Here comes global cooling............
By Ken Campbell | 10/14/09 | 09:01 PM EDT | 24 Comments
We all knew Algore and all the believers in the religion of Global Warming were, at some point, going to be found as frauds... but did anyone believe it would happen so quickly? Here is the link to a must read article, and pasted below is an excerpt:
In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air. And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap's repercussions. The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C. Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.
Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change. But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics. According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth's hottest recorded year was 1998. If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931. Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man's abuse of the environment. Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon - global cooling.
| 
|
24 Comments | Related Topics »Placer County (CA)
RECOMMENDED SITES
Comments
What compels a medical professional, trained in science, to ignore science?
Politics? Religion? Power?
One thing is clear: His position on AGW cannot be based on science. The "experts" cited in his article are politically- or financially-motivated. There is no real "science" that supports his position on this issue. Since he should know better we know his position is really driven by something other than facts and the scientific method.
Arctic ice cap 'to disappear in future summers'
LONDON (AFP) – The Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years, a polar research team said as they presented findings from an expedition led by adventurer Pen Hadow.
It is likely to be largely ice-free during the warmer months within a decade, the experts added.
Veteran polar explorer Hadow and two other Britons went out on the Arctic ice cap for 73 days during the northern spring, taking more than 6,000 measurements and observations of the sea ice.
The raw data they collected from March to May has been analysed, producing some stark predictions about the state of the ice cap.
"The summer ice cover will completely vanish in 20 to 30 years but in less than that it will have considerably retreated," said Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at Britain's prestigious Cambridge University.
"In about 10 years, the Arctic ice will be considered as open sea."
Starting off from northern Canada, Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels skied over the ice cap to measure the thickness of the remaining ice, assessing its density and the depth of overlying snow, as well as taking weather and sea temperature readings.
Across their 450-kilometre (290 mile) route, the average thickness of the ice floes was 1.8 metres (six feet), while it was 4.8 metres when incorporating the compressed ridges of ice.
"An average thickness of 1.8 metres is typical of first year ice, which is more vulnerable in the summer. And the multi-year ice is shrinking back more rapidly," said Wadhams.
"It's a concrete example of global change in action.
"With a larger part of the region now in first year ice, it is clearly more vulnerable. The area is now more likely to become open water each summer, bringing forward the potential date when the summer sea ice will be completely gone."
Doctor Martin Sommerkorn, senior climate change adviser for the World Wide Fund for Nature's international Arctic programme, said the survey painted a sombre picture of the ice meltdown, which was happening "faster than we thought".
"Remove the Arctic ice cap and we are left with a very different and much warmer world," he said.
Loss of sea ice cover will "set in motion powerful climate feedbacks which will have an impact far beyond the Arctic itself," he added.
"This could lead to flooding affecting one quarter of the world's population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emission from massive carbon pools and extreme global weather changes."
"Today's findings provide yet another urgent call for action to world leaders ahead of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen in December to rapidly and effectively curb global greenhouse gas emissions."
- reply
|The Anarctic Ice Cap is getting thicker - do any of you or your friends that work for Eric Holder ever stop to think that maybe these ICE Caps are cyclical? ---- Secondly, I like how you ignore the record low temperatures and precipitation to make your points --- even Al Gore avoids cameras these days. ---- time to go back to your handlers for more talking points.
- reply
|...found too willing to believe what he wants to believe instead of trusting real data and the scientific method applied by real scientists. Listens to crackpots like Professor Don Easterbrook of the eminent Western Washington University (one of Ken Campbell's deniers).
Ken left off the last paragraph of the actual article in his extract. Here it is:
"They incorporate solar and oceanic cycles into their models, and they say that - even if there are periods of slower warming, or temporary cooling, the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the up."
- reply
|Actually I left off the majority of the article. I posted an excerpt from the article and gave a link. Anonymous, just a quick question concerning your religion of Global Warming... what is the initial reference point? What does the Church of Global Warming teach... is the earth warmer than 4,000 years ago? Is it warmer than 2,000 years ago? Is it warmer than 500 years ago? Is it warmer than 100 years ago? May be it is warmer than 10 years ago? What is the Church's teaching on the initial reference point? And as a follow-up question, who was there to measure the temperature 4,000 years ago. Whoever was there to measure the temperature must have had very sensitive equipment to measure in tenths and hundreds of degrees. What does your scriptures of Global Warming say about that? Let's go skiing at Boreal Ridge.
