Get PJ Media on your Apple

Works and Days

Confessions of a Counter-Revolutionary

April 9th, 2013 - 12:49 pm

“Counter-revolutionary” is an apt term for these days: President Obama has promised to make a fundamental transformation, a veritable revolution in American society and culture. Those who oppose such an ongoing agenda are suspected of all sorts of racism, nativism, misogyny, homophobia, and general counter-revolutionary activity.

So — here are some thoughtcrimes:

Global warming

The latest news on “climate change” was not good for global-warming, cap-and-trade zealots. The planet did not heat up in the last decade and a half, despite substantial increases in carbon emissions. The much ballyhooed “Marcott paper” (supposedly millennia of conclusive climate data!) has been largely discredited, and shares the company of the East Anglia email trove (e.g., “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. … Our observing system is inadequate”).

Why the counter-revolutionary suspicion of global warming? I know that the forces of market capitalism are potent, but they certainly lack the powers of the sun and solar system to alter the earth. I have also spent too much time in academia and met too many professors not to know that politicization has infected campus teaching and research — especially the doctrine that the noble ends always justify the occasionally suspect means.

Global warming is a cult belief of the elite: the latter conveniently opposed fracking and horizontal drilling, while subsidizing costly wind and solar that hurt the poor (the lines of cars of poor Latinos at the rural filling station near my house — which offers gas at 10 cents a gallon cheaper than in town — forms about 6:00 a.m.). Such facts — like the cost of air conditioning in Fresno on an August 105 Fahrenheit afternoon — are of no interest to the Palo Alto or Berkeley utopian.

It is the penance that instead counts — an Al Gore lecturing upscale students on polar bear populations so he can use his carbon-offsetted private jet to save them. There is the matter of “cool” too: Worrying about global warming is like drinking Starbucks as you enter Whole Foods; in contrast, worrying about cheap natural gas to help the poor have warm homes is like drinking a McDonald’s latte as you are greeted at the door of Walmart.

Cool — for upscale, would-be revolutionaries – is everything.

Guns

I have met very few academics, politicians, or journalists who knew much about guns. Few of them hunt. Most do not live in bad neighborhoods or drive long distances, sometimes through or into rough areas. I suspect few work alone at night. Few are plagued by woodpeckers destroying an eve on the barn, varmints digging under the shed pavement, or a rabid coyote too close to the doghouse.

So when I hear a liberal expert propose yet another round of Second Amendment infringement, I expect confusion about magazines, clips, calibers, rifles, shotguns, pistols, “automatic” and “semi-automatic,” and “assault weapons.” (Four hours, black spray paint, a sheet of aluminum, cardboard, tin snips, solder, and super glue, and you perhaps could make my ancient semi-automatic .22 resemble a scary “assault rifle.”)

So far I have heard of no proposed legislation that would have stopped Sandy Hook or Columbine, tragically so. To have prevented another unhinged loser from shooting children and teens would have required a police state to have confiscated millions of previously sold legal weapons and ammunition, or to have had armed guards in the schools. There is no legal support for the former or political support for the latter.

The Sandy Hook shooter’s sick fascination with violent video games and his aberrant psychological state (or was it an autistic-like impairment?) were the stronger catalysts of his mayhem. Yet I know that the Obama administration has no desire to go after Hollywood moguls regarding gratuitous gun violence on the big screen, much less take on the ACLU and the psychiatry industry about either psychotropic drugs or the ability of the clearly unhinged to avoid incarceration.

There is a predictability in the liberal mindset: it prefers the iconic to the substantial in matters of controversy. Address the misdemeanor, ignore the felony.

To stop most gun-related deaths in general in the U.S., we would have to focus on inner-city youths (cf. both the success and controversy of stop-and-frisk in New York). We would have to target young minority males in advertising to make the illicit use of the gun comparable to the social unattractiveness of … well, smoking.

I cannot see any of that happening. So we go after the demonic gun that causes less than 1% of annual gun-related deaths, feel good about doing something “for the children,” and derive an added psychic uplift that such a superfluous something also enrages the lower-middle class — especially the slightly rural, mostly white male Sarah Palin constituent. The First Amendment is sacrosanct and must be expanded; the Second is suspect and must be deflated.

Gay Marriage

Sometime about a year ago, the long-held position of Barack Obama and the Clintons on gay marriage — No! — became, in Emmanuel Goldstein fashion, abhorrent. Indeed, they’ve become harsh critics of those who still believe as they recently did.

