and social unity is a reasonable expectation in our society, liberals will have none of it.  Patriotic support in a time of war is routinely mocked and derided, with those choosing to do so referred to as ignorant or brainwashed.  The same is true of calls for assimilation and shared culture which are characterized as nativist or xenophobic.

You know what real progress would be? If everyone just admitted that many issues have no middle ground; many conflicts represent fundamental disagreements between incompatible value systems; that ultimately there’s no unity on the question of unity in politics and society.

(Originally posted on American Thinker - 6/19/08)

There’s a quaint story from the days of the cold war about a Russian defector, after seeing his first American supermarket, turning to his U.S. guide and saying, “Enough with the props - I’ve already defected.”

For those of us lucky enough to have grown up in this land of plenty it’s difficult to comprehend how much this shapes the way we think and how we view the world. From an early age we learn to assert our individuality by choosing things that reflect our personality. Who among us doesn’t have a photograph or two that draws a nostalgic twinge at the bygone fashions of a previous decade? Whether an afro, fringe jacket, or leg warmers and big hair - we’ve all been there, we’ve all done that, and odds are we’ll keep doing it as long as we’re able. It’s a normal reaction to the world we live in.

But there’s a catch, a downside to all of this abundance - and its not, as Al Gore and the global warming cult would have you believe, that we’re running out of everything. In fact, the problem is not material at all but existential in nature - put simply - the end result of our affluence is not a shortage of resources as much as a poverty of common sense. This is nowhere more evident than in the movement to “Choose Peace”.

Choosing peace is all the rage these days. From Code Pink to presumptive Democrat candidate Barrack Obama, the jury has reached a verdict that given the choice between peace and war - We choose peace! Moral and practical considerations don’t seem to carry a lot of weight in this respect. With regard to Iraq the following dialogue captures a lot of the sentiment one hears on TV, the Internet or down at the local pub. (Note: Participant B has “chosen peace”.)

A: We’ve invaded their country. We owe it to these people to stay until they’re stable.
B: I was never into that war - that’s not my problem. Peace not war!

A: If we leave there will be a bloodbath. We’re keeping the peace right now.  
B: You don’t “keep the peace” with more violence. Peace now!

A: Dangerous people will take over if we leave too quickly.
B: You mean dangerous people like our war criminal president? The only reason they’re fighting is because we provoked them. Strength through peace!

After a while it becomes clear that nothing can withstand this onslaught of peaceful thinking. It may seem like a new phenomenon but it’s actually somewhat predictable, and if anything, a little shopworn. Travel back with me to the presidential election of 1864 where the Democratic Copperhead movement inserted this plank in the party’s platform.

“…after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war … justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States.”

Substitue U.N for States and Iraq for federal Union of the States and you’ve got Reed, Pelosi or Obama in 2008.

Aside from the interesting historical parallels - (I wonder if the Copperheads were indignant with people questioning their patriotism?) - the salient point is the definition of peace. The 1864 party platform goal was, “that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored”. And this was to be accomplished through “cessation of hostilities” and a “convention of the states or other peaceable means”.

If the Democrats had won the day in November of 1864 they would have called a cease fire and negotiated with the Confederacy arriving ultimately at one of two possible outcomes -

1. Dissolution of the Union, with the Confederacy continuing as a slave holding enterprise in North America;
2. Restoration of the Union with some form of slavery tolerated and continuing in the Southern States.

So in reality, the “peace” so valued by the Copperheads was a relative term for it would have been purchased with the continued enslavement of others. The modern day equivalent is a “peace” that is secured through the almost certain ethnic cleansing that would ensue if we were to hastily retreat from present day Iraq. The lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, many who bravely stood up and fought by our sides, would be sacrificed so we could declare peace.

All this seems fairly obvious. How is it that the Copperheads and their contemporary counterparts reach totally alternate conclusions? It has to do with the difference between self definition on a personal level - the realm of preference and fashion - and mature, objective moral judgment.

When I buy a leather jacket and motorcycle boots instead of a polo shirt and dress pants I’m making a statement about who I am and how I see myself. In another case, the purchase of a minivan or station wagon projects a whole different set of values and priorities than a sports car or a motorcycle. In both cases, the result, (other than a potentially annoyed spouse), is ultimately inconsequential and not linked to the fate of other parties.

