Art Bell Continues the Non-Debate

I sent Art Bell the following:

"As soon as I have the time, I will put a new post on my blog: Art Bell Continues the Non-Debate. My website is called chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.com. Pardon the name. I started it chiefly because of the direction things were going. However, it is not an angry website. If anyone is angry about your program tonight, it is because the alternative global warming view is entirely ignored, or mischaracterized. Long ago, we were promised a scientific debate but the proponents debated themselves then declared that the debate was over and we lost.

I realize that Coast to Coast has been great in presenting both sides. I have listened ever since some guy called in about bats i his bedroom about 15 years ago. George Noory especially does a better job than anyone on the air with presenting both sides of all disputed issues. (By the way, man-made global warming is disputed.) So I would ask you to have a rebuttal program yourself. Hearing both sides is only fair."

Art was filling in on Coast to Coast AM for George Norry. I used to agree with most of his views, but tonight, he is off his rocker! The guest, the head of the National Wildlife Foundation was a real global warmy. He said the same old things that we have been hearing for years, as if no arguments to the contrary had ever been advanced. Of course, tonight he talks a lot about the Gulf Oil Spill. Likewise, he does not address the claims that regulations that stopped drilling in safer places helped to cause the spill. He mentions that Republicans and older people are just unable to understand the obvious and are obstructing progress, by which he means cap-and-trade legislation. He does not mention the accusations that PB is a very Democrat leaning company that favored cap-and-trade and donated a million to BHO's campaign.

They do not address the cost of cap-and-trade. They do not mention any alternative defense against global warming, if there is any, man-made or otherwise. They certainly do not mention the massive graft, greed, and conflicts of interest of the cap-and-trade proponents. They question, without phrasing it as such, the value of our constitutional form of government. They do not question the cost to liberty. Art goes along with it all, hook, line, and sinker! He wants "this" done now, by whatever means it takes. I couldn't believe it, he was totally off the deep end.

They ignore the arguments against cap-and-trade. That's nothing new; they only get away with it because of their virtual control of the press. So much can be said about the attitude of the guest (is he a god of the copybook heading?) but I have already said it. I guess it must be repeated. ... to be continued.

Global Warmies Keep Rolling Along

We can expect damage control after the recent exposure of lies from the global warming so-called scientists. Our answer is that a diploma, government grant, or high paying quasigovernmental job does not a scientist make. The latest damage control talking point is that the 'science' is still rock hard, just a few of the spokespeople got a little carried away. There is still not one word of a scientific nature from the current spokespeople in defense of their proposition that manmade CO2 causes significant global warming. The science is settled, it is 'rock hard.' The dire climate situation is worse that we thought. Instead of being 64.7% sure, we are now 97.8% sure that we are correct about being doomed if we continue the current unsustainable course. (By the way they failed to mention the 64.7% part when they made their earlier dire predictions.)

A strong indication of where the are coming from is that almost invariably they eventually advance the augment that even if there is no global warming, this is still the right thing to do. The 'thing' is often unstated but what they want and have always wanted is a cap-and-trade like scheme. Cap-and-trade schemes, by their own terms, involve new government controls over any enterprise that uses energy.

(There was an elitist demagogue so-called scientist on the Bryan Suits KVI radio show the other day, who used the 'rock hard' talking point)

In any event, we still await a scientific (i.e. mathematical) statement of the global warming theory, if any exists. Then we want to see their scientific defenses of their theory. Then we can take it apart scientifically. If there are other environmental arguments for more economic interference in the way energy is obtained, supplied, and used; those are different questions. We would be glad to refute those and we have refuted those separately. (Which is precisely why they need the global warming deception.) If changes in policy are proposed because of global warming, then we want to have the global warming debate. It was promised and is overdue. They claim they had the debate among themselves and we lost. Public policy should be an open covenant, openly arrived at, shouldn't it?

Healthcare Battle Royal

The McLaughlin Group was very entertaining last night. In this public television program, the gentlemanly host, John McLaughlin attempted to moderate a discussion between a few news people with markedly different viewpoints. There was a Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. A leftist ideologue with decorum and a humorous aloofness. The other liberal, Elena Clift from News Week was a good example of why Rush Limbaugh calls this publication Obama Week. The conservatives, Rich Lowry of National Review and Monica Crowley of the Washington Post seem unflinchingly right on, (at least from my point of view.)

A few issues were discussed before they got to the health care plan. The form and not the substance soon became the message. The panel members could not finish half a sentence before they were interrupted by loud, vehement objections from their antagonists. The audience as well as the participants soon lost track of the substance of the debate. Mr. McLaughlin, as apparently is the format, addressed a question so pointed to Mr. Page that it seemed to me a cross examination that could not be met without capitulating the point completely. In fact, he liked the question so much that he repeated it two or three times, each with more devastating intonations. Mr. Page's deft retort was that he would gladly answer the question if only Mr. McLaughlin would stop asking it. Although I believed that his answer would be mostly obfuscation, it really didn't matter since he had already scored a point by discrediting the questioner. The answer and the question were soon forgotten.

It was gratifying to see such august personages behaving verbally like barroom brawlers. It was really impossible to hear what anyone was saying. Ms. Clift gained the floor for a few seconds when she shouted that she just wanted to finish her sentience. She did quickly finish her sentence and three or four more, then, although she was interrupted by everyone, she kept on talking, I believe, till the end of the segment.

The most effective arguments came from Monica Crowly. She articulated well some of the stronger conservative, pro-capitalism points with a single minded clarity that won her ten or twelve uninterrupted seconds. She capitalized on the fact that it is hard to defend some of the presidents statements. For instance, how can we believe we can keep our health insurance, as he repeatedly promises, after actually reading the bill. No one really tried to address this or any of her and Mr. Lowry's points and no one would have heard them if they did.

A realization came to me this morning when I spoke to a group of people at a Democrat Booth at the local Ethnic Fest. All I really wanted was a bottle of water for which I gave them the requested donation. When I saw the title of the Single Payer petition that they wanted me to sign. I told them, I thought politely, that that would never happen. They immediately started to recite talking points, which I attempted to refute by explaining that shortcomings in health care are chiefly the results of prior liberal programs. As they would not stop the talking points that I would not stop trying to refute, we were soon shouting to be heard. I really did not refute anything since I am not good with talking points. I walked away, repeating that single payer is something I could never be convinced to agree with because it is socialism, which is always a bad choice.

This and other experiences convince me that this is a pivotal issue that goes to the heart of people's political beliefs. It cannot be decided by talking points. Talking points usually offer an 'either or' type of analysis without admitting that there may be solutions other than theirs. If all I am given for an option is socialism, which is a false dichotomy, I would still not choice socialism, which the current proposal is (or a short step from it.) If some people have been forced into bankruptcy by medical bills or have been treated unfairly by their insurance company, that is still not as bad as socialism. Socialism is always a bad choice. Find a different solution or leave it as it is. What we have had of freedom, should convince everyone that freedom is the principle to strive for in any solution.

I try to point and link to those who, by careful analysis, explain that Socialism cannot succeed. Under socialism, the administrators do not have the data to make efficient allocation of our scarce resources. Only the price system of the free market can do that. Furthermore, the current medical proposal is proof that partial socialism will inevitably lead to complete socialism. Interference with the system is what has lead to problems that they are now offering to solve by more interference. This process will continue after our current interference until we have complete socialism in medicine then everything else. Under socialism, everyone is made poorer. All aspects of the economy are burdened, eventually to the breaking point.

The bitter irony is that the liberals claim to help people, while it is the conservatives who actually know how to do it. This is a paradox similar to the truth that sometimes big wars can only be prevented by small wars.