AmericanThinker: ‘PBS NewsHour paints itself into a corner on AGW’ – 350:4 ratio of AGW’ers-to-skeptics

American Thinker has a piece today, on how a recent preposterous global warming report on the PBS NewsHour hints they’re overplaying their biased coverage of the issue. The addition of it to the tally of NewsHour discussion segments absent of skeptic climate assessments suggests a media malfeasance problem too big to ignore.

Excerpts: 

My tally of the NewsHour mentioning global warming and other ‘climate change’ variations continues to grow. I’m probably short in the count, as the NewsHour has expanded its online-only material significantly in the last year or two, and I’ve probably missed some of their blog content. Of that 350+ count, it can only safely be said that one more skeptic can be included in the overall total, meteorologist Anthony Watts in his September 17, 2012 appearance alongside ‘former skeptic’ Richard Muller, which drew howls of “PBS Channels Fox News

At what point will the public see such biased reporting as nothing more than a desperate partisan attempt to keep the issue alive? Did we witness it just recently at the NewsHour? Or will they cross that line by reporting how ‘the smell of the ocean is endangered by climate change’?

See:

Jumping the Shark on Global Warming: The PBS NewsHour paints itself into a corner.

About these ads

94 thoughts on “AmericanThinker: ‘PBS NewsHour paints itself into a corner on AGW’ – 350:4 ratio of AGW’ers-to-skeptics

  1. A bit off topic, but the claim about the ocean losing its smell makes me realize once again this stuff is beyond parody, though I tried….I do a little humor writing to go along with my poker playing. Thought some might get a laugh

    News Item
    AP-Hold’em Poker Found to be Contributing to Climate Change

    Climate scientists have announced the publication of a paper in the science journal “Nature” which, the authors say, will prove that hold’em poker is contributing to higher temperatures, rising seas, and more extreme storms.

    “We were as surprised as anyone,” says lead author Frederick Marmoosh, Chair of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Harvard University. “But you can take it to the bank-it’s now 95 percent certain that hold’em poker has been responsible for at least 30 percent of the increase in Co2 we’ve seen over the last few decades.”

    When asked the precise mechanism, Marmoosh admits to some uncertainty. “We postulate that every time a poker player loses a hand his rate of respiration increases, thereby releasing substantial amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere.”

    Says Dr. Marmoosh, “the effect is small for each player. But when you multiply it by the tens of thousands it becomes significant. The sighing and the panting, and the moaning and groaning by losing poker players are causing incalculable damage to our climate.”

    Asked if he played poker himself, Dr. Marmoosh conceded that he does. “But I’m winning player, and I rarely get angry. If I find myself getting upset I take a break. We all have to learn to become better stewards of our planet. If that means playing a little less poker, or doing a little less breathing, it’s not too high a price to pay.”

  2. As I understand it, PBS has some of its funding contingent on asserting the global warming side only. Was that John Kerry’s very rich wife?

    http://johnkerry-08.com/about/teresa.php

    “Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a “charity” established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes. The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open borders advocates. During the years 1995-2001, the Howard Heinz Endowment, which Heinz Kerry chairs, gave Tides more than $4.3 million. The combined Heinz Endowments (composed of the Howard Heinz Endowment and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment) donated $1.6 million to establish the Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh office of the San Francisco-based Tides Center. Since that time, the local branch has tirelessly pushed an anti-business agenda in the name of “preserving the environment.” However, it is the Tides Foundation’s national organization whose connections are most disconcerting.

    The Tides Foundation is a major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the Left. Tides allows donors to anonymously contribute money to a host of causes; the donor simply makes the check out to Tides and instructs the Foundation where to forward the money. Tides does so, for a nominal fee. Drummond Pike told The Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.” That becomes understandable when one views the list of Tides grant recipients. And who are the beneficiaries of this money? “

  3. mal·fea·sance (ml-fzns)
    n.
    Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official.

    The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.

    I really like the phrase “media malfeasance.” Who used it first? It really does turn the tables. Rather than the media putting the spotlight on others, it puts the spotlight on the guy at the controls of an old spotlight with an abruptly burned-out bulb, now smiling at the public with a —t eating grin.

  4. The supreme irony is that I listen to PBS, and have for many years. I can’t comment on the quality of other areas of their reporting, but on the issue of climate, they have, by simply jumping on the Climageddon bandwagon let their listenership down immensely. It is both saddening and shocking to see.

  5. @Pokerguy – LOL – But I think the next correlation is going to be losing team football fans. After all, we have a study that says they get fatter! And fat people do exhale more than skinny ones!

  6. To my thinking, “PBS” stands for “Perverse Bull Shit.” Yecch!!
    The hypocrisy of the alarmies in accusing skeptics of being influenced by fossil fuel instrests knows no bounds. Fact is, the alarmists get a lot of money from BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, for one simple reason: the global warming meme justifies cap-and-trade, and Big Oil expects to make googoogobs of $$$ from trading carbon credits – and to hell with the consumer, especially the low-income consumer, who has to pay energy prices inflated by the addition of the cost of the carbon allowances. Big Oil doesn’t give a rat’s kiester whether consumers have to pay more, or have to struggle to pay their energy bills – that’s A-OK so long as they make their nut.

  7. Bruce Cobb,
    If you are shocked that PBS lies to you about politically sensitive issues, then you just haven’t been paying attention. Wake up.

  8. Maybe they could determine where they were misled, albeit willingly, and say, we were deceived. The old standard, don’t shoot the messenger line.

    The information about how and where they were misled was recorded in another PBS program called Frontline. They interviewed then Senator Tim Wirth, one of the leaders of the deception about global warming, about his role in orchestrating the appearance of James Hansen before Al Gore’s 1988 Senate Committee hearing. If you want to read malfeasance admitted with glee and truculence this is the interview. It is all documented at their web site, but to help them I list it here.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

  9. Anton Eagle,

    I think you misunderstand Bruce Cobb. But I agree with you that PBS routinely lies in order to advance its agenda.

    ======================

    pokerguy: good one. ☺

  10. At 9:56 AM on 30 August, Caleb had posted:

    mal·fea·sance (ml-fzns)
    n.
    Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official.

    The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.

    I really like the phrase “media malfeasance.” Who used it first? It really does turn the tables. Rather than the media putting the spotlight on others, it puts the spotlight on the guy at the controls of an old spotlight with an abruptly burned-out bulb, now smiling at the public with a —t eating grin.

    Actually, the term “malfeasance” carries with it not only the connotation of misconduct or wrongdoing on the part of a government thug but also willfully malicious and purposeful action violating the rights of said malevolent jobholder‘s victims.

    “Malpractice” subsumes the unintended inadvertent adverse consequences of negligent actions on the part of someone with a duty to the public or a particular person. A physician who erroneously misses the diagnosis of a pathological process which established standard-of-care (provided by a practitioner of roughly equal training and experience in his specialty) would have distinguished can be argued to have been malpractitionate in his management of the case in question. The same doctor deliberately refusing to state such a diagnosis out of resentment of the patient is committing malfeasance.

    Thus the use of the expression “media malfeasance” with regard to these chittering root weevils’ continuing perpetration of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi (not to mention their yammering of outright lies) with regard to the preposterous bogosity of anthropogenic global warming is particularly apt.

    Their intentions are undisguisedly malicious, their purpose to foster the foisting of multiple criminal thefts of value by deceit, and to ruin the lives of millions of their listeners and other innocent parties.

  11. I do not watch any public television any more. I gave up that bad habit long ago. What is “reported” on the PBS News Hour is meaningless and irrelevant to me.

  12. Bruce Cobb,
    Me too. I like NPR a great deal still, “this American life,” “car talk,” “on the media,” “fresh air,” are shows I still enjoy. I’m a lifelong liberal, and it’s shocking to me as well, how lazy these people are wrt to global warming. They simply don’t for a second entertain even the possibility they could be wrong.

    The thing is, liberals are so used to thinking they’re right no matter what the issue. And I’m in sympathy with some of that. The Vietnam War was surely as misguided as the Iraq War under G.W.B. I remain passionately aligned with the left on things like gay marriage, women’s reproductive rights, the right to physician assisted suicide, legalized marijuana (and other drugs as well), the list goes on and on. I’ve also long been an environmentalist. Little wonder that they don’t even consider they could be wrong and the conservatives right. It’s unimaginable to them. I’m not sure how I began to realize what was going on. Certainly none of my liberal friends have.

    • At 11:06 AM on 30 August, pokerguy had commented:

      I’m a lifelong liberal, and it’s shocking to me as well, how lazy these people are wrt to global warming. They simply don’t for a second entertain even the possibility they could be wrong.

      The thing is, liberals are so used to thinking they’re right no matter what the issue. And I’m in sympathy with some of that. The Vietnam War was surely as misguided as the Iraq War under G.W.B. I remain passionately aligned with the left on things like gay marriage, women’s reproductive rights, the right to physician assisted suicide, legalized marijuana (and other drugs as well), the list goes on and on. I’ve also long been an environmentalist. Little wonder that they don’t even consider they could be wrong and the conservatives right. It’s unimaginable to them. I’m not sure how I began to realize what was going on. Certainly none of my liberal friends have.

      Consider that there is much else about which modern American “Liberals” are also obdurately wrong, much of it pertaining to their desire for normative government interference in the peaceable affairs of private persons to force upon hoi polloi (whom they hold in scalding contempt) those outcomes which suit these arrogant milk-and-water socialists’ conceptions of “justice” and “fairness” and “equality.”

      Whether you like it or not, pokerguy, you may be so much less in concert with the “Liberal” faction that you cannot in good conscience support any of their invidious agendas, while at the same time having little or no common cause with the godstruck imperialistic autarky-pushing schmucks who style themselves “conservative” in our political bearpit nowadays.

      You’re probably a libertarian. Most decent human beings are.

      A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

      – L. Neil Smith

  13. pokerguy says:
    August 30, 2013 at 9:47 am

    A bit off topic, but the claim about the ocean losing its smell makes me realize once again this stuff is beyond parody, though I tried….I do a little humor writing to go along with my poker playing. Thought some might get a laugh

    News Item
    AP-Hold’em Poker Found to be Contributing to Climate Change
    ______________________
    You are so close, so close… all you need is a graph. Since widespread popularity of the game is a fairly recent phenomenon, then it could easily be shown that the rise of Texas Hold ‘em correlates with the rise in global CO² and temperature. As interest in the game has leveled off, so has temperature.

  14. pokerguy says:
    August 30, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Bruce Cobb,
    Me too. I like NPR a great deal still, “this American life,” “car talk,” “on the media,” “fresh air,” are shows I still enjoy. I’m a lifelong liberal, and it’s shocking to me as well, how lazy these people are wrt to global warming. They simply don’t for a second entertain even the possibility they could be wrong.
    ___________________________
    You haven’t yet reached the point where you realize that NPR (gov’t radio) is a propaganda tool in support of political agenda. It isn’t laziness that keeps them from telling the truth- it’s a concerted effort to deceive you. Some people are ok with that, as long as their agenda is being advanced. Are you ok with that?

  15. “Are you ok with that?”

    Luther, I respect your opinion. I just don’t believe that the bulk of it is intentional. They simply think they’re right, and for the most part would no more consider themselves beholden to represent the skeptical viewpoint re climate change than they would feel obligated to give air time to those who espouse I.D. in a discussion of evolution.

    I live and work among them. I know how they think. They believe global warming is as certain as the above mentioned theory of evolution. As a corollary, they believe anyone who doesn’t believe it is a moron to be blunt, and that indeed, “big oil” pays to spread disinformation. They sincerely and passionately believe all the Al Gorian hype, and have no doubt that the planet is in peril.

  16. @pokerguy –
    I’d say you were brought around by the sheer volume and force of the evidence against the global warming meme. That is impossible for any rational, open-minded person to resist, irrespective of whether they call themselves “liberal” or “conservative” or whatever. (I personally am in both camps, so to speak – an early 1960s liberal, but my political views unchanged from that time now make me a “conservative,” and until I began looking into it I also accepted the party line.)

    It is regrettable that science should ever be defined in political terms. If it is, it ceases to be science and becomes merely advocacy, and that is what has happened. And for NPR or PBS to become partisan shills is a total betrayal and sabotage of their mission.

