As I have studied and listened to hysterics and skepticism over the climate change debate, I've realized that the debate boils down mostly to, "Uh, huh!," "Nu, uhh!" On one side, they are crying that the sky is falling and it's man's fault. On the other side, their saying either it's not falling or that it's not man's fault. My one critique of the debate is this: if the sky is falling, is it really going to be all that bad?
As human beings, we all to some degree or other fall prey to the "normalcy bias." This means that we think that things are the best the way they are now and any change will make things worse. What if, however, things get better?
It is the same, I think, with climate change. What positives might come through a warming change to the climate? I've made a short list of some of my own thoughts, but it is by no means exhaustive of all possibilities:
1. Milder winters=fewer cold-related deaths (which there are far more of in proportion to heat-related deaths, even in lower latitudes)
2. Vast amounts of newly arable land in Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere.
3. Greater diversity of life (even though scientists say many things are dieing out with warming climate, eras in geological history with the greatest amount of biodiversity have been much warmer than it is today)
4. Lowered cost of wardrobe budgets (fewer people will have to buy coats and long pants...but then again, I'm sure the money would be spent on ridiculously expensive bathing suits, etc. :)
5. Polar bears are pretty cute, but I don't think anyone ever thought that as they were being chased by one. Who will really miss them, anyway? (LOL)
6. Warmer seas=more water vapor=more clouds=more rain=fewer deserts and fewer droughts.
7. We're past due for an ice age, so if mankind can warm the climate through pouring trace gases into the atmosphere, lets do it. Life in all its forms, not just humans, would be much more devastated by cold than heat.
What other thoughts do you guys have? If anyone who is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change and that we're all going to die in a fiery flood reads this, please try to consider any possible positives. The bottom line is that IF there truly is global warming, we're going to have to live through it one way or the other, and I'd rather be Polly Anna than Scrooge.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Tea Parties: The Anti-Populist Movement
Populism, in layman's terms, has been defined as the belief that the government should have control over both financial and social aspects of people's lives. The populist movement in the US was this, although they only articulated those aspects that were financial.
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
On Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
All through school, whenever they would have us say the Pledge of Allegiance, I never had a problem. I always took it as something I could do to express my gratitude and pride in living in a truly exceptional country. I still believe that this country is exceptional and I am extremely grateful to live here. What other country gives so much of itself, both in fortune and blood, for the interests and welfare of so many living outside its borders? Additionally, most of our ancestors came to this land seeking the "American Dream." Most of us, the beneficiaries of these and other great sacrifices, enjoy a better lifestyle and more opportunities for personal progress than we would had our ancestors never come.
However, I have recently begun to rethink my feelings towards the Pledge of Allegiance. To me, the foundations of this country are great, as represented through the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe in these and would be willing to fight for the ideals represented therein. The flag, on the other hand, to me is not a representation of the foundations of our country but of the government. I am not willing to give my unquestioning stamp of approval on whatever the government does, and to me that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Our government is not infallible, but values and principles can be.
Also, the Pledge is a very serious and weighty thing to say. For us to teach 5-year-olds to say it every morning, pledging their energies and interests to the upholding of this republic, with their hands over their hearts, is a little doctrinaire and oppressive. They don't have the faculties to make such a promise, assuming they understood the words they were saying. Because it is extremely unlikely that they understand in even a small degree what they are saying, it is inappropriate that they be forced to rehearse it every morning during school.
However, I have recently begun to rethink my feelings towards the Pledge of Allegiance. To me, the foundations of this country are great, as represented through the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe in these and would be willing to fight for the ideals represented therein. The flag, on the other hand, to me is not a representation of the foundations of our country but of the government. I am not willing to give my unquestioning stamp of approval on whatever the government does, and to me that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Our government is not infallible, but values and principles can be.
Also, the Pledge is a very serious and weighty thing to say. For us to teach 5-year-olds to say it every morning, pledging their energies and interests to the upholding of this republic, with their hands over their hearts, is a little doctrinaire and oppressive. They don't have the faculties to make such a promise, assuming they understood the words they were saying. Because it is extremely unlikely that they understand in even a small degree what they are saying, it is inappropriate that they be forced to rehearse it every morning during school.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Progressives?
