Archive
“Incompetence of Obama” Ideation Spreads, Political Crisis Approaches
As we predicted yesterday in this post, the idea that Obama is incompetent and needs to be replaced as President of the United States is spreading and gaining traction even outside of conservative circles.
Over the weekend the idea will probably ferment, and over the next few weeks it may emerge in force.
For now, this article by the Washington Post confirms that there is a crisis brewing over the incompetence of the Obama Administration concerning the underwear bomber, and this article lays out the case -in full- about the overall incompetence of Obama over the past year. I agree when Conrad Black says: “It has been a year of fecklessness, amateurism, and posturing. Less that is useful has been accomplished by this president in his first year than by any president since Herbert Hoover, and he was ambushed by the Great Depression after seven months.”
Everyone is urging Obama to move to the center in order to save his presidency. As I outlined in my post yesterday, he may not do this, but even if he does, it may be too late.
Obama and his Maoist comrades misunderstood their mandate. The American people do not like government spending and an increase in government power through bureaucracy. When Clinton said “the era of big government is over” he knew what he was doing, even if he didn’t really mean it. He knew that the Reagan Revolution was indeed a real revolution and that the American taxpayer, even as long ago as 1980, was not willing to finance the age-old anti-American and central planning dreams of socialist elites.
The Democrats defeated the Republican majority and George Bush because the well-funded Soros propoganda tanks were very successful in spreading the idea that Republicans were corrupt and wasteful of government money. (They got a heavy assist from the liberal advocacy media (LAME) as well.) Republicans did a piss-poor job of defending themselves, but now we can see the real color of the truth. We still hear about Larry Craig for God’s sake, while the LAME covers up stories about the abuse of power in the White House and the culture of corruption that permeates Obama’s administration.
It was almost a foregone conclusion during the 2008 campaign that Democrats weren’t going to raise taxes and that a Democratic administration would cut federal spending. Obama himself said he was going to “take a scalpel” to federal spending in one debate. That is what people voted for. Instead, what they got was someone who does not believe that the Reagan Revolution was real, and that if it was, it was a well-managed public relations gimmick that kept the “real change” demanded by the people encumbered by a persistent cult of personality.
This is elitist thinking at its worst, and it is clear by the reaction of the LAME and other elites, that they find it easy to disregard the political will of a majority because they believe the people expressing that will are misinformed, misguided, and led astray by corporate-financed media. But how can that be, if this heinous corporate media is themselves? No, what really afflicts this nation’s elites is that it is impossible for them to accept that conservatism has a rational basis and that it appeals to millions of thoughtful, reasonable voters.
This is why so many liberal commentators feel free to insult conservative spokesmen and conservative organizations. They have read a few books about media and the formation of mass political cognition and they are convinced that anyone else who reads what they have, will automatically be in agreement with them. If not, well, they must just be dumb.
Anyway, that is what the Obama crowd thinks and it was clear that they were pursuing their health care reform despite popular opposition because they believed that people would not reject it once it was established. They expected the progressive movement to spread and that opponents would be so beleaguered by “progressive” propoganda by then, resistance would whittled to a mere token. Ironically, smart progressives eventually resorted to a moral appeal to pass health care, while the opposition kept making arguments based on economics and political science. Americans went with the latter, but this seems lost on the Left altogether.
The American people aren’t buying the most hallowed arguments in the rhetorical bag of tricks employed by American socialists. What remains to be seen, however, is if Obama will be willing to backtrack far enough and long enough, so people forget what progressive policies really mean for the country.
Obama Will Be Forced to Resign If He is Forced to Renege on KSM Trial in NYC
First, I’d like to wish everyone a happy Guantanamo Bay Closure Day!
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. …
BARACK OBAMATHE WHITE HOUSE,January 22, 2009.
Now, although some may think the heading for this post is overblown, it must be recognized that there is a crisis brewing in Washington over Obama’s treatment of the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and there are signals that his decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City is in peril.
If the crisis over treating the Detroit terrorist Abdulmutallab as a criminal continues to brew, and the Congress is able to sideline the New York trial of KSM, I predict that credible calls for Obama to resign the presidency will begin to be heard.
These two missteps, if widely disseminated, should be the final straws that break Obama and from which he will never be able to recover politically. No matter which direction Obama pivots after the devastating election in Massachusetts, these two national security missteps show that he has become an ineffective and incompetent leader. And with his incompetence fully exposed- especially on foreign policy and national security issues- he has become a dangerous liability not only for the Democratic Party, but more importantly, for the country as well. This should be unacceptable to a country trying to recover from economic crisis, that is in a war with extremists, and which is being challenged internationally on a every level.
The crisis over giving Abdulmutallab civilian legal rights was exacerbated Wednesday by the congressional testimony of Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence. In that testimony, Blair said that it was a mistake that Abdulmutallah was not held for interrogation by the High Value Interrogation Group, of HIG, an agency created for the express purpose of making decisions about terrorist interrogations. Blair explained that even though the FBI was able to question Abdulmutallah briefly before his surgery on Christmas Day and that it revealed a “a treasure trove of intelligence,” shortly after his surgery, Abdulmutallah was read his Miranda rights and clammed up.
It was also revealed at the same hearing that Blair, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael E. Leiter, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano-the four most important counter-terrorism officials in the country- were not consulted about the charging decision. Essentially the decision to treat Abdulmutallah as a civilian with full legal rights was made on the ground, and many questions have been raised about the Administration’s preparedness on domestic terrorism.
Also, in a Newsweek blog, Michael Isikoff reveals that there is growing consensus in Congress that locating the trial in New York City was a really, really bad idea. Isikoff reports that Republican Senator Lindsay Graham will soon force another vote on his previously failed amendment to strip funding for the trial. Isikoff reports that there is renewed support for the measure in Congress:
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will force another vote on his amendment to stop the trial (which was defeated 54-45 in November) once Congress reconvenes. “With Detroit and everything else going on, we’ve got a pretty good chance of winning this thing,” says Graham, adding that he’s privately heard from a number of Democrats, saying “they’re with me.” GOP Rep. Frank Wolf says he plans a similar move in the House. “I’m afraid it’s probably going to pass,” says Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, who has strongly backed the administration on the issue.
These are epic failures by Obama and his Administration. Add this to his clearly inept handling of Iran, his admitted failure on Middle East peace, and not to mention his falling popularity and stalled domestic agenda, and it is very conceivable that even people within his own party will begin calling for his resignation.
No matter which direction Obama pivots now, I think it is almost impossible for him to reclaim any political ground. If he moves to the center, he loses the far-Left. Why would they support this move before he gets health care? Why should they put their issues on hold in an attempt to save Obama’s presdency and a possible second term? They have the political clout now and can’t get things done.
No, unless they believe him blindly, the Left must demand that Obama moves to the left now, and if he pivots to the center, they will move against him and start clamoring for a third party or support a more progressive candidate in 2012.
Consequently, if Obama moves to the Left, there is a good chance he will be finished altogther. While this may inspire his far-left base to get out in the streets again, it will alienate the moderates and resurgent conservatives even more. They will not give him the cover he sorely needs on his foreign policy and national security incompetence, and he will then appear to be flailing and ineffective on that front.
So, his best move is probably going to the center. Once there, he must hope that his administration’s repeated attacks on Bush and conservatives in order to decimate them are forgotten. He must hope the Tea Party Movement goes away (and it isn’t), and that the electorate forgets his massive failures and lies to date. If “moderates” and conservatives are unwilling to support Obama’s move to the center and he simultaneously loses the far-left, what will be the point of him serving out the next four years? (He is already in danger of losing the far-left anyway, given that he has not repealed some of the most hated of Bush’s anti-terror policies. Discarding the radical domestic agenda now, I think, will put them over the edge.) He will then be unable to garner support for anything he does, and the country will enter a protracted stage of political crisis as its leader will be powerless. And political crises are consistently resolved throughout the world by the main perpetrators of the crisis being forced to step down. Here and now, that would be Barack Obama.
_____
Incidentally, I found a video that sends chills down my spine. And in accordance with my series on the crisis in Honduras, I made a connection that is very unpleasant.
Watch the video below, especially the first 2:20 (especially 1:50-2:18) minutes and you’ll see what I mean. See if you make the same connection I do. Don’t believe you are just paranoid if you do, this documentary was produced by the CBC in the 1980s, and was not funded by the Birchers or any anti-Communist group in America.
Perhaps protracted political crisis in the United States is what Obama wants. If it is, we’re in for a bumpy ride in the coming year.
“Listen, Little Man! The Only Thing Standing Between You and Republican Fascist Hell: The Democratic Party and Martha Coakley!”-Boston Globe / K. Olbermann
Now, shouldn’t some of the stuff coming from the liberal advocacy media (LAME) because they fear a potential victory by Republican Scott Brown in today’s Massachusett’s U.S. Senate race, disqualify them from ever claiming they are objective reporters again? I mean, really… It is so blatant and obvious that I am only one of probably thousands of blogs pointing it out.