  17. ” suggests a media malfeasance problem too big to ignore.”

    Understatement of the year. They are state media and therefore a 100% statist propaganda distribution organisation.

    They should really be experienced enough to do it right. What you do is you build up some faux skeptics, and let them appear as crackpots who lose every argument; make them wear too short jackets, too big trousers; make them ugly and let them appear as fools; short-fused, losing their temper, arguing illogical. Sheesh. Do I have to explain Hegel to them, or Freisler. What kind of bureaucracy is that.

  18. The “Thinker” is a good site, even for us non-Americans out here.

    Anthony/mods, this post is coming out in a smaller font than usual for me, both here and on the front page. Could be my Firefox, but it doesn’t generally misbehave like that. FYI.

    • @SteveC try holding down CTRL and turning the scroll wheel on your mouse to increase/decrease font size. – Anthony

  19. Tucci78,
    Yes, you’re right. At this point I describe my politics as essentially libertarian. I think big government is by its nature corrupt and corrupting. It took me many years to understand this, I’m sorry to say.

  20. @tucci78 –
    I pretty well fit your definition of libertarian, but I would advise you that the “conservatives” I know personally do also – they are supportive of civil liberties for everyone, object to excessive government intrusion (which certainly counts as “force,” methinks) in their lives, and believe in honest science and economics. It is natural that they will be opposed to the global warming meme, because of its coercive and irrational basis. Their main difference from pokerguy’s viewpoint would have to do with foreign policy (I, for example, saw the Vietnam War as a badly managed but entirely just struggle against a tyrannical, brutal, amoral, genocidal enemy that most certainly was NOT libertarian). The foreign policy aspect is significant because much of the impetus for global warming alarmism comes from the UN and, hence, from decidedly non-libertarian forces in the world. I believe that “conservative” hawkishness on foreign affairs serves the cause of rational science and of defeating the CAGW meme. Fighting off global warming differs little, in my view, from resisting other forms of tyranny.

    • At 12:12 PM on 30 August, Chad Wozniak had commented:

      I pretty well fit [L. Neil Smith’s] definition of libertarian, but I would advise you that the “conservatives” I know personally do also – they are supportive of civil liberties for everyone, object to excessive government intrusion (which certainly counts as “force,” methinks) in their lives, and believe in honest science and economics. It is natural that they will be opposed to the global warming meme, because of its coercive and irrational basis.

      Then in the same wise, they’re also libertarians, whether they know it or not. Many such conservatives of my own acquaintance resist the notion manfully because – being conservative in modes of thought as well as political moral philosophy – they’re reluctant to move out of the “conservative” house in spite of how the neocons and religious whackjobs and drug warriors have made of that edifice the proverbial whited sepulchre.

      I’m mindful of F.A. von Hayek’s final chapter in The Constitution of Liberty (1960), titled “Why I am Not a Conservative,” in which can be found:

      Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called “liberalism” was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense. This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves “liberals.” I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism.

      In this last, Hayek was speaking of what we know today as political libertarianism.

      Chad Wozniak: Their [American conservatives] main difference from pokerguy’s viewpoint would have to do with foreign policy (I, for example, saw the Vietnam War as a badly managed but entirely just struggle against a tyrannical, brutal, amoral, genocidal enemy that most certainly was NOT libertarian). The foreign policy aspect is significant because much of the impetus for global warming alarmism comes from the UN and, hence, from decidedly non-libertarian forces in the world. I believe that “conservative” hawkishness on foreign affairs serves the cause of rational science and of defeating the CAGW meme. Fighting off global warming differs little, in my view, from resisting other forms of tyranny.

      With regard to “conservative hawkishness” on the matter of the anthropogenic global warming fraud, I confess to having been made quite uncomfortable by their general opposition to this preposterous bogosity not because of honestly reasoned skepticism but merely out of a truculent “If them gol-durn lib’ruls are for it, I’m agin it!”

      This is compounded by the prevalence among these critters of heartfelt belief in painfully egregious horsepuckey like “intelligent design” and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

  21. To pokerguy:

    Your post@1132 in answer to Luther Wu, is excellent. Partially quoting:

    I just don’t believe that the bulk of it is intentional. They simply think they’re right…

    I live and work among them. I know how they think. They believe global warming is as certain as the above mentioned theory of evolution. As a corollary, they believe anyone who doesn’t believe it is a moron to be blunt, and that indeed, “big oil” pays to spread disinformation. They sincerely and passionately believe all the Al Gorian hype, and have no doubt that the planet is in peril.

    You have very finely expressed the phenomenon of groupthink
    among political liberals in the USA. There is no conspiracy, there is just a …
    consensus. Believing themselves to be correct, they close their ears to all other
    opinions. Believing again that they are the “most intelligent people in the room”,
    they conclude that they must exert themselves to save the rest of the country–
    and the world!–from those who do not think like they do.

    Coercive utopianism is one of the less charming features of U.S. politics
    which always emerges when a large enough segment of the population
    convinces itself that the country has gotten a holiday from history.
    Unfortunately, that’s been the case for around 50 years now.

  22. pokerguy says:
    August 30, 2013 at 11:32 am

    “They sincerely and passionately believe all the Al Gorian hype, and have no doubt that the planet is in peril.”

    Pokerguy,
    In my experience, the majority of CAGW’ers passionately want a climate crisis. CAGW is their wet dream so to speak. It would be a terrible letdown to them if the mainstream consensus changed to AGW being immeasurably small, benign and/or inconsequential.

  23. @chad, “Fighting off global warming differs little, in my view, from resisting other forms of tyranny”

    While I not surprisingly disagree with your assessment of that tragic war in Vietnam (it takes a real idealist to hold such an opinion it seems to me, with a suspension of the kind of cynicism that many of us skeptics tend to have), I do agree with your analogy above. That Obama is actually circumventing democratic processes via the EPA, is enraging to me, and perhaps even something worth literally fighting against were it to get egregious enough. I continue to believe that GWB was one of our very worst President. It’s absolutely stunning to me that Obama is turning out to be just as bad.

  24. @Robert A “In my experience, the majority of CAGW’ers passionately want a climate crisis. CAGW is their wet dream so to speak.
    I agree they’re rooting for it, but I think the motivation is more fundamental than that. They simply couldn’t deal with being wrong. They’d rather some sort of climate catastrophe than to have to endure such a humiliation…

    • In response to a comment by Robert Austin (“In my experience, the majority of CAGW’ers passionately want a climate crisis. CAGW is their wet dream so to speak”), at 1:50 PM on 30 August pokerguy had written:

      I agree they’re rooting for it, but I think the motivation is more fundamental than that. They simply couldn’t deal with being wrong. They’d rather some sort of climate catastrophe than to have to endure such a humiliation…

      To the contrary. Modern American “Liberals” have an enormous amount of experience with “being wrong” on every position they’ve ever advocated, from politicized “public” education (a hideously destructive waste of resources and the young lives of the victims) to economically catastrophic government meddling in the economy.

      They can afford to ignore all the consequences of “being wrong” because they can be confident that they will never be considered responsible for the damage they do. With effective control of the educrat-run gulags masquerading as “school systems,” of the academic nomenklatura in the universities, of the bloated, lying lamestream media, and of the pork sluices in Mordor-on-the-Potomac, no one can or will effectively hold them accountable, and they know it.

      Rest assured, “some sort of climate catastrophe” is of use to them only as a guise under which they intend to ride, booted and spurred, over the lives, the liberties, and the property of innocent American citizens. They have absolutely no fear of “being wrong” because the distinction between right and wrong – fact and fraud – has no practical or moral value in their eyes.

      the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

      – H.L. Mencken

  25. “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” Reagan 1964. Amazingly describing CAGW alarmists so well, almost 50 years ago when the climate was still cooling.

  26. pokerguy says:
    August 30, 2013 at 9:47 am
    News Item
    AP-Hold’em Poker Found to be Contributing to Climate Change
    ———————————————————————————-
    Now that I can understand. I have sat at climate-change card tables. The winds of fortune can shift hot to cold and back again many times. A good anti-perspirant is important with this type of climate change, along with a strong stomach and a steadfast gaze. Resoluteness in the face of a cold hand can make it the equal of a hot one. I should write a book. A short book, perhaps.

  27. It is a safe bet that all PBS reporting in general is as biased and incomplete as their reporting on climate. I stopped watching PBS long ago due to their Marxist leaning reporting. Anything and everything they say needs to be fact checked, so why waste your time.

  28. @goldminor: “A good anti-perspirant is important with this type of climate change, along with a strong stomach and a steadfast gaze”

    Man, you’re not kidding. NOthing worse than being stuck at some casino card table with guys who’ve been there for 16 hours or more, no teeth brushing, no showers, SBD’s going off all over the place. Talk about atmospheric pollution…

  29. pokerguy says:
    Me too. I like NPR a great deal still, “this American life,” “car talk,” “on the media,” “fresh air,” are shows I still enjoy. I’m a lifelong liberal, and it’s shocking to me as well, how lazy these people are wrt to global warming. They simply don’t for a second entertain even the possibility they could be wrong.

    One of the biggest problems I’ve had in political discussions.

    As for the rest of what you say – doesn’t it get you thinking, at least a little, about what else they’ve been wrong about? When know you can’t possibly be wrong, there’s no need to bother. I’ve seen the same from the right, too, which is why I no longer align myself with either.

  30. 350:4? Isn’t that about the same ratio between PBS stories supporting “prudery” and those supporting NAMBLA instead?

  31. Tucci78 says:
    August 30, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    “With regard to “conservative hawkishness” on the matter of the anthropogenic global warming fraud, I confess to having been made quite uncomfortable by their general opposition to this preposterous bogosity not because of honestly reasoned skepticism but merely out of a truculent “If them gol-durn lib’ruls are for it, I’m agin it!” ”

    In the 60ies, American Cultural Marxism (as propagated by Herbert Marcuse) had the great idea that logic itself was an oppressive tool used by capitalism to exploit the masses.

    Since that time, it’s a safe bet that when a liberal says “X is true”; it is nothing of the kind. Therefore the instinctive reaction of the American right proved to be the correct reaction.

  32. Tucci78 says:
    August 30, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    “In this last, Hayek was speaking of what we know today as political libertarianism. ”

    Oh, and the socialists are currently trying fervently to steal that label for themselves. Look around, you will find more and more examples of people calling themselves “left wing liberatarians” or somesuch. In five years it will be the new job title of every socialist and communist on the planet so you better plan what you will call yourself then. The journalists will do their best to redefine the label for the hard far out loonie left.
    European Pirate Parties the prime example.

    • At 2:53 PM on 30 August, DirkH had replied to my misgivings about American “conservative hawkishness” on the subject of the AGW fraud with:

      In the ’60s, American Cultural Marxism (as propagated by Herbert Marcuse) had the great idea that logic itself was an oppressive tool used by capitalism to exploit the masses.

      Since that time, it’s a safe bet that when a liberal says “X is true”; it is nothing of the kind. Therefore the instinctive reaction of the American right proved to be the correct reaction.

      The problem with that “instinctive reaction,” however, is that it really is just about completely instinctive – hell, almost reflexive – and just about never predicated upon sound reasoning.

      Such allies are stomach-churningly unreliable, and if that weren’t enough, such conservatives are (as I’d mentioned) impelled or constrained by no regard whatsoever for the unalienable individual human right of each person to go hellbound in his own handbasket.

      They’re foursquare in favor of aggressive, intrusive, expensive, and draconian government as long as those who govern adhere to policies of ordination in accord with “social” conservatives’ Mrs. Grundy drive to do their neighbors to death “for your own good!”

      Correct morality can only be derived from what man is — not from what do-gooders and well-meaning aunt Nellies would like him to be.
      – Robert A. Heinlein

    • At 2:58 PM on 30 August, DirkH had observed:

      Oh, and the socialists are currently trying fervently to steal that label [libertarianism] for themselves. Look around, you will find more and more examples of people calling themselves “left wing liberatarians” or somesuch. In five years it will be the new job title of every socialist and communist on the planet so you better plan what you will call yourself then. The journalists will do their best to redefine the label for the hard far out loonie left.
      European Pirate Parties the prime example.

