Hispanic folks all over the country are demonstrating against the recently enacted Arizona law allowing police to detain illegal immigrants. Most of those demonstrators are here legally, so why are they opposed to this legislation? The answer is simple: folks have been led to believe that the new law allows police to stop anyone who looks hispanic and demand to see their “papers”. The NY Times has drawn the Nazi analogy, and the president has further inflamed the issue by conflating legal and illegal immigrants in his speeches. Yesterday he spoke twice on the issue, using only the word “immigrants”, thus implying that the law applies to all immigrants, legal and illegal. Administration officials have even suggested that they may direct ICE and the Border Patrol not to accept custody of any illegal immigrants detained by the Arizona police.
Here’s the truth.
• Existing Federal law requires all non-citizens in the US to carry, on their person, documentation showing they are here legally. Thus the new Arizona law simply directs police to enforce the existing Federal law.
• The new Arizona law forbids police from asking for documentation unless the person has already been detained for some other violation, so police will not be arbitrarily stopping hispanic people.
• Most of the police in Arizona are hispanic, so they clearly won’t be abusing the law.
• Arizona has neither the means nor the will to enforce this new law. No one in Arizona likes this law, including the legislators who passed it, yet there is overwhelming support for the law, even among hispanic residents. Why? Because the purpose of passing the law was simply to get the Federal government to do their job – protect our borders. Arizona has made a simple statement: “If the Federal government will not protect us, we will protect ourselves”.
• The criminals here are the drug cartels and gang members who are illegally crossing the border and murdering, kidnapping, and otherwise terrorizing law-abiding Arizonans. Yet, the administration and the media are villainizing the Arizonans and ignoring the actual criminals – go figure.
Come on folks, the answer to this issue is relatively straight-forward.
First address the crisis – stop the flow across the porous border. Easy. Use the National Guard to guard our southern border for a couple of years until we can finish building a good fence – a high, strong double fence with dogs and border patrol in between the two fences and sonar monitors to detect tunneling. Please do not dare to call this fence a wall. Walls keep people in (think prisons and Berlin), while fences keep people out (think your neighbor’s dog, and attractive nuisances like swimming pools). We not only have a right to protect our borders – it is the Federal Government’s solemn duty to do so.
Ok, so the first step is straight-forward: protect our borders from invasion. The next step is much more complex. We need to devise a means of legally allowing immigrants temporary access to work at jobs Americans don’t want to do. We also need to provide those folks a path to citizenship if they so choose. All of this is very complicated and controversial, and we should have a nice rational and civilized national discussion on the best means of achieving these goals AFTER WE SECURE THE BORDER.
In the meantime, I believe President Bush, President Obama, and their congresses have been derelict in their duty. Do your damned job, Mr. President, and Arizona will not have to push you into it. As for your adoring media and press: shame on you for obfuscating the truth in the service of blatant political partisanship.
04 May 2010
23 April 2010
GM Pays Back TARP Loan
Ed Whitacre, the Obama-appointed CEO of GM, just announced that GM is paying off the $6 billion TARP loan it owes the US government - sounds like GM is coming back.
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight.
The story began in early 2009, when the US government pumped around $15 billion into GM to bail them out and prevent them from going into bankruptcy. Well, the $15 billion evaporated and they went into bankruptcy anyway. Then, the US government used an additional $30 billion of Obama-money (money we either printed or borrowed, but certainly didn’t have) in exchange for GM stock, with another $6 billion pumped in as a TARP loan. All told, the US taxpayers were on the hook for about $50 billion. The bankruptcy deal ended up with GM ownership divided among: the US government - about 60%; Canada - about 12%; the United Autoworkers Union - about 18%; and various bondholders - about 10%. Existing GM stockholders were wiped out.
Well, GM just announced they are paying off the $6 billion dollar TARP loan. Now, although GM did turn a small profit in 1Q10, it was nowhere near $6 billion, which begs the question, “Where did GM get the money?” Funny you should ask. It turns out that, in addition to the $6 billion TARP loan, the government had set aside additional funds in “escrow” for GM, in the event of another financial crisis. Aha! Yep, Mr. Whitacre failed to mention that GM used this escrow money to “pay off” the loan – sort of like borrowing money on your house to pay off your car loan. You still owe the money, and GM still owes the $6 billion.
Nonetheless, the mainstream media and press, as well as the White House, are heralding GM’s recovery and the fine job the government has obviously done in running the company. Feel better? Confidence in Obama restored?
All of this also brings up another issue that I’ve been pondering. Assuming GM stays profitable, they plan on selling stock again and using the money to buy back the government’s shares, at which time we will no doubt be inundated with huzzahs about the taxpayers having recovered all the money “invested” in GM – well, a lot of it, anyway. Hmm. So, what will have happened? Absent government interference, GM would have declared bankruptcy and re-organized as a leaner, debt free company, with no burdensome union contracts. Instead, the government did interfere, GM declared bankruptcy anyway, and did reorganize into a leaner company. But, that leaner company now has to buy itself back from the US and Canadian Governments; and, the very unions that caused many of GM’s financial woes in the first place are now poised to become the major shareholders.
Feel like buying more GM stock?
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight.