- reply
|Anonymous, you have got to be a comic because you are too funny. Our local mountains already has had snow and it has been cold enough for the ski resorts to make snow. Boreal Ridge has opened for snow skiing... it has never, ever opened this early. Baseball playoffs are dealing with snow... when has that ever happened? And all that is due to Global Warming... that is funny. I really hope this Global Warming continues because I love to snow ski and the warmer it gets, the more snow we have... right?
Anonymous, if you are not trying to be a comic and you seriously believe the early winter and snow is due to global warming... well I have some swamp land in Florida I would like to sell you. If that is the case I really don't want to argue with you because it is fruitless to argue your religion. Facts are ignored as people worship at the church of Global Warming.
In the mean time how about if we go skiing at Boreal Ridge?
- reply
|It's a big earth, Ken. What is happening at Donner Summit this year as it relates to GLOBAL conditions...not the kind of scientific approach I had expected from someone with eight years of education after high school.
- reply
|It is actually 9 years when you count an internship, then after that having the position of professor at UOP. O.K. since you are unable to answer the question as to why Boreal Ridge has opened for snow skiing earlier this year than ever before in history and how that fits into your religion of Global Warming... here is another question for you. By fossil records, thousands of years ago, northern Africa had lush plants, abundant water and flourished with animals. Now it is a barren, desert wasteland... so who caused that "Global Warming" thousands of years ago? And for the bonus question please tell me what the baseline is for the warming... is today warmer than 2,000 years ago... is it warmer than 1,000 years ago... is it warmer than 500 years ago... is it warmer than 100 years ago? Let's go snow skiing at Boreal Ridge.
- reply
|Show me your studies, Ken. You know, peer-reviewed science, not a bunch of isolated facts. Let's be honest; you have political reasons for your position. They have nothing to do with science. The fact that you posted this trivial piece from a UK newspaper simply shows you are grasping at straws to make an argument that most realistic conservatives have already abandoned. You make it look like all of that education was wasted on you.
Republican senator says open to U.S. climate bill
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Republican in the United States Senate, conservative Senator Lisa Murkowski, said she would consider voting for a "cap and trade" climate change bill Democrats are pushing if it also contains a vigorous expansion of nuclear energy and domestic oil drilling.
In an interview set to air on Sunday on the C-SPAN cable TV network, Murkowski said cap and trade legislation, which aims to mandate reductions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, must protect consumers from energy price increases and contain safeguards against market manipulation of pollution permits that would be traded by companies.
Some of these elements already are included in Democratic legislation in the Senate and House of Representatives.
"Count me as one of those who will keep my mind open as we move forward," said Murkowski, the senior Republican on the Senate energy panel and a member of her party's leadership.
Murkowski's remarks came after her fellow conservative, Senator Lindsey Graham, published a column in The New York Times with liberal Senator John Kerry, in which they vowed to work together to advance legislation tackling global warming.
In signaling her willingness to work on a bill, Murkowski said Democrats must include tangible incentives for building nuclear power plants and stepping up domestic oil drilling, offshore and on land. It has got to be "more than just window dressing," she warned.
Most Republicans in Congress have dismissed the Democratic initiative as little more than a "national energy tax" that would kill U.S. jobs at a time when the country is grappling with severe economic problems.
While the full Senate probably will not have time this year to debate and vote on a climate change bill, the willingness of some Senate conservatives to consider major environmental legislation could keep the effort in play next year.
Legislation narrowly passed the House in June, but faces a tougher time in the Senate.
ALASKA SEEING CLIMATE CHANGE
Asked about the Kerry-Graham column, Murkowski said, "It's a good indicator that perhaps the conversation is changing."
As the senior senator from Alaska, Murkowski acknowledged problems that could be linked to climate change.
"When you see changes to the land coming about ... what is causing the loss of the sea ice that adds to the erosion issues, yes, in Alaska we are seeing change," she said. "That's why I have been one of those Republicans who has stepped out front a little bit more on the issue of climate change."
President Barack Obama has been urging Congress to pass a bill reducing industries' carbon emissions through a cap and trade system. It would require companies to hold a dwindling number of pollution permits over the next four decades.
Companies that find ways to use clean, alternative energy in manufacturing and end up with an excess number of permits could sell them to firms making slower environmental progress.
The effort in Congress is intended to be part of an international fight against global warming, which scientists say could bring catastrophic consequences as temperature changes hurt agriculture, especially in poor countries, and create more violent storms and the spread of disease.