      This is why L. Neil Smith’s statement of the non-aggression principle as the defining characteristic of libertarianism is of such utility as to be considered essential.

      Can anyone reading here imagine a political (and therefore inescapably authoritarian thuggish “send in the government goons!”) socialist foreswearing the initiation of force against his victims?

      Er, “beneficiaries of social justice”….

      If they want to pass themselves off as “libertarians,” ask ‘em about their stance on the unalienable, civil, and constitutionally protected individual human right of every man, woman, and responsible child “to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon – rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything – any time, any place, without asking anyone’s permission.”

      They’ll herniate and hemorrhage and choke to death on their own blood first.

      All attempts to coerce the living will of human beings into the service of something they do not want must fail.
      — Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Social Analysis (1922)

  33. @tucci78 –

    Your experience with “conservatives” must be quite different from mine. I am aware that some people who call themselves “conservative” behave as you suggest, but in my experience these are the exception, not the rule. Those people no more deserve the title of “conservative” than leftist authoritarians deserve to be called “liberal.” My conservative friends oppose CAGW for the same reasons that all of us posters here do, not because it’s a “liberal” meme, but because it makes no scientific or economic sense.

    I’m not sure that even the “abrupt change” point applies – I and most of the people I associate with share your impatience (if I read you correctly) with social injustice, racism, institutionalized poverty, excessive religious zeal, dishonest business practices, and want something done about them pronto. They want quick action against some of the more destructive memes, including CAGW, mostly pushed (but not entirely so) by liberals: excessive taxes (yes, also self-proclaimed “conservative” Republicans like Boehner and McConnell), high energy costs, excessive regulation of business, encroachment on Constitutional rights, and passive foreign policy in a dangerous world.

    If one is truly libertarian one must be prepared to defend freedom at all levels, including by military force or civil disobedience, and including on the one hand, against CAGW alarmism, and on the other, from foreign aggression (with which, incidentally, the CAGW meme is intimately related, and is actually a dimension thereof).

    The terms “right” and “left” and to an equal extent “liberal” and “conservative” have become so confounded as to have lost their true meaning for many people. The left today is mostly reactionary, looking back nostalgically to the days of failed socialist systems (pre-Thatcher Britain at best, Mao’s China at worst) , authoritarianism and crony capitalism, and is anything but “liberal” in the classic sense; the far right similarly hypocritically contradicts conservative principles (i.e., limited government) by its own sort of aggressive government interventionalism, such as in the case of reproductive rights.

    If I say someone is characterized by old money, authoritarian impulses, the expectation that the hoi polloi shall bow and scrape, the making of rules that do not apply to oneself, the practice of a corrupt corporate-statist business model – who am I describing? Al Gore!

    (and a good many of the other CAGW alarmist types, besides, getting rich off government “research” grants and patronage from people like George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry)

    • At 3:47 PM on 30 August, Chad Wozniak had responded to my earlier comment with:

      Your experience with “conservatives” must be quite different from mine.

      Probably. I’m a physician, a member of a profession which is almost overwhelmingly conservative both politically and socioculturally, both by selection and by virtue of our various experiences with the pure lying malignantly stupid hatefulness of government at all levels, with the absolutely uniform quality of being highly educated in the sciences, and I have found effectively zilch in the way of sound knowledge about the crippled conjecture of adverse AGW among my colleagues and professional correspondents.

      It’s not that they’re incapable of understanding the subject. It’s simply the principle of rational ignorance in operation.

      Now, if you can’t get medical doctors to oppose the crippled conjecture of CO2-“forced” AGW on the basis of its blatant intrinsic untenability but only because it’s being pushed politically by the rankest, most odious, most utterly evil “Liberal” fascist Prominenten, there has to be some appreciation of how conservatives educated predominantly in the squishy crap (not to mention the rank-and-file Joe Lunchbox types) are even less likely to absorb the particulars familiar to those of us frequenting sites like WUWT on the basis of scientific literacy incompatible with buying the quackery of the “climate consensus.”

      Chad Wozniak: I am aware that some people who call themselves “conservative” behave as you suggest, but in my experience these are the exception, not the rule. Those people no more deserve the title of “conservative” than leftist authoritarians deserve to be called “liberal.” My conservative friends oppose CAGW for the same reasons that all of us posters here do, not because it’s a “liberal” meme, but because it makes no scientific or economic sense.

      Again, possibly so. Your social and cultural context is doubtless different from my own. Which one of us, I wonder, has accessed a sampling statistically representative of the species “American conservative” as a whole?

      Chad Wozniak: I’m not sure that even the “abrupt change” point applies – I and most of the people I associate with share your impatience (if I read you correctly) with social injustice, racism, institutionalized poverty, excessive religious zeal, dishonest business practices, and want something done about them pronto. They want quick action against some of the more destructive memes, including CAGW, mostly pushed (but not entirely so) by liberals: excessive taxes (yes, also self-proclaimed “conservative” Republicans like Boehner and McConnell), high energy costs, excessive regulation of business, encroachment on Constitutional rights, and passive foreign policy in a dangerous world.

      I doubt that you (and most of the conservatives with whom you associate) share my perception of the cause of “social injustice…institutionalized poverty…dishonest business practices” et al., which is government intervention in the economy, sharp focus upon the currency debauchment and other politicized debilitations of marketplace functions in a division-of-labor economy that must be free of coercive interferences in order to operate with any prospect of viability, much less effectiveness.

      Matters such as “racism” and “excessive religious zeal” are (as they have always been) perfectly self-correcting as long as government thugs don’t protect the bigots and religious whackjobs from the consequences of their own stupidity and bloody-mindedness.

      We don’t need lunch counters forcibly integrated by way of “civil rights” laws. We need the owners of lunch counters refusing service to people on the basis of cutaneous melanin content going down the tubes by way of unprejudiced competing service providers bleeding them of custom until they’re bankrupted.

      A real conservative does not “want quick action against some of the more destructive memes, including CAGW” of the “Liberal” fascisti, but rather the removal of all taxpayer-funded government support for the Cargo Cult Science charlatanry behind climate catastrophism.

      Cut off those grant-sucking slimeballs’ “Big Science” money and the confabulatory crapola dries up and dies. A cult doesn’t survive (much less continue to burgeon) when its high priesthood is reduced to banging drums on streetcorners for pennies.

      There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money…is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.

      – Henry David Thoreau

  34. Addendum to previous message: Al Gore as the archetypical “liberal” of today, and also fitting the classic definition of rightwing.

  35. Tucci78 says:
    August 30, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    They’re foursquare in favor of aggressive, intrusive, expensive, and draconian government as long as those who govern adhere to policies of ordination in accord with “social” conservatives’ Mrs. Grundy drive to do their neighbors to death “for your own good!”

    ????

    Rather, ONLY today’s liberal-socialist-extremists (who ARE in the of today’s governments) are “foursquare in favor of aggressive, intrusive, expensive, and draconian government as long as those who govern adhere to worldwide policies in complete accord with (the socialist’s drive to do their neighbors to death “for their own good!”

    The ONLY people worldwide who do support freedom, innocent life, and liberty are those you apparently condemn. The rest? All in today’s “favored” government favor death, imprisonment, banishment or firing to those they oppose politically.

    /politics. Please

    • In response to my correct characterization of normative American conservatives as being foursquare in favor of aggressive, intrusive, expensive, and draconian government as long as those who govern adhere to policies of ordination in accord with “social” conservatives’ Mrs. Grundy drive to do their neighbors to death “for your own good!” at 5:08 PM on 30 August we have RACookPE1978 attempting without support to handwave away these robustly reliable characteristics of politically down-your-throat (and in-your-bedroom) Red Faction drug warriors, womb-guards, prayer-pushers, Comstock-ian fapper-bashers, and otherwise Pecksniffian stalwarts so intoxicated by their own conception of Ordnung that they’re perfectly happy to send SWAT squaddies to break in the doors of their neighbors’ houses at the least little suspicion of pharmaceutical or sexual heresy:

      Rather, ONLY today’s liberal-socialist-extremists (who ARE in the of today’s governments) are “foursquare in favor of aggressive, intrusive, expensive, and draconian government as long as those who govern adhere to worldwide policies in complete accord with (the socialist’s drive to do their neighbors to death “for their own good!”

      The ONLY people worldwide who do support freedom, innocent life, and liberty are those you apparently condemn. The rest? All in today’s “favored” government favor death, imprisonment, banishment or firing to those they oppose politically.

      Uh-huh. Yeah, sure.

      And why seest thou the mote in thy brother’s eye: but the beam that is in thy own eye thou considerest not? Or how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye? Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother’s eye.
      – Luke, 6:41-42 (

      Douay-Rheims Bible)

  36. @tucci78 –
    As you say, the non-aggression principle is essential to libertarianism – and to liberty. It is central to the agreement to disagree that is a fundamental requirement of free and democratic societies. Coercion has no place in a free society beyond the restraint of criminal or otherwise unwarrantedly aggressive actions. However, there are situations in which some coercion is necessary to preserve liberty, to stop coercion by other entities or persons. Restraining criminals and resisting the acts of would-be tyrants or foreign aggressors necessarily involves coercion of the offenders. And since the CAGW crowd have demonstrated their criminality and their aggression against a free society from both within and without, it is quite consistent with the non-aggression principle to defend against their transgressions. And if they cannot be reached by reason and facts, coercion in some form is the only alternative.

    The fundamental fallacy of pacifism is that it leads to coercion – and violence – far greater than is involved in resisting coercion and violence by others. From a moral standpoint, the greater evil is in failing to resist, not in resisting. Therefore, we should apply every means available to us of coercing the CAGW crowd into backing off their agenda, which I itself pure coercion.

    • At 5:16 PM on 30 August, Chad Wozniak had succumbed to the fallacious premise that the non-aggression principle makes pacifists of American libertarians when in fact all it does is make them anti-imperialists insofar as foreign relations go. Mr. Wozniak had written:

      …the non-aggression principle is essential to libertarianism – and to liberty. It is central to the agreement to disagree that is a fundamental requirement of free and democratic societies. Coercion has no place in a free society beyond the restraint of criminal or otherwise unwarrantedly aggressive actions.

      Not really. Deadly force has no role in a free society – “democratic” be damned – except in retaliation against the initiation of aggression. Just as modern American conservatives are foursquare in favor of using Officer Friendly to ram their “morals” down the throats of their neighbors, libertarians are adamantine about the unalienable individual human right to keep and bear arms.

      Anywhere, any type, any time. No “permission” or other government infringement whatsoever.

      That’s a peculiar kind of “pacifism.” One which admits the premise that the best way to secure peace is to ensure that aggressors know that their peaceable prospective victims are armed and eager to kill them. Pour encourager les autres as well as in the immediate abatement of public nuisance.

      Can you call that “restraint”? Hm. Of a kind, I suppose….

      Chad Wozniak: However, there are situations in which some coercion is necessary to preserve liberty, to stop coercion by other entities or persons. Restraining criminals and resisting the acts of would-be tyrants or foreign aggressors necessarily involves coercion of the offenders.

      Again, no. It involves retaliation. Pre-emptive deadly force does nothing to “preserve liberty,” and may be said to “stop coercion by other entities” only if one presumes that the agency to which the exercise of the American citizen’s unalienable individual right to the use of deadly force in retaliation has correctly discerned the prospective malefactors who intend to undertake said “coercion.”

      (Which does seem a helluva lot like arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating every male capable of an erection on the premise that he might have thoughts about committing forcible rape, but on an international scale, doesn’t it?)

      Considering that the people upon whom American conservatives are relying for the perpetration of such pre-emptive “coercion” are government employees, and that the track record of government employees with regard to intelligence, perspicacity, cupidity, efficiency, veracity, accountability, resistance to corruption, and overall reliability is what we’ve all come to know and appreciate….

      Yeah, right.

      Chad Wozniak: And since the CAGW crowd have demonstrated their criminality and their aggression against a free society from both within and without, it is quite consistent with the non-aggression principle to defend against their transgressions. And if they cannot be reached by reason and facts, coercion in some form is the only alternative.