However, the same cannot be said for political and policy positions. In this case, the choice to be “for peace” is not a private decision in that its consequences could be potentially disastrous for other individuals with no say in the matter, (i.e., a 12 year old Sunni boy in Fallujah). In this case - the choice of peace could very well be someone else’s death sentence, and viewed in light of this reality - not very peaceful at all.

It would be nice if we could choose peace as simply as picking out a shirt. It would be great if there was a policy equivalent of taking the old wardrobe to the Goodwill and starting over with a totally new look, (which seems to be the appeal of some candidates running on platforms suspiciously similar to the Copperheads of old). Needless to say - the world is a messy place, not at all like a mall or retail outlet.

Political choices are more than fashion statements. They set in motion a chain of events impacting other people - most of whom have no say in the matter - who desperately need us to make the right decision.

Being a citizen of the United States in the 21st century is an enormous blessing which carries an equally large responsibility. Like our distant, departed cousins in New England, we too are facing momentous choices in a war which has become tiresome and unpopular. And like them we must ask ourselves -

Is this choice really going to bring peace?

Am I being honest about what will happen if I get my way? 

Am I truly standing on the moral high ground or simply the space which casts the most flattering reflection?

(Originally published on Primetime Politics - 5/29/08)

Driving across town the other day I saw a bumper sticker bearing what’s become a common refrain:

“Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism!”

I sped up to catch a glimpse of this patriot - a twenty-something dude in jeans and a black t-shirt sporting the obligatory goatee and super-sized sideburns. Given the choice between him and his Prius or Paul Revere thundering through the New England countryside - I prefer the guy on the horse.

It’s an interesting phenomenon, this redefinition of patriotism. Employing a term that’s perpetually misused by the left - it’s Orwellian the way they’ve turned everything around.

I see the flag as a symbol of the greatest nation in history - they see the practice of burning it as patriotic.

I look at the men and women of our military as examples of American exceptionalism - they see them as an embarrassment to be explained away though small town ignorance.

My heroes are the men who charged up Mount Suribachi - theirs are a shadowy army of bloggers debating ”stand-down” orders and the melting point of steel.

Which leads us inevitably to the current epicenter of “patriotic dissent” - The 9/11 Truth Movement. The “truthers” started as a loose confederation of under-employed wingnuts with “serious questions” about the 9/11 Commission Report and in the intervening years have grown to a much larger collection of under-employed… (Do I really need to finish the sentence?)

Their stock in trade response to any reasonable inquiry as to their motivation, (much less sanity), is: “When did it become un-American to ask questions?”

Consider the following hypothetical conversation:

Sane Person (SP): So you’re saying that a bunch of people secretly planted explosives, wiring, etc., over a course of several weeks in one of the most busily trafficked, public buildings in the world, and that everyone working there just failed to notice electrical cables hanging from fresh holes in the ceilings, etc., etc., etc.

Truther (T): I’m just asking questions. When did it become illegal for Americans to ask questions?

SP: But I’m asking you a question. You made a statement and I’m trying to understand it?

T: What did you say your last name was? And who says I can’t ask questions? I’m a patriot. I will not be silenced! Not by you or Dick Cheney or Hallibuton…

Imagine this conversation continuing endlessly…

Obviously a slight exaggeration, but if you’ve ever dropped by a “truther” kiosk, (as I did at a street fair recently), you’ll see it’s not too far off the mark. And this sentiment appears to be growing, not diminishing, with the passage of time. Polls by Zogby and Scripps Howard reveal that a disquieting number of “randomly selected Americans” have begun drinking the truther Kool-Aid. From Scripps Howard, July 2006 –

Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them”.

• 59% “not likely”
• 20% “somewhat likely”
• 16% “very likely  

Although these is still a healthy majority which sees this proposition as “not likely”, an amazing 36% percent feel it is “somewhat to very likely” that Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, or took no action to stop them.

Even though their stock appears to be rising of late, truthers generally become defensive and indignant with anyone who doesn’t meekly submit to their “patriotic” right to just ask some questions. The faux innocence behind this questioning is strategic and disingenuous.. As if, by “just asking questions” they’re not asserting some alternative version of reality. The ultimate goal is to establish a base level of doubt, to create credibility for alternative scenarios – no matter how laughably far-fetched – and to demean the best efforts of thousands of Americans who produced the exhaustively comprehensive 9/11 Commission Report as pawns in some pedestrian piece of government propaganda.