The best comes from Keith Olbermann, admittedly a partisan, but if anyone takes this seriously, well, I would be in favor of taking away the right to vote for people with IQs of 60 or lower. His keen analysis:
In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women.
Who falls for that stuff anymore? Who are the fear-mongers now? When they’re desperate, Democratic hacks show what world-class demagogues they can be. The emperor is bare nekkid today.
And here at CPN in this post 10 days ago we noticed something about the campaign reporting coming from the Boston Globe. We noticed that while some polls had Brown closing on Coakley, the Globe still had him down by 15 points. The Globe also refused to notice the race was competitive until Saturday, when they could only bring themselves to admit that the race was a “dead heat”, despite most polls showing otherwise.
This was the same line they used yesterday as well, despite the polling data. In a blog post at Real Clear Politics, Boston Globe Puts Thumb on Scale- Again, Tom Bevan makes the point:
Let me see if I have this right: there have been six polls of the Massachusetts Senate race released in the last 24 hours, five of which show Scott Brown with leads of 5 points, 7 points, 9 points, 10 points and 10 points, respectively. Only one poll shows the race tied. None of the polls show Martha Coakley with a lead.
How then, you might ask, can the Boston Globe justify characterizing the race as a “dead heat?”
I suppose if you were disingenuous enough to downplay and/or ignore the five polls showing Scott Brown with fairly sizable leads, then that headline wouldn’t be false. Massively biased and misleading, yes, but technically accurate. And wouldn’t you know, that’s exactly what the author of the story does…
But today, the nekkid emperor has started throwing all the bombs in his arsenal. Yep, our good friends at the Boston Globe have put up numerous reports about how Brown supporters have been “intimidating” those nice, little Democrats and “suppressing” their vote.
The Sweetness and Light blog has a good breakdown of one of these articles:
Brown supporters trying to suppress vote by bullying
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | January 18, 2010
____
But wait, apparently the Boston Globe planted an “interactive map” in their paper today that showed Coakley winning the election at about 1:00 in the afternoon. They claim it was a mistake!
You old nekkid thing you.
In consideration of 2010 polling data.
updated!
I try to avoid talking about polls and elections which are far off. Things can change and it is difficult to foresee the outcomes of elections far in advance.
But, given the inevitable passage of the health care reform bill, and the increasing likelihood that the US Senate will pass a cap-and-trade bill, the first (and perhaps only) chance that Americans who are opposed to these two massive pieces of “transformative” legislation will have to repeal them (barring a few astonishing rulings by the Supreme Court) will be through the 2010 elections. So, it is important to see if there will likely be enough of a mandate to turn the tide.
Many people do not agree with me that cap-and-trade is inevitable in 2010, but one merely has to point to the successes of Copenhagen and the recent health care legislation to see that for Democrats, the socialist mother wheel has appeared in the sky and is calling them home. Either they pass the legislation they have been clamoring for now, and create the over-regulated society they have always dreamed of, or they retreat.
But why should they be incremental at this point when they have majorities immune to the conservative opposition? It makes no sense. As influential Brazilian journalist Olavo de Carvahlo wrote in an essay November 18, 2008 titled What Will Obama Do?:
whatever its proclaimed goals, any scheme of power will always safeguard its own continuity and expansion first and foremost… The existence and continuity of the scheme are a prior condition of its doing whatever it may want to do. Thus, what we must consider before anything else is what the head of state will necessarily have to do, not to reach this or that goal, nor to face the objective problems that afflict the nation or part of it, but simply to keep – and, in the case of a revolutionary leader, to increase – the power of action it already possesses.
So, I am expecting cap-and-trade to be close, but eventually get passed because all the power amassed and being enjoyed by Democrats now, has been in development for a number of years. The cap-and-trade struggle will involve the same political legerdemain that was evident in the process to pass the health care reform bill. Institutionalizing federal control of health care reform and a cap-and-trade system are the most important components in building not only a domestic, permanent, progressive political architecture, but also a global one.
Losing substantial power in the next elections will not matter to the Left; there are always more elections. Better to use the majorities now to expand government power and hope the bills facilitating it cannot be repealed in the future by a blundering and confused Right. Premature announcements by the Republicans and conservatives of impending repeal, will most likely put them under such serious media assault throughout 2010, it may serve to weaken their growing strength before election season anyway.
House of Representatives
The Republicans need to win 40 seats to regain control in the House of Representatives. It is not clear yet if this is shaping up to be possible or not. Most agree that Republicans will be able to make significant gains in the House in 2010, but no one knows the extent.
There were a few developments yesterday related to elections that deserve mention. Of course, the most significant development was the announcement by Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama that he will be switching from the Democrat to the Republican Party. Griffith is a freshman congressman and a blue dog who voted against health care. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall for 2010.
This corresponds with the announced and somewhat unexpected resignations of four blue dog Democrats recently in Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee that would not be running for re-election in 2010. The collective wisdom is that for each of these seats polling data suggests they are either toss-ups or lean favorably Republican.
However, it is important to take into account that 12 incumbent Republican Representatives have also announced their resignation or retirement. Some of their districts, like the At-Large in Delaware or Michigan’s 2nd are vulnerable to Democrats.But Republicans have just topped Democrats in the generic Congressional poll:
| Poll | Date | Sample | Republicans | Democrats | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 12/3 – 12/20 | — | 43.3 | 40.8 | Republicans +2.5 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/14 – 12/20 | 3500 LV | 44 | 36 | Republicans +8 |
| USA Today/Gallup | 12/11 – 12/13 | 898 RV | 45 | 48 | Democrats +3 |
| Battleground | 12/6 – 12/10 | 1000 LV | 42 | 41 | Republicans +1 |
| Bloomberg | 12/3 – 12/7 | 714 LV | 42 | 38 | Republicans +4 |
See All Generic Congressional Vote Polling Data
Even though there have been some positive developments for Republicans in light of the 2010 House elections, it is not at all clear how substantial the gains may be. Go to this link to see a comprehensive chart of the races.
__
U.S. Senate
There are 36 seats up for election in the U.S. Senate in 2010 (38 if you include the special elections to be held in Massachusetts and Texas). 19 seats are held by Democrats and 19 held by Republicans. 41 Democratic seats and 21 Republican seats will be retained by both parties as they will not be decided this year.
What this means is that in order to maintain control of the United States Senate, the Democratic Party only needs to win 9 of the total 19 Senate races they are running in, with Joe Biden providing the tie-breaker. On the other hand, Republicans would have to win 30 seats to gain control. That would mean that they would have to win all 19 races for seats they now hold and win 11 out of the 19 Democratic seats available in 2010. Barring a complete collapse for Democrats, many believe that is not going to happen.
So, the question becomes which Republican seats will be contestable by Dems in 2010 and what Democratic seats are visibly vulnerable at this point.
There are 7 Republican seats that have come open due to resignation or retirement. These are FL, KS, KY, NH, OH, MO and TX. It is generally believed that New Hampshire and Ohio are toss-ups at this point. The rest are leaning Republican, but with some interesting developments in some of them.
Florida
Republicans will most likely hold onto this seat. However, Marco Rubio who is running against Governor Charlie Crist in the Republican primary has pulled even with him. Rubio is also supported by the Tea Party Movement and this is significant as the national media and leftists have tried to make it toxic for Republicans to embrace the Tea Partiers.
In the last couple of polls, Rubio has pulled even with Crist and he beats the leading Democratic candidate, Kendrick Meek, in the general election. This is a good sign for Rubio and it allows Republican supporters to safely abandon Crist for a potential winner. The numbers show Rubio’s incredible gains against the Democratic candidate:
| Date | Sample | Rubio (R) | Meek (D) | Spread | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 10/12 – 12/14 | — | 37.3 | 36.3 | Rubio +1.0 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/14 – 12/14 | 49 | 35 | Rubio +14 | |
| Daily Kos/R2000 | 11/16 – 11/18 | 30 | 38 | Meek +8 | |
| Rasmussen Reports | 10/20 – 10/20 | 46 | 31 | Rubio +15 | |
| Quinnipiac | 10/12 – 10/18 | 33 | 36 | Meek +3 | |
| Rasmussen Reports | 8/17 – 8/17 | 43 | 30 | Rubio +13 | |
| Strategic Vision (R) | 5/29 – 5/31 | 31 | 30 | Rubio +1 | |
| Strategic Vision (R) | 2/6 – 2/8 | 26 | 24 | Rubio +2 | |
| Daily Kos/R2000 | 1/26 – 1/28 | 22 | 31 | Meek +9 |
This chart shows Rubio’s gains against Crist:
| Date | Sample | Crist (R) | Rubio (R) | Spread | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 10/12 – 12/14 | — | 46.7 | 38.3 | Crist +8.4 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/14 – 12/14 | 431 LV | 43 | 43 | Tie |
| Daily Kos/R2000 | 11/16 – 11/18 | 400 RV | 47 | 37 | Crist +10 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 10/19 – 10/19 | 466 LV | 49 | 35 | Crist +14 |
| Quinnipiac | 10/12 – 10/18 | 396 LV | 50 | 35 | Crist +15 |
| McLaughlin & Associates (R) | 10/12 – 10/13 | 500 LV | 53 | 29 | Crist +24 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 8/17 – 8/17 | 470 LV | 53 | 31 | Crist +22 |
| Quinnipiac | 8/12 – 8/17 | 446 LV | 55 | 26 | Crist +29 |
| Mason-Dixon | 6/24 – 6/26 | 300 LV | 51 | 23 | Crist +28 |
| Quinnipiac | 6/2 – 6/7 | 486 RV | 54 | 23 | Crist +31 |
| Strategic Vision (R) | 5/29 – 5/31 | 468 LV | 59 | 22 | Crist +37 |
| Mason-Dixon | 5/14 – 5/18 | 300 LV | 53 | 18 | Crist +35 |
My bet is that he still has some ground to make up, but he is making Crist regret his embrace of Obama now.