The problem with weaning the world off of cheap, high-polluting fossil fuels is that they would be largely replaced by wind, solar and other energy sources that for now are more expensive, with some of the technology unproven.
(Editing by Chris Wilson)
- reply
|Again, nice try. You post the opinion of an idiot senator that happens to be a Republican. Global Warming, though it may be your religion is not politics to be argued by politicians. It should be science, proven or disproven by scientists. And boy those Republicans have great credibility... when they were in charge all they did was spend our country into debt. And now the Democrats are Republican spending on steroids.
I try to debate your Global Warming religion with facts and science, and you fall back on politicians that have NO credibility.
I ask you simple questions such as what is your baseline, the earth is warmer as compared to when? I ask you specific questions of Africa, baseball playoffs in the snow which has never happened, snow ski resorts opening earlier than ever before in history... and I ask you to reconcile that to "Global Warming". But instead you can not answer simple questions such as that, and you resort to idiot politicians rather than science.
O.K., let's go to another question. Politicians call carbon dioxide a "green house gas". A while back Carbon Dioxide levels throughout history was examined using core ice samples from the polar ice cap. Now scientist understand the core samples were easily contaminated and all that data once considered fact is now wrong. A much better indication of carbon dioxide in history comes from costal redwoods, and it discredits the information that scientists(?) like Algore and other idiot politicians use.
And speaking of carbon dioxide, do you understand, we, at a cellular level take in oxygen to turn gluclose to energy and carbon dioxide through glycolsis and the Krebs cycle. But not to worry, plants turn the carbon dioxide into oxygen through photosynthesis. It is a perfect design, we breath in oxygen, and through cellular metabolism we respire carbon dioxide, and plants use that carbon dioxide and respire oxygen... and the cycle goes round and round. So if you want to get rid of carbon dioxide, plant a tree.
You can bet idiot politicians don't know and/or understand that... which is why science is better left to us scientists rather than politicians.
And I am still waiting to see if you can give me your base line for global warming. But I will give you a hint, depending on the base line you choose, the earth can either be shown to be cooling or warming. The funny thing is, most politicians will chose a baseline where no industrial development took place which completely discredits their religion of Global Warming.
Let's go snow skiing at Borael Ridge since it is now opened... early than ever in history.
- reply
|Where's your science, Ken? Where is it? One - just one - peer-reviewed piece that disputes AGW. You are no scientist. You are a dentist - like Orly Taitz. Whoop-de-do.
You are so full of yourself. Hav you EVER admitted a mistake? In your life? If ego were hot air then we have found the true cause of AGW.
One peer-reviewed piece.
Find it, post it or shut up already.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
- reply
|This is a great example of why it is fruitless to argue religion, because facts are irrelevant... and such is the case for those who worship in the Church of Global Warming with the high priest Algore. No science, just idiot politicians... jee Algore is a scientist, right? Don't you think if you are so sure of global warming you should know when the earth was cooler? Even the blindest worshiper in the Church of Global Warming should be able to look at a graft of the temperature changes on the earth and see that the temperatures vary both up and down. Depending which period you look at it is either getting cooler or warmer.
O.K. here is an idea for the global warming church to pursue. Cow flatulent are green house gasses. Why don't you guys to get your precious government along with your pal Obama to allocate stimulus money to buy corks to put in the butts of all cows so they can not produce green house gasses? Your high priest Algore should have done that after he invented the Internet.
- reply
|Ken,
What on Earth are you talking about? There you sit atop a position that has no basis in real science and you accuse ME of treating facts as irrelevant?
Anyone with half a brain following this string knows you are full of bull. The evidence that the earth is in a dramatic warming period caused by man is extensive and conclusive. The only question - in the minds of REAL scientists, not dentists - is what to do about it.
It's not a religion, Ken. It's science.
Read up a little bit...your information is totally out of date. Start here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/climate-change/
- reply
|This is entertaining, I have never met anyone so sold out to the religion of global warming and so committed to the high priest Algor... inventor of the Internet. Let me guess, I bet you think 911 was an inside job? I bet you believe Obamacare is going to take care of everyone's healthcare, with no rationing, it will be cheaper and it will not add "one dime" to the deficit? And your hero, the guy you look up to is Algore who claimers to have invented the Internet right before he invented global warming. That is too funny!
