Many still wonder how and why Barack Obama has managed to find so much success in the world of politics, even outside of his own party. He is a footstep away from an office where, traditionally, the main litmus test for job-worthiness has been experience and a military record. So how is it that a candidate who for all intents and purposes has neither is able to so thoroughly trounce on a candidate who, by the traditional definition, is far more Presidential? I would be remiss to claim that part of it was not due to the decline in Republican popularity due to President Bush or due to the eloquence and “world changing ideas” that Obama possesses, prima facie. While the former certainly explains his popularity during the general campaign, it is unlikely to explain his success during the Democratic primaries, as all candidates represented a marked change from President Bush’s “shoot from the hip” politics. So how is it possible that someone who openly espouses American Socialism could have seen such a sudden rise in popularity, when better funded opponents (Hilary Clinton) typically should have done much better?
I would like to posit that Barack Obama’s success comes not so much from his political skills, but more from the appeal that he has to what I like to consider a growing caucus of American voters. This is a caucus that I would prefer to call “The Fantasy Caucus,” and to me, it is a frightening group of voters with a sharp disconnect from many traditional American values.
The Fantasy Caucus, as I call it, extends beyond mere boundaries of race, gender and class. The Fantasy Caucus is a generational group, composed largely of people aged 18-30, many of whom are voting for only the first, second or third time. This voter caucus features members of the Millenial Generation and the Facebook Generation who, with numbers drastically larger than any before them, are attending college. For these generations, college has become the norm, rather than the exception. And in college, they are finding themselves exposed for four years to an ever growing cast of radically liberal and socialist professors who, for all their talk about free thought, wish only to indoctrinate their students in liberal ideals with no tolerance for cognitive dissonance. They exist in or are coming from a world where homogeneity of thought is the norm. They are taught that social and economic injustice can be overcome only by government fiat, and that they should be eager to embrace feel-good economics.
The Fantasy Caucus is largely sheltered from the pain and burden of the real world. They have few monetary concerns. To them, their education is paid for by applying their signature to a piece of paper at the beginning of their Freshman year, with little thought about the long term ramifications of that signature. Generally, when they have wants and needs, they have parents available to pick up the tab. The automobiles that they use to travel around are generally provided to them. For the Fantasy Caucus, life is less about having to pay bills or worrying about having heat for the winter, because all is provided for them by a faceless institution, their own internal socialist state. They do not have the emotional or fiscal maturity to understand why socialism is unappealing to the majority of people.
Another interesting aspect of the Fantasy Caucus is that to them, the world of politics has been largely dominated by the maligning of President Bush and the Republican Party. They largely remember that life was good under President Clinton, a man who is not all dissimilar from President Bush, but that in the last eight years, there has been a sharp downturn, at least as far as they can comprehend. The Fantasy Caucus shows a large disinterest in history or even in the workings of the government. Appealing to the Fantasy Caucus through the use of names and concepts beyond their years brings the exact opposite effect. They exist only to promulgate and burn out the latest fad.
Their minds are negatively attentive, only able to recall that which they have heard or seen in recent times. They prefer news clips and sound bites over full stories or speeches. Being unable to quickly draw their attention to a point only serves to draw their ire. Their lives are dominated by thirty second youtube clips. They find out how their friends are doing only by checking their status on facebook (less than ten years ago it was AIM or MSM), preferring that instead of long, drawn out communication. The Fantasy Caucus is technologically savvy, but often only insofar as it comes to being able to search on google or text their friends with the computers and cell phones provided by their schools and/or parents, respectively. For Barack Obama to announce his running mate via text message, it showed that he was one of them. To them, a man who cannot use email, whatever the reason, has no right being President.
Even though they have a deep care about social and economic injustice, the Fantasy Caucus is also hyper-materialistic, direly needing to possess the latest piece of technology. This tends to fill them with guilt, since they find it unfair but at the same time satisfying that they have something that others may not. That is why they find such appeal in someone who will “spread the wealth,” because then everyone can share in their materialism.
The Fantasy Caucus is not a group that will necessarily decide an election. However, it is a large voting bloc, and candidates do well to court it, since they possess a drive and spirit, as well as internet know-how, to help get a candidate’s message across. By appealing to this group early, Barack Obama was able to turn the idea that he was inexperienced into the idea that he was “in-touch” and very much “one of them.”
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
NBC Censored Skit
This needs to be seen by anyone, because it explains our economic problems perfectly.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
"The Bear Patrol Must Be Doing Its Job"
Looking at any graph of CO2 and temperature over time, we can see that there is undoubtedly a correlation between the two. As the former increases, so does the latter. This is undeniable proof that anthropogenic increases in carbon dioxide are leading to a dramatic and unprecedented increase in temperature [1]. This temperature increase will lead to 20 foot rises in sea level due to the melting of the icecaps, mass extinctions, climate refugees, new and deadlier diseases, leading to a world that is uninhabitable for our future generations [2]. There is now a scientific consensus that global warming is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, a deadly pollutant [3,4]. The volume of peer reviewed literature casts no doubt on the matter [5,6,7]. The small minority who wishes to distract from the issue with claims that global warming is not real are shills funded by the oil industry [8].
…
I apologize for having to do my best Al Gore impression in the previous paragraph, but it was necessary for the purpose of what I am about to write. I also apologize for once again tackling the global warming/green issue, but it is a matter very close to my heart, that I consistently feel the need to discuss. So you may be left asking yourself, “What is the point of the above paragraph?” Or, “Why are some sentences numbered?” You may even be saying, “How dare this non-climatologist question our greatest crisis!”