Kentucky
One of the most interesting results of the polling data is that Rand Paul, Congressman Ron Paul’s son, has taken a commanding lead in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky against Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The numbers:
Paul-44%
Grayson-25%
Paul is running 54-18 amongst conservatives and is also supported by the supposedly toxic Tea Party Movement. The Democrats believe that Rand Paul would be vulnerable as a Senate candidate. No doubt the campaign against him will try to link him to the “right-wing extremist” meme.
I think that’s pretty much played out by now.
There are a couple of somewhat vulnerable incumbent Republicans according to the national political reports. These are Vitter in Louisiana and Burr in North Carolina. However, both incumbents hold 10-point leads or better over their Democratic rivals.
So, the best chance for Democrats to gain US Senate seats from Republicans is probably in New Hampshire and Ohio. But, Democrats also have pronounced vulnerabilities in seats held by incumbents.
Democratic Vulnerabilities
Many observers believe that it is possible the Republicans can pick up seats from Democratic incumbents in AR, CO, CT, IL, ND, NV, and PA.
So what are the polls showing?
North Dakota
This is considered a safe seat for Democrats by most observers. However, one of the more interesting polls that came out yesterday was one for a theoretical race for U.S. Senate between US Senator Byron Dorgan (D) and Gov. John Hoeven(R). It shows that Republican challenger in the lead:
Hoeven (R)-58%
Dorgan (D)-36%
That is a large margin, however, some commentators have suggested that Hoeven may not run for the seat and other GOP challengers would not poll as high. Hoeven said he will announce his intentions soon.
___
Pennsylvania
In another very positive development for Republicans, it appears that Pat Toomey is now beating Senator Arlen Specter slightly in Pennsylvania. Although most polls show them running even, if you click the link “all Pennsylvania Data” in the chart below, Toomey has been making steady gains since the summer and now runs almost even with Specter even in the polls where he is behind.
Toomey (R)-40
Specter (D)-40
Polling Data
| Poll | Date | Toomey (R) | Specter (D) | Spread | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 10/7 – 12/14 | 40.5 | 40.3 | Toomey +0.2 | |
| Quinnipiac | 12/8 – 12/14 | 44 | 44 | Tie | |
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/8 – 12/8 | 46 | 42 | Toomey +4 | |
| Franklin & Marshall | 10/20 – 10/25 | 31 | 33 | Specter +2 | |
| Susquehanna | 10/7 – 10/12 | 41 | 42 | Specter +1 |
See All Pennsylvania Senate – Specter vs. Toomey Polling Data
___
Connecticut
Sen. Christopher Dodd is losing ground to Rob Simmons and trails him in all polls, except those conducted by Daily Kos. Dodd is also losing to, but appears to be stronger against Republican candidate Linda McMahon. Dodd has made up some ground against Simmons, but Simmons has improved his numbers steadily. However, it appears Dodd is in real trouble and there are many in Connecticut asking if Dodd is electable in 2010.
| Pollster | Dates | Simmons | Dodd | Other | Undecided | Not Voting | Margin | |
| GQR (D-Dodd) | 12/15-17/09 | 51 | 46 | – | – | – | +5R | |
| Rasmussen | 12/7/09 | 48 | 35 | 7 | 11 | – | +13R | |
| Quinnipiac | 11/3-8/09 | 49 | 38 | – | 11 | 2 | +11R | |
| Quinnipiac | 9/10-14/09 | 44 | 39 | 1 | 15 | 1 | +5R | |
| Rasmussen | 9/10/09 | 49 | 39 | 5 | 6 | – | +10R | |
| DailyKos.com (D)/ Research 2000 | 9/8-10/09 | 46 | 42 | – | 12 | – | +4R | |
| Quinnipiac | 7/16-20/09 | 48 | 39 | 0 | 10 | 2 | +9R | |
| Wilson (R-Schiff) | 6/24-25/09 | 47 | 38 | – | 15 | – | +9R | |
| Quinnipiac | 5/20-25/09 | 45 | 39 | 2 | 13 | 1 | +6R | |
| Quinnipiac | 3/26-31/09 | 50 | 34 | 2 | 12 | 2 | +16R | |
| DailyKos.com (D)/ Research 2000 | 3/23-25/09 | 40 | 45 | – | 15 | – | +5D | |
| Quinnipiac | 3/3-8/09 | 43 | 42 | 1 | 12 | 1 | +1R |
__
Nevada
Senator Harry Reid is in trouble. He is losing to both Republican candidates, Tarkanian and Lowden. Although he has made some gains, he has been behind for a long time. Many are saying Reid’s numbers, especially because most Americans oppose the health care bill he shepherded, are unrecoverable. Presently he runs 6 points behind both Republican challengers.
__
Colorado and Arkansas
Colorado is too early to call as appointed Senator Bennet will be running in a primary in 2010. The Democratic candidate will then be facing Lt. Gov. Jane Gordon in the general election. And Norton is polling well against Bennett:
| Poll | Date | Sample | Norton (R) | Bennet (D) | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rasmussen Reports | 12/8 – 12/8 | 500 LV | 46 | 37 | Norton +9 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 9/15 – 9/15 | 500 LV | 45 | 36 | Norton +9 |
Arkansas will be competitive, but there is no clear Republican candidate. The incumbent, Blanche Lincoln, has been polling in the low forties. She is vulnerable.
__
In another development yesterday, Rudy Giuliani announced he will not run for higher office in New York. This is disappointing because the polling data shows he is the only candidate that gives Andrew Cuomo any competition for Governor and up until recently, he has been beating Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand by huge margins for the U.S. Senate. The most recent polls show:
Giuliani (R)-49
Gilibrand(D)-42
She has closed a bit on him as a poll in November showed:
Giuliani(R) -54
Gilibrand(D)-40
Even though New York is considered a safe seat for Democrats, it is clear that it is not that safe. But, the Republicans are weak in New York and are becoming weaker and have not announced a candidate for U.S. Senate yet. If it is a RINO like Dede Scozzafava, this seat will most likely be gifted to a weak Democratic candidate.
__
So what to make of all this?
There are a number of predictions that the Republicans could regain the House in 2010. Many pollsters sympathetic to Democrats have been saying the trends show massive losses for Democrats. In 1994, most pundits did not believe that the Republicans would win a majority in 1994. That year, they needed to win 40 seats but instead won 52.
So, it remains a possibility that the Republicans can take the House.
It will be much harder in the U. S. Senate. Larry Sabato has said that “the Republicans have a chance to become relevant again in the Senate by netting a few seats. There is the possibility that they will do better, retain their incumbent seats and beat all the weak Democrats, which will yield a Senate of 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans.”
That’s probably the best case scenario for the Senate.
So, if the Republicans have a good year, there is a possibility they will be able to begin either slowing down or slowly repealing health care reform and cap-and-trade. However, it will be difficult to get anything done on either front while Obama holds the veto until 2012 and if the House and Senate remain fairly even.
I also think that it is clear the Tea Party Movement is having an effect on things. Republicans will probably do well by not running away from these millions of committed American voters.
The Left is going to attack the Tea Party Movement regardless of what their actual positions are. It is time for Republicans to get their cajones back and stand against the Obama-ite, Soros-funded mob, and embrace the Tea Party Movement and its ideas.
It appears the Tea Partiers stand ready to run interference against the left-wing mob, but only for candidates willing to stand up for principle. The Tea Party Movement may also be an important resource in coming years if 2010 does not go so well. It will be the center around which a long-term extra-governmental resistance to Big Government may must be organized.
___
Success at Copenhagen. Pointing the way to Kyoto II was not a fool’s supper.
ORIGINAL REPORT from CONSERVATIVE POLICY NEWS
The general narrative that has emerged from the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is that it was a failure because no binding agreement on carbon reduction goals was signed. But, despite the predictable assertions by developing and poorer countries, and environmental NGO that the summit was “farcical,” the critique conceals the successful nature of the Accord for climate change activists.
While many of the developing countries did not get the deep emission cuts they sought from the industrialized world, what was agreed to in no way defeats the push for an international policy architecture that advantages developing nations, nor does it curtail the notion that vigorous redistributive efforts, through cap-and-trade, will be employed in the future.