Most Americans are fine with civil unions and, in live-and-let-live fashion, don’t worry all that much about gay marriage. Nonetheless, why the sudden dramatic change, if not for brilliant messaging and well-funded liberal gay donors whose pledges were made contingent on fluidity on the issue?

Key to the transformation in popular culture was the radical change in the perception of male homosexuality. In the 1980s and 1990s — read the work of the late gay investigative journalist Randy Shilts, or the old videos of San Francisco parades or arguments over bath houses — there was the general impression that male homosexuality was both more promiscuous than either heterosexual or lesbian practice, and that passive sexual intercourse was a catalyst for the spread of the AIDS virus and hepatitis (suddenly a venereal disease in a way it had not been in the past) in a manner that “normative” heterosexual intercourse was not.

Mention of male homosexuality in the news was usually linked with sexual practice, and the result was not favorable to the majority of the public. The age-old word “sodomy” was not then the taboo term that it is now. That perception — reality, whatever one calls it — has now vanished. “Gay” is a non-sexual sobriquet that involves vaguely defined expressions of affection. To suggest that anal intercourse is statistically more likely to be unhygienic or, if practiced with frequency, to run the risk of either hepatitis or AIDS is now proof of homophobia. Indeed, so is the use of “homosexual” for “gay.”

Most of us do not think too much about it, other than to ensure that we treat people — in my case whether in evaluating students, grant applicants, or scholars — equally, with no interest at all in their sexual lives.

That said, the transformation in gay-advocacy strategy has been nothing short of remarkable, its signature achievement being that there is absolutely nothing much different between gay male and straight male sexual congress — and that those who believe there is are themselves bigots.

If so, we should soon expect the liberal popular culture — from the movies of Quentin Tarantino to the recent Spartacus series — to stop presenting anal penetration as an especially unwelcome sort of act, or a particular nasty sort of sexual coercion.

In the logic of gay marriage, liberal culture — art, cinema, movies, journalism, politics — will soon represent gay male sexual practice as an act as natural as any other, without value judgments of any sort attached to it. Also, I would expect in the years ahead that the law, as it does now, will not add enhanced charges like “anal penetration” or “sodomy” to sexual criminal complaints. I am confused in this progressive era why I still read that a particular sex offender suspect is to be considered especially odious, by adding details to his charges like “sodomy” or “anal penetration.” Why qualify, much less legally enhance, the particular details of rape?

Incidentally, in matters of sexual consistency, there should be no longer suspicions of adult males being Brownie or Girl Scout Masters, given that the gay rights movement has made the Boy Scouts themselves suspect for unfairly discouraging gay Scout Masters. Is a forty-year old heterosexual male any more likely to look upon young girls in untoward fashion than a forty-year old gay male would young boys? Gay marriage is not the end of a long struggle, but the very beginning of a brave new world whose contours we can only imagine.

Illegal Immigration

In good 1984-style, the Associated Press just outlawed “illegal immigrant.” Apparently “illegal alien” was so odious that its banishment was automatic and not worthy of citation. Yet what does “undocumented” mean, given one usually never applied for documents to be un-anything?

As Orwell saw, imprecision, or rather deliberate distortion, in language is always the first characteristic of the totalitarian.

Here are the public’s problems with illegal immigration, from 1-5:

1. The law: Once one group feels that it is exempt from federal law, others might as well, too. If I choose to break a federal statute of my own choosing with impunity, why would I fear doing the same with others? Who needs to file a 1040 or worry about car registration, a building permit, a fishing license, or rabies pet vaccination?

We forget that the illegal immigrant serially violates the law in obtaining all sorts of fraudulent documents (how can one with a false Social Security number be “undocumented”?), any one violation of which would harm the job or education prospects of a U.S. citizen.

2. The tribe: Illegal immigration, largely from Latin America, is too often implicitly predicated on ethnic chauvinism. Were it a matter of Southeast Asians or Poles coming illegally and en masse, La Raza activism would be nonexistent — or championing law enforcement.

The Democratic Party in general supports massive influxes, followed by periodic amnesties, followed by expanded entitlements, followed by political loyalty for 3-4 generations. La Raza activists see numbers as key to incomplete assimilation that in turn leads to salad-bowl like political constituencies. Without massive immigration, the Democratic Party’s base — greens, gays, single women, metrosexual young yuppie couples, African-Americans, third-generation Asians and Latinos — does not guarantee the much-promised new demography. As a rough observation, red-state, church-going nuclear families seem to be having more kids than blue-state sorts.