      Oh, it’s “the only alternative,” is it? So we’ve already succeeded in terminating the “Big Science” government research grants upon which the Cargo Cult Science fraudsters rely for their influence and prosperity? We’ve obliged our government thugs-in-office to demand hard proof (as in verified evidence) supporting the CAGW charlatans’ “policy recommendations”? The various corps of Inspectors General battening on the federal and state payrolls have conducted investigations of the knowing utterance of falsehoods in the past grant funding applications signed and submitted by the members of “Mike’s Hockey Team”? We’ve already gotten the federal fuel ethanol requirements abolished?

      Seems that we’ve yet to need “coercion in some form” when dealing with “the CAGW crowd.” One doesn’t shoot a three-card monte dealer between the eyes to keep him from fleecing you. You just quit playing his game.

      Chad Wozniak: The fundamental fallacy of pacifism is that it leads to coercion – and violence – far greater than is involved in resisting coercion and violence by others. From a moral standpoint, the greater evil is in failing to resist, not in resisting. Therefore, we should apply every means available to us of coercing the CAGW crowd into backing off their agenda, which I itself pure coercion.

      Again, what hoplophile libertarian is proposing a course of action which can be described as “failing to resist”?

      In the matter of foreign policy – and foreign aggressors – let me recommend from a recent book on libertarian policy positions the chapter concerning “Defense,” from which I quote:

      War is the consequence of bad statesmanship. If Congress faced mass unemployment as a punishment for such incompetence — and especially if they were the first to go fight — peace might eventually break out.

      In summary, then: withdraw overseas troops; combine all branches of service; reduce the professional military to training cadre status; denationalize the militia; liquidate all military white elephants; and arm the populace. For strategic security, rely on advanced non-nuclear technology.

      The principal advantage of such a program is that it will allow us to change security from a continuous ongoing crisis and debate, within both the libertarian movement and the United States, into a simple job, a solved problem, that can be done with, taken care of once and for all.

      Then we can move on to something more important.

      (Those reading here might like the chapter on “Global Warming” in that book as well.)

  37. Tucci78 says:
    August 30, 2013 at 4:40 pm
    “If they want to pass themselves off as “libertarians,” ask ‘em about their stance on the unalienable, civil, and constitutionally protected individual human right of every man, woman, and responsible child “to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon – rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything – any time, any place, without asking anyone’s permission.” ”

    You don’t understand. They will claim and redefine the word as meaning social justice and the creation of the socialist man (by the usual, unspoken means). And that’s that. Case closed. Anyone pointing to the old definition will be defined as a right wing fringe extremist. Jimbo Wales’ big book will be rewritten accordingly.

    • Regarding “Liberal”/socialist statists attempting to false-flag themselves as “libertarians,” I had earlier advised:

      If they want to pass themselves off as “libertarians,” ask ‘em about their stance on the unalienable, civil, and constitutionally protected individual human right of every man, woman, and responsible child “to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon – rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything – any time, any place, without asking anyone’s permission.”

      …at 5:42 PM on 30 August, DirkH had responded:

      You don’t understand. They will claim and redefine the word as meaning social justice and the creation of the socialist man (by the usual, unspoken means). And that’s that. Case closed. Anyone pointing to the old definition will be defined as a right wing fringe extremist. Jimbo Wales’ big book will be rewritten accordingly.

      Ah, but I emphatically do understand. Are you attempting to say that one of these “social justice” smarmers – seeking “the creation of the socialist man” – are ever going to voice hearty support for the exercise of their prospective victims’ unalienable right to the ownership, carriage, and operation of weapons suitable to rest the forcibly coercive imposition of socialism? Ever?

      Heavens to Mises, but the first thing any of these “socialist man” slugs lunge for is victim disarmament.

      Er, “gun control.” That’s what they’re calling it this week, right?

      The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s goodbye to the Bill of Rights.

      – H.L. Mencken

  38. Tucci78 says:
    August 30, 2013 at 4:22 pm
    “The problem with that “instinctive reaction,” however, is that it really is just about completely instinctive – hell, almost reflexive – and just about never predicated upon sound reasoning. ”

    When you are arguing against an opponent who openly stated that he does not like logic and does not use logic then your best bet is to assume that he’s wrong. It’s the Null hypothesis in that case. A model with negative predictive skill is useful in a way.

    • In response to my observation that modern American conservatives, in opposing “Liberal” AGW yammerers as an “instinctive reaction” only because the people uttering the yammer are “Liberals”…

      The problem with that “instinctive reaction,” however, is that it really is just about completely instinctive – hell, almost reflexive – and just about never predicated upon sound reasoning.

      Such allies are stomach-churningly unreliable, and if that weren’t enough, such conservatives are (as I’d mentioned) impelled or constrained by no regard whatsoever for the unalienable individual human right of each person to go hellbound in his own handbasket.

      They’re foursquare in favor of aggressive, intrusive, expensive, and draconian government as long as those who govern adhere to policies of ordination in accord with “social” conservatives’ Mrs. Grundy drive to do their neighbors to death “for your own good!”

      …we have at 5:45 PM on 30 August DirkH writing (in toto):

      When you are arguing against an opponent who openly stated that he does not like logic and does not use logic then your best bet is to assume that he’s wrong. It’s the Null hypothesis in that case. A model with negative predictive skill is useful in a way.

      …which kinda does nothing to comfort anyone about the reliability (much less the effectiveness) of the average political conservative – emphatically the religiously-motivated traditionalist “social” conservative – with regard to these alleged allies’ performance on the intellectual battleground against the flim-flam artists of the great CAGW caterwaul.

      It’s not so much that the run-of-the-mill conservatives (TEA Party or otherwise) are “wrong” on the flailing fraudulence of anthropogenic global climate change but that they’re right for the wrong reasons.

      Reminds me entirely too goddam much of certain medical students of my experience who had arrived at correct diagnoses and/or therapeutic recommendations but by way of hideously incorrect appreciations of both the pertinent clinical picture and/or the pertinent standard of care.

      You literally do not know what the hell they’re going to do next. Do you really want them on your hospital service?

      Or on your side in a debate?

  39. Well, this is really a Marshal MacLuan moment here at WUWT.
    Don’t forget, we have all the MSM plus the fringe (like Rush, Alex Jones, etc) plus the good old Internet (at ever increasing speed) to float your boat.
    Andy Warhol must be grinning like the Cheshire cat.
    Enjoy it all, singularity approaches!

  40. pat says: “They remind me of Muslim fanatics.”

    Bin Laden said, “all the industrial states” are to blame for climate change.

    They are like two peas in a pod

  41. @tucci78: –

    Actually, your reference to total defunding of chartlatanism (such as CAGW “research”) coincides exactly with what my conservative acquaintances want, and want now, not tomorrow. They would agree that government meddling in the economy, which includes its social programs and their effects, is the chief cause of poverty and hardships. But I know of no one personally who would subscribe to the sort of religious bigotry you describe, or seek to force their opinions or beliefs on others. I know of such people, but I’ve met enough people in my 66 years on the planet to be quite sure they are the exception, as I’ve said.

    Government’s role should be strictly to protect rights, both against itself and against those who won’t play fair (CAGW alarmists among them). There is no question that there are acts of discrimination – the market won’t stop these, not in real time at any rate, especially when you consider that people all too often act in other than their own interest – and other abuses which government must step in to prevent and redress, and one can view these as denials of opportunity – freedom of opportunity being also essential to liberty; But government should also be kept as small as is possible to perform these functions; if this is not done, it inevitably becomes abusive. This is generally agreed upon by all of the basically tolerant, if firmly believing, conservative people that I know. And the CAGW meme is a violation of this principle, and offers many examples of abuses by governments.

    I’m in process of writing a trilogy – a set of three novels – in which poverty is eliminated through education with an emphasis on economics, education is free to prepare for all professional, managerial and technical (i.e., trades) occupations alike, everybody does one or the other, goes to work at a well-paying job from the git-go and has a pension account which grows to enable early retirement without a cent of public monies expended. Pensioners do the low-paying service work, which involves no sacrifice because they already have pensions equal to their last pay when working – makes services cheap without impoverishing the service providers. No income taxes, minimal regulation, a stronger Bill of Rights than our own. And incidentally, it’s set on a fictional plant where there is 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere on an otherwise very Earth-like world, with resultant abundant growth of crops, forests, etc. AND NO RUNAWAY WARMING.

    I’d like to think that such a world would be possible here on Earth if only people would behave themselves – and not dispose themselves to fantasies like CAGW that can do so much harm. And CAGW alarmists certainly are NOT behaving themselves – they’re representative of a broad stratum of people who act on larcenous, perverse, self-destructive or simply destructive motives.

    • At 9:05 PM on 30 August, Chad Wozniak had written:

      Actually, your reference to total defunding of charlatanism (such as CAGW “research”) coincides exactly with what my conservative acquaintances want, and want now, not tomorrow. They would agree that government meddling in the economy, which includes its social programs and their effects, is the chief cause of poverty and hardships. But I know of no one personally who would subscribe to the sort of religious bigotry you describe, or seek to force their opinions or beliefs on others. I know of such people, but I’ve met enough people in my 66 years on the planet to be quite sure they are the exception, as I’ve said.

      As I’d said, your encounters with avowed conservatives may well be entirely at odds with my own. We do not know which of us has had experiences genuinely reflective of the statistical norm among these critters. The religious whackjobs, however, do seem to proliferate both online and in my little patch of flyover country. Possibly my diagnostic “catch” is the result of sensitivity tuned by a watchful expectancy of the pathology.

      Chad Wozniak: Government’s role should be strictly to protect rights, both against itself and against those who won’t play fair (CAGW alarmists among them).

      Egad. Or, as we Sicilians like to say, Oy, gevalt! The armed thugs of an institution with a long and sordid record of corruption and murderous aggression are supposed to protect individual human rights “both against itself [emphasis added] and against those who won’t play fair.”

      By the way, who gets to define “fair”? The government thugs?

      If these are the genuine appreciations of political philosophy among American conservatives, then there’s no argument that they’re not statists as authoritarian as their colleagues on the other side of the specious “Right/Left” spectrum.

      As I’ve observed, the purpose of government is not protection except as a secondary outcome. This is supported by the many “hold harmless” statutes in state and federal codes which specifically excuse government thugs from responsibility for protecting the private citizen’s life and property.

      If you hire Brink’s to transport your store’s receipts to the bank, they are responsible for the safety of your valuta from the moment they receive it to the moment they have a similarly responsible officer of the recipient bank sign for the shipment.

      The police officer munching a donut in the cruiser outside your establishment’s door? A coterie of kleptomaniac Cub Scouts could pilfer every Federal Reserve note and cupronickel slug from your place of business before that flatfoot’s sugar-glazed eyes, and you have no surety that he’d even get a mild letter of reprimand in his personnel jacket for his failure to act.

      What we – the sovereign citizenry – delegate to the malevolent jobholders of government is the exercise of our unalienable right to break things and kill people in retaliation against those who aggressively violate our lives, our liberties, and our property.

      Note that the words are “delegate” and “exercise,” meaning it’s understood that in so doing, we do not forswear our own actions in defense and retaliation.

      Also, it’s not up to those government thugs to decide whether or not anybody has or has not agreed to “play fair” because rights don’t depend upon but rather dictate the rules of play. Always and always and always, the purpose of government (if legitimate purpose can be said to exist for government) is not to make anybody “play fair” but rather that rights be enforced, whether the victim of rights violation is in any condition to manage retaliation or not.

      Think of government as a sort of insurance policy, inasmuch as it works (when it works) only after the fact. It doesn’t keep you from getting whacked, but it does give everybody a little bit of confidence that the guy who’d whacked you is going to get clobbered in response. Maybe even corpsified himself.

      Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

      Chad Wozniak: There is no question that there are acts of discrimination – the market won’t stop these, not in real time at any rate, especially when you consider that people all too often act in other than their own interest – and other abuses which government must step in to prevent and redress, and one can view these as denials of opportunity – freedom of opportunity being also essential to liberty;

      Like hell it is. Just where in the name of Procrustes did you get this “freedom of opportunity” crap? D’you somehow conjure that it springs from the unalienable individual right to liberty of action? Does the negative right to your own freedom of thought and speech and action somehow constitute an imposition upon other people to do business with you against their will?