The guy I talked to made an incredible statement, very typical of truthers for its patent circularity. Describing this moment in history he said:

“Can’t you see that no matter how you look at it, 9/11 is the linchpin? 9/11 is the justification for both wars and the systematic elimination of our civil liberties. None of it can happen without 9/11?

The implied truth which underpins all his logic, (and is never proven or debated), is that 9/11 - as we know it - is a fraud. The ultimate victory in conspiratorial logic is that the delusional ”cover up”, (i.e., the lack of serious media attention to the “Truth Movement”), proves the crime.

I actually took a shot at conventional logic and responded:

“But all this is only true if the official version of the story is wrong. You can equally explain everything by an attack on this country from a group of highly motivated Islamo-fascists who’d been trying to do similar things around the world for the last 10 years - including actually bombing the same building in 1993.”

He shook his head with a touch of contempt dismissing me as one of the “sheeple”, (truther term for the great majority of mindless Americans blindly following authority), or maybe a Zionist conspirator, (I never did supply my last name), and wandered back to his friends in the booth to rearrange the pamphlets and fliers.

I’m not alone in my attempts to right their listing ship. Popular Mechanics published an excellent article which was later expanded to a book titled, “Debunking 9/11 Myths; Why Conspiracy Myths Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.”  It systematically goes through each of the prevalent conspiratorial assertions and summarily points out one of several flaws:

1. The statement is not true:  Case in point, the infamous “stand-down” order that kept the Air Force from following their routine practice of intercepting, and potentially destroying, wayward commercial airliners. In reality, the Air Force has not kept squadrons of armed fighters sitting on alert since the early 1970’s. Fighters can’t shoot down ICBMs, and as the nuclear equation shifted in that direction the practice became irrelevant. Although the Air Force did eventually scramble jets that morning, confusion in command structure and difficulty locating the remaining jet, (United 93), due to the fact that the hijackers turned off its radar transponder, prevented an intercept. (Luckily, this contingency was handled by a group of real American patriots who prevented the hijackers from achieving their objective).

2. Violation of Occam’s Razor:  Stated simply by W. Occam, (1288-1347), “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” In modern day language - “When given two possible explanations for the same event, all things being equal, the simpler of the two is more likely true. This is often stated as - When you hear hoof-beats in the distance, think horses, not zebras. A good example of this is when a truther explains that the planes that hit the world trade center were actually modified military jets loaded with explosives and dressed up to look like airliners. What happened to the actual airliners, you may ask? What of the passengers? The phone calls - many recorded - made in flight to loved ones? That’s simple, replies a truther. The planes were forced to land at remote airstrips, the passengers were loaded onto United 93 - which was later shot down - and the calls were accomplished through CIA computer generated voice mimicking software. Simple indeed - How could I have ever believed anything as far-fetched as a hijacking by a group of violent fanatics who’d been stating their intention to this very thing for the better part of the last decade?

3. Circular Reasoning:  Often referred to as “begging the question”, a circular argument is one that is based on an unproven premise or axiom which is essential to the ultimate conclusion. When I spoke to the truther at the street fair he informed me that five of the nineteen September 11th hijackers have already been found to be alive in various Middle East countries. ”Wait a minute,” I said, “That would be the biggest news story of the decade. How come I haven’t heard this?” He pointed at the banner hanging behind him - “9/11 Cover Up. Demand the Truth!” and replied, “Exactly. That’s why it’s a cover up.”

4. Argument by Insinuation:  This is sort of an all purpose argument for anything they don’t have an answer to. I mentioned the Popular Mechanics book to them and was asked, “Do you know who owns their publisher?” Long story short - they’re in on it. Anyone who raises a legitimate argument against their insanity is “hiding the truth”, “part of the cover up”, etc. It’s interesting to note that this is also circular argument in that it assumes that the truthers are indeed correct, there is a cover up, etc., with out ever proving as much.