Once the impoverished Oaxacan immigrant crosses the border, he becomes statistical proof that Latinos have not achieved parity with the majority culture, due to all sorts of –isms and –ologies that can only be addressed by more government programs staffed by activists. The fact of why and how he was impoverished and whom was to blame before he crossed the border is too illiberal to be addressed.

The most frightening statistic I know in regards to illegal immigration is the disappointing performance of second-generation California Latinos in standardized tests and graduating from high school.

Compare this quote from an April 2012 Wall Street Journal article written by George P. Shultz and Eric A. Hanushek:

But the averages mask the truly sad story in the Latino population, soon to become California’s dominant demographic group. Hispanics attending school in California perform no better than the average student in Mexico, a level comparable to the typical student in Kazakhstan. An alarming 43% of Hispanic students in California did not complete high school between 2005 and 2009, and only 10% attained a college degree.

Where did all that massive money spent in remedial help and education go, if Mexico does as good a job as the U.S?

A word like raza really does mean race, as in the superior race. Because it compounds the assumptions of an exceptional language and ethnic heritage and racial identity, it is pernicious in the way unquestioned use of volk in 19th-century Germany logically grew into something quite scary 100 years later.

3. Helot labor is helot labor: Something is quite sick when a country of chronic 7.6% unemployment (in fact, much higher when we count those who gave up looking for work) wants to import a million menial laborers.

Either entitlements are too generous, or no longer tied to work participation, or we have lost the respect for a shared experience of entry-level physical drudgery, the traditional perquisite to character. I grew up with the bracero program, and remember the old Harvest of Shame-like documentaries, the Woody Guthrie “Deportee” activist songs, and the seasonal liberal op-eds deploring the exploitation. The premise that America can institutionalize the idea that you are good enough to work for us but not good enough to be one of us just won’t work.

Mark my words: the guest-worker program is an invitation to exploitation, endless social activism, serial amnesties, and more ethnic tensions.

4. Numbers impair assimilation: Bring in 100,000 immigrants and we are a melting pot of assimilation as Latinos follow the paradigm of the Italians; but bring in nearly 1,000,000 a year, and illegally so, and we are a salad-bowl, Balkanized society of competing factions.

Legality, English, and a diploma guarantee successful assimilation, which used to be desirable; the antithesis to all that ensures difficult assimilation, which to too many elites is now more desirable. How did assimilation, integration, and intermarriage become counter-revolutionary?

5. Legal immigration is mostly ignored, other than in platitudes about meritocratic criteria (e.g., education, skill sets, capital, etc.). Democrats sing of legal immigration as if they were the party working to get the brilliant Nigerian electrical engineer his green card at Google. Maybe, maybe not. But does Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer ever say the following?

We need to predicate immigration on legality and on precisely those skills needed by American society — and therefore we must close the borders to those who would come illegally, without a high-school diploma, and knowledge of English, given they are far more likely to draw on rather than contribute to the finances of the U.S.

The classically liberal position on immigration (e.g., treat everyone on a racially blind and ethnically blind basis; ensure that those who took the trouble to follow the law are privileged over those who did not and cut in line; apply meritocratic criteria not subject to racial or ethnic bias; and for applicants of roughly similar qualifications, ensure a rough “diversity” that results in Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, and Europeans entering in about equal numbers) is now counter-revolutionary.

The Economy

Here is what you do if you are a revolutionary who wishes to transform the American economy:

a) Have the government absorb health care, one-sixth of the economy.

b) Ensure that a correct Federal Reserve establishes near-zero interest rates.

c) Vastly expand the numbers on food stamps, unemployment, and disability insurance.

d) Raise taxes on the upper incomes, so that in many states the suspect pay 55% of their incomes in federal income, payroll, Medicare, Obamacare, and state income taxes.

e) Exempt half the U.S. households from federal income tax, so that for many April 15 is a day of credit reimbursement.

f) In matters of bankruptcy, seek to elevate pension holders over creditors and contractors.

g) Promote programs that seek to offer redress payouts to supposedly discriminated constituents and seek to excuse mortgage and credit card debt.

h) Vastly grow the number of federal employees.

i) Run chronic budget deficits to ensure redistributive growth.

j) Plan to double the national debt in eight years.

l) Cut the defense budget.

m) Keep entitlement payouts sacrosanct.

n) Conduct psychological warfare against the job-hiring classes (pay your fair share, you didn’t build that, no time to profit, fat cat, etc.).

o) Establish crony capitalism so that particular capitalists (e.g., Solyndra, GE, Chrysler, etc.) understand that anti-capitalist mandates do not apply to politically correct policies.

p) Discourage new gas and oil production that might undercut green energy and prevent gas from going “to European levels” or electricity to “skyrocket.”