Well, the purpose is that what I wrote above is commonly what one will find peppered about from the side defending AGW when they discuss the issue. Usually, the rhetoric steps away from the science, and instead moves into a largely political realm, bastardizing something that should be largely an issue of scientific accuracy and precision (thank you, Al Gore and the media). In fact, the lay person with no scientific background will not even understand the true science and concerns behind the issue, but will instead focus on the points above to make their case.
So why is that a problem, you may ask? The reason is that each of the numbered statements above is a logical fallacy. But what is a logical fallacy you may also ask? It is an error in reasoning in an argument which itself renders the entire argument invalid. These fallacies may arise from a lack of reasonable thinking on the part of those committing the fallacy, as in a student who wishes to make a case in a paper. They can also arise on purpose, usually from politicians who wish to use the logical fallacy in a debate, hoping to appeal to the audience and “win” the debate (yes, I realize that any references to logic and politicians should remain at arm’s length at all times).
Below I will point out what it is that makes these arguments fallacious.
[1]: Temperature increases as CO2 increases. Therefore industrialization is causing global warming.
This fallacy is commonly known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, or “with this, therefore because of this.” It is the fallacy of correlation, the need of human psychology to automatically see connections where they may not or only weakly exist. A common statement is “correlation does not imply causality.” This is not to say that two seemingly correlated variables are not related, it is only to say that we cannot look at the correlation and claim to know that one causes the other. Often, the relationship may be spurious, with other confounding factors. To claim complete knowledge of a complex system based on one graph is foolish, to say the least.
[2]: We are dooming the world, and millions will die now and in the future.
This is commonly referred to as the argumentum ad metum, or the appeal to fear. This is where an arguer attempts to exploit the fears of the audience in order to get them agreeing to their proposal. As an argument, it is logically invalid, as appealing to an emotion does not prove the argument itself. The statement could be made to argue for anything, as follows:
A: We should either federally mandate health insurance, or allow people to choose to not have it.
B: Without health insurance, millions of people will not be able to get operations, tens of thousands of newborns will die because they will not have medical care,…, and life will be miserable in general.
C: Therefore, we should mandate health insurance.
[3]: There is a scientific consensus regarding our CO2 emissions in regards to global warming.
I will disregard completely the problems inherent in trying to claim that there is a scientific consensus. For anyone who wants to understand philosophically how science should work, I refer you to Karl Popper. The real problem with this statement is the fact that it is known as an appeal to authority. We are told that 2500 scientists agree with the IPCC statement that we are causing irreversible global warming. Forgetting the mounting evidence that the 2500 number may not be so grandiose, the fact still remains that simply because a large number of “authorities” on a subject agree, it does not in any way prove said subject to be correct.
[4]: The warming seen by the planet is undoubtedly caused by Carbon Dioxide.
Disregarding the fallacious reasoning already pointed out in cum hoc ergo propter hoc, there is another issue with the CO2-temperature correlation. It cannot be denied that climate is an incredibly complicated system (coupled & nonlinear, for you math geeks out there) that is, considering the global ups and downs of temperature that have both preceded and postceded (yes, I made that word up) the existence of mankind, driven by many factors which all have a deep coupling that we have yet to thoroughly understand. So we are led to the fallacy of the single cause. This fallacy occurs as an attempt to determine a single, simple cause to a complex problem, which often leads to the minimalization of the other potential causes.
[5]: Hundreds, nay, thousands of peer reviewed papers prove the link between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming.
While the fallacy that I am about to point to is not (yet) a fallacy per se, I definitely think that it belongs in any list that wishes to present faulty reasoning. This fallacy is known as the Fallacy of Peer Review. I prefer to entitle it “Publication Snobbery,” in a vain attempt to position myself as being on par with C.S. Lewis (who coined the phrase “Chronological snobbery”). It is the notion that ideas or research are not worthwhile or valid unless they have been published in a peer reviewed journal (one need only peruse the discussion section of the global warming page on Wikipedia to see how rampant this is). It is a specific form of the appeal to authority seen at [3]. The fallacy is in the belief that because research is peer reviewed, it effectively “proves” something. However, reviewers and editors both have their own cognitive biases, and the simple act of being peer reviewed proves nothing other than the fact that the research was well performed, and that its conclusions follow from its data.
[6]: The volume of literature speaks to the strength of our theory.
I will treat this fallacy with a bit of brevity. Simply put, this is called Proof by Verbosity. It occurs when on attempts to provide such a volume of information that one has no choice but to agree, because there is not enough time in the world to research and disagree. I hate to point to Wikipedia again, but a glance at the reference section in the Global Warming article should cement the concept firmly into one’s head. When combined with an attack using Publication Snobbery, it is surely a formidable foe.
[7]: The volume of literature speaks to the strength of our theory.
No, I am not repeating myself, but rather am making an attempt to point out yet another fallacy (wow, three fallacies in one sentence!). This one is not quite as clear as the others, however. In any scientific subject, there will often be papers published in an attempt to prove both sides of a debate (since scientists receive different funding, they often try to test competing hypotheses). This is why we are constantly bombarded by the media with differing reports on the health effects of certain foods/drugs/drinks/chemicals/etc. These reports come from papers all published by different authors, who wish to prove opposing hypotheses. The same is true with the global warming debate (although the “deniers” have a much more difficult time procuring funding). However, when one chooses to consistently pick data/papers/opinions that correspond to only their stance while disregarding anything that disagrees, we call this Cherry Picking.
