Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Polar Bears and Propaganda

A couple articles this week indicated the growing chasm between those who want an honest and open discussion of the science behind the global warming hysteria and those who want suppress the dissenters and even treat them as traitors (as well as showing how disconnected the American media is from the truth). The first, by Christopher Booker in The Daily Telegraph (the leading British newspaper), highlights the recent attacks on one of the world's leading polar bear experts merely because he won't toe the line on climate change.
[O]ne of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
...
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.
That scientists are telling other scientists to stay away just because their findings aren't politically correct shows just how far science has fallen in recent years. Sad, isn't it?

The second article comes to us from this side of the pond, written by the feeble-minded Paul Krugman at the New York Times.
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
...
In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
...
Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
...
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
It seems Krugman, like most of his leftist brethren, can no longer contain his inner tyrant.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Anyone Surprised?

I have a feeling that the media won't cover this as closely as it did the similar accusations of Bush...

(HT: Steve M.)

See This Movie!

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Give, Don't Take

Doug Wilson has an excellent post on Christians who think it right to take in Jesus' name rather than to give. He doesn't pull punches.

Every Christian heart does go out to those who are uncared for, to those who are uninsurable. We are supposed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and treat the sick. Of course we are. So take up an offering already. Support your church's missionaries. Give to the inner city work that your denomination sponsors. Jesus said to give in His name. He never told us to go out there and take in His name.

The Church is called to be an organization of worshippers, worship that results in a glorious overflow of givers. The statists, leftists, do-gooders, and sob-sisters are an organization of confused takers. They talk as though they are giving, but the whole thing is a sham. They give only what they have previously seized by force. And to crown this glorious hypocrisy, they preen themselves on their ethical conscience and moral superiority. But there are few spectacles worse than thugs with guns acting all Sermon-on-the-Mounty.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

A Wife of Noble Character

Normally I don't care to mention or comment on the seemingly daily stream of personal sins emanating from public offices around the country, but a little item caught my attention in the recent news that the Republican governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, has been committing adultery for some time. This is the statement that his wife, Jenny, made at the news conference. I'll highlight the following:

I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will [emphasis mine], and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.

Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.

This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.
A few thoughts...

  • It is to Governor Sanford's overwhelming shame that the spiritual leadership and discernment within their family is only shown by his wife.
  • He is one blessed man to have such a wife, especially one scorned in such a wretched manner as adultery.
  • Christians should pray that God will get the glory in this situation as the world looks on, waiting for another prominent Christian marriage to fail. May the Sanfords end their trip of reconciliation at the Cross and not on the couch of some worldly therapist.
  • Lastly, there but for the grace of God go we all.

[UPDATE: Doug Wilson has something good to say on this issue.]

A Math Expedition

The proposed health care bill is likely to cost around $1 trillion. The usual number of uninsured thrown around is about 45 million (nevermind that most of those actually have access to insurance and the REAL number of uninsured is closer to 15 million). So, if we divide the former by the latter, we find that the new bill will cost about $22,000 per uninsured person. Considering that the average annual individual insurance premium is about $5,000 (it's actually lower when you factor in family plans), why don't we just buy health insurance for those 45 million and save us umm... about $765 million?

Just one more lesson in the inefficiency of government...

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Racism Comes Full Circle

If you want a glimpse at what today's college student is undergoing at universities across the country, check out Mindingthecampus.com. It's usually pretty sickening. This is just the latest:

I was having a casual conversation with a very high-ranking UC administrator about a proposal that he was developing to increase "diversity" at UC in a manner that would comply with the dictates of California's Constitution and the prohibition against race, gender and ethnic preferences.

As I listened to his proposal, I asked him why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. In an unguarded moment, he told me that unless the university took steps to "guide" admissions decisions, UC would be dominated by Asians. When I asked, "What would be wrong with that?" I got an answer that speaks volumes about the underlying philosophy at many universities with regard to Asian enrollment.

The UC administrator told me that Asians are "too dull - they study, study, study."
...
It is a mistake to believe that all forms of discrimination flow from hate and inherently foul motives. Certainly, the desire to attract more black students to a campus that is lacking in blacks is not an evil aspiration; however, when it becomes necessary to reject those who "study, study, study" in order to admit those who study insufficiently, then the mission to include more blacks becomes a much more ominous one.

Since the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, Asian enrollment at UC has skyrocketed... The overall percentage in the nine undergraduate UC campuses is over 40%, in a state where the Asian population is about 13%. Thus, Asians are excelling under policies that emphasize and reward academic achievement at a ratio that is over three times their actual statewide population. If you are a proponent of "diversity" and representation (essentially a de facto quota system), this outcome is your worst nightmare.
...
In recent months, the UC Regents have deliberated about - and approved - a proposal that would significantly revise the admissions policies of the university. Beginning in 2012, UC will no longer automatically admit the top 12.5% of all students based on statewide performance, and will no longer rely so heavily on grades and test scores. Instead, the eligibility pool will be expanded by a projected 40% by eliminating the requirement for applicants to take the SAT subject matter tests. The net effect of these changes is that academic achievement will be less significant and UC admissions administrators will have the "flexibility" to discriminate against those "dull" Asians who "study, study, study" all the time without violating Proposition 209.
...
There is one truth that is universally applicable in the era of "diversity," especially in American universities: an absolute unwillingness to accept the verdict of colorblind policies. Until that fact changes, UC and other American institutions will continue trying to fix that which is not broken, to achieve their arrogant version of "diversity," by discriminating against those "dull" Asians, such as two of my grandchildren whose mother is half-Vietnamese.
[HT: Steve M.]