The story began in early 2009, when the US government pumped around $15 billion into GM to bail them out and prevent them from going into bankruptcy. Well, the $15 billion evaporated and they went into bankruptcy anyway. Then, the US government used an additional $30 billion of Obama-money (money we either printed or borrowed, but certainly didn’t have) in exchange for GM stock, with another $6 billion pumped in as a TARP loan. All told, the US taxpayers were on the hook for about $50 billion. The bankruptcy deal ended up with GM ownership divided among: the US government - about 60%; Canada - about 12%; the United Autoworkers Union - about 18%; and various bondholders - about 10%. Existing GM stockholders were wiped out.
Well, GM just announced they are paying off the $6 billion dollar TARP loan. Now, although GM did turn a small profit in 1Q10, it was nowhere near $6 billion, which begs the question, “Where did GM get the money?” Funny you should ask. It turns out that, in addition to the $6 billion TARP loan, the government had set aside additional funds in “escrow” for GM, in the event of another financial crisis. Aha! Yep, Mr. Whitacre failed to mention that GM used this escrow money to “pay off” the loan – sort of like borrowing money on your house to pay off your car loan. You still owe the money, and GM still owes the $6 billion.
Nonetheless, the mainstream media and press, as well as the White House, are heralding GM’s recovery and the fine job the government has obviously done in running the company. Feel better? Confidence in Obama restored?
All of this also brings up another issue that I’ve been pondering. Assuming GM stays profitable, they plan on selling stock again and using the money to buy back the government’s shares, at which time we will no doubt be inundated with huzzahs about the taxpayers having recovered all the money “invested” in GM – well, a lot of it, anyway. Hmm. So, what will have happened? Absent government interference, GM would have declared bankruptcy and re-organized as a leaner, debt free company, with no burdensome union contracts. Instead, the government did interfere, GM declared bankruptcy anyway, and did reorganize into a leaner company. But, that leaner company now has to buy itself back from the US and Canadian Governments; and, the very unions that caused many of GM’s financial woes in the first place are now poised to become the major shareholders.
Feel like buying more GM stock?
29 March 2010
Obamacare: What Really Happened
Based on his wildly successful campaign alone, one would have to concede that President Obama and his progressive cohorts are skilled political tacticians. It may be less obvious that they are also world-class political strategists.
Take the recently passed Obamacare bill as an example. On many occasions, the President and the Democrat leadership have clearly stated that their primary goal is nationalized health care (also called “single-payer system”, and “socialized medicine”). In fact, nationalized health care was often described as the core provision in the proposed health care reform bills – progressives like Congressman Dennis Kucinich threatened to vote against the bill unless it contained nationalized health care. But, nationalized health care ran into stone walls in Congress, so the progressives dropped the provision, ostensibly because any version of Obamacare was better than none – a seemingly wise tactical move.
The bill that finally passed is more than 2,700 pages long, incredibly complex, and contains many controversial provisions, but it does not contain nationalized health care ... or does it? Doesn’t it seem strange that people as committed and successful as Obama/Pelosi/Reid gave up on their primary goal? In fact, they did no such thing. What they really did was employ a brilliant strategy to slip nationalized health care in under the radar. Here’s how they did it.
We begin with the health care bill’s seemingly innocuous and just provision that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone because of pre-existing conditions. Who wouldn’t be in favor of that? Even many Republicans support this notion. (Never mind that it flies in the face of all business logic - imagine calling an insurance company to buy coverage for your wrecked car or your house that just burned down.)
The second provision to consider is that everyone will be required to have health insurance – universal participation. Those who refuse to buy health insurance will be fined. Requiring Americans to buy something is of course highly controversial and even unconstitutional in the eyes of many. The Obama camp cleverly responded to these arguments by explaining that universal participation would mean more customers for insurance companies and therefore lower premiums for everyone. They emphasized that approximately half of the currently uninsured people in this country choose not to buy health insurance because they are healthy; and, since Obamacare will require these healthy folks to buy health insurance, the insurance companies will gain more than 10 million new, healthy, and therefore profitable, customers. Seems like a win-win, except of course for the 10 – 15 million reluctant participants who will be forced to buy insurance they don’t want.
Enter the third, and last provision we must consider: to soften the blow for these reluctant participants, the fines for refusing to participate are relatively low. Individuals who refuse to participate will pay an annual fine of $695 or less, and families who refuse will pay a maximum of $2,085. Compare these amounts to conservative estimates of the average annual cost of health insurance: around $4,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. The health insurance costs 5 times more than the fines. Obviously, most of the healthy uninsured folks won’t be new insurance company customers after all – financially, they’ll be way better off to pay the fines.
Now, recall the Obamacare provision that insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. This means you can choose to pay the fines at absolutely no risk, because you can always buy the health insurance after you get sick or injured. Holy smoke and mirrors! What if all the other healthy individuals and families – those that are currently insured - choose to do the same thing?
Well, let’s see. Health insurance companies stay in business because the insurance premiums paid by healthy customers exceed the claims made by sick or injured customers. But, under Obamacare, it is financially prudent for healthy people to pay the fines and avoid buying health insurance until after they are sick or injured. So, the only remaining insurance company customers will be the sick or injured. Without the premiums from healthy people to offset the cost of claims, the insurance companies will go broke.
And what will happen then? Why, our benevolent progressive government will bail out the insurance companies and take them over. Presto chango: we have nationalized health care/single-payer/socialized medicine. Wow! Wasn’t that the core goal of President Obama and his progressive friends in the first place – the goal that they ostensibly tactically abandoned?
