Is Obama Going to Play Nice?

According to the popular press, the country has now come together to transform the nation, including the Republicans. The evidence, they say is that the Republicans and Democrats will sit together at the president's State of the Union address. Presumably, the Republicans will also stand to applaud with the Democrats. Although there was never any strict practice, the two parties usually sit on opposite sides of the isle and the opposition party usually keeps it's seat during the frequent standing ovations. In point of fact, this is merely another public relations ploy of the Democrats and the Party sponsored press. It will be informative to see which Republicans keep their seats after some of the more provocative statements that are sure to come from Barack Obama. In other words, we will see which Republicans are not sell-outs and which ones are.

Much of the recent discussion regarding a more 'civil discourse,' is pre-election positioning by the Democrats. As usual, they claim to be moderate as an election approaches. Unfortunately, the left, the Democrats, and certainly BHO never change their plans and policies. When they are ideologically radically liberal and far left, they rarely if ever change, especially while in power. What we are hearing is a public relations, propaganda campaign for two purposes. First, to get more moderate, independent votes. Second, to intimidate the Republicans so that they will become more moderate or even moderately leftist. Republicans, especially those who claim conservatism, have to learn to ignore the press. We have our own press now and need not depend upon the discredited 'lame-stream' press. (See the New York Times' recent attack of Glen Beck. Their article is not only uncivil, it is based upon entirely untrue premises. Glen Beck has consistently and conscientiously discredited the left only by playing their own words. His long clips of the likes of Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Frances Fox Piven*, George Soros, and Barack Obama himself are not played out of context. His presentations are carefully analysed and fairly presented, unlike the 'news' stories on MSNBC and The New York Times. The Democrats, even Colin Powell, have the audacity to accuse talk radio and Fox News of doing precisely what they themselves do constantly as a conscious policy -- chickenshit.

*Piven, who wrote, "The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income." See Wikipedia, Coward and Piven, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

(Note: In case you don't know, Frances Fox Piven and George Soros are two of Glen Beck's favorite radical progressive leftists, after Commissar Cass Sunstien and Communist Van Jones.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591374,00.html

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/

Huffington Post Gets It Right Sort Of

Huffington Post's story on this subject:

"Glenn Beck has uncovered a plot! (Yes, another one.) Turns out Van Jones, President Obama’s green jobs czar, is going to coordinate a vast radical/communist/black nationalist takeover of our sweet, virginal land of liberty. Most diabolical of all, he’s going to do it by organizing efforts to train and employ low-income people in private sector jobs. Don’t you understand? They’re going to take over from the inside! You know: them. Admit it, it’s brilliant. Here Beck exposes the cabal of Big Labor, Big Green, Big Business, and Big Commie, orchestrated by the many-tentacled Apollo Alliance"

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-30-van-jones-is-a-communist-intent-on-creating-private-sector-jobs/

Right on Huffy.

Huffington Post also reports today that the US Chamber of Commerce wants a court trial of Global Warming. That also seems appropriate to me. If the press had given us the promised debate, a trial would not be needed.

Albert Einstein said that his theory of relativity could not be proven. Instead he stated three propositions, which if empirically proven, would disprove relativity. He also wrote a book that he said was understandable to anyone with a high school education (at the time), in which he derives and explains his theory. I think that we should demand similar exposition of man made global warming theory before we waste our precious time, manpower, and resources on Cap-and-Trade or any similar scheme.

The books written about global warming for the general public, are 99% devoted to the supposedly dire results of global warming. I suppose a little is also devoted to the claim that CO2 control is the only solutions. I read a book written about atmospheric science that came out in the late 1960. (by John Houghton, Cambridge University.) It was over my head, but I could get the general idea of each chapter without following the mathematical development completely. It was about all of the physical (i.e. scientific) factors that need to be addressed and calculated in the determination of weather and climate. His conclusion regarding human caused global warming via a greenhouse mechanism was that the evidence was inconclusive. We need more books like that with a slightly less mathematical approach. Professor Houghton's recent book on the subject is somewhat dumbed down. It is mainly about conclusions and their ramifications. He talks about the "precautionary principle." He does bring up economics as a consideration. I cannot comment on that without reading a little more. I bought the book recently and I will read it. The earlier book I had checked out of the library a while back and had for only one month. I would recommend the first book and similar ones, although they are scarce compared to the "we are doomed" variety. Professor's Houghton's conclusion in the second book also seems to be that he is not sure if human generated green house gases are a significant determinate of climate. Unfortunately, he devotes most of the book to dire consequences assuming it is true. He does not seem to get into mitigation of those consequences via preparations, etc. HE DOES NOT, nor does anyone else, play devil advocate by giving any kind of evenhanded presentation of alternative theories or mitigation proposals nor does it respond to objections. Remember: the debate is over unless you're a complete dope.

Questions we have not adequately explored:

1) Is there global warming?

2) Is it caused by man?

3) What is the best way to prevent global warming and/or mitigate its affects if it is going on?