Here is what you might do should you wish a natural recovery, decentralization, and more people working:

a) Simply do the opposite from all of the above.

How do you know if you are a counter-revolutionary? You sense that you – not just your opposition to “fundamental transformation” — must be destroyed.

It’s that simple.

(Thumbnail on PJM homepage based on a modified Shutterstock.com image.)

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The fundamental flaw in this exposition is it's reliance on fact, reason and logic and, therefore, it is anathema to the left.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They've commandeered the language. Up is down, down is up. Giving a history lesson that doesn't bash Western Civilization as a whole is now practically a hate crime. Facts are now subjective and our ruling elites expect us to ignore outcomes and instead celebrate their "good intentions." Never mind your lying eyes, everything is fine. And if you don't think it's fine well then maybe they'll unleash the media hounds to publicly shame you into behaving.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The idea that Scalia saying "homosexual" is like a racist says "negro" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a few years. "Homosexual" is about the most sterile, descriptive term I can think of. "Gay" is a political and personal label.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (75)
All Comments   (75)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Very well written and I share his views completely!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
By "classically liberal position on immigration" I think VDH means "liberal" in the 18th century British sense, not the current American political sense.

The tightening of US immigration voted in in the early 1920s was, according to Schales' "Coolidge" the idea of labor unions and Democrats like the KKK. It was very racist in intent and execution.

Of course, one wonders why contemporary labor unions don't choose to serve their members and demand a halt to immigration.

And don't be in such a hurry to import more engineers either! You will just lower the incomes of American engineers in the process as our experience with the H1B system shows. That program is just a white collar bracero system.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The new senate bill allows doctors to call anyone mentally ill without that person knowing it. Thus the ACLU and big pharma are happy. And now the government has a way of attacking the Second Amendment. Since physicians will be Federal employees this is a win-win situation for everyone concerned except that of the private individual.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's mid-April in Southern California at 11:00 in the morning and I'm freezing my tuchis off. Global warming my tuchis.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Counter-revolutionaries, UNITE !

Oh, wait.

That won't work.

Counter-revolutionaries today are the independent thinkers and are not those who naturally collectivize like sheep.

Thus, our Achilles heel, thinking for ourselves ensures our repression.

Drat !
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ugh, I messed up punctuation:

"Thus, our Achilles heel, thinking for ourselves, ensures our repression."

That's better.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You articulated more in 3 sentences than many pundits do in 3 pages. The thing is, how do we heal our Archilles heel? How DO we unite?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We unite around sound issues void of self serving political activists and personalization of everything. We unite as problem solvers and not complainers and blamers.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"You sense that you – not just your opposition to 'fundamental transformation' — must be destroyed."

Yes. Over the years my Progressive friends have become less cordial, less tolerant of debate, and are now openly hostile, impatient for their socialist dreams to become real. During the Bush years, they began to shun me. Now, in the Obama years, they're angry over any opposition, and I don't doubt they'd support jailing me for political differences if they could.

But they're an island of academia in a mostly conservative, Red State community. And I wonder if therein lies a path of action. What if we, the counterrevolutionaries, began concentrating in Red States? Abandon California, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York to the morass their Blue State policies have created. I know it would break some hearts -- VDH probably couldn't pull up stakes from his beloved CA -- but young counterrevolutionaries have nothing to lose but a life wasted in declining states. Virtually every Red State is growing economically. An influx of counterrevolutionaries will tilt the electorate there, too.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Salt Lick: "Over the years my Progressive friends have become less cordial, less tolerant of debate, and are now openly hostile, impatient for their socialist dreams to become real."