[8]: Our detractors are well funded oil industry mouthpieces.
This is perhaps the most common fallacy, known as the argumentum ad hominem. As the name implies (at least to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Latin), it is an attack launched against the character of an opponent, rather than the opponent’s position. It is an effective means of attack, especially when the opponent has detestable characteristics. Alas, ultimately, it is logically unfound. A more specified version is known as poisoning the well.
…
While there is no doubt in my mind that the typical declarations of a global warming believer could be analyzed different, I wanted to make a point that when science is politicized, either by politicians or scientist-activists, it is necessary for people to be able to think critically and disregard arguments that have no logical basis. In fact, this can be said for any debate where one attempts to make an argument using fallacious claims. The logicians out there will probably disagree with this analysis, and I welcome their disagreement, in all shapes and forms.
…
I apologize for having to do my best Al Gore impression in the previous paragraph, but it was necessary for the purpose of what I am about to write. I also apologize for once again tackling the global warming/green issue, but it is a matter very close to my heart, that I consistently feel the need to discuss. So you may be left asking yourself, “What is the point of the above paragraph?” Or, “Why are some sentences numbered?” You may even be saying, “How dare this non-climatologist question our greatest crisis!”
Well, the purpose is that what I wrote above is commonly what one will find peppered about from the side defending AGW when they discuss the issue. Usually, the rhetoric steps away from the science, and instead moves into a largely political realm, bastardizing something that should be largely an issue of scientific accuracy and precision (thank you, Al Gore and the media). In fact, the lay person with no scientific background will not even understand the true science and concerns behind the issue, but will instead focus on the points above to make their case.
So why is that a problem, you may ask? The reason is that each of the numbered statements above is a logical fallacy. But what is a logical fallacy you may also ask? It is an error in reasoning in an argument which itself renders the entire argument invalid. These fallacies may arise from a lack of reasonable thinking on the part of those committing the fallacy, as in a student who wishes to make a case in a paper. They can also arise on purpose, usually from politicians who wish to use the logical fallacy in a debate, hoping to appeal to the audience and “win” the debate (yes, I realize that any references to logic and politicians should remain at arm’s length at all times).
Below I will point out what it is that makes these arguments fallacious.
[1]: Temperature increases as CO2 increases. Therefore industrialization is causing global warming.
This fallacy is commonly known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, or “with this, therefore because of this.” It is the fallacy of correlation, the need of human psychology to automatically see connections where they may not or only weakly exist. A common statement is “correlation does not imply causality.” This is not to say that two seemingly correlated variables are not related, it is only to say that we cannot look at the correlation and claim to know that one causes the other. Often, the relationship may be spurious, with other confounding factors. To claim complete knowledge of a complex system based on one graph is foolish, to say the least.
[2]: We are dooming the world, and millions will die now and in the future.
This is commonly referred to as the argumentum ad metum, or the appeal to fear. This is where an arguer attempts to exploit the fears of the audience in order to get them agreeing to their proposal. As an argument, it is logically invalid, as appealing to an emotion does not prove the argument itself. The statement could be made to argue for anything, as follows:
A: We should either federally mandate health insurance, or allow people to choose to not have it.
B: Without health insurance, millions of people will not be able to get operations, tens of thousands of newborns will die because they will not have medical care,…, and life will be miserable in general.
C: Therefore, we should mandate health insurance.
[3]: There is a scientific consensus regarding our CO2 emissions in regards to global warming.
I will disregard completely the problems inherent in trying to claim that there is a scientific consensus. For anyone who wants to understand philosophically how science should work, I refer you to Karl Popper. The real problem with this statement is the fact that it is known as an appeal to authority. We are told that 2500 scientists agree with the IPCC statement that we are causing irreversible global warming. Forgetting the mounting evidence that the 2500 number may not be so grandiose, the fact still remains that simply because a large number of “authorities” on a subject agree, it does not in any way prove said subject to be correct.
[4]: The warming seen by the planet is undoubtedly caused by Carbon Dioxide.
Disregarding the fallacious reasoning already pointed out in cum hoc ergo propter hoc, there is another issue with the CO2-temperature correlation. It cannot be denied that climate is an incredibly complicated system (coupled & nonlinear, for you math geeks out there) that is, considering the global ups and downs of temperature that have both preceded and postceded (yes, I made that word up) the existence of mankind, driven by many factors which all have a deep coupling that we have yet to thoroughly understand. So we are led to the fallacy of the single cause. This fallacy occurs as an attempt to determine a single, simple cause to a complex problem, which often leads to the minimalization of the other potential causes.
[5]: Hundreds, nay, thousands of peer reviewed papers prove the link between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming.
While the fallacy that I am about to point to is not (yet) a fallacy per se, I definitely think that it belongs in any list that wishes to present faulty reasoning. This fallacy is known as the Fallacy of Peer Review. I prefer to entitle it “Publication Snobbery,” in a vain attempt to position myself as being on par with C.S. Lewis (who coined the phrase “Chronological snobbery”). It is the notion that ideas or research are not worthwhile or valid unless they have been published in a peer reviewed journal (one need only peruse the discussion section of the global warming page on Wikipedia to see how rampant this is). It is a specific form of the appeal to authority seen at [3]. The fallacy is in the belief that because research is peer reviewed, it effectively “proves” something. However, reviewers and editors both have their own cognitive biases, and the simple act of being peer reviewed proves nothing other than the fact that the research was well performed, and that its conclusions follow from its data.