Now that’s what I call a great strategy. The progressives’ first tactic was to abandon the most controversial provision: nationalized health care. Then by proposing a huge, hopelessly complicated, multi-thousand page plan filled with many controversial provisions, the progressives diverted attention and focused the national debate on many other obviously controversial issues – another really clever tactic that was critical to the success of the overall strategy. Even if the President and the progressives lost a few of the battles over some of these controversial issues, the strategy moved forward because all they really needed was coverage of pre-existing conditions and relatively low fines for not having health insurance coverage. Any other provisions that remained in the bill were pure gravy, because these two provisions alone will inevitably lead to nationalized health care.
Here’s the bottom line. Unless we somehow manage to repeal Obamacare, America will soon have nationalized health care/single-payer system/socialized medicine, and the government will have taken over (nationalized) one of America’s largest industries. We’ve been had by the biggest con in American history.
Take the recently passed Obamacare bill as an example. On many occasions, the President and the Democrat leadership have clearly stated that their primary goal is nationalized health care (also called “single-payer system”, and “socialized medicine”). In fact, nationalized health care was often described as the core provision in the proposed health care reform bills – progressives like Congressman Dennis Kucinich threatened to vote against the bill unless it contained nationalized health care. But, nationalized health care ran into stone walls in Congress, so the progressives dropped the provision, ostensibly because any version of Obamacare was better than none – a seemingly wise tactical move.
The bill that finally passed is more than 2,700 pages long, incredibly complex, and contains many controversial provisions, but it does not contain nationalized health care ... or does it? Doesn’t it seem strange that people as committed and successful as Obama/Pelosi/Reid gave up on their primary goal? In fact, they did no such thing. What they really did was employ a brilliant strategy to slip nationalized health care in under the radar. Here’s how they did it.
We begin with the health care bill’s seemingly innocuous and just provision that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone because of pre-existing conditions. Who wouldn’t be in favor of that? Even many Republicans support this notion. (Never mind that it flies in the face of all business logic - imagine calling an insurance company to buy coverage for your wrecked car or your house that just burned down.)
The second provision to consider is that everyone will be required to have health insurance – universal participation. Those who refuse to buy health insurance will be fined. Requiring Americans to buy something is of course highly controversial and even unconstitutional in the eyes of many. The Obama camp cleverly responded to these arguments by explaining that universal participation would mean more customers for insurance companies and therefore lower premiums for everyone. They emphasized that approximately half of the currently uninsured people in this country choose not to buy health insurance because they are healthy; and, since Obamacare will require these healthy folks to buy health insurance, the insurance companies will gain more than 10 million new, healthy, and therefore profitable, customers. Seems like a win-win, except of course for the 10 – 15 million reluctant participants who will be forced to buy insurance they don’t want.
Enter the third, and last provision we must consider: to soften the blow for these reluctant participants, the fines for refusing to participate are relatively low. Individuals who refuse to participate will pay an annual fine of $695 or less, and families who refuse will pay a maximum of $2,085. Compare these amounts to conservative estimates of the average annual cost of health insurance: around $4,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. The health insurance costs 5 times more than the fines. Obviously, most of the healthy uninsured folks won’t be new insurance company customers after all – financially, they’ll be way better off to pay the fines.
Now, recall the Obamacare provision that insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. This means you can choose to pay the fines at absolutely no risk, because you can always buy the health insurance after you get sick or injured. Holy smoke and mirrors! What if all the other healthy individuals and families – those that are currently insured - choose to do the same thing?
Well, let’s see. Health insurance companies stay in business because the insurance premiums paid by healthy customers exceed the claims made by sick or injured customers. But, under Obamacare, it is financially prudent for healthy people to pay the fines and avoid buying health insurance until after they are sick or injured. So, the only remaining insurance company customers will be the sick or injured. Without the premiums from healthy people to offset the cost of claims, the insurance companies will go broke.
And what will happen then? Why, our benevolent progressive government will bail out the insurance companies and take them over. Presto chango: we have nationalized health care/single-payer/socialized medicine. Wow! Wasn’t that the core goal of President Obama and his progressive friends in the first place – the goal that they ostensibly tactically abandoned?
Now that’s what I call a great strategy. The progressives’ first tactic was to abandon the most controversial provision: nationalized health care. Then by proposing a huge, hopelessly complicated, multi-thousand page plan filled with many controversial provisions, the progressives diverted attention and focused the national debate on many other obviously controversial issues – another really clever tactic that was critical to the success of the overall strategy. Even if the President and the progressives lost a few of the battles over some of these controversial issues, the strategy moved forward because all they really needed was coverage of pre-existing conditions and relatively low fines for not having health insurance coverage. Any other provisions that remained in the bill were pure gravy, because these two provisions alone will inevitably lead to nationalized health care.
Here’s the bottom line. Unless we somehow manage to repeal Obamacare, America will soon have nationalized health care/single-payer system/socialized medicine, and the government will have taken over (nationalized) one of America’s largest industries. We’ve been had by the biggest con in American history.
02 December 2009
Global Warming: Myth or Reality?
This is the first in a series of essays on global warming.
I have long maintained that there is not enough scientific data available yet to make a determination about whether carbon dioxide (CO2) is a significant greenhouse gas, and whether anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming actually exists. No one doubts that climate change is an ongoing natural cycle - warming and cooling trends come and go. The question is whether man-generated CO2 has had a significant effect on the natural cycle of climate change.