On the contrary, the resulting document, the Copenhagen Accord, marks the first time that the United States has signed on to the idea that a “climate debt” is somehow owed to developing countries by advanced, industrialized ones. This is a remarkable precedent and probably what Obama meant when he said the Accord was “an important first step” before he left the Conference.
Through the Copenhagen Accord, a goal that would redistribute $100 billion a year by 2020 was agreed to by the developing countries. The U.S., the European Union, and Japan also agreed to provide $30 billion in financing to developing countries between 2010 and 2012. In addition the signatories have obligated themselves to “pursue opportunities to use markets to achieve cost-effective mitigation actions.” This is an important development for the United States as the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill was passed in U.S. Congress in 2009 and there is a possibility that it may pass the United States Senate in early 2010. In fact, at least one commentator has suggested that the outcome of the so-called “shameful” Copenhagen Accord could be that it boosts the odds for the U.S. Senate to pass a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill.
The passage of cap-and-trade in the United States would be the beginning of a truly global redistributive scheme, that would effectively take money from the American energy consumer and put it in the hands of foreign governments or foreign investors. With cap-and-trade, American consumers may possibly be taxed (through additional costs) every time they turn up the heat, use their air conditioning, drive a car and take a plane. Though China and India would be the main beneficiaries of this policy, anti-American countries in Latin America, notably Lula Da Silva’s Brazil and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, also stand to benefit from this transfer. Is there any wonder that Chavez railed against the United States and insulted Obama at Copenhagen-he was amongst Marxist friends who believe the West owes them a climate debt.
So, it is important to understand that the narrative of Copenhagen’s “failure” comes from the Left and is diversionary. For, the Copenhagen Accord was really just a patchwork agreement that was meant to ameliorate and gauge the present political environment on climate change and also supplement treaty provisions before the renegotiation of the Kyoto Protocol that expires at the end of 2012. The outlines of Kyoto II has already been agreed to at the Washington summit in 2007 by the way.
For his part, Obama has been given credit for bringing China to heel, and this, it is hoped, will also allow him to effectively advocate for passage of cap-and-trade in the U.S. Senate before 2012. But, the much reported spat between the U.S. and China at Copenhagen, was, in fact pure theatre. For one thing, the U.S. and China had already made an agreement in November that essentially mirrors in full the outcome achieved by the Copenhagen Accord. In a joint statement issued by President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao on November 17 in Beijing, the two leaders agreed on a common approach and a successful outcome in international climate agreements. The joint statement expressly stated:
Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.
In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support.
Although we were told that the rift between the U.S. and China was about transparency, it was not a rift at all, but was an expected application of diplomatic pressure by China and other “emerging economies'” ( India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Korea) that would enable them to emit greenhouse gases and continue as a non-annex I countries well beyond Kyoto II. Staying in the classification reserved for developing nations, China and the other “emerging economies” understand that they could then continue to grow their industry while being allowed to apply less stringent reporting on their emissions. While the Copenhagen Accord sets up a framework for these “emerging economies” to report their mitigation efforts to the U.N., it also significant that the three-tiered Kyoto system apparently has remained intact.
Consequently, two significant details in the Accord seem designed to give China and others some wiggle room. Contained in the second annex, it is clearly stated that emission goals for “developing” countries are voluntary. This means that unlike developing countries who can be punished for over-emitting, developing countries will be allowed to stay in Kyoto II even if they fail to meet their goals.
Second, the langauge in the section concerning reporting and mitigation is weak as it allows “international consultations and analysis,” which would help keep track of whether the country is meeting its goals, but is not really an enforcement provision. There is also an escape clause in the agreement that provides the international consultations be designed “to ensure that national sovereignty is respected.” If “domestic imperative” provisions are carried over to Kyoto II, it is difficult to fathom that there will be any rigid international checks on the carbon emissions of countries with “emerging economies.”
However, there is another reason why the developing countries see it as beneficial to keep emitting with operational impunity but remain in the Kyoto regime: Carbon credits.
Essentially, China and India stand to make windfall profits if they are allowed to keep their emissions at or close to present levels. This is because those countries are the main beneficiaries of UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).This mechanism was formally created in 1997 by the Kyoto climate treaty and started operation in 1998. It began with 78 million “credits” (or Certified Emission Reductions, CER, as they are formally known) and grew to 333 million this year with a projection of 1.7 billion by the end of 2012.
Additionally, the global carbon market is one of the hottest items in town. In 2004, it was valued at less than $300 million. But in 2005, the trade really started to soar, ending the year with $10.8 billion-worth of transactions. A year later, in 2006, the “carbon” market had grown to $31 billion. In 2007, again it more than doubled its turnover, to $64 billion. Last year, it did it again, reaching a colossal $126 billion. By 2020, some estimates suggest the annual value of the market will reach $2 trillion.
This is why the renegotiation of Kyoto is a major milestone because at that time, there must be considerable will amongst policy-makers to commit their countries to long-range integration of parts of their national energy economies to a global cap-and-trade system. Although the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme accounts for 73 percent of the market at present, the whole enterprise is underpinned by “project based transactions” comprised mainly of the CDM generated carbon credits. The better positioned a nation is to benefit from the emerging global carbon market at the end of 2012, the more money they can make through the global carbon trading scheme. And presently, China, India and Brazil are positioned to do that in a big way. The chart below shows what countries own the most carbon credits under CDM:
This also explains why governments and investors from the West are chomping at the bit to establish a functioning system of carbon trading: Untold gobs of money can be had from the guilty, browbeaten citizenry of Western nations when prices are increased throughout the system by the taxation and regulation of carbon emissions. If you can pervert the mind of the energy consumer into accepting that they have a “climate debt” you no longer have to guarantee efficient and low-cost energy to them. Instead, if you have a population that believes it does not deserve to be warm in the winter and cool in summer and accepts higher energy prices as they support “development” in poorer countries, you have pulled off the greatest political rip-off of all times.
This is why Christopher Booker has said:
The only really concrete achievement of Copenhagen was to win agreement to the perpetuating of those Kyoto rules that have created this vast industry, which has two main beneficiaries. On one hand are that small number of people in China and India who have learnt how to work this system to their huge advantage. On the other are all those Western entrepreneurs who have piled into what has become the fastest‑growing commodity market in the world…The only tree they were concerned with hugging was the money tree and all the vast political apparatus that now supports it, allowing governments to tax and regulate us into handing over ever more of our money…
What to do about climate change.
The emerging media narrative about the results of the Copenhagen Summit is following a predictable path. Because it is so wedded to the idea of Obama becoming the greatest president in the history of the world, the liberal advocacy media (LAME) will try to conceal the disappointment they feel that no binding agreement on global warming was passed. They will fittingly praise the President for his realism and of course, blame conservatism and the ignorance of the American people for tying his hands politically, thus not allowing him to commit the country to a more far-reaching concordat. Pledges of $100 billion per year to be transferred to Third World kleptocracies isn’t good enough when de-industrialization of the entire Western world is your goal.
People clean snow from globe at Copenhagen global warming climate conference, 12-17-09.
Unfortunately for Americans, the increasingly unpopular Obama will be the President for three more years and because the Left and the LAME are so wedded to writing a colorful hagiography for him already, this alone will probably prevent them from moving out of the cities to create new hunter/gatherer ecotopias -complete with daily drum circles- and prepare for the coming cataclysm. That will probably be unfortunate not only for conservatives, but also for the rest of the world. After all, if they truly believe the pronouncements coming from the likes of Al Gore and UN General Secretary Ban-Ki-Moon, I can think of no other logical alternative for enlightened progressives.
If the world is truly at a point-of-no-return crisis of exigency concerning the environment, it would make sense for the deeply committed to develop a plan to, at least, save themselves and do it soon. Since they are possessed of such incredible precognition and purity of intent the rest of us obviously lack, they should at least attempt to preserve progressive knowledge for future generations; for God’s sake.
This way we all can be more hopeful that once the rapacious, benighted, conservative citizenry commits suicide by energy gluttony and destroys civilization, humanity’s future generations- once they emerge from the wasteland- will be able to make use of progressivism to rebuild. Even if the oafs of the “outworld” manage to fuck up the planet enough so that the progressive sanctuary does not survive, at least someone, somewhere, will have preserved the most important high-minded works ever produced by our civilization. Just imagine, a new world raised from the ashes by utilizing the wisdom contained in Das Kapital, Manufacturing Consent, and Planting Seeds in Poison Soil:A History of the Weather Underground!
This isn’t that wacky of an idea. Just think about it. Enlightened progressives could move to somewhere in the world and declare their independence from the capitalist world. Free from the retrograde flippancy of creatures like climate “deniers,” the sonorous hubris of Rush Limbaugh, and the majority of humanity that doesn’t listen to them, the enlightened progressives could build a true “city on a hill” complete with clean water, genderless marriage, and organic turnips. The superior intelligence of the community, led by an all-female, multi-racial coop board with a rotating chairperson, could build glorious new green technology that will not only sustain the community and leave a negligible carbon footprint, but also protect it from the growing barbarity, decay, and fascism of the petroleum gulping “outworld.”