So since you seem to believe you are all knowing, a great scientist, one of the greatest thinkers of all time... so assume global warming is more than a religion of tree-huggers... what would you do to solve the impending apocalypse? The polar ice caps will all melt, CA will be underwater, we will have scorching heat, no food, sickness, famine, death, plagues, wars as we fight over any remaining resources and land that is not under water. If we don't take care of this problem now, in 10 years we will be gone. So what would you do to solve this problem??
Seeing that mankind is a huge emitter of carbon dioxide, we breath in oxygen and respire carbon dioxide, should we all hold our breaths? Or would you advocate getting rid of people... may be like China's one child policy. Or are you pushing the idea of the cork in the cow's butts since cows are a huge emitter of green house gasses?
If you can peal yourself off that tree for a few minutes I would be very interested in how you would avert the impending apocalypse. I sit at your feet to learn from you, one of the greatest minds of all time.
- reply
|The first step is to acknowledge human-driven global warming exists which you may be finally doing with your last post by asking me what I would do about it.
That's good. First admit there's a problem. Can't move on without that.
The second question is policy. How fix the problem? There is no question that good people will disagree about policy solutions. But the disagreements should be about what to do that will make an impact not whether to take action or not.
Apparently you are in favor of killing people and stuffing corks in bovine back ends. I don't think those options are very appealing. They are entertaining, though. Every time I drive past Harris Ranch I wish the whole thing was under some sort of smell shield. Unfortunately, that's not very practical. As a business person with a technology background I am extremely pragmatic.
But people could eat far less meat and cut back on dairy. That could reduce the need for cattle and therefore the methane they produce. This could be promoted by raising the cost of beef through taxes that reflect the environmental damage of producing cattle for slaughter. See? Not so hard to come up with viable alternatives if you stop gritting your teeth for a moment. You may not like that one but you have to admit it could work, at least at some level. There are other alternatives to beef in a diet. Are there job and industry implications? You bet. There have always been these changes as technology improves and humans learn to deal with issues at a different level.
In my case I have installed a large solar electric system at my home and bought energy saving appliances such as a tankless water heater and front-load washer. One car gets 30 mpg and the other, a small pickup, gets a lousy 21 but with two kids in college I can't swing a new vehicle at the moment.
On a larger scale the country can take many actions to promote a faster transition from carbon-based energy sources to renewables. Yes it will take time but it can also spawn an entire new industry where America can lead in technology and manufacturing while reducing dependence on foreign oil. Less dependence on foreign oil ultimately means smaller military expenditures which can be ploughed back into the energy transition...a virtuous cycle.
There are many ways to go about this that respect jobs and the economy but don't involve sticking our heads in the sand and doing nothing hoping the market will sort it out. Eventually. Too late, perhaps.
On your other comments suffice to say I am not a member of either the truther movement nor the birther movement. Conspiracy theories are amusing but I work from hard facts. One fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree the earth is warming from human causes. Another fact is that America's outcomes on health care are far behind most developed countries despite our higher level of spending. As with global warming I think the facts and analysis are clear for the U.S. health care system: There is a real, serious problem and the question is what to do about it.
For health care the solution cannot involve small tweaks around the edges. The problem is too big. But it requires something. I don't know what Obamacare is - that's a politically-loaded, non-factual term that has no real meaning. But I do think a public option will force positive change. In fact, according to a WaPost/ABC News poll released yesterday, I'm in the majority on that one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html?hpid=topnews
Be honest with yourself, Ken. You're too smart to allow politics or money to cloud your thinking on these important issues.
- reply
|Great, now we are hearing some of your ideas, eat less beef... forcing that by higher taxes. You are for a "public option" in health care. And you had a number of other ways government can control the way we do things. As a general rule would you believe government should take from people, may be according to their ability, and then turn around and give that to other people, may be according to their needs?
And another question, with your ideas of solving global warming, do you think that is enough? Will that save the planet? Is there enough time to save the planet? How will you get everyone to take those steps???
- reply
|Obstructionism and inaction won't solve global warming or fix U.S. health care.
As I said, reasonable people will disagree on the solutions to these huge problems. But the first step is to admit there's a problem and that the problem requires action to solve. I think that's what AA asks people to do when they start their program.
Of course I don't think the steps I listed are enough or even the right steps. Not at all. They are just examples. My only point with engaging with you here was to contest the flawed premise of your original post which flatly denied the global climate is warming, that the warming is human caused, and that it is an extremely important and, yes, urgent issue to address.
