Please check out this study. Petition Project Its conclusion, Global Warming is not caused by Man. It is a natural trend that has existed for thousands of years. CO2 is not a harmful gas, has not produced increase hurricane/tornado/drought/sea-level increases/glacial melting. Who is right?
We members of the rational and reasonable modern era; that era I define as when the world accepted, often begrudgingly, American military and commercial dominance as an empirical fact, have established, in the interest of servicing a vivid imagination, as well as, an insatiable curiosity, a continuum of debates over irresolvable subjects. The origin and the contesting of these subjects are thousands of years old. They have nourished the contextual of fiction and non-fiction; these subjects have catalyst the most profound and the silliest of actions. Nevertheless, although there seems to be no solution, no consensus of the moral right or wrong, the debate is aggressively intense with life and death consequences as more than simply a possibility.
Spurred on by humankind’s propensity for hubristic excess, the debate, although never settled by the sensibility of the rational and reasonable, even at the cost of the most horrific outcome, humankind, maintaining the conventional course, debates the merits of alternative political ideals, the theory or reality of a number of economic systems, they attend or not, to Pandora’s revenge of initiating World-Wide suffering, emitting hope as a resolution of convenience, integrating the good, the bad, and the ridiculous into the ever complex nuances of human behavior; the debaters thrive within their sphere of confusion, befuddlement, and their time without end.
Americans must understand that a tangent forewarning of any policy of intercourse among nation states are the recognition that violent conflict benchmarks the history of every culture. Every society, since man thought to sharpen the end of a stick, has adopted mores of war-like acceptance, indeed, under many circumstances societal mores honor the killing of other human beings. It seems obvious that conflict, in general, is an inherent risk of discourse; noting that (I believe) the historical behavior of humankind is a sound harbinger of future result. Utilizing reasonable deduction as the means of establishing the worthiness of my heretofore assumptions, my declaration is that: ‘Peacefulness’ in the face of the threat of war is never fully secured by a single tiered policy of merely talking over the issues of disagreement; but, by America’s willingness to use superior power. This use of superior power could include trade, distribution of value or valuables, guarantees, the disbursement of specific resources, including cash, as well as, a plethora of other tangibles and intangibles; however, without the willingness to use the overwhelming power of a nation’s armed force, all other means of securing ‘peacefulness’ will fail.
As I view the landscape of humankind, the everlasting contesting of irresolvable subjects’ are numb to oral persuasion; the so called rational and reasonable will never harvest the desired result; America is the only nation state positioned to enable the righteous, safeguard the weak, feed the hungry, abate the suffering, secure trade routes, as well as, render surety of goods delivered and international agreements upheld.
Withstanding, the debate of the irresolvable will continue forever; the debaters will decide from time to time to kill each other; the weak will suffer, the contesting for dominance within the ranks of the less than number one will endure all sensibilities to the contrary and in the final analysis America’s resolve to enact a difference is not forthcoming; America will turn a blind eye to the issue and simply enjoin with the debaters of the irresolvable.
Those of the liberal persuasion equates reasonable, rational, and sensible with the essential characteristics for the implementation of a sound and successful foreign policy; liberals for sure, but, particularly, those liberals on the far left of the American political spectrum, assume problems solvable via the utility of logic and deductive application. The assumption is that the rouge nation’s leadership appreciates, understands and is indeed purely seeking some sort of common ground methodology, possibly, a clarification of policy is the only distance to be marched, or maybe something simple like a US military deployment, carelessly made, that has not been understood by these rouge states and as soon all of these encumbrances on friendship have been cleared up, peace in our time will prevail. Pulling our forces out of Iraq even Afghanistan maybe the proper policy for our enemies to reconcile with the American people-surely, if such a pullout took place the Europeans would embrace us as friends.
Liberals believe that the World-Wide distribution of American military might is not a protective shield; but, a provocation of imperialistic remembering; a clearly demonstrated willingness of America to use physical force to enforce our foreign policy or worst…to enforce our sense of righteousness on an unwilling international community. Accordingly, if only we Americans would change our government’s policy these rouge nations would light a candle and the current behavior of unremitting hostility (that our present policy promotes) would abruptly end.
History evidences quite the contrary of these closely held liberal beliefs; nevertheless, such lack of historical precedence, does not sway those committed to a leftist political agenda to consider the merits of an alternative prospective or even to rethink the success of existing policy. Instead, the provocateurs of change, with no need of an evidentiary tangible, intent on servicing a contrarian prospective for the sake of some indefinable contrarian objective are promoting a foreign policy with lots of carrots and no stick.