The perfect human being.
Because carbon producing activities effect the entire global eco-system many enlightened progressives may resist this project at first. After all, they have been selflesly dedicating their efforts to the political scientific indoctrination re-education of the uninformed and perplexed, and they are having success. No one can tell when the tipping point for acceptance of socialist revolution free market solutions to climate change may come, when the proverbial twelfth monkey will be born, when critical mass has been reached and the entire world converted.
Yet, the hour is late and the time for deciding has come. Can the enlightened progressives wait any longer and risk being extinguished (along with warming denying fools) by raging torrents flowing uncontrollably from melting glaciers, massive, unstoppable tidal waves endemic to rising oceans, or starving polar bears rushing southward to escape the doomed arctic that was once their homeland?
If progressives stay and fight for everyone, think of the loss to the world!
There will be no one left to preserve the accumulated wisdom of the ages. No one left to pronounce the essential truths of progressivism. No one left to analyze the situation as succinctly and resplendent as humanists like Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela did at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Reportedly his speech was met with the most resounding approval and thunderous applause of the entire two weeks of summitry. Listen:
Let’s not change the climate. Let’s change the system! And as a consequence, we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.”
One could say, Mr. President, that a spectre is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a spectre is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that spectre walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this spectre is a terrible spectre almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the spectre, almost nobody wants to mention it.
Let’s talk about the cause, let’s not evade responsibilities, and let’s not evade the depth of this problem. The cause, undoubtedly, I return to the theme of this whole disastrous panorama, is the destructive metabolic system of capital and its embodied model: Capitalism.
Socialism, the other spectre Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-spectre. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. Empire.
If the destructive nature of capitalism opposes us, let’s fight against it and make it obey us, let’s not wait idly by for the death of humanity.History calls on us to unite and to fight.
If capitalism resists, we are obliged to take up a battle against capitalism and open the way for the salvation of the human species. It’s up to us, raising the banners of Christ, Mohammed, equality, love, justice, humanity, the true and most profound humanism. If we don’t do it, the most wonderful creation of the universe, the human being, will disappear, it will disappear.
So, progressives, I implore you, by saving yourselves you are saving humanity. Crisis is upon us and it requires the commitment of really, really intelligent people to take brilliant action. Please, take the advice of your brother Hugo Chavez and do what he has done; separate yourselves from capitalism, build your own society far from the conservative horde, and create the utopia of your dreams somewhere (preferably) outside the really evil United States.
In just a few short years, Hugo Chavez has turned Venezuela into a country of your most naughty progressive dreams. He has destroyed the independence of the Venezuelan judiciary, he has prevented duly elected officials in Venezuela from taking office, he has suppressed the freedom of speeech, he has all but endorsed anti-semitism in the Venezuelan government, and he has embraced other renowned enlightened progressives to his professed cause of saving humanity.
If you are having doubts about the potential for your new community do not. Your brother, Hugo Chavez, has also shown you the way to developing your own green paradise. Being in control of vast oil, natural gas, and hydroelectric energy in Venezuela has not tempted brother Chavez from the goal of green paradise. Thanks to the policies which he controls, blackouts and water shortages have become so frequent in Venezuela, the great liberator himself has had to take drastic measures and recommended that people take “3-minute showers, lose weight and buy generators.”
Good, solid green advice.
Blackouts in Venezuela
Although the less energy the better, some capitalists have made the Venezuelan energy crisis a big deal. According to them, as Venezuela becomes more socialist, it becomes more difficult to to extract the energy the people need. The New York Times says, “a combination of negligence and poor planning” has been the cause of new electricity plants fueled by natural gas “to remain completely or partly idle.” It also has reported that “nationalization effectively halted renewable-energy projects” and “is the reason renewable energy remains negligible in Venezuela, despite its vast potential.”
To hell with such criticism. The time for action is now. The world awaits the enlightened progressives to begin plowing the way to the future. While the rest of us burn and starve due to our skepticism about global warming and socialism, it is my sincerest wish that you, enlightened progressives, join with your brother Hugo Chavez and his friends, to develop the architecture of the sustainable planet.
I just hope you can find a place far from the United States so you are allowed to do your best work and are not troubled by inconvenient things like open debate.
Brother Chavez can help you with that too.
I wish you the best. Goodbye, and good luck!
Texas v. California
The budget crisis that has been afflicting California for the past year has been headline news. Because of it, California should be the symbol for the failure of the welfare state and centralized planning as over-generous social programs, a bloated bureaucracy, and the disproportionate influence of public employee unions has bled the government dry and brought it to the brink. In the past year, there have been many so many extreme measures taken by the California government that it is has been hard to follow. In order to make up a budge shortfall that is predicted to reach over $40 billion by 2010, California has had to do the following from 11/08 to the present:
-Furlough of all public employees for three days every month.
-Eliminate Columbus Day and Lincoln Holidays
-Asked the Federal government to back state bank-guaranteed notes, Obama refused, thus lowering California’s credit rating, making it harder to obtain much-needed loans.
-With its credit rating lowered, California began issuing IOUs in order to meet its short-term financial obligations.
-Has promised to release 37,000 prisoners from the state’s prisons.
-Has cut thousands of jobs from education and health care.
All this has caused a massive exodus of business leaving the once mythical state of unfettered personal freedom, spiritual exploration, and endless sunshine to fall into an unemployment rate that is now at 12.3%; one of the highest in the United States.
Then there’s Texas.
As a poll in Chief Executive magazine found, Texas was the best place in the United States to do business. (Guess which one was the worst? Yep, California.) Also, amidst a national recession, with the national average rate of unemployment near 10.5%, Texas had positive job growth in October 2009 and has kept their unemployment rate below the national avg., with the highest being reported at 8.3%. Many Texas economists and businessmen believe that they have hit the bottom this year and are expecting sustained job growth for 2010.
According to two separate studies, one by the Brookings Institution and one by Forbes magazine, the 5 top job-creating cities in America are located in Texas.
And, of course,Texas had a $11 million budget surplus for fiscal 2009.
The difference in the economic trajectories for these states generally goes unreported, I believe, because they show the strength of fiscal conservatism and the utter failure of liberal economics.
This is confirmed by an article Trends Magazine and reviewed by Tony Gattis at newgeography blog. The article asks the question: What’s wronmg with California and what’s right with Texas? Gattis says, “It really comes down to four fundamental differences in the value systems embodied in these states:”
First, Texans on average believe in laissez-faire markets with an emphasis on individual responsibility. Since the ’80s, California’s policy-makers have favored central planning solutions and a reliance on a government social safety net. This unrelenting commitment to big government has led to a huge tax burden and triggered a mass exodus of jobs. The Trends Editors examined the resulting migration in “Voting with Our Feet,” in the April 2008 issue of Trends.
Second, Californians have largely treated environmentalism as a “religious sacrament” rather than as one component among many in maximizing people’s quality of life. As we explained in “The Road Ahead for Housing,” in the June 2009 issue of Trends, environmentally-based land-use restriction centered in California played a huge role in inflating the recent housing bubble. Similarly, an unwillingness to manage ecology proactively for man’s benefit has been behind the recent epidemic of wildfires.
Third, California has placed “ethnic diversity” above “assimilation,” while Texas has done the opposite. “Identity politics” has created psychological ghettos that have prevented many of California’s diverse ethnic groups and subcultures from integrating fully into the mainstream. Texas, on the other hand, has proactively encouraged all the state’s residents to join the mainstream.
Fourth, beyond taxes, diversity, and the environment, Texas has focused on streamlining the regulatory and litigation burden on its residents. Meanwhile, California’s government has attempted to use regulation and litigation to transfer wealth from its creators to various special-interest constituencies.
Gattis says the article also has six forecasts for both states:
- …expect to see California’s loss of jobs to Nevada accelerate…
- …expect to see a backlash in California and across the country against regulations, especially green initiatives that can’t clearly demonstrate a positive ROI…
- Watch for the smart money, including venture capital, to begin migrating to Texas for start-ups in many areas, including energy, info-tech, manufacturing, and biotech. Just as Delaware’s tax laws once encouraged numerous businesses to incorporate there, even when they had no connection to the state, Texas will become a magnet for new businesses by offering cheap land, a favorable regulatory environment, a business-friendly culture, and a large supply of skilled labor. Unless California revamps dramatically, expect to see its economy languish, even as the recovery takes off.
- To make its business climate even more business-friendly, Texas will invest heavily in secondary education and work hard to attract the best talent to its research universities (note the recent Tier 1 proposition and funding). Keep an eye especially on the University of Texas, which already has a first-rate campus and faculty. Within 10 years, UT, as the locals call it, may well rival Stanford or Berkeley.