- reply
|Well if you don't know the answer to global warming, who does? It had better happen real fast, because from what you are saying we are running out of time... if we already have not run out of time. And even if you know the answer, who is going to enforce it, not only in this country, but around the world. Do you think there should be some kind of global government to enforce solutions to global warming? Shouldn't something happen real soon???
I was interested to see what your response to my question of healthcare. There are people with out health care insurance, there are people who are homeless, the need seems so great. Do you think it would be fair to take from those according to their ability and give to those who have a need??
- reply
|The old Karl Marx line, huh? Pretty lame, Ken. You know, you're not the only one with an advanced degree who posts on this site. Did you know good ole Karl didn't actually coin the phrase? It was some other communist. A French guy, no less. Sheesh. Are you something else, or what?
There are many people without health care, Ken. Funny you should ask. My wife is right at this moment on the phone with her niece, let's call her Stacey. She is 17 and lives in southwest Florida. Stacey has a younger half-sister who is 13.
Stacey and her sister found out yesterday that their mother, my wife's brother's ex-wife, has cancer throughout her body and brain. Stacey's mom does not have health insurance and she has very little money. She kept putting off seeing a doctor - even after she felt a lump in her breast - because she was too proud to accept services for free and hoped and prayed for the best. She stayed at home and just got worse and worse while keeping her daughter's in the dark about how bad she felt. They just did what they could to help her.
Finally Stacey called 911 because her mom could no longer get out of bed and they had no one to turn to for help. Her mother had had two marriages end in ugly divorces and apparently didn't think her ex husbands would be much help even though their children were living with her. After a series of tests the hospital told the girls that their mother is dying and has less than a month to live. No treatment; she is going right to hospice. The girls had no idea it was that bad.
Who knows how this story would have been different had Stacey's mother had health insurance? She is forty-nine years old. My wife is going to fly out to see what she can do for the girls. She had talked to Stacey about her mom over the last few weeks but based on what Stacey had told my wife, who had met Stacey's mother years ago, my wife thought her mother had a drinking or drug problem and had lost her motivation. Stacey's mother had made a point of keeping the girls in the dark.
That's real life far away from the country club, Ken. Real people, some who make pretty stupid decisions, some flawed by addiction, others simply overwhelmed by how complicated the health care system is. Unfortunately Stacey's mother's story is repeated thousands of times every day across this country, the wealthiest country in the world without universal health care.
I know, it's not YOUR problem. You've got yours. According to your ability and all. Don't ask me if I'm proud of you.
- reply
|O.K., I got you... you are all for government run health care-- presumedly because government - Obama, Reede, Pelosi, et.al.- can do a much better job than the greedy, money hungry private sector. So do you think health insurance is a right? What about housing, is having a house a right? What about a car? Should government provide everyone with these rights? May be our Constitution is outdated? After all it was written almost 230 years ago and the people who wrote it surely could not have anticipated the world we live in. And there was no diversity in the signers of the Founding Documents... there were no women, no blacks, no Hispanics, only white Europeans. So do you think the Constitution is outdated and should be re-written?
I still want to know if you think from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, is a fair system and should be used today. Who is the political philosopher you look to?
- reply
|You can't accept that you are talking to someone who is not on the "far left", can you, Ken? You think you are in a debate with some socialist or communist just because I don't agree with your views on science and global warming?
What's my motivation for universal health care? Money.
Huh?
Yep. It costs our society a lot more to deal with the uninsured the way we do in the U.S. rather than simply provide access to quality, preventive-oriented health care to all. It's only common sense. I'm talking about the impact to the overall economy. It's sinfully stupid that 1/6th of our GDP is health care. How can conservatives support a system like that? Yours is a very narrow-minded view. This isn't just a taxes and government spending equation. It's the total financial impact that seems to get scarce attention in this debate.
As a business person I have to look at foundational processes. The things that have to be in place for the business to be successful. Employee health is a major focus for most smart companies. They understand that a healthy work force is key to a productive work force. By extension a healthy workforce means more profits. Why wouldn't it be the same for the nation as a whole? Healthy citizens are more productive and the result is faster economic growth. The uninsured - people like Stacey's mother and millions of others - are a brake on GDP. Real conservatives would get it. They would understand that their income is impacted by an expensive and ineffective health care system to a greater extent than what it would cost them to ensure the country has universal health care.
Universal health care is fiscally conservative and aligns with conservative moral values. I don't care if the system available to the average citizen includes a public option or is completely private but we have tried private for many years and it is not working, and there are some good examples of well-functioning public systems such as the VA (which I can personally vouch for).
