"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long."
- Thomas Sowell
Let’s get a few things on the table at the very beginning of this post:
1. I do not give a damn what The United Nations thinks about global warming or any other topic of geopolitical significance. Consequently, I have not given up all hope for future generations because of the recent release of a report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2. Global warming is happening though I do not believe that humans - or should I dare say, Americans, are the main culprits. While the United States uses much more than it's share of global energy based on population, the ratio shifts significantly when viewed against GNP.
3. The data being used to support human responsibility for global warming is derived from a very short time period and does not take into account previous periods of warming and cooling in the past 1000 years. Need I point out that this was prior to the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the internal combustion engine?
4. Other studies have indicated that these previous global temperature fluctuations correspond much more directly to solar activity as opposed to carbon dioxide emissions.
5. I do think we should pursue more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly technologies but not at the expense of torpedoing our economy with lunacy like the Kyoto Treaty. And please, don’t even start about how it’s all Bush’s fault. Kyoto was negotiated during the Clinton Administration. He didn't even bother to send it to the Senate after they voted 95-0 on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution saying they would not ratify it even if President Clinton submitted it. Talk about bi-partisanship. By the way, how’s that Kyoto Treaty working out anyway? Did all of those signatories reach their emission goals? Nah, I didn’t think so.
Then along comes Ellen Goodman who recently wrote an article for The Boston Globe in which she stated that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This goes directly to the heart of my point about controlling the conversation. Goodman frames her point by saying, in effect, either you must agree with me or your opinion is not only invalid, it is beyond the pale. This is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.
Justifiably so, James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal takes Ms. Goodman to task for her ridiculous statement:
“There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.
This columnist is skeptical of global warming. We don't have enough scientific knowledge to have anything like an authoritative opinion--but neither does Ellen Goodman, who bases her entire argument on an appeal to authority, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We lack the time, the inclination and possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. No doubt the same is true of Goodman.
Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last criticism.)
Above all, we can't stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?”
Ms. Goodman goes on to say “There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.” Which only proves what - that Republicans are better educated than Democrats? In the vein it was originally intended, her comment amounts to elitist arrogance masquerading as fact.
Ms. Goodman says in closing “Can we change from debating global warming to preparing? Can we define the issue in ways that turn denial into action? In America what matters now isn't environmental science, but political science.”
I couldn’t agree more.
I finally succumbed to an overwhelmingly irresistible urge to own an iPod. At last count, I have downloaded 179 podcasts which translates into slightly less than a weeks worth of listening and I have only had the little beast for five days! The Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute have proven to be treasure troves of podcasts on a truly remarkable range of subjects. If you thought I was wonky before – just wait.
Also, be on the lookout for podcast recommendations from yours truly. You can listen to them on your computer if you don’t already own one of these contraptions. As a matter of fact, here are a few from The Heritage Foundation to get you started:
“America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It” – a great speech by Mark Steyn about his most recent book which I just read and heartily recommend.
“A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater’s Presidential Campaign and the Origins of the Conservative Movement”
““24” and America’s Image Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction or Does it Matter?” begins with a brief speech by then Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
followed by a panel discussion with some think tank folks, the creators/writers of 24 as well as President Logan, Tony Almeida and Chloe! The panel’s moderator is none other than Rush Limbaugh.
You can get these by subscribing to The Heritage Foundation Event podcasts via iTunes. And, of course, they are free.
I recently watched the speech Newt Gingrich gave at the National Review Institute. Last month, when I told M'Lady that I wanted to go to the NRI and should probably take our Young Miss as well, she asked "Why?"
I said in addition to all of the great conservative speakers National Review lined up for their event it was also the weekend of the Peace March! Sarandon, Robbins, Penn and Fonda -oh my!
For those of you, like me, that missed attending the Institute, Newt's speech can be watched by clicking here. This is important viewing regardless of what part of the political spectrum you call home. After watching it, I am convinced that Newt does not really want to run for President - he wants to run the Movement. Give him a few minutes of your time and see what you think.