- Other states will adopt tort reform measures pioneered in Texas. Unlike California and most other states, Texas has been aggressive in minimizing the enormous burden of frivolous lawsuits…
- Look to Texas to become a cutting-edge cultural mecca. Houston has always offered a vibrant cultural scene, ever since the Alley theater company was founded there in 1947 by Nina Eloise Whittington Vance. In the 1950s, John and Dominique de Menil moved to Houston with one of the most significant private collections of art in the world and began donating art and money to the Houston Museum of Fine Arts. Both institutions have grown to world-class status since then. In the coming years, this trend will spread to the major cities of Texas (take that, Dallas!), attracting the best talent and money and shifting the cultural balance of the nation away from New York and San Francisco.
Important Finding from Al Gore’s Global Warming NGO: Propoganda, the cult of personality, and single-minded devotion by membership works to spread climate alarmism.
Al Gore’s global warming NGO, The Climate Project (TCP), recently released a study it did on the impact that the organziation was having on the global warming debate. The study commissioned by TCP was conducted by Milepost Consulting in collaboration with Stork Marketing and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The report concludes that TCP is having marked effects on public attitudes towards climate change. The report finds that:
those who previously did not identify as “environmentalists” underwent the greatest mental shift, becoming more likely to support emissions reduction and to reduce their carbon footprint. Moreover, the evaluation suggests that TCP, an international non-profit founded by former Vice President Al Gore, has created a new, unique environmental movement by customizing its message by region and community.
Other key finding from the report’s Executive Summary include:
• Approximately 34,000 presentations have been delivered to nearly 3.4 million audience members spanning the political and social spectrum throughout the U.S.
• Many of those who participated in TCP trainings during 2006 and 2007 were already very concerned about climate change, but lacked a specific mechanism for acting on that concern. TCP training, personal encouragement from Vice President Al Gore and participation in a community of individuals with a shared goal, worked to give these motivated individuals the skills and emotional encouragement they needed to take effective action.
• TCP training increased presenters’ awareness and understanding of climate science and the key issues of the climate change problem—and their ability to convey that information to others.
• By devoting hundreds of hours to research, preparation and delivery of presentations; speaking out to family and friends; and creating change within their professional networks, presenters made climate change work an important part of their lives.
According to TCP’s website, thousands of volunteers have been trained to “present a version of the slide show featured in the Academy Award-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.” One wonders if those trained by the TCP and/or their apparently malleable audiences have been given any information about the fallacies a British Court ruled were contained in Al Gore’s movie, or if the fallacies are simply left unaddressed?
For those of you not familiar with the story (easy to imagine if you rely on the mainstream press for important news), in 2007, British truck driver Stewart Dimmock challenged An Inconvenient Truth from being shown to British schoolchildren. His claim was based on the theory that the movie was not settled science, but rather a work of political indoctrination, which violated section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996 which prohibits “promotion of partisan views in the teaching of any subject in schools.”
The Court ruled in favor of Dimmock and determined that:
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
These inaccuracies are:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
During the trial, the defense’s expert witnesss, Professor Robert Merlin Carter testified that that An Inconvenient Truth actually contained 20 verifibale errors (“20 separate departures from the scientific consensus”). It makes for interesting reading and I include the testimony below:
If, in fact, the climate change alarmists have not addressed the findings in this decision, hoping it just goes away, I wonder what their tactics will be in addressing ClimateGate, recent revelations that some of the lead alarmist scientists were willing to ignore important data in order to maintain an illusion of consensus about global warming.
For an overview of ClimateGate I recommend these links:
The Sound of All Hell Breaking Loose
Statements by University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke Sr.
And for a good quick rundown of the scandal: Christopher Booker’s Telegraph blog.
“Send the Body Bag to Glenn Beck!”
Death in Clay County
The Left just knew that they were right about the the tragic death death of U.S, Census worker Bill Sparkman. They just knew it! How could the progressive and high-minded ever be wrong? An actual employee of the federal government, the U.S. Census (?) no less, hanging from a tree in Clay County, Kentucky?
“Come on! I mean Clay County. Kentucky.”
“Wait a minute, they called Henry Clay the Great Compromiser? Helped end slavery in Washington, D.C.? Helped California be admitted as a free state? Ran for President on not allowing Texas into the Union for fears it would reignite the debate about slavery and force war with Mexico?
In 1957, a U.S. Senate committee -headed by John F. Kennedy- named Henry Clay the greatest Senator that ever lived.”
“Never mind. These are dark times of crisis, no time to niggle about history and whatnot. Who really cares about who Henry Clay was and why this stupid little county in the Kentucky backwater was named after him. Sparkman was found hanging from a tree!
“I agree, this calls for the intrepid Southern Poverty Law Center to earn their pay. There is such a threat of right-wing violence today, isn’t there?”
(reading newspaper) “Well, says here he wasn’t exactly hanging from a tree?”
(in unison) “We’re better than that!”
“But this is Lower Glennbeckistan territory. This is the place, in 2009, where the right-wing goes to die forever and the progressive and high-minded prove their courage and the reason they can be counted on to stand against paranoia and bigotry of all kinds, even if we do falsely accuse innocents from time to time.”
“Wait. What? It was ruled a suicide? By whom?”
“The State Police, the FBI, the U.S. Forest Service, the State Medical Examiner’s Office, and the Clay County Coroner’s Office.”
“How? Well maybe these notorious government forces have colluded in a cover-up… a, well, nevermind.
Whispered aside-(Yes, I got the memo! I know, we’re in anti- conspiracy mode now!)
(in unison) “Anyway we know SHE caused it!”
(SHE is journalist Michelle Malkin, the diminuitive Asian terrorist fear-monger right-wing extremist standing with a teabagger below at one of their teabagging gatherings in the nation’s capital. We said “teabag” twice there-do we get enlightenment points for that?)
“Hey, wait! Look.”
“There, in Tampa Bay, one of those air-conditioned nightmares of a Florida City with sprawl creating McMansions and Disney-mesmerized idiots; some stupid Marine Reservist, pumped up on imperialism, roids, and anti-Muslim hatred attacks a Greek Orthodox Priest because some old men discussed Islam on a radio station in Buffalo, New York!”
“And those old men, they were talking about Islam at a time when a Muslim Army Major, perhaps in touch with Islamic extremists , slaughtered 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood, Tx?!”
“Yes! It’s true. Hard to believe, I know.”
“That’s why the world needs the progressive and the high-minded so much! So we can make these complex connections for the idiots we have been so unfortunate to be born in the same era with. And who interpret the world only through their bigoted instincts.”
“We are necessary because we need to inform the vast American brainwashed population (we just happen to disagree with on public policy) that:
1) Their fears are irrational and solely based on ignorance and bigotry, while our fears our reasonable, because we primarily fear them!
2) Their paranoia about the government is totally irrational and based on bigotry, but our paranoia about the government is rational and based on even-tempered analysis at ALL TIMES. There is the notable exception however, of when they are in power. Which brings us to:
3) Even though the right-wing extremists “feel” that we gratuitously hurl unfounded insults and invective their way, falsely charging them of crimes they did not commit, positions they have not taken, and back it up (if forced to) with illusory historical references, that is not the case at all.”
“Why?”
“Because we say so, that’s why.”
“And don’t forget, we are also necessary, so we can eventually blame HER, somehow, for every random act of violence in America.”
“Wait, the Tampa ‘Lance Corporal’ is speaking? Can the guy even put two coherent thoughts together? The Priest grabbed his genitals? He’s confused about the charges?”
“Hah! What kind of tea-bagging knuckle dragger would question the integrity of a man of the cloth and create civil disruption like this? Progressives certainly don’t…ahh.”
“Well, he still may be guilty.”
“No, he is!”
(In unison) “Because we say so! (Phew! That usually works. It worked for global warming!)”
“They will never catch on! (Er…teabaggers).”
Thanks to The Other McCain for the inspiration and much of the info in this post.
Why I Write
One of the reasons that I started this blog is to convey concrete information about conservatism and the center-right political perspective. If I write about policy, I do it because I believe that the conservative approach to social issues, law, and government administration is the more prudent. If I write about culture, I do it out of personal interest and I will utilize a perspective on aesthetics and language that I generally label “conservative.” I realize that this begs some definition, and I hope that as the blog grows and becomes more comprehensive, that this definition will be revealed.
As a conservative it should come as no surprise that much of what I write about will be anti-left. However, while there are plenty of other blogs that are merely dedicated to mocking the Left, leftist ideas, and personalities (just as there are plenty that mock the Right), I will make a most earnest effort here to propose rational alternatives to leftist policies, to counter leftist media with real evidence of its numerous fallacies, and critique leftist philosophy and culture honestly. Accordingly, this will involve as fair and thorough of a deconstruction of the Left as I can provide. I will try my hardest to avoid all the classic fallacies in argumentation that so dominate the political atmosphere these days and I will develop my argument with transparent logic and reference evidence from history, social science, and professional investigative journalism.