Senator Obama founds his international policy on the simple presumption that today’s policy is a failure; therefore, let’s try something new; maybe, a new differing policy creates a successful result. However rouge nations may indeed be the antitheses of reasonable, rational, and sensible; they maybe driven by a diabolical need to destroy America and all things considered American influenced. I wonder in that atmosphere of hostile disregard how would the Obama negotiations respond?
Since 9/11, President Bush’s policy has stymied all attempts by terrorist towards attacking the nation; his policy has protected the flow of oil out of the gulf; no matter the growing strength of Iran’s limited partnership in the Middle East all the partners understand their limitations. Israel is assured of protection evidenced by the physical presence of US forces and America is wining the hearts and minds of the unwilling.
Diplomatic solutions to issues of angst between America and its counter parties are enhanced by the look-and-see surety of American power. Less the awesome power of American force of arms, for Americans, as well as, all those democratically inspired peoples of the world, the alternative to American power is domination by Russia or China; any who doubt my conclusive, read a few chapters of world history.
This latest rife over President Bush’s speech in Israel; wherein, the president’s noted that appeasement is a fallible policy, utilizing Britain’s experience with the German government of 1938 as an example, whereby, Mr. Obama and friends’ went ‘berserk’ with awfully silly responses, has once again moved the Democratic Party off message. I ask of readership, how difficult would it have been for the Democrats to simply agree that appeasement is a fallible policy? They could have gone on to describe Mr. Obama’s offer to sit with no preconditions and hold face-to-face presidential level meetings with nation states accused by most western states as rouge nations who support terrorist and the policy of terror as a means to some difficult to define end. They could go on to emphasis the Obama policy of speaking with our enemies as a viable alternative to the past and current foreign policy; accepting that such a new strategy with those who pledge the destruction of Israel, as well as, America is a ‘surge diplomacy,’ nothing less and nothing more.
But instead, the Democrats decide firstly that the President had pointedly highlighted Mr. Obama and secondly, the president with malicious fore thought was aiming to disrupt the election process. Well, now they will be sending their representative on all the talk shows to defend their silly response instead of staying on message.
I do think the electorate deserves less nonsense and more sense…
I do find it interestingly NUTS that the constituent votes for a candidate founded on the political governing principles espoused by the candidate; when the candidate is elected he or she compromises on the very principles that motivated the constituent’s vote; reasoning, that if there was no compromise there would be deadlock…nothing would go forward. Well, if compromise is the overriding principle governess why not say exactly that going in? The candidate should run on the principle of compromise not on some hyperbole of governing principles of infrequent possibility.
Surely, in the world of politics comprise is the vehicle that greases the legislation into law; however, as such I must question the veracity in the truth of any original thought that intent on becoming law because intent transforms itself from the ideal to the implemented and in the process sterilizes the original into a synthesis unrecognized by the originators of the original thought. I believe that compromise is the poison pill of justice, fairness, reasonableness, righteousness, principles, ideals, and sensibility. I say if there is not enough votes to pass as intended do not pass the legislation. The elected legislator would respond of course with disdain as to my unsophisticated legislative approach; unless of course, if I was substantial cash donor to his political sway; the response would be to take the issue to committee.
If the northern states had not bowed to southern requirements, slavery would have ended years earlier and yes there may not have been the revolution of 1776 but there would not have been a civil war eight-five years later and on and on.
Compromise is the root of all nonsense and as such sprouts of corruption is sure to blossom.
Since the early development of this nation’s governmental design, from the forming of the Articles of Confederation to the passing of the Constitution in 1789, political disagreements regarding the power of the federal government vs. states rights (the interaction of both as to the effect on individual freedoms) have generated acrimonious controversies. Despite the many congressional compromises, the personal Herculean efforts of Henry Clay, the persuasion of the calm and reasonable, within eighty-five years of this nation’s birth, the dispute over issues of power (their limitations, scope and statutory form), developed ultimately into a horrific civil war.
Almost from the day of the signing of the Treaty of Paris the thirteen states quarreled with each other over issues of sovereignty, trade, taxation, and central government debt service. Ten years after the Declaration of Independence fifteen hundred former Continental Army soldiers marched on a local court house to protest the seizer of land and other property for failing to pay taxes or mortgages; the rebellious veterans forcibly shut it down. Many of these soldiers still had not been paid their wages from the war of independence; debtor’s prisons were filling, there was little order and much state and local government corruption. Leaders of the time: Washington, Hamilton and Madison to name a few, recognized the need to address the weakness of the Articles of Confederation in favor of a stronger central government; hence, the Philadelphia convention, resulting in the Constitution of the United States and the beginnings of serious political disagreements concerning its interpretation.