My major issues with the ongoing hype about global warming are:
• Much of the hoopla about global warming is based on the series of reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which thousands of notable engineers and scientists have allegedly endorsed. In fact, the first IPCC report was written by good engineers and scientists, but the Executive Summary was written by advocates - activists who drew incorrect, misleading, and occasionally opposite conclusions from those of the actual authors of the report. The situation was so egregious that some of the original authors resigned in protest and insisted that their names be removed from the report. The IPCC refused to remove their names. Then, a survey of the "thousands" of engineers and scientists who endorsed the report indicated that all but a hand-full had read only the Executive Summary. Their "endorsements" were based on the reasonable, but inaccurate, assumption that the Executive Summary accurately reflected the conclusions drawn in the body of the report. Those who “endorsed” the report had confidence in the competence of the original authors, and they were never made aware of the recantations of many of those authors.
• The “greenhouse effect” is a theory that certain gases in the atmosphere prevent excess energy (mostly light and heat) from being reflected back into space. That heat is therefore trapped and causes the earth's temperature to rise. Global warming advocates maintain that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas. But, CO2 is a tiny fraction of atmospheric gas – about 0.04 %, or 4 parts in 10,000. The two most abundant atmospheric gases are nitrogen and oxygen, which comprise about 95% - 99% of the atmosphere, depending on local humidity – neither of them are greenhouse gases. The next most abundant gas is water, in the form of water vapor (humidity), clouds, and fog – up to 4%, depending on the climate (desert, temperate, etc.), and water vapor reflects energy, so it would definitely be considered a greenhouse gas. If the greenhouse effect theory is correct, then it logically follows that water vapor, which is 100 times more prevalent than CO2, is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, CO2 would appear to be a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas.
• The most common evidence given for the correlation between CO2 and climate change is the much touted chart in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie that tracks both atmospheric CO2 and the earth’s temperature over time. The time scale is huge, usually about 600,000 years, so it is difficult to distinguish the CO2 curve from the temperature curve; but, Al Gore makes it clear in his movie that the two curves roughly parallel each other. His conclusion is that, since temperature changes track CO2 increases or decreases, then CO2 causes temperature change. The fallacy of this conclusion is easily shown by expanding the time scale at any point such that it becomes possible to clearly distinguish the two curves. When the two separate curves can be seen, it becomes evident that the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes, i.e., increases in CO2 happen years (usually hundreds) after the associated increases in temperature. Since cause obviously precedes effect, the CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of the temperature change, and in fact appears to be the effect. Therefore, the graph actually shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
This information begs several questions.
• Assuming the greenhouse theory is correct, isn’t it more likely that, compared to water vapor, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas?
• Don’t the data show that rises in atmospheric CO2 levels are the effect, rather than the cause, of rises in earth’s temperature?
• Is man-caused global warming really happening?
• Why is everyone so excited about CO2?
I reiterate that, to my knowledge, there is as yet insufficient data available to draw firm conclusions about man-caused global warming. Climate change happens over decades, centuries and millennia. Absent some phenomenal breakthrough in climatology, we probably will not know for certain in our lifetimes.
The answer to the underlying issue: “How did the possibility of global warming morph into a full-blown crisis?” is much more complex. Some of the primary considerations are politics in general, the politics of research, and media hype.
Research is all about money. It is very expensive, and someone must fund it. Follow the process:
1. The career success of scientific and engineering researchers depends on getting funding to do their research.
2. Nearly all of the available money comes from the government.
3. Politicians control government budgets.
4. Politicians react strongly to the sensational issues of the moment.
5. Researchers are quick to jump on the issues of the moment because that’s where the money is.
Here’s the subtle part. The money follows the crisis, not the science. If the research concludes there is no crisis, the money dries up. If it concludes either that there is a crisis or that there may be a crisis but more study is needed, then the money flows. Since researchers are rarely absolutely positive about their findings, they continually conclude that more research is needed, which fuels the crisis. Conversely, researchers that fail to add fuel will receive less research money and may be out of a job. Finally, political correctness has run so amuck in our Universities, that a significant number of professors who have questioned global warming have been denied or even lost tenure, and some have been censured, shunned, and even fired.
Politicians have jumped on the global warming issue and have helped to position it as a “crisis”, because nothing is more politically advantageous than a crisis. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Obama, has often been quoted as saying, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Politicians are even invading the purview of science and engineering. Al Gore is fond of saying, “The debate is over, and the issue is settled – global warming exists.” Yet no reputable scientist or engineer would ever make such a claim about a phenomenon that happens over millennia and about which we have relatively little data. This political hysteria is apparently bi-partisan, by the way. George Bush and John McCain, neither of whom knows an exponential from an erg, have both signed on.
Oh, let us not forget the media. Crises are of course manna to the press and the media. Blood sells. A sensational crisis attracts many readers/viewers, so the press/media never pass on an opportunity to deliver bad news.
But, why would academics be so enamored with global warming? Why has it become an issue of political correctness? The answer is unpalatable, to say the least. There is a very vocal element of our society, including much of liberal academia, that revels in American failure. Many of these folks fall in the “Blame America First” crowd. Among their favorite targets are capitalism, nationalism, and individualism, the foundations of American success. They believe that the answer is always in a larger, more powerful government, and that the ideal is a one world government. Task number one for them is to diminish America in favor of a “world view”. Their logic, therefore, is: America produces much CO2 , and, since CO2 causes global warming, America is bad, proof of the corruption of capitalism, nationalism, and individualism. Never mind whether CO2 actually causes global warming. Anyone who disagrees with them is politically incorrect. The Blame America First folks comprise a relatively small minority is the U.S., but they are very loud, and they seize on any crisis, real or perceived. Global warming is a perfect foil to generate the hysteria they thrive on.