      Gad. One problem with people who conceive themselves to be conservatives is that they still bear the cicatrices of schooling structured by “Liberal” fascists. Takes a heap of genuine learning to break past that mental scar tissue, and as a reliable rule, vanishingly few conservatives have made the effort.

      Those who have, y’see, become libertarians.

      Those “acts of discrimination” are expressions of other people’s freedom of choice. They choose to prefer doing business with people much like themselves because it’s easier to trust such folks. They choose not to truck or barter with folks who bear the appearance or behavioral hallmarks associated in their minds with unreliability or other adverse qualities.

      People always discriminate, whether they announce it as policy or do it only in petto. It’s a simple, unavoidable characteristic of human nature, and legislating against human nature is supposed to be something only “Liberal” fascists are arrogant enough and stupid enough to attempt.

      So these are the sentiments and practices of conservatives? And they’re supposed to be different from the “Liberals” in precisely…what way?

      Chad Wozniak: But government should also be kept as small as is possible to perform these functions; if this is not done, it inevitably becomes abusive. This is generally agreed upon by all of the basically tolerant, if firmly believing, conservative people that I know.

      Of course, the libertarian has reference to the premise that the right size for government is one that can be dragged into the bathroom and drowned in the tub.

      Chad Wozniak: I’m in process of writing a trilogy – a set of three novels – in which poverty is eliminated through education with an emphasis on economics, education is free to prepare for all professional, managerial and technical (i.e., trades) occupations alike, everybody does one or the other, goes to work at a well-paying job from the git-go and has a pension account which grows to enable early retirement without a cent of public monies expended. Pensioners do the low-paying service work, which involves no sacrifice because they already have pensions equal to their last pay when working – makes services cheap without impoverishing the service providers. No income taxes, minimal regulation, a stronger Bill of Rights than our own. And incidentally, it’s set on a fictional plant where there is 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere on an otherwise very Earth-like world, with resultant abundant growth of crops, forests, etc. AND NO RUNAWAY WARMING.

      I’d like to think that such a world would be possible here on Earth if only people would behave themselves – and not dispose themselves to fantasies like CAGW that can do so much harm. And CAGW alarmists certainly are NOT behaving themselves – they’re representative of a broad stratum of people who act on larcenous, perverse, self-destructive or simply destructive motives.

      As you explore this premise, I strongly suggest you examine the Freehold series of novels published by Michael Z. Williamson since 2004.

      Every writer should be aware of prior art.

  42. Tucci, you ignorant slut. Being right for whatever reason is better than being wrong. Rather than being so self righteous that only pure bloods can inhabit the ratified air around your declarations, you would be better served by trying to understand those you disagree with but come to same conclusion by different means. Have you not yet learned that liberals are so wrong so often that betting against them is the smart choice? Or are you just a social narcissist that can’t stand the possibility that morality exists outside your brain?

    • At 11:13 PM on 30 August, Mark Besse (@MarkB1205) posts:

      Tucci, you ignorant slut. Being right for whatever reason is better than being wrong. Rather than being so self righteous that only pure bloods can inhabit the ratified air around your declarations, you would be better served by trying to understand those you disagree with but come to same conclusion by different means. Have you not yet learned that liberals are so wrong so often that betting against them is the smart choice? Or are you just a social narcissist that can’t stand the possibility that morality exists outside your brain?

      To paraphrase Bill Engvall, “Here’s your [/sarc] tag.”

      The appreciation of flaming stupidity, malevolence, and error among “Liberals” is well-understood, but we gotta grant the possibility of a “stopped clock” moment every now and then among these yups. Without intention, it seems, the “Liberal” stumbles from his slough of filth to track his smelly hooves over solid ground, and were we to rely entirely upon nothing more than the robust stereotype of “Liberal” malice and rottenness for judgement of the positions they espouse, we would risk – rarely, but undeniably – damning that which turns out to be not damnable.

      We may trust, but we must verify.

      Similarly, when it comes to conservatives, the fact that they’re more often right than are “Liberals” (which sure as hell ain’t that hard) should never disguise the fact that embracing such folk as best buddies is a practice fraught with peril.

      You may find the top of the barnyard dungheap an elevation superior to that of the pastureland surrounding, but employing it to emplace a surveyor’s benchmark ain’t exactly a good idea.

  43. @tucci78 –
    I know of the Williamson books. Mine are nothing at all like them; this part of the context in mine is subordinate, really only incidental, to the story lines in them. Also, you appear to misinterpret many of the things I say about conservatives – and I’d be rather inclined to agree with Mark Besse, above, concerning your attitude in general (minus the epithet).

    • At 11:23 PM on 30 August, Chad Wozniak writes:

      I know of the Williamson books. Mine are nothing at all like them; this part of the context in mine is subordinate, really only incidental, to the story lines in them. Also, you appear to misinterpret many of the things I say about conservatives – and I’d be rather inclined to agree with Mark Besse, above, concerning your attitude in general (minus the epithet).

      Oh, you’ve made it clear that your planned works are nothing like Williamson’s Freehold (2004) et seq. I’d recommended that series – emphasis on the first novel – because the author approaches the hypothetical establishment of a polity with much more thoughtful reflection upon the relationship between society and government (particularly when it comes to political economics) than have you in your summary:

      Chad Wozniak: I’m in process of writing a trilogy – a set of three novels – in which poverty is eliminated through education with an emphasis on economics, education is free to prepare for all professional, managerial and technical (i.e., trades) occupations alike, everybody does one or the other, goes to work at a well-paying job from the git-go and has a pension account which grows to enable early retirement without a cent of public monies expended. Pensioners do the low-paying service work, which involves no sacrifice because they already have pensions equal to their last pay when working – makes services cheap without impoverishing the service providers. No income taxes, minimal regulation, a stronger Bill of Rights than our own.

      What you’re doing, y’see, is empowering government thugs to make all the critical economic decisions which government thugs are historically really goddam incompetent to do, as has been repeatedly demonstrated and as had been thoroughly examined in Ludwig von Mises’ seminal work, Socialism: An Economic and Social Analysis (1922).

      Specifically, you’re screwing the pooch with regard to the calculation problem. This is particularly remarkable inasmuch as you claim to be a conservative rather than a socialist while at the same time envisioning a planetary polity operating (if it might be able to operate at all) in the strangling grip of thuggish government dirigisme devoid of any real market mechanisms to guide the allocation of human effort and material resources.

      This is no “emphasis on economics,” but rather the abolition of economics in favor of hammering “top-down” ordination. Who decides what what kind of “education is free” and suited “to prepare [each particular victim] for all professional, managerial and technical (i.e., trades) occupations alike,” anyway? Who are supposed to be so omniscient, so omnipotent, so infallible, so omnibenevolent?

      Not to say anything about whence cometh the generous pensions for your “Pensioners” who “do the low-paying service work, which involves no sacrifice because they already have pensions equal to their last pay when working.”

      Ever heard the old expression “Ex nihil, nihil fit”?

      So you’re gonna have a central bank (or some other source of Federal Reserve-style fiat currency) to just conjure that spending power out of thin air? And how do you guarantee that your “Pensioners” are physically and mentally fit for that “low-paying service work” when so many of us old folks creak with osteoarthritis, sag under the effects of endocrine and other metabolic derangements, and instantiate Dr. Alzheimer’s diagnostic expertise in terms of mentation?

      Have you given any thought to child labor yet? That’s a resource much leveraged in conservative polities like Castro’s Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

      If your trilogy is skiffy (“sci-fi”), I suppose you can posit a race of super-benevolent hyper-intelligent purple space squid or something, but the critics are gonna jump all over you for a Deus ex Cosmos, I guarantee it.

      Ah, but I “appear to misinterpret many of the things [you] say about conservatives.”

      Or not.

      Most likely not.

  44. @DrTucci78

    The warmists very often argue that the conservatives object to the theory of AGW because of the policies and costs of “combating climate change.” In other words, it is typically argued that conservatives reject the science for political reasons, and then find sceptical scientists who affirm their doubts.

    Your claims that conservatives object because of “reflexive” or “instinctual” reasons is a bit of dime store psychology with very little distinction from the latest accusations that conservatives object to the theory of AGW because they are anti-science and many of them “deny the lunar landings.” Really, the hostility of your other remarks about conservatives is over the transom. Part of this picture is the desire of the extreme left, and the middle, to cull the Taxed Enough Already conservatives out of the GOP. This has already been done to the major parties in Canada, Australia, and the UK, where the parties do not differ on socialized medicine, energy mandates, and the deconstruction of marriage. “You can’t get a cigarette paper between them.”

    • At 12:18 AM on 31 August, Zeke had addressed me with:

      The warmists very often argue that the conservatives object to the theory of AGW because of the policies and costs of “combating climate change.” In other words, it is typically argued that conservatives reject the science for political reasons, and then find sceptical scientists who affirm their doubts.

      No argument with that. It’s been a rather robust practice among the “Liberal” fascisti ever since this preposterous bogosity came to be perceived by them as a fraud of political utility. And financial profitability. With that understood, it was to be expected that these “cork-screwing, back-stabbing, dirty dealing” leftie-luzer specimens would employ such a variation on their usual-and-customary Alinsky Rules for Radicals tactics to evade the obligation to actually prove the validity of the AGW contention.

      This route of attack has worked for the “Liberals” primarily because when considering the patterns of American conservative political behavior in response to the scientific examination of the phenomenal universe, it’s impossible to evade acknowledgement that the “social” conservatives have been reliably godstruck. The “Liberals” cherished model is Inherit the Wind (1955, 1960, 1988, 1999), based on the Scopes “Monkey Trial,” and the “social” conservatives – damn them! – have risen to the bait with the reliability of whatever idiot biting creature one cares to name in analogy.

      “Intelligent design.” Borjemoi! Why not super-intelligent purple space squid, for pity’s sake?

      This is chiefest among the reasons why these traditionalist “social” conservatives make unreliable – even treacherous – co-belligerents in the debates against the rent-seeking sons of dogs pushing the CAGW crapola.

      There are definitely practical reasons for attacking the cost-effectiveness of CO2 emissions curtailment (and Mr. Monckton has made such arguments with scathingly effective technical factual support), but when the ruck of American conservatives voice such a contention, they can’t back it up with reasoned argument. They only decry the costs as such, leaving the Watermelon “Liberals” free to play the utterly bullpuckey “precautionary principle” card by arguing that the long-term costs – somehow, at some unspecified time generations hence – will be greater still, continuing to make of this hobgoblin a Menckenian excuse for panicking the populace.

      Traditionalist conservative fervor absent scientific literacy (and with a soupçon of religious whackjobbery) keeps proving a recipe for the “Liberals” favorite dish: opposition en brochette.

      Zeke: Your claims that conservatives object because of “reflexive” or “instinctual” reasons is a bit of dime store psychology with very little distinction from the latest accusations that conservatives object to the theory of AGW because they are anti-science and many of them “deny the lunar landings.” Really, the hostility of your other remarks about conservatives is over the transom. Part of this picture is the desire of the extreme left, and the middle, to cull the Taxed Enough Already conservatives out of the GOP. This has already been done to the major parties in Canada, Australia, and the UK, where the parties do not differ on socialized medicine, energy mandates, and the deconstruction of marriage. “You can’t get a cigarette paper between them.

      I was not the party who brought “instinctual” into the discussion, but I’ll readily admit to “reflexive.” It has long seemed to me that the “social” conservatives respond to many stimuli without evidence of electrical activity above the level of the spine, much less the hindbrain.

      But the usages are figurative, if only just a little. The alternative is to concede that these conservatives are actually using their grey matter, and still they can’t pour night water out of the proverbial boot by examining the sole thereof.

      It’s hardly “over the transom” to acknowledge this. It’s more charitable, in fact, to consider the possibility that they’re psychoneurologically impaired than to admit that they’re just willfully (shall we say “religiously”?) stupid.