5. General Nuttiness:  There is a strong undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the truther movement. There are rumors that all employees of Jewish descent called in sick on the morning of 9/11. There are veiled accusatory questions such as - “Who benefited from us fighting Saddam Hussein?” Ditto for anti-capitalism, (large maniacal corporations figure into many of their theories). Finally - and most amusing, or disturbing, as the case may be - is the fact that the plethora of conspiracy theories generated by the “truth movement” are totally at odds with each other and this doesn’t seem to bother the truthers at all. On one hand the WTC towers are secretly rigged with high explosives, on another, the planes themselves are filled with explosives. On one hand the hijackers are expendable operatives tied to the CIA, Mossad, etc., on another, they’re alive and well, living large in Dubai on their monthly pension from Halliburton.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter that none of this ultimately makes much sense. The irony of the 9/11 Truth Movement is that “truth” is pretty far down their list of priorities.

Why do they do it then? Short of writing a thesis on the subject I think their motivation is probably not much different than that of an overly dramatic teenager: desire for attention, the need to feel special, an anti-authoritarian axis to unite them “against the system”. Truthers have an incredible sense of self-importance, of which, the invocation of “patriotism” and their claims to be fighting back the rising tide of fascism are obvious facets, (the fact that they’re allowed to have their booth, distribute their literature, and that - if need be - the police would even protect their right to do so, doesn’t seem to make a dent in their cognitive armor).

These 21st century Don Quixotes tilting at their Zionist/Industrial windmills, in many cases, probably need nothing more than a girlfriend to cure their fevered fantasies.

And how did the day end for the “patriot” I met at the street fair? I imagine later that night he went home to his parent’s house and asked Mom what was for dinner or talked Dad into making another of his student loan payments with a promise to - “Really start seriously looking for a job.”

Not quite the same as dragging a wounded buddy out of a firefight in Fallujah or standing up to a water cannon in Selma. No, these “patriot” battles are waged entirely within their collective delusion where they man the barricades against BusHitler, congratulate each other for their courage and fortitude and still make it home in time to catch the latest episode of “Lost” on their DVR.

And what should our response be to this phenomenon? There’s the obvious choice of outrage, which I imagine would be almost impossible to avoid if you lost a loved that day. But ultimately - they sort of like that. It validates their “us against the forces of darkness” worldview.

There’s also pity. And I must say that that is a tempting choice as well. These are people who’ve obviously missed a couple of milestones along the path to mature, adult development. But pity’s a slippery slope. You could make all the same arguments for racists, religious zealots, etc., etc. These are - by and large - emancipated adults who deserve to be held to the same standards of rationality as every other member of society.

In the end, I’d suggest that the most appropriate response is laughter. The “truth movement” is essentially a ship of fools. For all the pyrotechnics in their literature, movies and websites, their core assertions are ultimately intellectually and philosophically hilarious. The self-congratulatory nature of their redefined ”patriotism”; their fictional status as the vanguard in a society of sheeple; the sheer audacity to compare themselves with the founding fathers of this country. It’s really pretty funny if you stop and give it a chance.

No modern scientist or philosopher is actively working to disprove the theory of the Greek Gods, ditto for a flat Earth or the “staged moon landing”. I would submit that the 9/11 Truth Movement is currently circling the same airport. We should no more argue over their nonsensical claims than we would seriously engage in a debate about the powers of Zeus.

The one thing conspiracists can’t counter with their rhetorical tool-belt is sheer dismissive laughter. To modify a line from the aptly title play - “Richelieu: or The Conspiracy” The snicker is mightier than the sword.

Give it a try next time you meet one of these modern day patriots - who knows, maybe it’ll be the first link in chain of events that finally gets them out of their parent’s guest house and into the real world where groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the nation of Iran, and others too numerous to catalogue, are working tirelessly to produce a spectacular follow up to the real tragedy that befall America on 9/11/01.

That’s a truth we would all do well to remember.

(Originally published on Primetime Politics - 5/7/08)

I drove by a Protestant church recently that had the following moral exhortation on their lawn marquee -

“Saving the world, one light-bulb at a time.”

Wow!  Talk about a test of faith.  Don’t think you’re going to slide through the gates of heaven without renouncing Satan’s bulbs - not a chance!