[6]: The volume of literature speaks to the strength of our theory.
I will treat this fallacy with a bit of brevity. Simply put, this is called Proof by Verbosity. It occurs when on attempts to provide such a volume of information that one has no choice but to agree, because there is not enough time in the world to research and disagree. I hate to point to Wikipedia again, but a glance at the reference section in the Global Warming article should cement the concept firmly into one’s head. When combined with an attack using Publication Snobbery, it is surely a formidable foe.
[7]: The volume of literature speaks to the strength of our theory.
No, I am not repeating myself, but rather am making an attempt to point out yet another fallacy (wow, three fallacies in one sentence!). This one is not quite as clear as the others, however. In any scientific subject, there will often be papers published in an attempt to prove both sides of a debate (since scientists receive different funding, they often try to test competing hypotheses). This is why we are constantly bombarded by the media with differing reports on the health effects of certain foods/drugs/drinks/chemicals/etc. These reports come from papers all published by different authors, who wish to prove opposing hypotheses. The same is true with the global warming debate (although the “deniers” have a much more difficult time procuring funding). However, when one chooses to consistently pick data/papers/opinions that correspond to only their stance while disregarding anything that disagrees, we call this Cherry Picking.
[8]: Our detractors are well funded oil industry mouthpieces.
This is perhaps the most common fallacy, known as the argumentum ad hominem. As the name implies (at least to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Latin), it is an attack launched against the character of an opponent, rather than the opponent’s position. It is an effective means of attack, especially when the opponent has detestable characteristics. Alas, ultimately, it is logically unfound. A more specified version is known as poisoning the well.
…
While there is no doubt in my mind that the typical declarations of a global warming believer could be analyzed different, I wanted to make a point that when science is politicized, either by politicians or scientist-activists, it is necessary for people to be able to think critically and disregard arguments that have no logical basis. In fact, this can be said for any debate where one attempts to make an argument using fallacious claims. The logicians out there will probably disagree with this analysis, and I welcome their disagreement, in all shapes and forms.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
“The Warmth of Your Engine Will Be the Flood That Wrecks My Village”
Global Warming. By this point, the only people blissfully unaware of the dangers of the advanced greenhouse hypothesis are the members of the Amazonian Indian tribe recently discovered. But why should they care? After all, they live completely carbon neutral lives. They don’t have to have fears or guilt about “eating what they want…heating their homes to 72 degrees,” for which the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee wishes to chide us.
Global Warming is a problem for the west to deal with, because it is our two hundred years of industrialization that has brought this nightmare down upon us. We are responsible for creating a scourge so terrible that its name must be capitalized upon every use. It is our economy of consumption and waste that has created this problem which, for the last 25 years has been the most imminent threat to the world, more terrible than AIDS, Malaria, genocide in third world countries, zombie attacks, time traveling murderous robots and asteroid impacts combined. It is so awful that for every one of those last twenty five years, leading experts promised that within five years of their prediction we would be covered by water, facing killer storms, forced to suffer through season after season of shows about D-list celebrities either: losing weight, dancing, going through rehab, or trying to find love.
And now their predictions have come true. After Hurricane Katrina, the Earthquake in China, more than 170 tornados in the US, the victory of David Cook over David Archuleta in American Idol season 7 and the return of Tila Tequila for another shot at love, we have undeniable proof that Global Warming is upon us.
And so, I propose the following methods to stop the climate crisis once and for all:
-Introduce a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline at the national, state and local level. When the populace has to pay an extra $1.50 for gasoline per gallon, they will be less inclined to drive, thus reducing the release of the dangerous pollutant CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, it will encourage people to bike and walk more thus solving the obesity problem, which leads to the next point…
-Standardize weight as a function of people’s height. These standardized weights will be determined by a government board of doctors and nutritionists. Obesity adds drastically to the release of CO2, as overweight people must breathe deeper to provide oxygen to their blood. This can be enforced easily, by having a government task force which will weigh each citizen on a bimonthly basis. A penalty will be paid at each weigh-in for each extra pound above the standardized weight. There will be no penalty for being under the set weight. In the future, it may be worthwhile to allow tax credits for weighing less than one is supposed to.
-Add a 10% tax to each standard unit which provides heat (CCF natural gas, gallon of oil, etc). This will encourage the citizenry to learn how to live with their heat set to 55F throughout winter.
-Euthanize the elderly and any members of society deemed unproductive. As previously stated, breathing releases CO2. Under the new plan, it will be necessary to rationalize CO2 production. If it cannot be justified, it cannot be allowed.
While these plans may initially seem somewhat draconian, upon further inspection and analysis, one can easily realize that these actions are necessary for the good of the planet and future generations. Of course, we will have to disregard the fact that these future generations may not exist because most people will not be able to afford them.
But the question also arises: who will be in charge of this program? I propose that we create another brand new faceless, nameless government bureaucracy, answerable to no one but themselves and fully charged with the task of saving the world from us, the awful American people.
I think we can all agree that the Polar Bear, now officially recognized by the federal government as threatened by global warming, is far more important than the economic, social and political freedoms upon which this nation was established.