I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Ronald Pestritto, the author of a book that aims to link the original progressives with modern-day progressives and liberals. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435942829722602.html?KEYWORDS=glenn+beck+progressives
I've been trying to decide for myself for a long time whether there was a worthwhile comparison between these two groups, and if there were, what that would mean.
I've come to the following conclusions:
Did progressives do some good things? We would all be intellectually dishonest if we answered "No." Some of the regulations they made in regards to child labor, food contamination, and safe work environments are vital parts of a thriving industrialized society.
Did they only do things that overstepped the constitutional framework? No. However, where they went wrong was where they overstepped their constitutional powers for the "greater good." In my mind, putting Japanese people in internment camps, strong-arming protesters (during each world war), and other limits on basic rights were where the progressives went wrong. Additionally, changing the way the government operated generally, including making a central bank that prints money and endeavors to control the market, taking power and representation away from the states in the name of "democracy" (the 17th Amendment), stripping states of sovereign territory (National Parks system), and the legacy that these interferences left with the National Government continuing to usurp power from the states and individuals for the "greater good."
In this way there is a definite link between the original progressives and modern-day liberals/progressives. They seek to increase the centralized power and authority of the government in order to create a society that fits their own idea of the "model society." In order to do this, they may subvert the Constitution or anything else for the "greater good." To them, the ends justify the means, as could be seen through both world wars and the squelching of protests and political prisoners, and then today with the passing of Obamacare "Chicago style."
Even so, did they have some good ideas that we could learn from? Sure. Even Hitler came up with a couple good ideas, like the autobahn. Do these ideas mean we should give them a pass and embrace everything they believed in? If that be the case, then we might as well embrace Hitler's ideas as well.
I don't begrudge them at all for the good they did in making the market safer. I do begrudge the legacy of the federal power grab and continual efforts to out-step their constitutional bounds.
I've been trying to decide for myself for a long time whether there was a worthwhile comparison between these two groups, and if there were, what that would mean.
I've come to the following conclusions:
Did progressives do some good things? We would all be intellectually dishonest if we answered "No." Some of the regulations they made in regards to child labor, food contamination, and safe work environments are vital parts of a thriving industrialized society.
Did they only do things that overstepped the constitutional framework? No. However, where they went wrong was where they overstepped their constitutional powers for the "greater good." In my mind, putting Japanese people in internment camps, strong-arming protesters (during each world war), and other limits on basic rights were where the progressives went wrong. Additionally, changing the way the government operated generally, including making a central bank that prints money and endeavors to control the market, taking power and representation away from the states in the name of "democracy" (the 17th Amendment), stripping states of sovereign territory (National Parks system), and the legacy that these interferences left with the National Government continuing to usurp power from the states and individuals for the "greater good."
In this way there is a definite link between the original progressives and modern-day liberals/progressives. They seek to increase the centralized power and authority of the government in order to create a society that fits their own idea of the "model society." In order to do this, they may subvert the Constitution or anything else for the "greater good." To them, the ends justify the means, as could be seen through both world wars and the squelching of protests and political prisoners, and then today with the passing of Obamacare "Chicago style."
Even so, did they have some good ideas that we could learn from? Sure. Even Hitler came up with a couple good ideas, like the autobahn. Do these ideas mean we should give them a pass and embrace everything they believed in? If that be the case, then we might as well embrace Hitler's ideas as well.
I don't begrudge them at all for the good they did in making the market safer. I do begrudge the legacy of the federal power grab and continual efforts to out-step their constitutional bounds.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Worst President Ever
Our current president hasn't been winning any popularity contests, as I'm sure you all know. He will be remembered as the president who got us "mired" in an "un-win-able" war. Indeed, the chant goes, "Bush lied, people died," when they talk about our involvement in Iraq. He is being blamed for the current economic crisis. Some even blame him for 9-11. Indeed, the chant goes, "Bush lied, people died," when they talk about our involvement in Iraq. I recently saw his approval rating, which is up to 27% (I think it got as low as 18%). In another poll, around 1 in 4 rated him as the "worst president ever."