Very true. The past several years, I have let my friendships with progressives fall by the wayside. They just don't know when to shut up, and every conversation ends up being a one-sided conversation. Lord knows I like to learn, but I hate being "taught," especially by an ass.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yep. I STARTED my campus ACLU back in the 70's to protect vigorous debate. But there's no such thing as "debate" with Progressives anymore. People like us are either going to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from their will to power, or we're going to find ourselves hunted like rabbits.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If they follow the jobs, they will. The "safety net" cannot survive without the creation of new wealth and continued growth. States with low business taxes, no income tax on the state level, and right to work laws, will attract entrepreneurs and also young workers looking for a new start. The nation is splitting ( we have always been a divided country except for WW II ) and the possibility of 2 "confederations" may be in the future, possibly in this century.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm interviewing for a new job now. When asked where I WON'T move to, I say Illinois and New York. When I'm asked "why?" (they usually suggest the weather since I'm in California), I say its their governments.

California is bad enough but I'd prefer to stay and fight, if I can earn a living here.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Whitehall -- I've a sister in Austin, TX who says the competition for jobs from Californians moving there is intense.

VDH makes California sound hopeless. The situation he describes reminds me of what I encountered with white Kenyans (descendants of British colonials) when I lived in Kenya. They were surrounded by people who hated them, powerless except where they could bribe a government official, and deeply depressed as they watched a fabulously beautiful country sink into bread and circuses, corruption, and sometime outright political murder. Why "stay and fight?" Family obligations? Memories? Roots? Sentiment?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Except that most of the red states also have big cities, which are very blue. It is almost as much an urban-suburb-rural thing as it is a state thing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Before I state my issue, lets be clear that with the communists on the left, EVERYTHING is political and therefore must be governed, laws must be made, and adherence to the law is a two tiered operation. Think of this as you recollect that the first order of business when the left passed obamacare was to exempt themselves from it.

Of course these dots of blue in the big cities are the hell holes they are because of leftist policies. They are going broke and are crumbling under the weight of their massive beaucracies. The obama solution?

Take a hard look at Agenda 21. The people of common sense who left these blue hell holes for the burbs took their leave and their tax dollars with them. This will not stand with the obama crowd. In order to remain viable obama is pushing hard for "regional taxation redistribution."

In short, the blue dots have patronaged their futures away with a plethora of bad policy to the point of being insolvent. To the left, it is unfair that the burbs have it so good, and they have so little. Agenda 21 is the scheme to normalize the dysfunction on a wider scale.

Just another part of the "fundamental transformation."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Some truth n that, Dwight, but the tendency toward blue seems muted the more local the government. Thirty governorships is not a bad place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As for the issue of "shooters" and how we much "outlaw assault rifles, magazines, etc" it appears that most if not all of these "shooters" were on legally prescribed SSRI's (anti-depressants) which do have both "side effects" (some become violent when on these drugs) and "withdrawal symptoms" (violence is one). Note that before we started drugging children and young adults, these sort of "shootings" didn't happen even though semi-auto weapons have been available since the end of the 19th Century. The popular M-1 carbine (with its 15 shot magazine) was available via "mail order" back when Ike was still in the White House!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, exactly Muskegon, here is a video treating that theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgCpa1RlSdQ&feature=youtu.be
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Just as Creationists are always sure that Darwinism is on the verge of collapse, climate change denialists like Hansen will always be sure that the consensus of scientists is a house of cards. He should certainly save his first couple of paragraphs since he'll be reprinting them every couple of months till he dies of old age at his villa on the Siberian riviera.

It would be churlish to complain if all that Hansen's nonsense evinced were ideological blindness and comprehensive ignorance of science, but even a liberal arts idiot like Hansen surely knows by now that he is misrepresenting the stolen East Anglia emails. As a classicist, after all, he ought to be able to read a text. Thing is, Hansen knows that his audience thinks that the emails are full of embarrassing revelations so they remain rhetorically useful and that's enough. All's fair in love, war, and cultural politics.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I find it rather amusing that a neo-Nazi like Jim Hitlerson would call skeptics, "denialists". He sympathizes with people, movements and groups that deny the Holocaust.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
To all Pjmedia readers,
Please don't waste your time responding to Jim Harrishmuck a.k.a. Jim Hitlerson. He has venomous opinions about everything. He thinks he knows everything about everything. He thinks he has the answer to all of the world's problems. He's what Thomas Sowell might call a self-anointed messiah. He's too ignorant to understand how ignorant he is. He's extremely childish. He throws tantrums. He evades questions. He hates Jews and hates Israel. Please don't pay attention, to this immature, malignant, narcissistic, anti-Semitic demagogue.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Jim, are you developing dementia? You've posted here before and often and you've never had a problem spelling Dr. Hanson's last name. It ends in "-on," just as your posted last name does. His name is at the top of his column for future reference. A yellow Post-It note stuck to your computer screen is a useful tool for forgetfulness. You can put them on your refrigerator to remind you of your meals and meds, or even above your toilet for those problems.