In an effort to lighten up the tone around here lately (I describe the blog to M'Lady as "all war, all the time") I have linked to a funny and light-hearted post over at Villainous Company. Cassandra was tagged by another blogger to write six weird things about herself and then tag six more bloggers, chain letter fashion. While I won't go so far as to tag my fellow bloggers, I will pick up the challenge on an individual basis.
1. I always write with a fountain pen, when I’m not typing on a laptop keyboard. M’Lady thinks it’s funny!
2. I am in the middle of reading four to six books and as many magazines at any given point in time.
3. I carry a side by side shotgun with high brass shells when I go pheasant hunting and keep buckeyes in my field vest for good luck. It hasn’t improved my aim but I keep thinking it might.
4. I give all of my family members and close friends nicknames, yet I do not have one myself – at least not one that anyone repeats in front of me.
5. One of my undeniable truths of life is that the fewer people that agree with me, the more I know I’m right.
6. I frequently drive much faster than the posted speed limit and consider anyone that passes me to be a public menace. I can also tell the age, gender and parental marital status of my fellow drivers from great distances.
Newt Gingrich spoke last weekend at the National Review Institute Summit and among many gems there was this one:
"Republicanism did not make Conservatives a majority; Conservatism made the Republicans a majority. There’s a huge difference."
This is my favorite passage from the President's State Of The Union speech last night:
"This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way."
Mark Steyn made this telling comment at National Review Online during the President’s State of the Union speech this evening:
What They'll Stand For
On the other hand, Nancy flew up for the reference to Darfur and the Dems all leapt up to follow. It’s surely very revealing that the Democrats seem most enthused about the one issue where all you have to do is posture ineffectually while the UN stonewalls until everybody’s been killed. But on Iraq or anywhere else America moves beyond posturing to action the Dems sit on their hands.
This is from a post today by Cassandra at Villainous Company.
"Our military are committed in the short term. They are in harm's way. Waffling and infighting will not bring them home sooner; they will only place their lives in greater jeopardy, while rendering the sacrifices of those who have died or been grievously wounded meaningless. They deserve better from us.
It's time for another gut check, America. Time to stop the whining and the carping. Time to stop insulting our fighting men and women; diminishing their voluntary sacrifices by calling them children. They are not your "kids". As one reader, a Vietnam veteran, so aptly remarked last night, there are no children on a battlefield and the military does not recruit babies. They can read, write, and think for themselves by the time they sign on that dotted line and when they reenlist, as they do from combat units all over in astonishing numbers, that says something very powerful that all your condescending and cynical rhetoric can't wipe away. It says that they believe in each other and in their mission even if you don't. And our President believes in them, even if you don't.
What a sad, sad commentary that is, when the American people have lost confidence in the armed forces who have served them so nobly and so well under such difficult circumstances, under a Congress and a so-called free press who have undercut them at every turn, who have published classified details of vulnerabilities in their body armor so snipers would have a clearer idea of how to defeat it, all in the name of "freedom".
And you, the people of America, stood silent and allowed this.
You, the people of America, the conspicuous consumers, did not object, did not cancel your subscriptions to the New York Times, because that would be inconvenient.
And now you are tired of war. Only 28% of you approve of the President, and you sit passively in your homes, waiting for him to explain the war to you better, to "ask you to sacrifice". Like spoiled babies, you whine pathetically because the President hasn't asked you nicely enough to participate in this war.
Do you, perhaps, require detailed instructions? An engraved invitiation? What mystical force prevents you from "sacrificing" unless and until the President of the United States asks you to? Do you lack the willpower to turn off the television and stay out of the Mall? To keep away from that recruiter's office? It must be horribly, horribly difficult for you.