      As for the informal and genuinely grassroots “Tea Party” movement that arose in 2010 out of widespread public outrage over the economy-crushing nationalization of 17% of the nation’s GDP – Obamacare – be assured that I and almost every other libertarian in our republic rejoiced in the “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” expressions of rage that brought a proper and necessary whiff of boiling tar and sacksful of poultry slaughterhouse offal into the “town hall meetings” of sweating, panicking incumbent congresscritters all over the country as these career prostitutes – Red Faction and Blue Faction alike – realized not only that they might not get re-elected in November but that they’d be lucky to avoid disappearing into a shallow grave somewhere in the woods.

      Unfortunately, there was more promise than delivery in the uprising, and the hideously corrupt “go along to get along” Republican “establishment” has moved with its usual swinish expertise to co-opt it.

      Pity, really. Still and all, there’s the option of “voting from the rooftops,” isn’t there?

      Thus the libertarian defense of the unalienable human right to keep and bear arms.

  45. Libertarians love to talk a fair streak about the distortions, dislocations, and unforseen consequences of government coercion in markets. They are masters at analyzing all of the unseen and destructive consequences of mandates and subsidies for example. But when it comes to social issues, there are no such thing as unseen consequences for libertarians in the US. None.

    The facts are that legalizing drugs, prostitution, and deconstructing marriage all become part of the educational curriculum – starting in Kindergarten, and the more graphic the better, according to the NEA. Now who is getting into whose bedroom here? Who is forcing their Bacchanalian Cult on the rest of us? Who is requiring discussions of sex and drugs with children from the tender age of 5? And requiring me to pay for it through threat of force and imprisonment? And who is now claiming that preaching against all of this in church is a crime, punishable by fines or imprisonment?

    It is totally obvious on its face who the militant agressors are in the area of pushing into everyone’s bedrooms. It’s the Libertarians and radical left. They just have to tell Suzy she can be a whore and Johnny can marry a m-n or have 4 wives. And look at this fake ire and invective about not respecting privacy. It is a real sham, because this is what is really the result of what is being advocated: National standards, force, and fines to push obscene, Bacchanalian cultic preferences and practices into our families.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/begin-sex-ed-kindergarten-says-new-national-standards-report

    Ce qu’on voit, et ce qu’on ne voit pas. It’s not just for economics.

    • At 1:43 AM on 31 August, Zeke is heard from in his self-righteousness:Libertarians love to talk a fair streak about the distortions, dislocations, and unforseen consequences of government coercion in markets. They are masters at analyzing all of the unseen and destructive consequences of mandates and subsidies for example. But when it comes to social issues, there are no such thing as unseen consequences for libertarians in the US. None.

      To the contrary. There are always consequences for the individual on these “social issues,” as there have always been. With rights come responsibilities.

      What the normative “social” conservative like Zeke can’t stand is that with those rights and responsibilities comes the recognition of that individual’s authority to make decisions for himself.

      An authority that Zeke wants to pre-empt by ordinative force of law, in clear and unequivocal violation of the desires of the heretic who disgusts him by going to hell in his own peculiar handbasket – and not uncommonly in breach of the public peace.

      Zeke: The facts are that legalizing drugs, prostitution, and deconstructing marriage all become part of the educational curriculum – starting in Kindergarten, and the more graphic the better, according to the NEA.

      Nope. The word isn’t “legalizing” (which carries with it the implication that the private person requires some government thugs’ approval for the practice to which Zeke – will-he, nill-he – objects), but rather decriminalization, which emphasizes that the previously persecuted practitioner is removed from the unwarranted attentions of Officer Friendly and his SWAT squad buddies.

      That’s what’s got Zeke upset. No warrant in law to use deadly force in the suppression of those heretics at whom he’s cranky so as to disallow whatever it is that’s yanking Zeke‘s chain.

      Zeke: Now who is getting into whose bedroom here?

      Why, you, Zeke. Who else?

      Zeke: Who is forcing their Bacchanalian Cult on the rest of us? Who is requiring discussions of sex and drugs with children from the tender age of 5? And requiring me to pay for it through threat of force and imprisonment? And who is now claiming that preaching against all of this in church is a crime, punishable by fines or imprisonment?

      Not libertarians. Explicitly not libertarians, in fact, who have spoken for the discontinuation of coercively (taxpayer) funded government “education” (meaning no forcible discussions “with children from the tender age of 5″ as well as no “threat of force and imprisonment” imposed upon unwilling little old Zeke to bleed him for the hideous boondoggle that is “public school”). And emphatically not libertarians, none of whom can ever be found calling for the criminal prosecution of religious whackjobs “preaching against” subjects such as “sex and drugs” on behalf of their Great Sky Pixie.

      Live and let live, y’know. It’s manifestly a concept which traditionalist “social” conservatives like Zeke have trouble grasping, but it beats the snot out of pointing guns at people because you don’t like what you imagine they do to consenting partners (or even barnyard animals) in their bedrooms.

      Zeke: It is totally obvious on its face who the militant agressors are in the area of pushing into everyone’s bedrooms. It’s the Libertarians and radical left.

      Tsk. Conflating “live and let live” with “pay your taxes and shut your trap or else!”

      There’s another reliable behavioral characteristic of the “social” conservative. Myopia.

      Zeke: They [libertarians? “LIberals”? can’t be both] just have to tell Suzy she can be a whore and Johnny can marry a m-n or have 4 wives.

      And why not? To get Jeffersonian, whose pocket is picked? Whose leg is broken? And how the hell is it that “man” becomes a dirty word for the “a” to be elided?

      Zeke: And look at this fake ire and invective about not respecting privacy. It is a real sham, because this is what is really the result of what is being advocated: National standards, force, and fines to push obscene, Bacchanalian cultic preferences and practices into our families.

      To what extent have libertarians ever opposed voluntary “National standards” (whatever in hell the “social” conservative might conceive these to be)?

      As for deadly “force, and fines to push obscene, Bacchanalian cultic preferences and practices,” there’s the usual “social” conservative failure to perceive libertarian adherence to the non-aggression principle.

      We don’t “push.” We’re certainly inclined (and try always to be able) to shoot back, but we don’t “push” anything on anybody except violent aggressors, and then the discussion devolves upon issues like how we should exert those ergs: hollow-point versus full-metal jacket, .40 Short & Weak versus 9mm Parabellum, etc.

      Zeke: Ce qu’on voit, et ce qu’on ne voit pas. It’s not just for economics.

      Not for a self-anointed, in-your-grill, holier-than-thou “social” conservative like Zeke.

      It’s a matter of dominance.

  46. Tucci78 says:
    August 30, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    “Ah, but I emphatically do understand. Are you attempting to say that one of these “social justice” smarmers – seeking “the creation of the socialist man” – are ever going to voice hearty support for the exercise of their prospective victims’ unalienable right to the ownership, carriage, and operation of weapons suitable to rest the forcibly coercive imposition of socialism? Ever? ”

    No, of course not. By the time they are done with hijacking the word Libertarian, it will mean the opposite of what it means now.

  47. 64 comments with much discussion about ideology, and not a single instance of the word “progressive”. I don’t have major issues with the various points of view as long as there can be free and informed debate. It’s those who seek to stifle informed debate who are a scourge of humanity. I came across this video some time ago, and found his contrasts between liberals and progressives to be very moving:

  48. Pokerguy
    When we read the history of French IndoChina it is difficult to imagine any outcome for our nation re the evolution of Viet Nam, other than armed conflict in South-east Asia. {The NYT’s Tom Friedman was correct, ONCE: Eisenhower justifiably sent troops to Little Rock and not to Viet Nam.} JFK and the CIA altered the equation in Saigon: thousands died defending the Pacific from communist atrocities. In for a dime,in for a dollar.
    In re George W. Bush: the failed theology student, Gore, was not an option. Further, had team-W succeeded in reversing two decades of banking interference, the economic adjustments to the credit debacle would certainly have been less harrowing. He told us how to avert disaster; you supported the malfeasants: own up to your mistake, lad.
    It is a busy morning: unable to read all comments; I apologize if this has been addressed, before.
    John Moore

  49. Zeke says:
    August 31, 2013 at 1:43 am

    The facts are that legalizing drugs, prostitution, and deconstructing marriage all become part of the educational curriculum – starting in Kindergarten, and the more graphic the better, according to the NEA. Now who is getting into whose bedroom here? Who is forcing their Bacchanalian Cult on the rest of us? Who is requiring discussions of sex and drugs with children from the tender age of 5? And requiring me to pay for it through threat of force and imprisonment? And who is now claiming that preaching against all of this in church is a crime, punishable by fines or imprisonment?

    It is totally obvious on its face who the militant agressors are in the area of pushing into everyone’s bedrooms. It’s the Libertarians and radical left.

    With only 1% of the vote in the 2012 election, it’s hard to believe that libertarians have much impact on public policy. Anyway, the libertarian position on education is a voucher system, whereby each parent can select the school of his/her choice.

  50. The facts are in, Tucci. Obamacare and the public school system require participation and are enforced by the IRS, which has power to fine, imprison, confiscate property, and garnish wages. I am now being forced to pay for the smut peddlers and obscenity addicts to “educate” children in “health” class, pass out morning after pills to underage girls, and pay for the tools of eugenics/population control to be placed in the hands of the executive branch which has illegitimately seized far too much power already.

    This is “what is not seen,” and I am perfectly justified in pointing out these direct results of the destruction of local control and governance, which is where these laws against coke, meth, pot, and narcotics come from. Local people also choose to defend marriage by as much as 60%, in states that have voted on it.

    And I do not use the public school system for my children. I have to pay for their education on what is left of our single income after heavy taxation and rising fuel and food costs. Many people are choosing to live on two incomes and trusting the experts to raise their children. Pushing these destructive policies for drug legalization and the deconstruction of marriage destroys education, and most people think they cannot afford not to use the public schools. And if you read the article, the smut programs are through the use of National Standards, another brutal blow against local governance and control of education and law.

    • At 9:19 AM on 31 August, Zeke persists:

      The facts are in, Tucci. Obamacare and the public school system require participation and are enforced by the IRS, which has power to fine, imprison, confiscate property, and garnish wages. I am now being forced to pay for the smut peddlers and obscenity addicts to “educate” children in “health” class, pass out morning after pills to underage girls, and pay for the tools of eugenics/population control to be placed in the hands of the executive branch which has illegitimately seized far too much power already.

      Yeah, them “Liberal” fascisti are some kinda vicious bastiches, ain’t they? And the Red Faction “loyal opposition” (with entirely too goddam much emphasis on the “loyal”) have done nothing for the citizenry other than the equivalent of whimpering that we be permitted to drink no more than half the herd-of-buffalo-killing jugful of cyanide our Illegal-Alien-in-Chief and his accessories are forcing down our metaphorical throat.

      “Compromise” is good for us, right?

      And this has anything to do with libertarians and libertarians precisely…how?

      Particularly inasmuch as libertarians have been attacking all this flagrantly and malevolently socialist crap for the past half-century and more while you conservatives had been brokering deals with the invidious incumbents of the authoritarian left in order to barter away the birthright of your fellow citizens in exchange for their cooperation in Republican Party banksterism, mercantilism, imperialism, and overall “Rotarian socialism.”

      Zeke: This is “what is not seen,” and I am perfectly justified in pointing out these direct results of the destruction of local control and governance, which is where these laws against coke, meth, pot, and narcotics come from. Local people also choose to defend marriage by as much as 60%, in states that have voted on it.

      Yet again with the normative numbnuttery of the “social” conservative, now claiming – fantastically – that the abatement of “local” blue laws and other small-scale Officer Friendly jackbooted thuggery to punish Zeke‘s neighbors for doing stuff (absent any intimation that anybody’s rights to life, to liberty, or to property had been breached) which Zeke doesn’t like.

      ‘Cause Zeke is working the will of the Great Sky Pixie. Or “tradition” or something. Yeesh. I wonder if Zeke leads mobs to stone those of his neighbors who gather firewood on the sabbath….

      And making oblique reference to Bastiat’s “What is Seen and What is Not Seen” (ca. 1850) even as he continues to evince his lack of familiarity with how Hazlitt had used the “broken window fallacy” as the starting point in his even more explicitly libertarian Economics in One Lesson (1946 et seq.