Global Warming is a problem for the west to deal with, because it is our two hundred years of industrialization that has brought this nightmare down upon us. We are responsible for creating a scourge so terrible that its name must be capitalized upon every use. It is our economy of consumption and waste that has created this problem which, for the last 25 years has been the most imminent threat to the world, more terrible than AIDS, Malaria, genocide in third world countries, zombie attacks, time traveling murderous robots and asteroid impacts combined. It is so awful that for every one of those last twenty five years, leading experts promised that within five years of their prediction we would be covered by water, facing killer storms, forced to suffer through season after season of shows about D-list celebrities either: losing weight, dancing, going through rehab, or trying to find love.
And now their predictions have come true. After Hurricane Katrina, the Earthquake in China, more than 170 tornados in the US, the victory of David Cook over David Archuleta in American Idol season 7 and the return of Tila Tequila for another shot at love, we have undeniable proof that Global Warming is upon us.
And so, I propose the following methods to stop the climate crisis once and for all:
-Introduce a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline at the national, state and local level. When the populace has to pay an extra $1.50 for gasoline per gallon, they will be less inclined to drive, thus reducing the release of the dangerous pollutant CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, it will encourage people to bike and walk more thus solving the obesity problem, which leads to the next point…
-Standardize weight as a function of people’s height. These standardized weights will be determined by a government board of doctors and nutritionists. Obesity adds drastically to the release of CO2, as overweight people must breathe deeper to provide oxygen to their blood. This can be enforced easily, by having a government task force which will weigh each citizen on a bimonthly basis. A penalty will be paid at each weigh-in for each extra pound above the standardized weight. There will be no penalty for being under the set weight. In the future, it may be worthwhile to allow tax credits for weighing less than one is supposed to.
-Add a 10% tax to each standard unit which provides heat (CCF natural gas, gallon of oil, etc). This will encourage the citizenry to learn how to live with their heat set to 55F throughout winter.
-Euthanize the elderly and any members of society deemed unproductive. As previously stated, breathing releases CO2. Under the new plan, it will be necessary to rationalize CO2 production. If it cannot be justified, it cannot be allowed.
While these plans may initially seem somewhat draconian, upon further inspection and analysis, one can easily realize that these actions are necessary for the good of the planet and future generations. Of course, we will have to disregard the fact that these future generations may not exist because most people will not be able to afford them.
But the question also arises: who will be in charge of this program? I propose that we create another brand new faceless, nameless government bureaucracy, answerable to no one but themselves and fully charged with the task of saving the world from us, the awful American people.
I think we can all agree that the Polar Bear, now officially recognized by the federal government as threatened by global warming, is far more important than the economic, social and political freedoms upon which this nation was established.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Going (Green) to Be Making Green (with Envy)
Recently, Congress passed an atrocious energy bill that the President, for some reason unknown, decided to sign into law. One of the more egregious inclusions in this energy policy was the federal mandate that by the year 2012 the incandescent light bulb would be laid to rest. In its stead we will be forced to endure the ever-so-soft glow of the newfangled invention that has left Thomas Edison rolling over in his grave: the Compact Fluorescent Light bulb, or CFL. The environmentalists touting the CFL like to yammer on about its energy saving capabilities, and how it will salvage us from the ever looming threat that is climate change.
But there is something else that the we have not been told, which is that CFLs contain mercury. That’s right, the element that is often derided by those same environmentalists as so life damaging that it had to be removed from thermometers, that we are told is contained in nontrivial levels in many freshwaters fish, and is tied to the sudden autism-vaccine alarmism, has been placed into the light bulbs that we are suddenly being told by congress that we will have no choice but to buy.
And why is this?
Do CFLs actually stop global warming? Do they actually manage to reduce your electric bill by a jaw dropping, eye popping amount?
The answer to these questions is contentious, and truthfully, neither here nor there when it comes to the CFL issue. The true answer lies in the fully intended consequence of lobbying the government to embrace green policies and agendas.
I’m talking about the price of going green. I’m talking about the fact that many individuals and organizations out there seek to make green, by having us go green. But I’m not only talking about former vice presidents whose pockets are suddenly full of hundred dollar bills, nobel prizes, Oscars and enough carbon credits to allow him to use more than 10 times the electricity that the average American uses. I’m talking about CEOs from certain corporations, whose stock options ride on their ability to get people to buy their overpriced “green” products. I’m talking about environmental organizations, whose memberships has been hijacked following the fall of the Soviet Union by communist sympathizers who seek to use global government mandates to tax people to death and take away their freedom to choose for themselves. I’m talking about the media, who, in an effort to turn a quick buck and jump on the nearest, most convenient bandwagon, have decided to deride us and make us feel guilty for not buying green products, having green collar jobs, for not drinking green beer while not wearing green on St. Patrick’s day.
We are being urged to go green by an argument of morality, that to not go green and thus preserve the earth for future generations is akin to committing crimes against humanity. But looking deeper, we see that taking on the cause only serves to empty our own pockets, while filling those of the select few who lead the green pledge.
And so we are pushed and prodded to buy green, to spend more money on products that have smaller carbon footprints. We are asked to buy our groceries from local sources, to decrease on CO2 emissions from transporting. We’re asked to buy windows with better insulation for twice the cost. We are made to feel foolish when we buy a car that isn’t a hybrid, or even a car that gets fewer than 20 miles per gallon. When we refuse to buy far more expensive CFL bulbs, we are legislated into having no other choice.
Now this is not to say that some of these options are bad ideas, because many of these products can save us money in the long run. There is wisdom in buying appliances with the energy star rating, in order to save on your electric bill.