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

External slavery

Doug Wilson has an excellent piece today on the health care debate, brilliantly cutting to the heart of the underlying issue.

People put up with this nonsense because they have already become slaves in principle. They have become external slaves because they had previously drifted into internal slavery. A people with their hearts set free by Christ (as only Christ can liberate) will not ever have their wrists shackled. A nation that inherited freedom from such shackles from a previous and more faithful generation will find themselves dragged back into slavery, and they will be dragged there by their manifold sins.

Those sins include, but are not limited to, insolence, pride, lust, greed, sloth, envy, watching dirty movies, materialism, dressing like a skank, militarism, and voting for what is called health care reform these days.

Feminism's Most Recent Victim: Social Etiquette

The Truth About Health Insurance

Here is an excellent explanation at the false myths and lies behind the push by Obama and other liberals to socialize health care in this country (which, thankfully, appears to be dying in Congress).

Monday, June 22, 2009

Taking Chance

My wife and I watched a fantastic movie this past weekend called "Taking Chance." The film, originally made for HBO but also released on DVD, depicts the true story of the escort home of the body of PFC Chance Phelps, a Marine killed in Iraq in 2004. It is very moving to see the care and respect and honor attended to the corpse throughout the trip home, both by his escort, LtCol Mike Strobl (played by Kevin Bacon), and by random airport baggage handlers and flight attendants along the way. Part of the greatness of this film is that it truly wants to honor the military dead rather than make a political or ideological point. Not once do we hear a politics-laden statement, nor does the movie indicate any position on the Iraq war. Instead, the focus, as it should be, is entirely on Phelps, his escort, and the thankfulness of a nation. Check it out!

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Perspective on Domestic Poverty

"We're the first society in which a symptom of poverty is obesity." - Mark Steyn

Ban the Minimum Wage

Since I'm on an economic kick these days, here is a brief discussion on the need to abolish the minimum wage and how that would significantly help the economy and soaring unemployment. Also, the author has links to a couple longer pieces at the end of the post which go into more detail on the issue.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Naboth's Negative Rights

Doug Wilson has a wonderful post today on rights and the government's involvement therein.

There is a chasm that separates the two views of rights. In the first, grounded in a biblical worldview, rights basically consist of the right to be left alone. The only subsidy that others must pay in support of this right is to do the leaving alone. I have the right to own property, which means that others have the obligation not to steal it from me. I have the right to keep and bear arms, which means that others don't get to take my gun (as they pry it from my cold, dead fingers). I have the right to free speech, which means that others have to obligation to let me say what I believe. I have the right to a fair trial if accused of a crime, which means that others must not bring charges against me that they cannot prove in an open court. The subsidy that others (especially others in the government) pay to me in support of my rights is that of abiding by the law when it comes to me. They can honor all my rights without ever finding out that I exist. To the extent they come into contact with me, they have the obligation to obey the Golden Rule. That's it. There is no expensive enforcement mechanism, no vast budgets, no regulatory agencies, nothing. Two guys sitting on a log all afternoon can honor all the rights given by God to the other one.

But let us look at the other kind of "right," so honored and prized by officious meddlers, tyrants, and regulatory punks. If I have a right to affordable health care, then that means someone else has an obligation. (All rights bring obligations for others with them. The two concepts of rights differ in the nature of the obligations they impose.) So if I have a right to affordable health care that I cannot afford, then this means that someone else has the obligation to make up the difference. If I have a right to own a house, but I cannot afford a house, then someone else, or a consortium of someone else's, has the obligation to buy me one. Capice?

When hunting around for who that somebody who owes me a house might be, I look (not being mama's little fool) for somebody with money. Whoever has some extra money owes me a house, darn it. And knee surgery. And a better job than the one at the warehouse I used to have.
...
But what happens if the first view is correct, and my rights consist largely of my life and property being left unhassled by others, but the government is proceeding on the assumption that my rights actually consist of me getting my share of the free chocolate milk, as I have said before, that is owed to everyone? On the strength of that assumption, they will go in search of the funding for these rights, and they will take the funds that are necessary for me to get my milk, my house, and my surgery. But in doing this, they are stealing -- violating basic human rights, and they are doing it in the name of basic human rights.

God's Word says something about not stealing, even if you are the government. Ahab would not have had the right to take Naboth's vineyard if only he had been planning to fund Medicare with it. And God's Word does not say that I have the right to a free house, with someone else obligated to pay for it. This means that all the current talk about rights is a deceitful lie, calculated to create confusion so that the government can create a situation they desire about as much as anything -- free rein to trample on real human rights. And we must never forget that in this regard property rights are human rights.
Democrats AND many Republicans could stand to learn this lesson.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

OBC?

Wow. ABC is now openly shilling for Obama's policies, as opposed to the slightly more subtle reporting they've done for the last couple years.