Later that week a Liberal friend asked me - “Do you believe in global warming?”  As I contemplated my answer I was struck with conflicting images - a Senate sub-committee, and a child asking about Santa.  To his credit, he stuck with me through my multi-part response.  To wit -

1. The world has been warming since approximately 1650 when it reached it’s latest ‘low” and almost dipped into a modern Ice Age.  This episode is well recorded and notable for its misery as crop yields declined, economic activity contracted, and people were generally extremely cold.  On the lighter side - you could ice skate on the Thames.  But all in all, not a good trend…
2. The world is now the same temperature as it was in 1000 A.D.  We’ve basically climbed out of the trough that we descended into for 650 years and now enjoy the same general climate as feudal rulers and Vikings a millennium ago.   (”Beautiful day wouldn’t you say Erik?  This is pillaging weather Gefhert - pass me that mace!”)
3. Theoretically, there is some incredibly complex formula that explains weather, temperature and climate.  We will probably never comprehend it in any great detail. 
4. Since we’ve only been in the carbon footprint game for a short period, there are obviously other big levers which control climate, (as evidenced by the repeated warming and cooling of the planet - the majority of which preceded humans entirely). 
5. If you were omniscient and could see this formula, there would probably be a legitimate factor in the equation representing human emission of CO2 through industrial processes and agriculture.  It is quite possible that this factor is a very minor influence on the equation as a whole.
6. It is our influence on this possibly trivial climatic input that is being debated. 

I asked what brought all this to mind.  In short, why the long face?

What followed was the standard global warming litany: Crop failures, rising tides, malaria in Vermont, people dying of heatstroke during the endless summer, etc., etc., etc…

I countered each point with one of two arguments -

• This problem already exists and can be solved more efficiently by directly focusing on it than by attempting to manipulate the global climate - (For example, malaria can currently be eradicated for pennies on the dollar, and contrary to Gore, et al, it will never be a problem in Vermont)
• This “problem” is not really problem at all.  It either doesn’t exist, or is the lesser of two possible outcomes - (For example, a warmer world will cause a slightly higher incidence in summer heatstroke, which will be completely negated by the decrease in winter deaths due to cold.  The modeling that’s been done, [for what its worth], actually shows an overall net decrease in mortality in the “warmer world” scenario due to the fact that humans adapt more readily to heat than cold).

At some point along the way I realized I was making him angry.  It wasn’t that I was being abrasive or disrespectful.  I was responding point by point to each of supposed global warming calamities.  “We can fix all this stuff now,” I said.  “No need to give up your SUV, no buildings underwater, no tribes of cannibals living in the burned out skeleton of Baby Gap.”  This should be good news, correct?

That’s where you’d be wrong.  The thing you need to realize is that all these supposed outcomes are a smokescreen.  Most global warming activists don’t really care about people being fed or preventing malaria.  If that’s what you’re concerned about you focus on that.  Trying to address world hunger by worrying about CO2 levels is about as direct as trying to become a famous actor by waiting tables in a Hollywood restaurant, (actually that may be a little too pessimistic but you get the picture).

 The ”science” of global warming is nothing more than a cover for their irrational emotional needs.  It’s religion for people who are too cool to go to church.  All that yearning, the need for something bigger, transcendent - Hey the planet’s heating up and I’ve been placed here to save it! 

When Al Gore says, “The Earth has a fever,” no one calls him on his cartoon personification - as if the Earth has a temperature it prefers. 

 Compare this to GW’s comment that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher - “Oh what a sad misguided fool.  He still believes in God.  And this is the guy who’s running our country?” 

To borrow a phrase, (as I have liberally in this post), from the brilliant statistician and eco-philosopher, Bjorn Lomborg - Visualize the people living on Earth 100 years from now.  Lets imagine that they can reach back in time and speak to us, give us some feedback on the world we’ll be leaving them.  What do you think they’d ask us to focus on?  Where would they have us concentrate our scarce time and energy? 

A world in which hunger and AIDS have been eradicated - or - a world where the sea level is 6 inches lower?

A world free of Jihad where everyone lives under some form of representative democracy - or - a world that is 2.1 degrees cooler in the months between October and March?

A world with 10% more polar bear habitat - or - a world where even the poorest or the poor have clean water and a sanitary place to go to the bathroom? These are our choices.  We can’t do both.

And frankly, to hear people who are so wealthy that they’re clinically obese from excess food and leisure time yammering on about what kind of light-bulbs they use, while other people are literally starving to death…  Its beyond bizarre.  It speaks to a frightening level of self-deception that seemingly intelligent folks engage in - en masse.