As a partisan, I have always been interested in debate as a form of expression. In the political world, it is public debate that theoretically allows people to choose between candidates and policy variants as they openly observe the strength and weaknesses of each in direct opposition to the other. But, I believe that the playing field in the world of ideas has been unbalanced for some time and it is only getting worse. There is no need here to get into a long discussion about the political bias in media and academia. It exists and there are some good websites out there that document, analyze and act on this phenomenon every day. (Here, here and here, and here.) Although complaining about it is sometimes mocked as “ whining”, it is a real problem and one I believe that affects the political culture more profoundly than is usually admitted.
The primary problem with political and intellectual bias is that it creates a situation where free inquiry becomes impossible, as bonafide information cannot be presented into an objective forum without overt or implied smears attached to it. It creates an intellectual vacuum where complete evidence is made unavailable because one side is always disallowed, or tacit approval is given which allows unfair attacks on the disfavored position. In my somewhat libertarian view, this attempt at information control is harmful to thought and suggests a moral conceit that comes from I know not where. Read more…
Crocodile Tears for Left-Wing Fears
Harvey Milk’s people do not have anything to apologize for. Now the society is going to have to deal with us not as nice little fairies who have hairdressing salons, but as people capable of violence. We’re not going to put up with Dan Whites anymore.
-San Franciso Supervisor Harry Britt, May 22, 1979
There is a joke floating around about the tactics employed by supporters of President Obama and the Democratic Party to discredit the critics of their increasingly unpopular, aggressive, and radical social agenda. It goes:
“How do you know if someone is a racist?”
“Easy, it is anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.”
If there was any doubt that the Left and the Democrats would go to the well and use one of their most potent rhetorical weapons-the demagoguery of identity politics-in order to defend President Barack Obama and his domestic agenda, there shouldn’t be anymore. In the face of polling which shows President Obama declining in popularity and an increasing number of Americans disapproving of most of the Democrats’ policy initiatives, the Left has been exerting a lot of energy in order to remind Americans that the history of the U.S. is filled with bigoted violence. Their intentions, of course, are not to make reasoned policy counter- arguments against effective opposition and to set an example of “civil discourse” they feel only they possess, but rather to browbeat critics into shame and, eventually, a silence born of historical guilt.
They do this without much evidence that the critics are in fact bigots or plan any kind of violent resistance to Obama’s left-wing social policies. Ironically, however, the rhetorical attacks on the critics evoke some of the most sweeping conspiracy theories and harken back to the industrial-sized paranoia that afflicted the Left during the political tumult of the 1960s and 70s. An atmosphere that, incidentally, bred some of the most extreme violence and worst domestic acts of terror ever witnessed on American soil; most, if not all, committed by devotees of some Marxist, revolutionary or some other counter-cultural cause associated with the radical Left.
One of the most misleading examples of this appeal to identity politics was recently pursued by Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.. On Wednesday, September 15 the Speaker held her weekly press conference where she talked about the state of health care reform amongst other issues. During the conference, Pelosi was asked a number of questions about the growing opposition to health care reform and the increasing disapproval ratings of President Barack Obama. After a week where critics of the Democrats’ legislative agenda mobilized hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters to march on Washington D.C, and spurious charges of racism were attributed to that crowd ostensibly by supporters of this agenda, Nancy Pelosi responded by warning that the language being used by the critics in the debate should be scaled down as it might incite violence. Choking down her tears, Pelosi said:
“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this, myself, in the late ’70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place.”
For anyone who knows the history, it is difficult to fathom what “frightening language” Pelosi was referring to when she warned about the dangerous, perhaps deadly, potential of free and open political debate and aggrieved citizens’ assembly. The specific violence the Speaker amorphously alluded to, as confirmed by her office, was the murder of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, the gay politician recently depicted in Gus Van Zant’s biopic starring Sean Penn. Milk was murdered by fellow supervisor Dan White, who received a very light sentence because of the use of the notorious “Twinkie defense” at his trial.
The City’s homosexual population was enraged by the sentencing that followed ( White got 7 years for involuntary manslaughter) and their outrage was exacerbated by an unfounded theory that there was a concerted effort by a secret cabal within the San Francisco police department to harass and malign them, and that somehow White, the jury, and an unspecified number of the San Francisco political establishment were a part of this conspiracy. It is curious to note that the prosecutor in the case, Thomas Norman, denied these allegations as he had diligently sought to convict White of first-degree murder, and that the Chief of Police, Charles Gain, was rated as one of the most progressive police officials in the nation and had been implementing pro-gay policies since the beginning of his tenure. (It was San Francisco after all; by that time already an uber-liberal American city. Remember the kinder, gentler powder blue police cars from 1970s police movies?)
Nonetheless, the outrage was felt so deeply by San Francisco’s gays that this street-level conspiracy theory helped to ignite what was known as the White Night Riots on May 21, 1979, the night of White’s conviction. Far from being a peaceful protest, White Night rioters (in one night) burned and smashed City Hall, attacked and injured police officers, set police cars on fire, and caused millions of dollars in property damage. The rioters ended up also trashing the Civic Center and most of the Castro District, which was the most gay-friendly neighborhood in San Francisco and the center of gay political power in the City. Hundreds of arrests were made.
Despite the fact that some of Harvey Milk’s supporters tried to calm the crowd before most of the violence broke out, there were many gay leaders who refused to apologize for the riots and the damage that was done. So deeply was the loss of Harvey Milk felt that it was seen as a sort of rough justice that the community’s outrage was expressed through violence and disruption, even if the mob’s case was not entirely based on verifiable truth of a real conspiracy. Regardless, the White Night Riots are not remembered as an outburst of paranoid extremists, but as an expression of justifiable gay rage that spawned a new era for homosexual activism and the struggle for gay civil rights. For instance, in a compilation of personal histories recounting the event, one proud activist remembered his rage in an essay about the events he called “I Was There!”:
“i sprinted up the stairs of the state building until i reached the doors, front and center. i gesticulated wildly at the guards on the other side. they were two huge riot-geared cops. i smiled at them and tugged the bricks out from under my jacket. through the glass doors divided us, we were no more than four feet apart from each other. i hurled the bricks with all my strength into their faces. the doors splintered and the cops fell back. i was covered with glass, screaming, “fuck you, fuck you. i’ve been living for this, you cowards, i would kill you if i could!” i was shaking with the expulsion of a rage that fed hungrily upon itself.”
Part Two coming soon
What’s Behind Health Care Reform?
It is truly a false charge when advocates of market-controlled, government-run health care reform accuse their opponents with favoring the health care “status-quo” and have no plans for addressing the economic problems within a system that is costly, unfair and unsustainable. For years, advocates of free market based care reform have been writing about the need to deregulate and re-privatize the American health care system in order to lower costs and eventually eviscerate the third party payer system- which was instituted as a social engineering scheme through the tax code and is the foundation of the present woes in the health care economy.
But, the solutions proposed by free market reformers have often been ignored because it is much simpler and politically expedient to decry the supposed profit motive of health insurance providers (despite many of them being non-profits) in order to utilize the rubric of “health care reform” to impose ideologically inspired statist controls on the country. The attack on greed and profit and the health insurance industry is mere populist pablum utilized to capitalize on the anger and resentment of base of the Democratic Party, many of whom (labor and public employee unions) have some of the best health insurance plans in the country. If one looks seriously at the causes of rising costs in the health care system, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that government intervention bears the brunt of the blame and thus the American Left has completely misdiagnosed the problem.
Of course, there is a reason for this misdiagnosis and pure ideology (pure politics) is behind the heated attempts to foist a government-run health insurance on the country, despite polls that show Americans don’t believe this is necessary. America’s ruling, liberal political class generally believes in the need for centralized legal and economic planning and to further impose restrictions on the economic freedom of Americans. They have believed this for over a century and proposals for market controlled and/or government run health care has long been a cherished goal of progressives. However, behind the contemporary push to restructure the health care system is a new agenda that has been formulated in the rush to make America over and to come more in line with international, communitarian law. What communitarian law is, is probably a subject for a long essay, but suffice it to say that supranational, elite-controlled, non-democratic entities like the European Union, NAFTA and UN Agenda 21 are structured on the principals of communitarian law. So it has a history and is part of a political program and is an active agent of “transformation” in the world today. It is also the guiding principal of former President Bill Clinton’s Global Initiatives non-governmental organization, which openly believes in controlling population growth especially in the Third World, and supports a number of “social change” initiatives in order to achieve that goal. In order to touch on it briefly, Bill Clinton recently called for more and more people to engage in communitarianism. In a speech in Montreal he said,
“Communitarianism is neither left nor right, it simply recognizes that we are mutually dependent on each other, that it is inconceivable that we can find personal fulfillment or family success unless we have some concern or care for the general conditions under which we all live.
“The whole world is interdependent to an extent it has never been before.
“I would like to make the argument today that this is basically the mission we have to undertake for the world… We have to have a world consciousness. In the absence of that, we will not make good decisions.”