There were objective, subjective, as well as traditional-cultural, even possibly subliminal influences coupled with perplexing motivations for the leading political figures of the time to adamantly disagree; however, on their merits, the differences expressed so forcefully, were summoned by the aggregate of certain seemingly unflinching core beliefs. Interestingly enough, the expressions of emotional hostility regarding the differing political-economic values of hundreds of years ago are very familiar with today’s political grievances rendering validation to the verbiage that history repeats itself.
I do believe that the politically inspired infighting and outfighting of the post Washington Administration does NOT differ significantly from the politically motivated chaotic nonsensical of election year 2008.
Naturally, technology has changed the battlefield of political engagement; nevertheless, the cornerstone of disagreements remains the same. If one could segregate the continuum of frivolous political politicking and the political parties’ inclination to immerse in such nonsense, if the political bias of emotionally charged affiliated media would act with responsibility instead of throwing wood into the fire simply to create more smoke, if only the pundit’s interference was less gotcha entertainment and more relevant informing, and if the ever present scurrilous meddling by the peddlers of personal smut would just disappear; in short order, without too much confusion one would be able to decipher the differing of one’s opinion on an issue of importance from the other. But because one cannot segregate oneself from the entire heretofore mentioned, one is instead susceptible to the contrivance of preferential pictures, machinations of sound bytes, and the relentless 24/7 constancy of politically bias horn blowing.
I assume the question of this election year is whether the electorate can decipher fact from fiction, reality from illusion, and meaningfulness from the slight of hand.
I believe in the historical maxim that those who have less want more and those who have ‘the more’ want to protect their assets from those who have less. Those who have will always be suspicious of those who have less. The fear is ancient. The concept of redistributing wealth is as old as the accumulation of wealth. It is the mantra of dictators, rebels, and wannabe of every description; it is also the drum beat of the American politician of today and yesterday. The politician out of power or the politician desiring to retain power suggests to the voter that if elected he or she will render something of tangible value. Be it free educational benefits, free health care, less taxation, financial grants, earmark restitution from federal taxation, the passing of some favorable law, or the rescission of a particular law. The promise is given. The premise is that the voter is rewarded for the vote cast a tit for tat understanding between the voter and the elected.
Promises of wealth distribution by politicians strike fear into those who have; this primal of phobias are the first cause of maintaining an armed police force, of corrupting the election process, of seeking power via political office. The modern elected official (of either party) uses phrases such as fair tax, equitable responsibility, a caring for those who have less; but, regardless of the words, the effect is gong to be the same. A government of largeness, a growing bureaucracy, more federal, state, county, city, employees; all of which equal more taxes and fees. All of which surely can be voted on by those who have less in order to take within the rule of law from those who have more.
Interestingly enough, the liberal and the conservative with apparent equal venomous inclinations, distrust the intentions of government; each accuse the other of curtailing individual rights, increasing the power of government beyond the scope of constitutional design, erasing years of progressive benchmarks on race relations, and of course each are adamant that the other are directly responsible for the general disruptions of just about anything that could be disturbed. So as to remain in agreement as to the continuance of growing the size of government; government initiates its own enterprising ways, such investing the peoples money into parks, zoos, golf courses, ports, harbors, marinas, land management, business that are really creative.
There is an increasing tenancy (by the state) for a Sheriff of Nottingham approach toward taxation; wherein, the elected representative substitutes the government of the United States for the King of England and instead of Robin Hood robbing the rich in the forest by force of arms the robbery is by the statutory compliance of fees and taxation. Naturally, as with the Sheriff, the elected representative realizes that taxation is successful only when the government defines a bountiful resource or creates such a resource. The conundrum of legislative debate will be over whom has the money to tax? Once that question is answered; the ones who had the money will step, to the within tax code compliance, left or right so to avoid or minimize the pecuniary effect of the particular tax. This has been the historical experience of any taxing policy; for instance, an entire insurance and legal industry has been formed around tax policies.
What I find particularly tragic is the state government’s investment of the peoples virtue in the gambling business; at one time it was a crime; the business of gangsters, now it is a lucrative alternative tax on the citizens wherein the government effectually says, “play the slot machines, the lottery, get something tangible for nothing.” A state sponsored lie of the most deplorable design.
Motivated hell bent to enlarge government either by hook or crook legislators create an enterprise for taxing purpose or invent another tax on a transaction to take their skim off of the top; there is no end to their mad addiction.