The vast majority of Americans certainly do not fall into this definition of politically correct. Most Americans are good, hard working, loyal, and patriotic folks. Unfortunately, these good folks are often too busy earning a living and raising families to spend much time critically examining issues like global warming. Consequently, when the press and media are filled with global warming hype and then someone famous or powerful says “Global warming is no longer debatable – the question is settled”, they tend to fall in line (I suspect that Bush and McCain both succumbed to this process). The silent majority is typically too busy to find its voice – until recently, that is. The “Tea Party” crowd is the grass roots silent majority at its best, and, despite the best efforts of some politicians to trivialize them, the silent majority is finally being heard.
So, as an honest scientist and engineer, I don’t know whether anthropogenic climate change really exists, and I certainly don’t know whether our “carbon footprint” really is a significant issue. Both look doubtful to me at this time, but the jury will be out for generations.
Here’s what I do know. In the name of global warming: we are failing to drill for our own plentiful oil and gas; we are not building refineries to produce gasoline from crude oil; we are bankrupting ourselves by paying abusive oil prices to people who hate us and use our money to fund the terrorists who attack us; and, the government now requires us to burn food (ethanol) in our cars.
I agree with those who campaign for alternative energy sources – always a good idea, but not at the expense of everything else. Here’s a thought. How about simply collecting climate change data, a relatively inexpensive effort, and spending most of the enormous global warming research budget on developing practical alternative energy, starting with hydrogen fuel cells?
At this point, there is growing doubt in the scientific and engineering communities that global warming even exists, but there is little doubt that global warming hysteria is destroying us and our economy.
I have long maintained that there is not enough scientific data available yet to make a determination about whether carbon dioxide (CO2) is a significant greenhouse gas, and whether anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming actually exists. No one doubts that climate change is an ongoing natural cycle - warming and cooling trends come and go. The question is whether man-generated CO2 has had a significant effect on the natural cycle of climate change.
My major issues with the ongoing hype about global warming are:
• Much of the hoopla about global warming is based on the series of reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which thousands of notable engineers and scientists have allegedly endorsed. In fact, the first IPCC report was written by good engineers and scientists, but the Executive Summary was written by advocates - activists who drew incorrect, misleading, and occasionally opposite conclusions from those of the actual authors of the report. The situation was so egregious that some of the original authors resigned in protest and insisted that their names be removed from the report. The IPCC refused to remove their names. Then, a survey of the "thousands" of engineers and scientists who endorsed the report indicated that all but a hand-full had read only the Executive Summary. Their "endorsements" were based on the reasonable, but inaccurate, assumption that the Executive Summary accurately reflected the conclusions drawn in the body of the report. Those who “endorsed” the report had confidence in the competence of the original authors, and they were never made aware of the recantations of many of those authors.
• The “greenhouse effect” is a theory that certain gases in the atmosphere prevent excess energy (mostly light and heat) from being reflected back into space. That heat is therefore trapped and causes the earth's temperature to rise. Global warming advocates maintain that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas. But, CO2 is a tiny fraction of atmospheric gas – about 0.04 %, or 4 parts in 10,000. The two most abundant atmospheric gases are nitrogen and oxygen, which comprise about 95% - 99% of the atmosphere, depending on local humidity – neither of them are greenhouse gases. The next most abundant gas is water, in the form of water vapor (humidity), clouds, and fog – up to 4%, depending on the climate (desert, temperate, etc.), and water vapor reflects energy, so it would definitely be considered a greenhouse gas. If the greenhouse effect theory is correct, then it logically follows that water vapor, which is 100 times more prevalent than CO2, is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, CO2 would appear to be a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas.
• The most common evidence given for the correlation between CO2 and climate change is the much touted chart in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie that tracks both atmospheric CO2 and the earth’s temperature over time. The time scale is huge, usually about 600,000 years, so it is difficult to distinguish the CO2 curve from the temperature curve; but, Al Gore makes it clear in his movie that the two curves roughly parallel each other. His conclusion is that, since temperature changes track CO2 increases or decreases, then CO2 causes temperature change. The fallacy of this conclusion is easily shown by expanding the time scale at any point such that it becomes possible to clearly distinguish the two curves. When the two separate curves can be seen, it becomes evident that the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes, i.e., increases in CO2 happen years (usually hundreds) after the associated increases in temperature. Since cause obviously precedes effect, the CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of the temperature change, and in fact appears to be the effect. Therefore, the graph actually shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
This information begs several questions.
• Assuming the greenhouse theory is correct, isn’t it more likely that, compared to water vapor, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas?
• Don’t the data show that rises in atmospheric CO2 levels are the effect, rather than the cause, of rises in earth’s temperature?
• Is man-caused global warming really happening?
• Why is everyone so excited about CO2?
I reiterate that, to my knowledge, there is as yet insufficient data available to draw firm conclusions about man-caused global warming. Climate change happens over decades, centuries and millennia. Absent some phenomenal breakthrough in climatology, we probably will not know for certain in our lifetimes.