I'm advocating a change, something to get this process off the dime. If you have a great idea that will provide affordable care to all Americans through a completely private solution I am all ears. So far conservatives have simply stonewalled or offered marginal proposals such as limiting or eliminating pre-existing condition restrictions. If you desire to lead this country then you need to lead with better ideas, ideas grounded in conservative values but based on fresh and more robust views of the macro impact of policy change.
- reply
|We have an outstanding political system in the United States based on the Constitution, a document so far ahead of its time when it was written that we can only marvel at the men who produced it. I think it can survive without major change for many, many more generations. Nothing is forever but look at how long the Magna Carta has influenced Western law and government. The Constitution is something we should protect at all costs. I once swore an oath to do so and then did so with a gun on my shoulder. Have you put your life on the line for it? I have faced armed communists. I even voted for Reagan. You don't have any idea what my political philosophy is. You just want to paint me as some far-left liberal because then you can dismiss my ideas. Sorry.
Communism, meanwhile, is one of those political systems that has not withstood the test of time. It was never a realistic system and it's too bad it took so long to die off. I don't for a moment believe that the PRC, the largest and most successful remaining "communist" country, is based on the ideas of Karl Marx. It's simply a dictatorship like Singapore dedicated to political control through economic prosperity. Real communist governments are either long gone or are hanging on for dear life in isolated places like Cuba and North Korea. Communism is dead. Good riddance.
Getting back to the Constitution. I don't believe in an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as if this were still 1787. I think people like you who say the Constitution doesn't support a role for government to ensure universal health care are taking advantage of the document for their own purposes. Indeed there is room in the Constitution for the government to guarantee health care to all Americans. It's that pesky "promote the general welfare" statement in the preamble and the introduction to the section on Federal powers: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...".
If "general welfare" as understood in 1787 didn't include universal health care that doesn't mean we can't understand it to mean that in 2009. Life in these United States is very different today and we now understand the value of health for the nation as a whole much bettter than when the Constitution was written and the average American could expect to live to between 35 and 60 years of age in advanced New England and to only 25 to 35 years of age in the South (according to the Oxford Companion to U.S. History - Boyer, 2001).
Finally, your extension of the idea of constitutional support for the concept of universal health care to guarantees of universal access to housing and cars and TVs and iPods is childish. It's nothing but a political device and thinking people see right through it. Perhaps in some distant day in the future society will come to the conclusion that universal transportation is an essential part of the general welfare but that is certainly not the view today. If you spent less time thinking up straw men and phony slippery-slope arguments you could put more time into those big ideas based on sound conservative principles that I described in my last post.
- reply
|That is a great description for a "living and breathing" Constitution. The Constitution changes with time. The Founders could not have possibly understood the times we now live in... the standard needs to change. I feel like I have just been lectured by Algore. What is white is now black and what is down is now up. A living, breathing Constitution is now conservative along with socialized medicine.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was promulgated by the Founders to limit the powers of the Federal Government. They understood that the bigger the Federal government grows, the more freedom and individual liberties we lose. America is great because of freedom... not because of your precious bloated Federal Government. The thing about socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money... and that will happen to your utopian, cradle to grave nanny type government you desire. For you liberals, it is not enough to be a vegetarian, you have to pass laws to make everyone else a vegetarian. It is not enough for you guys to drive put-put cars, you need to force everyone else to do the same. And the list could go on but suffice to say, for some reason you liberals must try to micromanage everyone's life, and Americans are losing their freedom and you liberals are ruining our country. Just stay the hell out of our lives and concentrate on managing your own failed lives.
The events taking place in Washington now is why the War for Independence was fought. Personally I hope it is a peaceful revolution and we go back to the founding principles that has made this country great for over 200 years. People say we are in uncertain times, invest in gold... I think a better investment is lead.
- reply
|The lack of connection between your demonized version of me and what I actually have posted here is clear to anyone who isn't blinded by their own ideology. This is like debating with a toy that has a pull string. No matter what you say when you pull the string one of the same, pat phrases will play.
Pull string: "Socialist! Big government"
Pull string: "Liberal Algore lover"
Pull string: "Tax and spend commie"
Etc.
Sigh. All of that education wasted on you. Too bad.
- reply
|I am blinded by the love of freedom, the incredible opportunity that this country affords, and an incredible respect for this country's Founding Documents... you can seem to relate to that.
- reply
|Post new comment