A nice-sounding plea for cooperation, eh? But underneath is the true motivation of American progressives to transform American society. Communitarianism is not just a set of philosophical precepts and humanitarian wish lists. It is a complete program directed at the Quixotic and utopian dream of global integration. That is why a so-called transformative legislative behemoth like health care reform is not borne out of compassion for the uninsured (many who have merely chosen not to buy insurance), but rather it is meant to permanently capture and put under government control an estimated 1/6 of the total US economy, to lower rising government and social costs of medicine through austere rationing of treatment and, most importantly, setting legal precedents for further government intervention in the economy and redistribution of American wealth potentially on a global scale. In short, it is about control, and this type of social engineering is clearly at odds with American liberty and the individual right of privacy embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
Racists, Idiots, and Lunatics
“Racists, idiots and lunatics.” These seem to be the preferred insults that those on the Left and its defenders in the mainstream media have been hurling at anyone who dares criticize the political agenda of President Obama. No one is safe from these ad hominen attacks; not Congressmen, Senators, pundits, reporters, academics and especially regular citizens who have come to the public square seeking answers to reasonable questions about the Obama Administration and what exactly it means by “hope” and “change.”
Whether on serious issues that are intentionally “transformative” of American society like Cap-and-Trade, Health Care Reform, and the Federal Stimulus Package, or on issues that may reveal some inconvenient truths about the present Administration, the Left and the mainstream media seem unable to make their case without totally dismissing the criticisms lodged by an increasing number of the American people.
And, when they do deem it necessary to stoop to answer the criticism, they do so by heaping harsh invective on the critics by attributing to them a caustic bigotry or a vast ignorance on the issues that have inspired people to speak out. This, even after they are scooped on the big stories by the very same people they ignore and deride.
The irony was on full display this past week as both the Left and most of the mainstream media missed the story of the resignation of Obama’s controversial “green jobs czar” Van Jones. After it was revealed first by the blogosphere and later picked up by Fox News host Glen Beck, that Jones had a very radical past, describing himself at various times both as a “Communist” and a “revolutionary,” and had signed a 9/11 Truth.org petition that sought to implicate members of the Bush Administration in the 9/11 attacks, Jones tendered his resignation late Saturday (9/5) with nary a peep from most news outlets.
The explanation offered by the mainstream media for missing this story until Jones actually resigned- if they admitted there was a story at all- was laughable and was accompanied by desperate attacks on those that first broke the story. On the NBC News program Meet the Press the day after Jones’ resignation, the assembled panel, which included New York Times Pulitzer-winning International Affairs columnist Tom Friedman, found the only lesson in the whole episode was that the internet could not be trusted as a source of information. He said, “the Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information” adding to former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw’s previous comment that the Internet is filled with “false information” and “it’s something that we all have to address and it requires society and political and cultural leaders to stand up and say, ‘this is crazy.’ We just can’t function that way.”
Did both these important journalists believe at the time they made these comments that the information that forced the Van Jones resignation was false? Certainly, they did not follow up with any questions about the Obama Administration’s silence on Jones’ resignation, even as there was evidence, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, that Obama knew about his background before he became an important appointee in the Administration. Or, did they just want the whole incident to go away? It seems that Friedman’s employer, The New York Times did not view the fact that an important advisor to the President of the United States was both a self-described revolutionary and a 9/11 Truther as warranting much in the way of further discovery. Their response to the fact they completely missed the story was that they did not have enough reporters on duty that weekend to cover it. And, quite amazingly, there has been absolutely no follow-up inquiry on Jones’ resignation. Why has Obama remained silent on the incident? Why didn’t the White House defend Jones, who is an acknowledged expert on the emerging green economy and is a best-selling author on the issue? Yes, Van Jones is clearly someone who inhabits the far-left of the Democratic Party, his membership in Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) and the new-agey Noetic Institute, where he was resident Fellow, prove that. Yet he was still appointed to the White House on the merit of his work, according to Obama’s closest advisor, Valerie Jarret. Obviously, they initially felt that there was nothing objectionable about his past.
Indeed, Jones was perhaps an important symbolic representation of the new green progressivism in the Administration and was quietly going about his business at that.
Allowing him to resign tends to lend credence to the right-wing narrative of concealed radicalism they are trying to foist upon the Administration. Why give them the fuel for their fire if these charges are as delusional, racist, ignorant and overheated as many claim? And why not follow up on the true story of his resignation if they don’t want the likes of Glenn Beck and the “sewer” of the (conservative) blogosphere to write the popular history of this event?
Help Me With My Research
Share This Blog
Conservative Policy News 
Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light
A lot was made about the pro-life ad that ran during the Superbowl sponsored by Focus on the Family and featuring college QB Tim Tebow and his mother. Feminist and pro-choice groups came out against the ad and a lot of ink was spilled in an attempt to counter what some groups said was its “dangerous” message.
Of course, the message wasn’t “dangerous” at all, it was simply pro-life.
But, I was personally struck by the imagery of the ad. Why was it necessary to show Tebow tackling his mother?
Not that I was offended by the ad and I certainly understood that the intent was supposed to show the “toughness” of his mother, but why was it necessary that the ad show him taking her down in a full tackle? I don’t get it?
If you ask me, the ad failed on its own, because without the outside controversy, I wouldn’t have really known what it was about. In the context of the ad, I would have been forced to ask, “Does Tebow have a form of Turet’s Syndrome where he compulsively tackles his mother without warning from time to time?” Remember, in the text of the ad, she does say “I still worry about his health” just before he rams into her.
But, worse, the ad was one of many that were overtly violent, and dare I say, one of a number that were openly misogynist. I know, as conservatives we’re not supposed to get all uptight about such things lest we wander into the land of political correctness, but my concerns are not what you think; I am concerned here about the state of the culture.
Now, I know that Super Bowl ads do not make up the whole of the cultural output of contemporary Western civilization. I am constantly reassured that there is plenty of great art being produced today, and any “end is nigh” hysteria about the state of cultural production does not take into account the quantities of what is being produced these days.
However, I personally believe that these commercials are saying something and that something is an ominous sign of a failing civilization. With all due respect to “A Clockwork Orange”, when “ultra-violence”provides us with humor and fun, and open hostility to women is tolerated within a culture, something wicked this way comes.
Someone has put together a montage of the violent ads in the Super Bowl and it is below.
This video led Joe Carter at First Thoughts to comment:
Which got me to thinking about the movie the Idiocracy. Released in 2006, to a very limited run in movie theatres, Idiocracy is a not-so-concealed commentary on contemporary American culture. Despite it being set in the “distant” future, the director, Mike Judge, was no doubt aiming his sights on a dumbed-down, overly consumeristic American culture, which he obviously believes (using poetic license and not a little hyperbole to make the point) is producing a population that within the span of a few generations will become so incompetent that even the most basic knowledge necessary for survival will be lost to it. In the movie, for instance, the fact that water, and not Gatorade, is needed to grow crops is high science even to the country’s political leaders.
In this idiotic America of the future, the most popular television program is a show called “Ow, My Balls!”It features a guy who finds various ways to abuse his own testicles and films the self-injury in real time.
So, I wonder: Are we there yet? I mean, if this kind of stuff is being used to sell products and TV shows and movies now (think Jackass), where will the culture be in a few years? And what does it mean for society and politics in general? I think history shows that societies in such a state of decline are neither predisposed nor capable of self-governance. But, we’ll leave that discussion for a a later post.
Along with the violence exhibited in this year’s Super Bowl ads, most of it aimed at men, there was a concomitant and equally disturbing theme running through some of the ads during the game: There seemed to be a hint of hostility towards women. The best ad that exemplifies this is below:
This one too:
Both ads express an appeal to power for men, and sort of frustration with women and domestic life.If marketers have determined that this is the experience of a good number of men in modern society, and they can use the experience in order to sell more stuff, what is it saying about the state of male/female relationships and the traditional family altogether? What does it mean for the American dream-at least for men?
The answer to that question may take a lot more posts, but in brief, it is my opinion that these ads express a kind of pre-Fascist consciousness. According to historian Edward Veith, Fascism arose out of a cultural milieu of Europe which included an alienation from the 19th century positivistic and materialist worldview. The reaction to this alienation bred a form of romanticism or, a sort modern pantheistic paganism that reasserted the value of the natural world and insisted that it be experienced not through reason, but through experience and emotion.
According to Veith and other historians, this renewal of paganism led to a very open hostility to the established order which expressed itself primarily by violence and ugliness through art. And as eith has written, the aesthetic of pre-Fascist and Fascist art is visible in the culture today:
Well, I could go on. But it is also important to mention that culture and politics are inexorably intertwined. If our culture exhibits the “quintessence of the fascist aesthetic” I think we need to truly examine that culture and the state of our political life as it relates to human liberty. And I believe that phenomena like the personality cult that surrounds Barack Obama, is a part of something that is very wrong with Western civilization, but let’s leave that for future posts.
As for the culture, conservative philosopher and writer Roger Scruton has the cure:
“I think we are losing beauty, and there’s a danger that with it, we will lose the meaning of life!”
I just wonder if we aren’t too far gone for Beauty ever to have meaning in our lives again.