As a history teacher, I feel it is my duty to remind people of some of the less-than-stellar presidents we have had (especially in recent memory) to help them make an educated decision when doling out the dubious recognition of "worst ever." Since this is a subjective rating, I will include items that some individuals might look down on.
Clinton ended welfare and medicare as we knew it, limiting its benefits and scope. There was also much less spending during his years than in some previous presidencies.
Carter's idealism and urging for miss guided energy policies sent the US economy into a recession which effects lasted well into the '80s. During his presidency the "Happiness Index" was invented, which measures the happiness of the citizens of the US based on proxy indicators like GDP growth, housing, and others. Also during his presidency, the index was at its lowest point than we've ever seen since. His peace talks between Israel and Egypt were a great success, until the other Arab nations found out and decided to lash out toward Israel.
Nixon was a real class act. He was enigmatic in public, and a real creep in private. He went to China, but he also engaged in low-class political tricks, which eventually forced him to resign (he just got caught, though; I wouldn't be surprised if some of our other "classy presidents" did some of the same things).
LBJ tried as hard as he could to set up a socialist state with his expanded government programs in the form of the "Great Society." I would like to remind everyone also that he got us involved in the infamous Vietnam War.
Woodrow Wilson takes the cake, in my opinion. He was our fascist president, setting his government up much the same way as Mussolini and Hitler. He was a "progressive," believing like all other progressives that society and its morals evolve, and that the interpretation and even the text of the Constitution should change as society evolves. He believed that civil liberties, in this evolving morality, were mutable, as is evident in the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. These acts caused several interesting things: 1) widespread nativism and racism in the 1920s towards Germans and Italians in particular and 2)freedom of the press and speach were limited in regards to the administration and their actions. Otherwise peaceful protests were broken up and hundreds put in jail for the crime of speaking against the war and the administration. Feminists were jailed and brutalized.
Bush's legacy? He kept the US safe for 7 years after 9-11. He stuck to his principles, for better or worse. You don't have to like everything he did, but think before you rate him as "worst ever."
As a history teacher, I feel it is my duty to remind people of some of the less-than-stellar presidents we have had (especially in recent memory) to help them make an educated decision when doling out the dubious recognition of "worst ever." Since this is a subjective rating, I will include items that some individuals might look down on.
Clinton ended welfare and medicare as we knew it, limiting its benefits and scope. There was also much less spending during his years than in some previous presidencies.
Carter's idealism and urging for miss guided energy policies sent the US economy into a recession which effects lasted well into the '80s. During his presidency the "Happiness Index" was invented, which measures the happiness of the citizens of the US based on proxy indicators like GDP growth, housing, and others. Also during his presidency, the index was at its lowest point than we've ever seen since. His peace talks between Israel and Egypt were a great success, until the other Arab nations found out and decided to lash out toward Israel.
Nixon was a real class act. He was enigmatic in public, and a real creep in private. He went to China, but he also engaged in low-class political tricks, which eventually forced him to resign (he just got caught, though; I wouldn't be surprised if some of our other "classy presidents" did some of the same things).
LBJ tried as hard as he could to set up a socialist state with his expanded government programs in the form of the "Great Society." I would like to remind everyone also that he got us involved in the infamous Vietnam War.
Woodrow Wilson takes the cake, in my opinion. He was our fascist president, setting his government up much the same way as Mussolini and Hitler. He was a "progressive," believing like all other progressives that society and its morals evolve, and that the interpretation and even the text of the Constitution should change as society evolves. He believed that civil liberties, in this evolving morality, were mutable, as is evident in the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. These acts caused several interesting things: 1) widespread nativism and racism in the 1920s towards Germans and Italians in particular and 2)freedom of the press and speach were limited in regards to the administration and their actions. Otherwise peaceful protests were broken up and hundreds put in jail for the crime of speaking against the war and the administration. Feminists were jailed and brutalized.
Bush's legacy? He kept the US safe for 7 years after 9-11. He stuck to his principles, for better or worse. You don't have to like everything he did, but think before you rate him as "worst ever."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)