      Zeke: And I do not use the public school system for my children. I have to pay for their education on what is left of our single income after heavy taxation and rising fuel and food costs. Many people are choosing to live on two incomes and trusting the experts to raise their children. Pushing these destructive policies for drug legalization and the deconstruction of marriage destroys education, and most people think they cannot afford not to use the public schools. And if you read the article, the smut programs are through the use of National Standards, another brutal blow against local governance and control of education and law.

      And again, drug decriminalization (not “legalization”) and obliging government thugs to recognize the binding legal status of the contractual relationship called “marriage” when said contracts are entered into by people of conditions which don’t satisfy the religious (but otherwise unsupported) arguments of Zeke and similar traditionalist whackjobs has precisely what to do with the destruction of “education” (specifically government “education,” for the abolition of which all and sundry on the libertarian side have argued), and with “heavy taxation and rising fuel and food costs” resulting from (among other things) Federal Reserve System currency debauchment, normative “bipartisan” aggressive political intervention deranging the market process, and pillaging crony “state capitalism”?

      (Er, Zeke, d’you have any kind of reference to these “smut”-stomping Comstock-ian pecksniffian “National Standards” which are supposed to provide some kind of magical “social” conservative panacea for all that ails us?)

      As usual, not only malice here, but confused and ignorant malice.

  51. What I am attempting to point out, pokerguy, is that one of the one of the unseen consequences of destroying local control of coke, meth, pot and narcs, and the traditional preservation of marriage, is the destruction of the school curriculum. Just like adding disruptive technology such as worthless intermittent wind turbines raises costs and diminishes supply, destroying existing sensibilities and local laws also has extremely disruptive results for everyone. These results are here, and they are not theoretical.

    There are plenty of people who can simultaneously claim they are for renewable energy, and not for rising costs. Likewise, this virulent and angry form of libertarianism (not all libertarians hold these positions) can claim they are for school choice, but the results and observations are in: the schools are forcing sex and drug ed on young children, schools are becoming more centralized, and participation is not voluntary, and becoming less and less voluntary. You’ve had your social experiment. Now acknowledge the results.

    • At 4:03 PM on 31 August, Zeke had asserted:

      …that one of the many unseen consequences of legalizing meth, coke, pot, narcotics, and what ever else, as well as legalizing prostitution, and deconstructing marriage, has been put into the school curriculum by nationalized programs. You can ignore that fact if you want, but that is the result of your policies. Local people do not want this.

      But is there any causality involved in decriminalizing (not “legalizing”) certain Scheduled psychoactive substances – as well as getting Officer Friendly’s grafting thumbs off the throats of people otherwise – to be linked to the degeneration of the already degenerate government indoctrination centers posing as “public schools”?

      Sure, there appears to be correlation. But – as we keep reminding the AGW puckers – correlation is not causation. Something like a reasoned argument has yet to emerge in any of your posts in this regard, Zeke. You expect your bigotries and griping to be received without at least some illusion thereof?

      Zeke: And they do not always have a charter school, or another option. Charters and vouchers are not available everywhere. In many cases, they are under stricter and stricter control of the very Unions they are designed to compete against and provide an alternative to. You are really in a dream world and in denial of the destructive problems you are pushing.

      Oh? I’m calling for the ABOLITION of government schools (which you keep cement-headedly evading), and I’m supposed to be the one “in a dream world and in denial,” am I?

      Let’s presume that, like most “social” conservatives with that perpetual itch to shove their bigotries down their neighbors’ throats, you want the government schools to continue running, to continue sucking up tax money, to continue sending out truant officers to compel attendance.

      You just want that coercive machinery run to your tastes and purposes.

      Hm. And these conservatives wonder why they’re received in reasoning discourse with all the enthusiasm accorded a six-days-old dead rat discovered in the pantry….

      Zeke: Now regarding the conservatives you have excorciated ruthlessly: These are people who have voted over 30 times to repeal Obamacare in the House, and, as they were sent back by their voters as a reward for doing the right thing in 2012, they are now in a great battle with the political elite in the republican party to defund Obamacare. They are the last ones standing against Obamacare. These scorched and salted earth methods of yours are being directed at the only people now standing between me and Obamacare.

      Nah. Think of them instead as ineffective occupiers of political posts (having “voted over 30 times to repeal Obamacare” without yet having made the point that our Mendacious Marxist Mamzer is himself on this matter personally and ex officio in criminal violation of so many laws on so many counts that multiple grand juries should have long since been empaneled to seek true bills of indictment).

      The Red Faction “political elite” (which is kinda like calling dregs “scum”) aren’t much more than an excuse for the alleged conservatives wearing Republican uniforms in the eternal game of “go along to get along.”

      Zeke: Conveniently enough for you, I would then be forced to pay for your contraceptives and a–tions under threat of Jail time. This is really transparently hypocrytical of you to claim to oppose Obamacare and yet with the other hand benefit from it and destroy your political enemies.

      Egad. Is there anybody reading here unaware of the fact that I’m a medical doctor?

      Does anyone – even the blitheringly stupid – conjure that I could ever possibly benefit in any way (material or otherwise) from the “Liberal” fascists’ meatgrinder machinery grinding down on the economy in general and on the destruction of my profession in particular, threatening the lives and well-being of my patients?

      And I’m supposed to need “contraceptives,” too?

      To paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke (’cause he used the full Anglo-Saxonism, and Mr. Watts frowns upon such pungencies): “WTF?”

  52. Rogerknights, granted the libertarian party is small, but so is the Constitution Party. Yet the Social Libertarians are far, far over-represented in the expensive national media, and this is very handy for the progressives, and globalist wing of the GOP. The policy of destroying the Taxed Enough Already conservatives is being enforce top-down in the GOP by Rove, by funding “electable” candidates and attacking local conservatives who run in state and local elections.

    The Constitution Party also supports school choice, as well as abolishing the IRS and the Fed Reserve. And speaking of libertarians, the UKIP supports the definition of marriage because as soon as marriage is deconstructed, the courts sue churches for crimes against humanity, either for teaching or for refusing to employ people in those lifestyles, or for refusing to perform “marriages.” It follows like night after day.

  53. @tucci –
    No, my novels are not sci-fi – they were set on another planet only because the stories would be implausible on Earth, in terms of place names, dates of action and the like. The planet I write about is a little more economically/technologically and politically advanced than Earth, but it is not a utopia. It is simply a place that would seem familiar to people on Earth, but with a society which works a little better than ours on Earth. And it is only the locale for stories that differ in every possible respect from anything in Williamson’s stuff. What you call “thoughtful” in his books comes across to me as unconvincing, whereas people who have read my drafts confirm the realism and logical consistency of the world I’ve created.

  54. Zeke, are you really that daft? What part of anything Tucci has posted would give the impression she, or any other libertarian, approves of Obamacare? For someone so anti-libertarian, you sure are ignorant of the philosophy. Not one thing you have said actually applies to libertarians for that matter. You are either wholly incapable of understanding her due to some sort of reading deficiency, or just an .

    Roger Knights: not really, the actual position is NO public education (or healthcare, or just about any other “service” provided by our saviors, the government, other than protection of our rights). Vouchers are simply the only way to get around the current system.

    Speaking of public education, I wonder why, if things were so much better 50 years ago, don’t just go back to what was being taught then?

    Mark

  55. And the last should be first. At 1208 PM on 31 August, Chad Wozniak had objected: No, my novels are not sci-fi – they were set on another planet only because the stories would be implausible on Earth, in terms of place names, dates of action and the like.

    Damn, but I’m exchanging correspondence with a mundane.

    Let it be understood that if you have to set your characters and plot somewhere other than on Earth in the present or recorded past for the sake of writing speculative fiction about actions and conditions significantly divergent from “real world” phenomena, unless you’re writing it in the fantasy genre, you’re writing science fiction, and so it will be taken by editors, publishers, readers, and reviewers. This you cannot evade by the thin fiat of a handwave.

    When they’re referred to as “sci-fi” (pronounced “skiffy”), it’s a denigration. Lots of stuff is written with the trappings and superficial tropes of science fiction (commonly abbreviated “SF”) but are noted to be nothing more than work that could be milled through a word processor in an hour or two (less, with global search-and-replace) to be just as workable – or not – as “mainstream” crap.

    Chad Wozniak: The planet I write about is a little more economically/technologically and politically advanced than Earth, but it is not a utopia. It is simply a place that would seem familiar to people on Earth, but with a society which works a little better than ours on Earth. And it is only the locale for stories that differ in every possible respect from anything in Williamson’s stuff. What you call “thoughtful” in his books comes across to me as unconvincing, whereas people who have read my drafts confirm the realism and logical consistency of the world I’ve created.

    When “world-building” in speculative fiction (both fantasy and science fiction), a big part of the writer’s duty to the perspicacious reader is to understand – even if, especially if he’s not going to lard the text with expositional lumps and/or footnotes – the underpinnings of the plenum in which he’s set his story.

    When dealing with the praxeological details of economy, culture, technology and politics (particularly if this wish-world is supposed to have “a society which works a little better than ours on Earth” – and to which “ours” are you referring?), devising a credibly viable society requires a knowledge of human nature, and of that knowledge (especially the unaggressive perversities attending thereupon) I submit you’ve shown no indication of possessing. Or even hoping to develop.

    F’rinstance, I’ve observed that one of the characteristics of this monotonous setting (only one society on a whole friggin’ planet? very Star Wars-ian…) as you’ve described it thus far is a definite “top-down” ordinative political economy which can only operate by having a Governing Class (the Archons, the Old Ones, the Wise Masters, the Owners, They-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, whatever) above the ruck and roil of hoi polloi to tell the hewers of wood and drawers of water explicitly how to order the division-of-labor functions in their anthill parody of a human society.

    And anent the “calculation problem” (previously mentioned, and also known as the authoritarian knowledge problem) you merely evade.

    That’s really crappy world-building, don’tcha know? Unless you’re writing “for the trunk” or for free promulgation on the Web (same thing) it is feckless to assume that readers – and editors, who have to anticipate their readers’ desires – are going to be as carelessly and blithely illiterate – not to mention willfully ignorant – as you’re showing yourself to be.

    I do not expect that your fiction will not “differ in every possible respect from anything in Williamson’s [Freehold series] stuff,” but rather that what Williamson had done in Freehold and subsequent novels in his fictional plenum had demonstrated a conscious and concerted appreciation of both the physics and the praxeology of world-building, striving with some success to engineer and leverage the characteristics of his settings to optimal dramatic effect.

    What’s more, Williamson has put these works (and others) through the editorial process at Baen Books, which had also entailed the caustic feedback of the barflies at the Baen’s Bar site, who comprise a large cadre of quite literate, quite widely educated, and scathingly articulately critical SF readers operating in an informal give-and-go to detect and provide feedback on flaws which an author (and even an editor) might not have perceived in media res.

    What I submit is that you could profit from critique other than that provided by the “people who have read [your] drafts [to] confirm the realism and logical consistency of the world [you’ve] created” because it appears that what you’ve gotten is little more than studiedly inoffensive “that’s nice!” comments and naught that would really benefit either your process in particular or your development as a writer in general.

    There’s a difference between hearing what you’d like and hearing what you need.

  56. At 8:58 AM on 31 August, rogerknights had written:

    With only 1% of the vote in the 2012 election, it’s hard to believe that libertarians have much impact on public policy. Anyway, the libertarian position on education is a voucher system, whereby each parent can select the school of his/her choice.

    Regarding government thuggery dressed in the guise of “public education,” the libertarian position is not the implementation of “a voucher system” except – perhaps – as a mitigatory measure en route to definitive remediation, just as the ever-more-prevalent (and ever more undeniably effective and cost-efficient) practice of homeschooling is laudable chiefly as a matter of withdrawing uninfected individuals from exposure to the vectors of the “Liberal” fascist disease.

    If there is anything to be considered as “the libertarian position” on the educrat-run, politically manipulated, coercively funded Skinnerian rat-runs we call “public schools,” it’s abolition, not efforts to salvage edifices best treated as are the remnants of Konzentrationslager Dachau and the “Death Railway” sites at Kanchanaburi.