Hybrid cars have succeeded due to many economical factors that made it beneficial for consumers to purchase them. Sales of hybrid cars have skyrocketed mostly because people want to pay less for gasoline, not because they are concerned about their carbon footprint. If gasoline cost one dollar per gallon, we would see fewer hybrid cars on the streets, and most likely would see even more SUVs.
But the key is that we are given the choice. In a free market economy, better products win if they can be offered at the right price, or if the savings from buying them makes up for the added cost. Congress did not need to mandate people to buy Hybrid cars. Consumers were smart enough to see how the economy was working, and start purchasing them on their own.
When a newer, more expensive product fails to catch consumer interest, it is not without good reason. Many products branded as being green do not fail to catch on because of disinterest on the part of the American consumer. These products fail to make money because of the fact that people simply do not want to pay for them.
However, because our politicians are only a donation away, there is little effort required in getting Congress to pass legislation that forces the public to adopt green policies. Suddenly, choice is no longer allowed. The right to choose where and how we spend our money and what to do with our property becomes curtailed. And so we are left with CFLs, unreachable CAFE standards, higher gasoline, oil, coal and natural gas taxes, all done in the name of environmental protectionism.
And so you’re probably left wondering, how does this somewhat incoherent rant relate to the hidden price of CFLs? So what if they contain Mercury? All one has to do is look at the disposal instructions to see where the problem lies. When a break occurs, one must, and I quote, “Open the window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more. Shut off central forced air/air conditioning system, if you have one.” And towards the end, they indicate, “The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window prior to vacuuming. Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.” And these are only small fragments of the laundry list of steps on must complete for proper removal of a broken CFL.
So in the winters of 2012 and beyond, after dropping and breaking your CFL bulb, as the temperature outside is 15 degrees and your house is freezing because the window is open, and you are wondering how much of your electricity savings will be offset by the huge increase in your heating bill, look back on this moment, and remember that we should always be wary when the government attempts to impose upon us something not explicitly desired by the American people. Remember that when the government and green activists attempt to bypass our free market economy and traditions of capitalism, we are the ones left to pay the high price of going green.
The environment is meaningful, but the economy and personal freedom are also important. We cannot trade any one for the other, nor should we want to. There is a balance to be found, where all factors necessary to a good and happy life can be maximized without having to sacrifice too much of one or the other. If we truly want to make the planet into a place worth living for future generations, it is this balance that we must always reasonably strive to achieve.
But there is something else that the we have not been told, which is that CFLs contain mercury. That’s right, the element that is often derided by those same environmentalists as so life damaging that it had to be removed from thermometers, that we are told is contained in nontrivial levels in many freshwaters fish, and is tied to the sudden autism-vaccine alarmism, has been placed into the light bulbs that we are suddenly being told by congress that we will have no choice but to buy.
And why is this?
Do CFLs actually stop global warming? Do they actually manage to reduce your electric bill by a jaw dropping, eye popping amount?
The answer to these questions is contentious, and truthfully, neither here nor there when it comes to the CFL issue. The true answer lies in the fully intended consequence of lobbying the government to embrace green policies and agendas.
I’m talking about the price of going green. I’m talking about the fact that many individuals and organizations out there seek to make green, by having us go green. But I’m not only talking about former vice presidents whose pockets are suddenly full of hundred dollar bills, nobel prizes, Oscars and enough carbon credits to allow him to use more than 10 times the electricity that the average American uses. I’m talking about CEOs from certain corporations, whose stock options ride on their ability to get people to buy their overpriced “green” products. I’m talking about environmental organizations, whose memberships has been hijacked following the fall of the Soviet Union by communist sympathizers who seek to use global government mandates to tax people to death and take away their freedom to choose for themselves. I’m talking about the media, who, in an effort to turn a quick buck and jump on the nearest, most convenient bandwagon, have decided to deride us and make us feel guilty for not buying green products, having green collar jobs, for not drinking green beer while not wearing green on St. Patrick’s day.
We are being urged to go green by an argument of morality, that to not go green and thus preserve the earth for future generations is akin to committing crimes against humanity. But looking deeper, we see that taking on the cause only serves to empty our own pockets, while filling those of the select few who lead the green pledge.
And so we are pushed and prodded to buy green, to spend more money on products that have smaller carbon footprints. We are asked to buy our groceries from local sources, to decrease on CO2 emissions from transporting. We’re asked to buy windows with better insulation for twice the cost. We are made to feel foolish when we buy a car that isn’t a hybrid, or even a car that gets fewer than 20 miles per gallon. When we refuse to buy far more expensive CFL bulbs, we are legislated into having no other choice.
Now this is not to say that some of these options are bad ideas, because many of these products can save us money in the long run. There is wisdom in buying appliances with the energy star rating, in order to save on your electric bill.
Hybrid cars have succeeded due to many economical factors that made it beneficial for consumers to purchase them. Sales of hybrid cars have skyrocketed mostly because people want to pay less for gasoline, not because they are concerned about their carbon footprint. If gasoline cost one dollar per gallon, we would see fewer hybrid cars on the streets, and most likely would see even more SUVs.
But the key is that we are given the choice. In a free market economy, better products win if they can be offered at the right price, or if the savings from buying them makes up for the added cost. Congress did not need to mandate people to buy Hybrid cars. Consumers were smart enough to see how the economy was working, and start purchasing them on their own.
When a newer, more expensive product fails to catch consumer interest, it is not without good reason. Many products branded as being green do not fail to catch on because of disinterest on the part of the American consumer. These products fail to make money because of the fact that people simply do not want to pay for them.