As for Hanson's (I got it right; make a jot on your Post-it) stance on global warming/climate change (or whatever the spot-changing leopards call it these days), it makes no difference in the end, as his larger point was about the hypocrisy of the warmists.

The comments you frothed about were merely background to that more important point. In fact, we could edit out Dr. Hanson's (take note..."-on") supposed boilerplate remarks, and instead start the passage at, "Global warming is a cult belief of the elite," and the greater point would have been made. Indeed, as an editor, I would have done just that.

Jim, are you disagreeing that the behavior of the global warming/climate change/er-whatever champions is not hypocritical? After all, I allow the possibility of a little warming, and I also believe that the warming-mongers are the biggest political hypocrites of them all: Al Gore with his many mansions, growing personal girth and carbon-speweing jet-junkets; Barbra Streisand telling us to use a clothesline while she has a climate-controlled barn for her Malibu goats...I could go on with the examples, but that is the larger point.

What Hanson (note: sp) believes about warming is still not as important as the larger point.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Hi Mike East Bay,
There's no point in engaging Harrishmuck. Arguing with him is like arguing with a klansman burning a cross on your front lawn. The racist sewage that oozes out of Harrishmuck's schizophrenic brain would embarass David Duke or Tom Metzger or J.B. Stoner. So his opinions on any subject need to be ignored. If you don't believe that he's schizophrenic, I'll give you examples of him contradicting himself. If you don't believe he's a neo-Nazi, I'll give you examples of his anti-Semitic filth.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thanks ZL, but no need to warn me, as I've encountered this mint-julep-drinking, not-so-closeted racist before ("I've lived with blacks,"..."I've dug ditches beside Chicanos..." and all sorts of "some-of-my-best-friends are ___," therefore I can say racist things but you can't...)

The tragic thing is that folks like him, who have always secretly accused the Jews of running the media, are the very racists and anti-Semites who actually do control the media, ie, the modern liberal. And it behooves me to krap on them whenever I get the chance.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's the climate "scientists" who have to keep reshuffling their deck. You obviously aren't keeping up.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually, the HadCru Data from East Anglia and not the Climategate emails are what skeptics point to. Using HadCrut data one finds that the earth hasn't warmed since 1996 (ie the warming is statistically insignificant).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
30 years ago I was trying to explain to family members that an investment in beach property would not have the long term value that they supposed because sea-level might rise a foot in the 21st century due to warming caused by CO2. Today I try to tell the younger generation that the most likely scenario is still about a foot and I am some sort of troglodytic "denier".

That CO2 will cause some warming is not provable, but almost certain. The problem is that we do not know enough about the feedbacks. That said, anyone who does not know that the IPCC reports are hyped to arrive at a politically desired goal is simply blind to what is going on. If the feedbacks were as positive as the alarmists propose our planet would have been far more unstable for the last few hundred million years and it is doubtful we would even be here.

Anyone who thinks we can do anything significant about CO2 emissions until another energy source becomes viable or world population is drastically reduced is very poorly informed.

The problem is manageable, only the ignorant or politically motivated tell us otherwise.

Far more predictable is that liberal attempts to create a "better world" will instead erect a totalitarian state that crushes those it blames for the failure of its programs. But even that will pass.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We know enough about Postiive Feedbacks to know that they are over-blown in the IPCC climate models.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Exempt half the U.S. households from federal income tax."

Is this actually now true and are progressives actually pushing for it? If I have figured things correctly, a single person making $20,000 per year who has no deductions would pay $1,106 in federal tax. If there are progressives trying to reduce this, let me know, because all I am hearing is how they want to raise taxes on the rich (which is a waste of energy in my opinion).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Households, JFP, Parent(s) with children. I do not have the IRS chart
handy, but a family of four with zero income receives $40K in Govt.
subsidies/exemptions, which decreases dollar-for dollar until income
reaches $40K, above which taxes are levied.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All