The answer to the underlying issue: “How did the possibility of global warming morph into a full-blown crisis?” is much more complex. Some of the primary considerations are politics in general, the politics of research, and media hype.
Research is all about money. It is very expensive, and someone must fund it. Follow the process:
1. The career success of scientific and engineering researchers depends on getting funding to do their research.
2. Nearly all of the available money comes from the government.
3. Politicians control government budgets.
4. Politicians react strongly to the sensational issues of the moment.
5. Researchers are quick to jump on the issues of the moment because that’s where the money is.
Here’s the subtle part. The money follows the crisis, not the science. If the research concludes there is no crisis, the money dries up. If it concludes either that there is a crisis or that there may be a crisis but more study is needed, then the money flows. Since researchers are rarely absolutely positive about their findings, they continually conclude that more research is needed, which fuels the crisis. Conversely, researchers that fail to add fuel will receive less research money and may be out of a job. Finally, political correctness has run so amuck in our Universities, that a significant number of professors who have questioned global warming have been denied or even lost tenure, and some have been censured, shunned, and even fired.
Politicians have jumped on the global warming issue and have helped to position it as a “crisis”, because nothing is more politically advantageous than a crisis. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Obama, has often been quoted as saying, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Politicians are even invading the purview of science and engineering. Al Gore is fond of saying, “The debate is over, and the issue is settled – global warming exists.” Yet no reputable scientist or engineer would ever make such a claim about a phenomenon that happens over millennia and about which we have relatively little data. This political hysteria is apparently bi-partisan, by the way. George Bush and John McCain, neither of whom knows an exponential from an erg, have both signed on.
Oh, let us not forget the media. Crises are of course manna to the press and the media. Blood sells. A sensational crisis attracts many readers/viewers, so the press/media never pass on an opportunity to deliver bad news.
But, why would academics be so enamored with global warming? Why has it become an issue of political correctness? The answer is unpalatable, to say the least. There is a very vocal element of our society, including much of liberal academia, that revels in American failure. Many of these folks fall in the “Blame America First” crowd. Among their favorite targets are capitalism, nationalism, and individualism, the foundations of American success. They believe that the answer is always in a larger, more powerful government, and that the ideal is a one world government. Task number one for them is to diminish America in favor of a “world view”. Their logic, therefore, is: America produces much CO2 , and, since CO2 causes global warming, America is bad, proof of the corruption of capitalism, nationalism, and individualism. Never mind whether CO2 actually causes global warming. Anyone who disagrees with them is politically incorrect. The Blame America First folks comprise a relatively small minority is the U.S., but they are very loud, and they seize on any crisis, real or perceived. Global warming is a perfect foil to generate the hysteria they thrive on.
The vast majority of Americans certainly do not fall into this definition of politically correct. Most Americans are good, hard working, loyal, and patriotic folks. Unfortunately, these good folks are often too busy earning a living and raising families to spend much time critically examining issues like global warming. Consequently, when the press and media are filled with global warming hype and then someone famous or powerful says “Global warming is no longer debatable – the question is settled”, they tend to fall in line (I suspect that Bush and McCain both succumbed to this process). The silent majority is typically too busy to find its voice – until recently, that is. The “Tea Party” crowd is the grass roots silent majority at its best, and, despite the best efforts of some politicians to trivialize them, the silent majority is finally being heard.
So, as an honest scientist and engineer, I don’t know whether anthropogenic climate change really exists, and I certainly don’t know whether our “carbon footprint” really is a significant issue. Both look doubtful to me at this time, but the jury will be out for generations.
Here’s what I do know. In the name of global warming: we are failing to drill for our own plentiful oil and gas; we are not building refineries to produce gasoline from crude oil; we are bankrupting ourselves by paying abusive oil prices to people who hate us and use our money to fund the terrorists who attack us; and, the government now requires us to burn food (ethanol) in our cars.
I agree with those who campaign for alternative energy sources – always a good idea, but not at the expense of everything else. Here’s a thought. How about simply collecting climate change data, a relatively inexpensive effort, and spending most of the enormous global warming research budget on developing practical alternative energy, starting with hydrogen fuel cells?
At this point, there is growing doubt in the scientific and engineering communities that global warming even exists, but there is little doubt that global warming hysteria is destroying us and our economy.
Bankrupting Our Grandchildren
Think about this.
Say you were offered enough money to provide work, heath care, and retirement funds for you and your family. Say there was also enough money to bail out many of your friends so they wouldn’t have to go bankrupt. And say this money was a long term loan collateralized by the future income of your children and grandchildren – you personally would not have to pay any of it back. And say this money was available to everyone else also. All of your lives would be more comfortable and secure. Oh, yeah, one more thing. The debt incurred would be so great that the economy would probably never recover, thereby guaranteeing that yours was the last generation ever to enjoy the American dream.
Would you take the money?
Well, you are taking the money, right now. And so am I. And we are both bankrupting our progeny, and changing America forever. How’s that for hope and change?
Say you were offered enough money to provide work, heath care, and retirement funds for you and your family. Say there was also enough money to bail out many of your friends so they wouldn’t have to go bankrupt. And say this money was a long term loan collateralized by the future income of your children and grandchildren – you personally would not have to pay any of it back. And say this money was available to everyone else also. All of your lives would be more comfortable and secure. Oh, yeah, one more thing. The debt incurred would be so great that the economy would probably never recover, thereby guaranteeing that yours was the last generation ever to enjoy the American dream.
Would you take the money?