    Why play at palliation when what’s manifestly required is getting down to the root of the cancer and ripping it out entire?

  57. I have simply pointed out that one of the many unseen consequences of legalizing meth, coke, pot, narcotics, and what ever else, as well as legalizing prostitution, and deconstructing marriage, has been put into the school curriculum by nationalized programs. You can ignore that fact if you want, but that is the result of your policies. Local people do not want this.

    And they do not always have a charter school, or another option. Charters and vouchers are not available everywhere. In many cases, they are under stricter and stricter control of the very Unions they are designed to compete against and provide an alternative to. You are really in a dream world and in denial of the destructive problems you are pushing.

    Now regarding the conservatives you have excorciated ruthlessly: These are people who have voted over 30 times to repeal Obamacare in the House, and, as they were sent back by their voters as a reward for doing the right thing in 2012, they are now in a great battle with the political elite in the republican party to defund Obamacare. They are the last ones standing against Obamacare. These scorched and salted earth methods of yours are being directed at the only people now standing between me and Obamacare. Conveniently enough for you, I would then be forced to pay for your contraceptives and a–tions under threat of Jail time. This is really transparently hypocrytical of you to claim to oppose Obamacare and yet with the other hand benefit from it and destroy your political enemies.

  58. Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back for opposing public schools and supporting school choice. People across the entire political spectrum believe that in our country, it is the ultimate right and duty of the parents, and not the state, to raise and educate their own children. As many as 80% of Americans support parental rights and educational freedom.

    Conservatives and Christians along with many others are working to pass an amendment which would protect that right, and prevent parental rights from being completely undermined by a treaty with the UN, CRC. I suggest you quit worrying about drug dealers and obscenity pushers, and sign the petition to protect states rights and parental rights from massive federal and foreign usurpation of the education of American children. And why don’t you say a kind word about the conservatives and Christians who are working to EXEMPT AMERICA, DEFUND OBAMACARE, REPEAL OBACARE, and THROW IT OUT as unconstitutional.

  59. Yes, here is the reference I provided earlier:

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/begin-sex-ed-kindergarten-says-new-national-standards-report

    Excerpt:
    (CNSNews.com) – By the time they leave elementary school, children should be able to “define sexual orientation,” and by the eighth grade be able to “define emergency contraception and its use,” according to a report containing controversial new recommendations for sex education in U.S. public schools.

    “Ideally, comprehensive sexuality education should start in kindergarten and continue through 12th grade,” says the “National Sexuality Education Standards” report, drawn up by a range of advocates, academics and public education officials.

    The Future of Sex Education (FoSE), an initiative started by sex education advocates, developed the standards “to create a strategic plan for sexuality education policy and implementation.”

    Also involved are the American School Health Association, the National Education Association Health Information Network – the non-profit arm of the nation’s largest teacher’s union, the NEA – the American Association for Health Education and the Society of State Leaders of Health and Physical Education.

    An advisory committee includes senior officials from Planned Parenthood and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

    The 45-page report determines “age-appropriate” guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education in the areas of anatomy, identity, pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) and others.

    “Specifically, the National Sexuality Education Standards were developed to address the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide and the limited time allocated to teaching the topic,” reads the report.

    The authors argue too little time is devoted to instruction in HIV, pregnancy and STD prevention – a median total of 3.1 hours in elementary school, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    – See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/begin-sex-ed-kindergarten-says-new-national-standards-report#sthash.aiXyejpj.dpuf

  60. Ref: http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={EC9944B8-96D9-4581-A9AE-06DD3173C964}

    Excerpt:
    NEA to UN: More Graphic Sex-Ed Needed

    “Perhaps you thought public school sex education programs are graphic enough as it is. Not so, according to a statement by the National Education Association’s (NEA) Diane Schneider to a U.N. panel last week. According to a report by C-FAM, Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia that “[o]ral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education,” and that anyone opposing homosexuality is “stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”

    In other words, schools need to rescue children from “indoctrination” by their parents and religion, and the U.N. should see that they do. Schneider also “claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt out,” the article states.

    ParentalRights.org disagrees with the notion that schools know better than parents what is best for their children or what their children can handle. We disagree with the idea that schools should undo all the character building and value instilling that parents do at home. And we adamantly oppose the view that the United Nations should take a role in any of it….

    What We’re Doing to Address This

    The NEA can sway the U.N. more easily than they can persuade the American people. They know that if they establish something at the U.N., they can find progressivist judges who will uphold it here as “Customary International Law.” And they must hope to see us ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), thus obligating ourselves to uphold whatever standards in child education the U.N. might dictate.

    But we are championing a resolution in the U.S. Senate to prevent CRC ratification. As of Friday it had 5 original co-sponsors, but we expect that number to be closer to 30 when the resolution is introduced in the next week or so. When we reach 34, any effort to ratify the CRC will effectively be killed.”

  61. PROPOSED PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
    TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

    SECTION 1
    The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.

    SECTION 2
    The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.

    SECTION 3
    Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

    SECTION 4
    This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.

    SECTION 5
    No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

    Please sign here.

    http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?SEC={2CC263EB-DB6D-446B-9B0E-FC0A4C2778D3}&Type=B_BASIC

  62. At 4:49 PM on 31 August, Zeke had provided a bolus of extraction from the Cybercast (formerly “Conservative”) News Service focusing on the National Sexuality Education Standards, a decidedly “Liberal” fascist project entrained in 2007 “to create a national dialogue about the future of sex education and to promote the institutionalization of comprehensive sexuality education in public schools.”

    The gropers go on to say that “Public schools were specifically chosen because they are venues through which most young people can be reached.”

    So the “National Standards” previously mentioned by Zeke aren’t Draconian guidelines for censorship, but rather “Liberal” scheming toward indoctrinating the prisoners of the government educationalist gulags according to their peculiar picture of what the average “low-information voter” of the future should drool over.

    So what’s the hoo-raw? No government schools, no “National Sexuality Education Standards” to be imposed on the unwilling and disgusted offspring of resentful and/or indifferent parents.

    There y’go. Solved problem.

    (I’m minded of SF writer Orson Scott Card – a devout Mormon – who for decades has opposed prayer and other forms of religious worship in the government schools not because he objects to religious belief among little kids but because the unionized ex-Education majors and other thugs of these “educational” hell-holes screw everything else up. Card simply doesn’t want his kids – or anybody else’s – to have the exercise of their unalienable right to freedom of conscience poisoned by the incompetence and malevolence prevailing among the educrat establishment.)

  63. I posted, in response to Zeke’s claim that libertarians were affecting the content of school curriculums, “With only 1% of the vote in the 2012 election, it’s hard to believe that libertarians have much impact on public policy. Anyway, the libertarian position on education is a voucher system, whereby each parent can select the school of his/her choice.”

    Zeke responded: Rogerknights, granted the libertarian party is small, but so is the Constitution Party. Yet the Social Libertarians are far, far over-represented in the expensive national media, and this is very handy for the progressives, and globalist wing of the GOP.”

    But, if those media libertarians are also supporting a voucher system, and mostly not taking a position about what schools should teach, then they aren’t the villains in this case.

    Mark T responded: “Roger Knights: not really, the actual position is NO public education (or healthcare, or just about any other “service” provided by our saviors, the government, other than protection of our rights). Vouchers are simply the only way to get around the current system.”

    Tucci78 responded: “Regarding government thuggery dressed in the guise of “public education,” the libertarian position is not the implementation of “a voucher system” except – perhaps – as a mitigatory measure en route to definitive remediation, just as the ever-more-prevalent (and ever more undeniably effective and cost-efficient) practice of homeschooling is laudable chiefly as a matter of withdrawing uninfected individuals from exposure to the vectors of the “Liberal” fascist disease.

    If there is anything to be considered as “the libertarian position” on the educrat-run, politically manipulated, coercively funded Skinnerian rat-runs we call “public schools,” it’s abolition, . . . .”

    I’d prefer abolition, but I believe that’s a politically impossible “sell” at the moment. I think that once a voucher system was established, and public schools were funded entirely–or almost entirely–from the voucher payments they received (which I should have spelled out initially as being implicit in what I was saying about a voucher system), attendance at public schools would be halved. I think that about half the population would stick with public schools, at least for a few decades. (I believe Sweden has something close to this already.)

    • At 4:43 AM on 1 September, rogerknights had written:

      I’d prefer abolition [of the government “educationalist” Konzentrationslageren], but I believe that’s a politically impossible “sell” at the moment. I think that once a voucher system was established, and public schools were funded entirely–or almost entirely–from the voucher payments they received (which I should have spelled out initially as being implicit in what I was saying about a voucher system), attendance at public schools would be halved. I think that about half the population would stick with public schools, at least for a few decades. (I believe Sweden has something close to this already.)

      One of the selling points employed by advocates of voucher programs has been the potential of something like real competition – the facilitation of financially practicable parental choice with regard to the education of their offspring – would have an improving effect on the penitentiary lockdowns (“Don’t you dare nibble that Pop-Tart into the shape of a handgun, little boy!”) being foisted upon us as substitutes for real schools.

      I hold that such would not be possible without provisions in every voucher system – ab ovo – which defunded each “public school” district to an increment equal to the monetary value of each voucher issued to a child resident in that district.

      When you play the “carrot-and-stick” game, the stick has gotta sting if it’s going to be effective, and thus far voucher systems proposed and implemented have not (to the best of my knowledge) incorporated any schemes to bleed the tax-sucking educrats as punishment for inducing their “customers” to get the hell away from them.

      If “attendance at public schools would be halved” (or reduced even more) by the implementation of voucher systems to facilitate an increasing number of private sector education services providers, for-profit and eleemosynary, then the budgets of which the various government school boards are empowered to dispose have got to be cut proportionately.

      And shall we discuss the various ways in which these government school districts deliver a humongous source of “legal graft” for politically connected service and materials providers, from cafeteria catering companies to bus transportation outfits to janitorial supplies vendors?

      The howls of these petty mercantilists – who expect megabuck returns on the “campaign contributions” they’ve been making for years – should reverberate across the nation, shouldn’t they?

  64. pokerguy says:
    August 30, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Bruce Cobb,
    Me too. I like NPR a great deal still, “this American life,” “car talk,” “on the media,” “fresh air,” are shows I still enjoy. I’m a lifelong liberal, and it’s shocking to me as well, how lazy these people are wrt to global warming. They simply don’t for a second entertain even the possibility they could be wrong.

    I stopped listening to “this American life” about two months ago, following its hour-long program promoting climate change activism.

  65. At 11:06 on 1 September, rogerknights had responded to pokerguy‘s comment about NPR’s This American Life with:

    I stopped listening to “this American life” about two months ago, following its hour-long program promoting climate change activism.

    For the sake of completeness, I looked into the archives of This American Life and discovered a program broadcast on 17 May 2013 titled “Hot in My Backyard” (program 495), of which both transcript and downloadable audio recording are available (the latter for a $.99 charge).

    Perforce, I recommend the transcript.

    Ira Glass: Because the conversation about climate change is stuck. It’s stuck. It’s stuck in the same utterly tiresome place that it has been stuck for years. There are the people who believe that global warming is happening, and there are the people who don’t believe that, going back and forth with the same retread arguments over and over. According to a recent Gallup poll, just over half the country thinks that climate change is real and is man-made– which, despite the crazy weather last year, is more or less exactly where it’s been for most of the last decade, give or take a couple percentage points.

    And today on our program, after a year that seemed like a dramatic preview of what climate scientists are predicting for all of our futures, we ask, why in the world is the conversation so stuck? That’s going to be the first half of our show. And then in the second half of the show, we have found some places where it feels like battle lines are, in fact, shifting a little bit. We’ve found completely fascinating efforts by people who are consciously trying to lift us out of the mire and muck that we have been caught in, to end the standoff, to reinvent the exhausting, stupid climate change debate.

    In short, we have tried to assemble an hour on climate change that is not stuff that we have all heard before. From WBEZ Chicago, it’s This American Life, distributed by Public Radio International. I’m Ira Glass. Please stay with us.

  66. So much debate is two people screaming approximately the same thing, but not realizing it because they assign different meanings to the same words.

Comments are closed.