The Left vs. 1984 #1

The Left:
"The 9.9% unemployment rate figure...shows...that jobs numbers are looking up."
-- Jason Henry, Examiner, paraphrasing President Obama.

1984:
"[T]here [had been] demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to [20 grams] a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to [20 grams] a week...[T]hey swallowed it...with the stupidity of an animal."
-- George Orwell, 1984

Political Smell Tests, Number 2

Just as sniffing a block of cheddar can give a hint as to whether or not it is to funky for ingestion, there are simple ways which one can discern where a politician's loyalties lie (e.g. with himself, his constituents, the constitution etc.).  These are political smell tests, and I am outlining some here to help discern whether or not a candidate is truly a conservative.

Political Smell Test #2: Get A Whiff Of Their Words
And by this I do not mean analyzing content necessarily, rather specific words off of which they tend to play.  For instance, when discussing illegal immigration, a liberal will use race-related words (e.g. civil rights, African American, Hispanic etc.).  This is not to say a conservative won't say such words, but they will not play a major part of his argument.

If you are listening to a candidate, and he is referring to Utopian concepts as attainable (concepts such as "fairness", "equality" (in terms of outcome) etc.), he is not at all likely to be a conservative.

And keep in mind, this is not because Utopia is undesirable, nor because the conservative seeks to deny Utopia from anyone; rather, it is because the conservative is honest with himself and with his audience that it is not attainable on Planet Earth.

Political Smell Tests

I've been giving some thought as to what makes a good, conservative candidate for a political position.  Coming forth from all this thinking are some, what I would call, smell tests that I have discovered I use, and which you might want to consider adapting yourself.

Political Smell Test #1: Do They Reek Pro-Choice?
I am not by any means a single-issue voter.  However, that being said, where an individual stands on abortion can reveal a lot about that person's character and his moral (and potentially ulterior) convictions.  If a candidate is pro-choice, he is stating one of two things.  Either he does not attribute inherent value to the sanctity of human life, or he does not realize the extent of the development of a child before birth (which would explain his having value for human life while at the same time being fine with disposing of it).  Either way, the candidate is not prime choice for the position; the one shows his lack of regard for humanity, the other his lack of research on a current and relevant issue.

After all, if they do not show reverence for human life, when it is in its most (and only) innocent and defenseless form, why should they value the minority they claim to value.  Why would they value liberty and freedom, when they have no problem robbing an unborn child of his entire life?

Look out for further smell tests, coming soon!

Liberals Do Not Attribute Inherent Value to Human Life

It's a hard concept to swallow. Americans have a bad habit of believing in the good in people. Because of this, it's really hard to believe that there are people out there, especially our leaders, who do not place an inherent value in human life.

How many organizations exist, and how much money has been raised to save animals, while humans are killed in the womb?

Aside from being the home for the abortion movement, liberals have an inherent distaste for humanity.

And is it not a liberal mantra that humans are going to overpopulate the world (in spite of evidence to the contrary)?

Over the past few months, I've been collecting examples of this.
Nancy Pelosi.
Barack Obama.

A new one emerged on Wednesday. The American Cancer Society now says it's better overall to not get early screenings. Now they don't deny that early screenings do sometimes catch cancer before it otherwise could have been. The reason they cite the screenings as superfluous is because it is so costly for how much cancer they find, versus the later screenings. In other words, the cost of the tests has a value greater than the human lives that early screening might find. Ouch.

Global Warming - A Logical Approach

This post is rather long; if you want to skip to the meat of it, I'd suggest starting with the paragraph immediately above the first set of bullet points.

What of global warming? It is true that in recent weeks the politics of health care have stolen the lime light which was previously shining gloriously on the thought of man-made climate change with the passage of the so called Cap And Trade bill (which was recently discredited by the original author of the idea).

However, it still comes up in the news and in politics from time to time (which begs the question, “Is this really a scientific concept or a political one?”).

As with my previous post, I would like to simply apply logic to the whole idea rather than mess with facts and figures. I would like to figure out specifically what the Al Gore argument is. Obviously, it puts forth the idea that the earth is warming. But this in and of itself is nothing significant, since the idea that earth's temperature would (or could) remain constant is absurd. So it must be that the earth is warming and it is doing so at an unusual rate, either too slowly or too quickly; of these two choices, it is obvious the argument is that the earth is warming too quickly.

Additionally, if it were simply that the earth were warming at an accelerated rate and nothing more, there would be little more to be said. After all, if we had no way to affect it, what would be the point of discussing it. We may just as well worry about the passage of time bringing an impending death.

It must be included in the argument then that mankind is the cause of the said warming through not just his carbon emissions, but rather, his excessive carbon emissions – after all, carbon emissions are essential to his life and thus (most would argue) cannot be eliminated altogether.

Beyond all of this though, in order for the above to be relevant it must further be asserted that the warming is a bad thing. I know this seems like such an obvious truth it needs no proof. Indeed it does seem irrefutable. But we cannot forget that the time we have existed on this planet is minuscule. And the time we have been measuring planetary temperature is an even smaller slice of that already tiny existence.

This is a key point; simply assuming warmer planet is a worse planet is illogical. Plant nursery greenhouses and the diversity of life in tropical regions propose that a warmer environment is beneficial to biota However, that is not to say that a warmer planet is necessarily better either. It is simply to say that, in addition to the earth warming at an accelerated rate due to mankind's excessive carbon emissions, the argument must state that the warming is harmful.

It is reasonable to state that if an argument is made, support for that argument must be provided. In a court of law this is the burden of proof; without it, the claim is worthless. Hence, the Gorian argument of global warming has, through its existence, the burden of proving the following:

• The earth is warming

• The above warming is at an unusual accelerated rate

• Increased levels of carbon dioxide can have a warming effect on the planet

• The aforementioned acceleration is being caused by the effect of carbon dioxide mentioned above

• A significant amount of the increased levels of carbon dioxide can be attributed to mankind

• The said warming is detrimental

• (It is also worth mentioning that for any of this to be significant we must be able (best case scenario) to reverse the warming or (worse case scenario) to slow the rate of warming)

Now using this list of needed proofs, we can derive a list of items we must know for these proofs:

• The current global temperature

• Likewise, the correct global temperature

• Whether the earth should or should not be warming

• (And if so,) the correct rate at which the earth should be warming

• The current total amount of carbon dioxide

• Likewise the correct total amount of carbon dioxide

• Some sort of knowledge as to how atmospheric carbon dioxide affects the global temperature

• What proportion of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to mankind, which requires knowing

  • How much carbon dioxide comes from man and

  • How much carbon comes from other sources (both natural and biological)

• How all nature responds and will respond to the different global temperatures

That's a lot on the proverbial plate.