I pity anyone who feels so powerless that remain a prisoner in their own home, forced into inaction and at the mercy of a President they openly despise; a man with all the formidable intellectual prowess of a mildly retarded chimpanzee who (we are told) somehow managed to rout not one but two vastly smarter opponents in national elections as the Free People of the United States looked on in helpless horror. And that was before he shredded the Constitution and fed it to Barney the White House terrier, completing our national paralysis."
Absurdity, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
I discovered this recent post by neo-neocon which perfectly sums up my thoughts about the opponents of the war and our current situation in Iraq. Our lack of will and focus as a nation to see this through disturbs me greatly. I find it even more disturbing that a recent poll showed 34% of Democrat respondents said they “personally” did not want President Bush’s new Iraq strategy to succeed. I am disgusted by these petulant children as well as the politicians and MSM who cater to their mercurial whims.
“(T)hose who require moral perfection in our actions on the world stage are either hopelessly idealistic and out of touch with the consequences of what acting on that idealism would have wrought (in this case, the triumph of the Soviets, and later the Iranians), or they are cynically mouthing arguments they don't even believe.
I wish the world were otherwise. But it's not, and pretending the lion has already lain down with the lamb is an absurdity, or worse. There are plenty of lions out here, about to devour huge herds of lambs, and sometimes all we can do is back the lion who seems less voracious.
The funny thing about the whole thing (and I mean funny-strange, not funny ha-ha) is that it is the neocon philosophy that represents one of the only strategies offering a possible way out of the realpolitik dilemma. And yet those who criticize our realpolitik decisions to back dictators also criticize our neonconnish decisions to overthrow them and try to institute a better and more democratic form of government. Odd, isn't it?
Make no mistake about it, however: the neocon notion that we should attempt actions designed to transform these countries into something better is not an easy one to execute, as Iraq has demonstrated (and, by the way, it does not always involve our waging war--sometimes it involves our supporting internal forces within the country itself, as suggested presently for Iran).
I'm disappointed in the missteps of the Bush administration while occupying Iraq (examples: not stopping the looters, not taking Sadr out, way back when). But I don't believe any of these to be insurmountable even now--if we had the political will in this country to understand how important it is to succeed at the task.
This is the stark choice we face: (1) realpolitik business as usual, "he's a thug but at least he's our thug;" (2) inaction, allowing totalitarian Islamism (or Communism before it) to take over most of the world; or (3) trying to transform these regions into functioning democracies that protect human rights.
The latter is the neocon agenda, and I'm all for it. I consider it the best alternative of the lot. But I don't consider myself naive about how difficult it is to do this and how much of an investment in time, energy, money, blood, and will it would cost to succeed. But the alternatives would ultimately demand a greater human sacrifice, and entail even more suffering.
Take your choice.”
Hanlon’s Razor
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
"I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as 'The Boneless Wonder.' My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye, and I have waited 50 years to see The Boneless Wonder--sitting on the Treasury Bench."
--Winston Churchill, January 28, 1931, in the House of Commons, referring to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald
Victor Davis Hanson at NRO’s The Corner:
"After listening tonight to Wesley Clark, Dick Durbin, Tom Vilsack, Nancy Pelosi, etc. I still can't for the life of me learn what they want to do. Not one will support Ted Kennedy's cut-off of funds. Apparently the party line is that we can't win, but we're afraid to pull out in case we do, and so we will equivocate as we watch the battlefield and make the necessary rhetorical adjustments just in time. Just what we saw in the past Reid/Biden/etc. call for the surge, then huff/puff when they got their wish. Apparently the shame of 1974-5 cut-offs apparently still haunt the entire party."
From the office of Congressman Joe Wilson (R, SC):
"In December, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes stated,
"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq ... I would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."
— Newsweek, December 5, 2006
President Bush's path forward in Iraq, unveiled Wednesday evening, largely matches Chairman Reyes' recommendation. "I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq...These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations," Bush stated.
— The White House, January 10, 2007
Chairman Reyes, however, has changed his tune. "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level."...Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens.