However, because our politicians are only a donation away, there is little effort required in getting Congress to pass legislation that forces the public to adopt green policies. Suddenly, choice is no longer allowed. The right to choose where and how we spend our money and what to do with our property becomes curtailed. And so we are left with CFLs, unreachable CAFE standards, higher gasoline, oil, coal and natural gas taxes, all done in the name of environmental protectionism.
And so you’re probably left wondering, how does this somewhat incoherent rant relate to the hidden price of CFLs? So what if they contain Mercury? All one has to do is look at the disposal instructions to see where the problem lies. When a break occurs, one must, and I quote, “Open the window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more. Shut off central forced air/air conditioning system, if you have one.” And towards the end, they indicate, “The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window prior to vacuuming. Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.” And these are only small fragments of the laundry list of steps on must complete for proper removal of a broken CFL.
So in the winters of 2012 and beyond, after dropping and breaking your CFL bulb, as the temperature outside is 15 degrees and your house is freezing because the window is open, and you are wondering how much of your electricity savings will be offset by the huge increase in your heating bill, look back on this moment, and remember that we should always be wary when the government attempts to impose upon us something not explicitly desired by the American people. Remember that when the government and green activists attempt to bypass our free market economy and traditions of capitalism, we are the ones left to pay the high price of going green.
The environment is meaningful, but the economy and personal freedom are also important. We cannot trade any one for the other, nor should we want to. There is a balance to be found, where all factors necessary to a good and happy life can be maximized without having to sacrifice too much of one or the other. If we truly want to make the planet into a place worth living for future generations, it is this balance that we must always reasonably strive to achieve.
Friday, January 11, 2008
"Change change change, change..." trans: "Words can inspire, man..."
Recently I was given the opportunity (mostly due to boredom at the current TV writer’s strike) to watch the latest Democratic Primary campaign. I was anticipating an amusing debate, full of promises incapable of being kept and rousing rhetoric designed to stir the populace like Tom Cruise at the mere mention of the word “Ritalin.”
Allow me to say, I was deeply disappointed on both counts.
That’s not to say that the debate was not amusing. It most certainly was. But from what I saw, there was very little made in the way of hollow campaign promises. An electorate expects its candidates to stand by ideals and philosophies that the harsh practical world of American politics cannot possibly allow them to keep. That way, when they don’t follow through on the platforms upon which they were elected, our anger is justifiable. Instead of unfeasible plans regarding universal healthcare, tax cuts for the middle class, global warming and the socialization of everything, I was presented with Charles Gibson offering up the candidates the shocking truth that there has been progress in Iraq, and wondering what their stances were. I seem to recall each and every one of them towing the party line and declaring that the war was a failure, and that they would bring set immediately timetables, regardless of the consequences.
But it was this refusal to even admit the possibility that our government and military are competent, this refusal to do an about face on their beliefs in regards to the war, this refusal to even consider changing their minds that made the rhetoric less rousing and much more eyebrow raising.
The question of the Democratic primary has been “who is the candidate of change?” Each Democrat has done nothing more than throw their hat into the proverbial ring while screaming at the top of their lungs “I’m all about change!” The belief that changing for the sake of change is a good thing is frightening enough, but to have a group of people who want to be our commander in chief sitting around arguing like a group of school children is downright embarrassing and awfully hard to watch.
Rather than each putting forth their best attempt at a moving rhetoric that could inspire the people to at least agree with them on the basis of their ability to put together a sentence, the candidates chose to do nothing more than spit out that nasty little word which by the end of these elections will have become all but meaningless. Watching them debate on the merits of their ability to make change led me to the conclusion that either they were going to take on new careers as clerks at convenience stores or that Charlie Gibson had put something in their water. Maybe that’s why he had them sit through the course of the debate.
All jokes about intoxicated presidential hopefuls aside (I’ll come back to that later), I couldn’t help but think that they weren’t so much trying to move the American people as they were trying to make themselves look less foolish than their opponents. Good for them Bill Richardson was still in the race at that time. His presence was able to help them alleviate that particular fear. But let’s go back to change for a second.
Hilary Clinton had her “change” moment when she exploded into a fiery ball of change, ranting and raving about her 35 years of working for change. That’s an awful lot of change. One is left to wonder what exactly she changed in that time. No doubt it was her name that she changed, from Rodham, to Rodham-Clinton, to Clinton, and even to that short period where she was short on cash, sold her name on eBay and became Hilary Rodham Applebee’s. She’s definitely changed her place of residence, from Arkansas to Washington D.C. to New York State. And she without a doubt changed people’s minds about how heartless she is when she almost allowed a tear to run down her cheek prior to the New Hampshire primary. Whether or not that is a strong record of change, I’ll leave to the voters.
John Edwards sounded no less childish when he made the initial comment that sparked Hilary’s “35 years” tirade, bemoaning the attacks on change made by the “forces of status quo.” One is left to wonder if these particular forces are as well organized as the al Qaeda, the 9/11 perpetrators (the real ones, you know, the government. Just ask some Ron Paul supporters about it. More on that next time.), or the vast right wing conspiracy that attempted to bring down President Clinton after the Oral Office affair. Either way, I kept expecting Mr. Edwards to counter Mrs. Clinton’s remarks with the striking blow of “If elected, I’ll change change like change has never been changed before.” Instead, he continually tried to drag Mr. Obama down into the mud with him.