Well, you are taking the money, right now. And so am I. And we are both bankrupting our progeny, and changing America forever. How’s that for hope and change?
29 October 2009
Friday Mornings at the Pentagon
Joe Galloway is the co-author, with Lt Gen Hal Moore, of "We Were Soldiers Once ... And Young", one of the very best war novels ever written. If you haven't read it, I highly commend it to you.
I don't know whether the ceremony described in this article still takes place. Perhaps someone who knows can post a comment. Joe wrote this piece back in 2006 - it's now more than three years later, and, to my knowledge, the mainstream press and media are still AWOL.
Friday Mornings at the Pentagon
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers
Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.
This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.
Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the! Army co rridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.
"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.
This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.
Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.
The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. "10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.
"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.
"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.
"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.
"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.
"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30... Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.
They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along.. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.
"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-ol! d husban d's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.
These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.
"Did you know that?
The media haven't yet told the story."
I don't know whether the ceremony described in this article still takes place. Perhaps someone who knows can post a comment. Joe wrote this piece back in 2006 - it's now more than three years later, and, to my knowledge, the mainstream press and media are still AWOL.
Friday Mornings at the Pentagon
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers
Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.
This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.
Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the! Army co rridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.
"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.
This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.
Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.
The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. "10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.
"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.
"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.
"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.
"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.
"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30... Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.
They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along.. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.
"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-ol! d husban d's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.
These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.
"Did you know that?
The media haven't yet told the story."
28 October 2009
Third Party Politics
The nation is rife with third party politics, mostly on the conservative side. The liberals continue to have the Green Party, Ralph Nader, and others, but the new kids on the block are folks who participate in events like the town hall meeting protests, 9.12 rallies, and tea parties. The Obama administration, the Democratic Party leadership, and the mainstream media, have branded these people “gun toting rednecks”, “angry mobs”, and even “domestic terrorists”. The same critics have claimed that these are not grass roots movements, but are in fact staged protests organized by the Republican Party. I’ve attended several of these events, and here’s what I found.
• The attendees were local folks, including many retirees, who were very upset at stuff the government or the congress was foisting on them.
• Virtually everyone I spoke to had never attended a protest before.
• The attendees came on their own, in cars, and were not paid or “organized” by anyone.
• In fact, the only evidence I saw of organizers were liberal counter-protesters who were bussed in by “community organizers” like ACORN and unions like SEIU, many of whom were on the payroll, and who carried commercially made signs.
• The protesters’ signs were obviously home made, and, since they were not organized or controlled in any way, some signs were disappointingly tactless and even offensive.
• The protesters’ voices were passionate, loud, and sometimes angry (people get cranky when they're upset), but there were absolutely no acts or even threats of violence, and there was no indication of “mob mentality”.
• The only gun I ever saw was the TV close-up shown repeatedly by the mainstream media as evidence of "gun toting" - alas, a different camera view showed the gun was actually carried by a black man who was a counter-protester.
There is little doubt this is indeed a grass roots movement by patriotic, freedom loving, salt of the earth, Americans, who have finally found their voice.
Now, let’s talk about protesting. Ever since the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, there have been liberal demonstrators protesting at virtually every significant political or economic gathering. The press, the media, liberals and conservatives alike (and certainly most veterans), have usually agreed that such folks were simply exercising their rights of free speech, and that’s part of what makes America great. Now, suddenly, because the protesters are opposed to the liberal agenda, they are called rabble, Nazis, anti-American, and other slurs, by their own congressmen and senators, and the Democratic Party leadership, including the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States. I think the liberals’ suspicions of a conspiracy may stem from the fact that they are accustomed to Republicans and Independents behaving in a more civil and dignified fashion. Bulletin for Washington: that’s what happens when you ignore folks, regardless of their political affiliation.
So, I think it’s great that these heretofore “silent majority” folks are finally making themselves heard, but where is this all going? Lately, Glenn Beck and some talk radio hosts have been talking a lot about an emerging third party, a tempting but potentially troublesome direction. First of all, does anyone remember who elected Bill Clinton, twice? Ross Perot, that’s who. Clinton never received a majority of the votes, and the 19% of the votes Perot got in 1992 and the 9% he got in 1996, were mostly from fiscal conservatives who would otherwise have voted for Republicans.
The same thing is happening this year in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. In July, Chris Christie, the Republican candidate, was 15 percentage points ahead of Jon Corzine, the Democrat. Then Chris Daggett, a fiscal conservative third party Independent candidate, entered the race. Now, a week before the election, Corzine’s numbers are essentially the same, Christie has lost about 15% and Daggett has gained about 15%. You do the math. If the Democrat is re-elected, the third party Independent, Daggett, will have elected him.
In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, an off-election year race was precipitated by President Obama’s appointment of Democrat Congressman McHugh as Secretary of the Army, and the third party candidate is winning. Although the polls still show 19% undecided, meaning anything could happen, Conservative Party candidate Hoffman is 5 points ahead of Democrat Owens, and 20 points ahead of Republican Scozzafava. Several Republican luminaries, including Sarah Palin, have endorsed Hoffman over the Republican candidate on the grounds that the Republican is insufficiently conservative. If Hoffman, the third party candidate, wins this race, it will not only be a victory for conservatives, but a significant defeat for Obama, who has actively stumped for Owens.