— El Paso Times, January 11, 2007"
Robert A. George writes in "Snatching Defeat From Victory":
"I'm not going to pay a personal price," she said. "My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
Boxer talked about families losing loved ones and soldiers in hospital burn units. "These are the people who pay the price."
Rice said evenly that she understands the sacrifice of service members and families.
"I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom. ..."
Boxer cut her off.
"Madam Secretary, please," she said. "I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."
"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family"? (emphasis added).
Despicable.
Consider the uproar if a Republican senator said something similar to, say, Janet Reno in the Clinton administration? But Boxer should get a free pass because she happens to be the same gender as Rice? No way.
Going after the bollixed-up Iraq policy was fair game -- from senators of both parties, no question. Ripping the whole "surge" plan is also fine. But suggesting the secretary of state doesn't care about the human costs because she's childless?
And the Democrats wonder why the public is wary about their ability to govern with any sense of fairness or decency. It's this kind of haughty, condescending behavior that turned Americans against Democrats in the first place."
And finally, William Kristol in The Weekly Standard:
"So the Boneless Wonders will push a nonbinding resolution to, as Joe Biden put it, "demonstrate to the president he's on his own." Sure, the resolution will weaken the president's hand abroad--but that's not their problem. It will lessen the chances of success in Iraq--but that's above their pay grade. It will dispirit friends and embolden enemies--but maybe there won't be much attention paid overseas to some non-binding congressional resolution. It will send the message to the soldiers fighting in Iraq that help is not on the way--that there are no reinforcements. That's unfortunate. But, hey--they volunteered.
And how about Sen. Obama on the Today show? "We're not going to babysit a civil war." To serious people that sounds juvenile. To most of his colleagues, it's a good soundbite.
It's a demoralizing and revolting spectacle."
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
- President Ronald Reagan
It didn't take long for the new Congressional leadership to make their feelings about Iraq known to President Bush. In a letter sent to the president yesterday, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi said "The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people." The November election was a mid-term Congressional election not a Presidential election and the vote tally certainly didn't provide the new Congressional leadership with any kind of “mandate” regarding the war.
Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi go on to quote General John Abizaid at length from his Senate Armed Services testimony of November 15, 2006 to buttress their contention that “surging” additional American troops “will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point”. They even go so far as to offer the following plan:
“Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.”
In direct opposition to this "plan", here are some quotes from General Abizaid’s prepared statement from November 15, 2006 (emphasis added):
“Today the committee will no doubt focus on the way ahead in Iraq and rightfully so. Yet we must be mindful of increasing threats from Iran as evidenced by its recent military exercise, which was designed to intimidate the smaller nations in the region. We must also be mindful of the real and pervasive global threat presented by al Qaida and its associated movements. Failure to stabilize Iraq could increase Iranian aggressiveness and embolden al Qaida’s ideology. It could also deepen broader Sunni-Shia fissures throughout the region. The changing security challenges in Iraq require changes to our own approach to achieve stability. Let me remind the committee, however, that while new options are explored and debated, my testimony should not be taken to imply approval of shifts in direction.”
“Our commanders and diplomats believe it is possible to achieve an endstate in Iraq that finds Iraq at peace with its neighbors, an ally in the war against extremists, respectful of the lives and rights of its citizens, and with security forces sufficient to maintain order, prevent terrorist safe havens and defend the independence of Iraq. At this stage in the campaign, we’ll need flexibility to manage our force and to help manage the Iraqi force. Force caps and specific timetables limit flexibility. We must also remember that our enemies have a vote in this fight. The enemy watches not only what we do on the ground but what we say and do here at home."
Indeed, they do. And while Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi opine that only the Iraqi’s “can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq” I fear the Iranians and al Qaida might think they have something to say about it as well. All they have to do is wait while the new Congressional leadership does the heavy lifting for them by forcing a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi’s utter and total misunderstanding of the situation will have a profound immediate and long term impact as they begin to make their influence felt in this debate.