But Barack Obama was having none of that. Instead, he decided to bask in the euphoria brought on by Charlie Gibson’s spiked water. In fact, he was so wonderfully tapping the sixties hippy living inside of him that the he decided to metaphorically slug things out by snapping back at Hilary’s comments with a very biting, “You know, words actually do inspire.” The only thing separating Obama from the beatniks in that one moment was the exclusion of the word “man” from the end of that sentence.
I am, of course, being facetious, because not even the well spoken Barack Obama, with all his shallow rhetoric, could possibly be free from the great change machine. Even Bill Richardson, who spoke perhaps two or three times throughout the entire course of the debate (once to ask why he was even there, as he clearly had no reason to still be in the race) could not help but bang the drum of change like the rest of candidates, leaving one to wonder just how much change anyone can really bring into a Washington D.C. so firmly entrenched with career politicians who are only really concerned with keeping their jobs, not with actually doing any work.
Especially when you consider that these candidates all come from that same background. Also, to note, the word “change” was used 79 times during the last debate.
Next time: What the hell is wrong with the Republican candidates?
Allow me to say, I was deeply disappointed on both counts.
That’s not to say that the debate was not amusing. It most certainly was. But from what I saw, there was very little made in the way of hollow campaign promises. An electorate expects its candidates to stand by ideals and philosophies that the harsh practical world of American politics cannot possibly allow them to keep. That way, when they don’t follow through on the platforms upon which they were elected, our anger is justifiable. Instead of unfeasible plans regarding universal healthcare, tax cuts for the middle class, global warming and the socialization of everything, I was presented with Charles Gibson offering up the candidates the shocking truth that there has been progress in Iraq, and wondering what their stances were. I seem to recall each and every one of them towing the party line and declaring that the war was a failure, and that they would bring set immediately timetables, regardless of the consequences.
But it was this refusal to even admit the possibility that our government and military are competent, this refusal to do an about face on their beliefs in regards to the war, this refusal to even consider changing their minds that made the rhetoric less rousing and much more eyebrow raising.
The question of the Democratic primary has been “who is the candidate of change?” Each Democrat has done nothing more than throw their hat into the proverbial ring while screaming at the top of their lungs “I’m all about change!” The belief that changing for the sake of change is a good thing is frightening enough, but to have a group of people who want to be our commander in chief sitting around arguing like a group of school children is downright embarrassing and awfully hard to watch.
Rather than each putting forth their best attempt at a moving rhetoric that could inspire the people to at least agree with them on the basis of their ability to put together a sentence, the candidates chose to do nothing more than spit out that nasty little word which by the end of these elections will have become all but meaningless. Watching them debate on the merits of their ability to make change led me to the conclusion that either they were going to take on new careers as clerks at convenience stores or that Charlie Gibson had put something in their water. Maybe that’s why he had them sit through the course of the debate.
All jokes about intoxicated presidential hopefuls aside (I’ll come back to that later), I couldn’t help but think that they weren’t so much trying to move the American people as they were trying to make themselves look less foolish than their opponents. Good for them Bill Richardson was still in the race at that time. His presence was able to help them alleviate that particular fear. But let’s go back to change for a second.
Hilary Clinton had her “change” moment when she exploded into a fiery ball of change, ranting and raving about her 35 years of working for change. That’s an awful lot of change. One is left to wonder what exactly she changed in that time. No doubt it was her name that she changed, from Rodham, to Rodham-Clinton, to Clinton, and even to that short period where she was short on cash, sold her name on eBay and became Hilary Rodham Applebee’s. She’s definitely changed her place of residence, from Arkansas to Washington D.C. to New York State. And she without a doubt changed people’s minds about how heartless she is when she almost allowed a tear to run down her cheek prior to the New Hampshire primary. Whether or not that is a strong record of change, I’ll leave to the voters.
John Edwards sounded no less childish when he made the initial comment that sparked Hilary’s “35 years” tirade, bemoaning the attacks on change made by the “forces of status quo.” One is left to wonder if these particular forces are as well organized as the al Qaeda, the 9/11 perpetrators (the real ones, you know, the government. Just ask some Ron Paul supporters about it. More on that next time.), or the vast right wing conspiracy that attempted to bring down President Clinton after the Oral Office affair. Either way, I kept expecting Mr. Edwards to counter Mrs. Clinton’s remarks with the striking blow of “If elected, I’ll change change like change has never been changed before.” Instead, he continually tried to drag Mr. Obama down into the mud with him.
But Barack Obama was having none of that. Instead, he decided to bask in the euphoria brought on by Charlie Gibson’s spiked water. In fact, he was so wonderfully tapping the sixties hippy living inside of him that the he decided to metaphorically slug things out by snapping back at Hilary’s comments with a very biting, “You know, words actually do inspire.” The only thing separating Obama from the beatniks in that one moment was the exclusion of the word “man” from the end of that sentence.
I am, of course, being facetious, because not even the well spoken Barack Obama, with all his shallow rhetoric, could possibly be free from the great change machine. Even Bill Richardson, who spoke perhaps two or three times throughout the entire course of the debate (once to ask why he was even there, as he clearly had no reason to still be in the race) could not help but bang the drum of change like the rest of candidates, leaving one to wonder just how much change anyone can really bring into a Washington D.C. so firmly entrenched with career politicians who are only really concerned with keeping their jobs, not with actually doing any work.
Especially when you consider that these candidates all come from that same background. Also, to note, the word “change” was used 79 times during the last debate.
Next time: What the hell is wrong with the Republican candidates?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)