Which brings us back to the church I saw.  Is this what passes for morality today?  Is this what constitutes a courageous stand?  Is this honestly the best we can do?  Do you know how much the sea level rose since 1850?  1 foot.  And what did we do?  How did we handle this catastrophe?  Well, actually, we didn’t know it was happening - that’s how horrible the climate change we experienced was.

Do you know how much the UN’s IPCC panel predicts the sea level will rise by 2100?  One foot.  Lets hope it’s not the nightmare we went through last time.

So next time you fret about whether your car is Gore compliant or if you’re mulching the coffee grounds properly to protect your precious Gaia - think for a minute about how it would look to our friends a hundred years hence, or better yet, to a little kid in present-day Africa or Asia who’s starving to death.

Maybe we ought to return to an elemental truth the folks a hundred years in our past knew clearly and without reservation.

People come first - the Earth can take care of itself.

(Originally posted on American Thinker - 4/22/08)

I don’t know what the “Free Tibet” bumper sticker crowd must be thinking this past week but I can assure you it most certainly doesn’t involve the 101st Airborne, tanks, guns, or any of that other “culture of violence” stuff.

I guess it involves something along the lines of everyone focusing - I mean really focusing - their energy, and the ensuing global vibe snapping the Chinese out of their misguided ways.  This would be followed immediately by a retreat, apology, and later, some really cool sharing and cultural appreciation between the two.

Gandhi - the poster boy of non-violence - had this to say about the Jews, and how they should properly respond to the unenlightened Nazis.

“The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”

Louis Fisher, Gandhi’s biographer asked him: “You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?”

Gandhi responded, “Yes, that would have been heroism.”

To the British -

“I would like you to lay down the arms you have which are useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession…. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.”

So much for the moral high ground…

Any extended discussion with a pacifist always reached the point where they sigh and say - “But I want to live in a world without violence.”  To which I respond - “I want to live in a world where I can breath under water.”  What we want generally does not change things.  You think people in a nursing home want to be there?  I’m sure they would rather “live in a world without aging.”  Look how much good that does them.

We see in the car bumper which shares the “War is Not the Answer” and “Free Tibet” stickers the ultimate expression of leftist adolescence.  The failure to acknowledge the glaring contradictions between what we “want”, (a free Tibet), and the the only viable way to get it, (violence against the thugs currently occupying the country).

The pacifist’s belief that his conviction changes that of others - “the heroic Jewish suicides” that Mr Gandhi speaks of - in the end is nothing more than adolescent narcissism elevated to the level of cosmic truth.  Try telling a mugger in the middle of a shakedown that you “really don’t believe in taking peoples money by force” or that you “want to live in a world without mugging.”   After he’s done laughing, and taking everything he wants, if you can get him to stick around for a minute and offer an opinion on you it would probably be something along the lines of,  “You’re the perfect victim.  I wish they could all be like you”

And so it was sadly that I listened to the Dalai Lama pronounce last week that if the violence didn’t cease he would have no option but to quit being Tibet’s spiritual leader in exile.  Whoa!  I’ll bet that really gave those Chinese generals a couple of sleepless nights!

To all those out there with the “Free Tibet!” stickers, here’s a few facts that will help the world make sense:

1. There will always be bad people. 
2. Bad people don’t care about hurting good people.  Appeals to shame, empathy and guilt don’t work on them.  That’s why they’re bad people.
3. Bad people respond to force.  They don’t like it and will change their behavior to avoid it.
4. Good people need to use force to stop the bad people from hurting other good people.
5. It’s not the same when a good person uses force to stop a bad person as when the bad person uses it to harm a good person.  
6. Not letting good people use force against bad people encourages more bad behavior.
7. Good people using force against bad people should be encouraged.  This will make the world a better place.

 To all the pacifists out there who think guns are the problem, all the moral lightweights harping about the “cycle of violence”,  please remember -

Guns liberated Auschwitz and violence ended slavery.  The world you “imagine” is not here on Earth but in the next life, and you’re really gumming things up for the rest of us by confusing the two.

Free Tibet - Hell yes!  Who do we send the weapons to?

(Originally posted on American Thinker - 4/20/08)