Proponents of a conservative third party hail mostly from the Republican right. They feel that the Republican Party, in an effort to woo independents, has moved too far left. More traditional Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, believe the party should be more inclusive and open, welcoming anyone who is supportive of basic Republican tenets like small government and minimal taxes, regardless of their specific positions on issues like abortion and gay rights.
By pushing his far left liberal agenda, President Obama may have ironically done more to encourage conservative third party politics than anyone. Obama’s political handlers were no doubt thrilled to see the emergence of a conservative third party, anticipating Ross Perot redux, but the irony may backfire. President Obama was elected by Independents who were dissatisfied with the Bush administration (Who wasn’t?). These Independents voted for Candidate Obama who ran as a unifying centrist, but they got President Obama, who actually turned out to be a divisive leftist. Many of these same Independents are also disaffected with the Republican Party, and may well be attracted by a potential breath of fresh air in the form of a new party.
A viable third party may emerge, but it cannot do so without splintering the conservative ranks. The shadow of Ross Perot looms large unless the third party can somehow morph into a home for a substantial number of centrists and/or liberals in addition to its core conservatives.
• The attendees were local folks, including many retirees, who were very upset at stuff the government or the congress was foisting on them.
• Virtually everyone I spoke to had never attended a protest before.
• The attendees came on their own, in cars, and were not paid or “organized” by anyone.
• In fact, the only evidence I saw of organizers were liberal counter-protesters who were bussed in by “community organizers” like ACORN and unions like SEIU, many of whom were on the payroll, and who carried commercially made signs.
• The protesters’ signs were obviously home made, and, since they were not organized or controlled in any way, some signs were disappointingly tactless and even offensive.
• The protesters’ voices were passionate, loud, and sometimes angry (people get cranky when they're upset), but there were absolutely no acts or even threats of violence, and there was no indication of “mob mentality”.
• The only gun I ever saw was the TV close-up shown repeatedly by the mainstream media as evidence of "gun toting" - alas, a different camera view showed the gun was actually carried by a black man who was a counter-protester.
There is little doubt this is indeed a grass roots movement by patriotic, freedom loving, salt of the earth, Americans, who have finally found their voice.
Now, let’s talk about protesting. Ever since the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, there have been liberal demonstrators protesting at virtually every significant political or economic gathering. The press, the media, liberals and conservatives alike (and certainly most veterans), have usually agreed that such folks were simply exercising their rights of free speech, and that’s part of what makes America great. Now, suddenly, because the protesters are opposed to the liberal agenda, they are called rabble, Nazis, anti-American, and other slurs, by their own congressmen and senators, and the Democratic Party leadership, including the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States. I think the liberals’ suspicions of a conspiracy may stem from the fact that they are accustomed to Republicans and Independents behaving in a more civil and dignified fashion. Bulletin for Washington: that’s what happens when you ignore folks, regardless of their political affiliation.
So, I think it’s great that these heretofore “silent majority” folks are finally making themselves heard, but where is this all going? Lately, Glenn Beck and some talk radio hosts have been talking a lot about an emerging third party, a tempting but potentially troublesome direction. First of all, does anyone remember who elected Bill Clinton, twice? Ross Perot, that’s who. Clinton never received a majority of the votes, and the 19% of the votes Perot got in 1992 and the 9% he got in 1996, were mostly from fiscal conservatives who would otherwise have voted for Republicans.
The same thing is happening this year in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. In July, Chris Christie, the Republican candidate, was 15 percentage points ahead of Jon Corzine, the Democrat. Then Chris Daggett, a fiscal conservative third party Independent candidate, entered the race. Now, a week before the election, Corzine’s numbers are essentially the same, Christie has lost about 15% and Daggett has gained about 15%. You do the math. If the Democrat is re-elected, the third party Independent, Daggett, will have elected him.
In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, an off-election year race was precipitated by President Obama’s appointment of Democrat Congressman McHugh as Secretary of the Army, and the third party candidate is winning. Although the polls still show 19% undecided, meaning anything could happen, Conservative Party candidate Hoffman is 5 points ahead of Democrat Owens, and 20 points ahead of Republican Scozzafava. Several Republican luminaries, including Sarah Palin, have endorsed Hoffman over the Republican candidate on the grounds that the Republican is insufficiently conservative. If Hoffman, the third party candidate, wins this race, it will not only be a victory for conservatives, but a significant defeat for Obama, who has actively stumped for Owens.
Proponents of a conservative third party hail mostly from the Republican right. They feel that the Republican Party, in an effort to woo independents, has moved too far left. More traditional Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, believe the party should be more inclusive and open, welcoming anyone who is supportive of basic Republican tenets like small government and minimal taxes, regardless of their specific positions on issues like abortion and gay rights.
By pushing his far left liberal agenda, President Obama may have ironically done more to encourage conservative third party politics than anyone. Obama’s political handlers were no doubt thrilled to see the emergence of a conservative third party, anticipating Ross Perot redux, but the irony may backfire. President Obama was elected by Independents who were dissatisfied with the Bush administration (Who wasn’t?). These Independents voted for Candidate Obama who ran as a unifying centrist, but they got President Obama, who actually turned out to be a divisive leftist. Many of these same Independents are also disaffected with the Republican Party, and may well be attracted by a potential breath of fresh air in the form of a new party.
A viable third party may emerge, but it cannot do so without splintering the conservative ranks. The shadow of Ross Perot looms large unless the third party can somehow morph into a home for a substantial number of centrists and/or liberals in addition to its core conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)