I haven’t written and Odds and Sods bit in awhile, but several items begged for brief comment today.

Odd

Michael Moore remarked that Hurricane Gustav, coming during the GOP convention in Minneapolis, is “proof that there is a God in heaven.” Typically, we say such things when blessings happen. So he’s glad there’s a hurricane boring toward the southern US? Oh, the compassion of the compassionate.

Sod

Russia has announced its intentions to include South Ossetia as a part of a larger, unified Russian state. This entry is not Odd because, well, it’s the Russians (or KGB). But they’re no threat at all, to anyone.

Odd

Sarah Palin is just a former mayor of a small Alaskan town with no experience, just one breath away from the presidency, the Democrats tell us. She does have several years of executive experience, which is more than one could say about other folks on presidential tickets. Put another way: The Democrats top guy is just a former community organizer with no experience not just one breath from the presidency, but in the presidency.

Sod

Maybe the Michael Moore bit should have been a Sod, as it is, after all, not out of place for him.

Odd

Andrew Sullivan: “America is at war and McCain gives us a 44-year old former beauty queen.”
JT: America is at war and the Democrats give us a 47-year old former community organizer.

Sod

Given that a former Democrat National Committee Chairman and a sitting Democrat Congressman engaged in a conversation during which views similar to those of Michael Moore were discussed, as it concerns Hurricane Gustav, we’ll place that one as a Sod.

One last Odd, with many entries

I perused a few left-wing blogs for user comments about Sarah Palin, and here is what all of those compassionate liberals said about her (and I only visited two sites):

“You want women to vote for an anti-choice, oil loving, bigot. [sic]
“You think her retarded baby is enough to do all that?”
“She’s fully credentialed in copulation.”
“I think a lot of the fundie crowd will be angry she’s in the workplace, not in the kitchen looking after her retarded baby.”

Need ye more examples?

I must admit that I could not continue to watch Barack Obama’s acceptance speech after about 20 minutes, which was about 5 minutes of speaking, due to applause and fillers.

Nevertheless, my first thought was: How pathetic. People in the stands were crying. I find it pathetic that so many people put so much stock in a politician who, in reality, has only a minimal impact on their daily lives.

As Obama spoke about being on your own, and many other oversimplified clichés, I was reminded of those who were crying. They seemed to me to be powerless over their own fates; so powerless, in fact, that they need a politician from a particular party in power to feel like they can succeed and be happy. To me, that is truly sad. I feel for those people.

I know that the day will come when my party leaves the White House, but does that mean I lose hope that I can succeed? Certainly not. In the case of Barack Obama, I feel that it will become more expensive for me to live and that my security will be somewhat diminished, but my fundamental behavior and outlook won’t change.

The folks crying and holding up signs proclaiming “Change” need a person to follow; they need somebody else to provide things for them. Or, more accurately, they need to empower someone to do charity through coercion, freeing them from personal responsibility for charity so that they can feel good. It’s pretty easy to feel good that you helped when all you have to do is vote for a particular person. For years, the poorer “Red” states, like Mississippi (usually #1), are far more philanthropic and charitable and those compassionate liberal “Blue” states like New York and California. That’s really helping people.

After feeling sorry for the meek, who will inherit the world through transfer payments, Barack Obama rattled off a few zingers that happened to be, well, distortions.

First, Obama credited John McCain with saying that Americans were whining over a mental recession. Forget the 3.3% growth and zero quarters of negative growth (i.e. there ain’t no recession despite the difficulties we face), the problem is that Phil Gramm made the remarks and he was out of the McCain campaign after the fact. Obama proceeded to rouse grand applause off what amounted to a lie.

Second, he said that incomes have dropped under George W. Bush. Well, not true. A report earlier this week said that incomes rose between 2000 and 2006 (the latest complete data).

During this time, I gathered that George W. Bush was running for reelection again. No wonder the Democrats have called him a Nazi and a tyrant. He’s running for a third term for crying out loud.

But, alas, I couldn’t take anymore. The speech took a decidedly (and surprising) turn to the left on policy ideals, with Obama spouting old leftist clichés and Marxian rhetoric in support of an expanded welfare state (which is already too big). I guess if he wins that will mean even more power for the federal government. That’s change, alright, but in the wrong direction—kind of like when the Reds got change by hiring Dave Miley and lost more games the following season.

What does cosmic justice cost the society at large?

Well, according to Thomas Sowell, there are two main conceptions. First, there is Adam Smith, who held that it is "essential for the very existence and survival of any society that there be some predictable order, with some degree of moral principle, so that people could pursue their lives." Secondly, John Rawls believed that "more justice was categorically more important than more of any other benefit."

In other words, Adam Smith felt that it was best to have ordered liberty, again, with rules known in advance. The role of morality was to constrain men from abusing that liberty. However, for Rawls, it was best to achieve various forms of justice, even at the expense of liberty.

Sowell wrote, "We can...create new injustices among our flesh-and-blood contemporaries for the sake of symbolic expiation." What he means here is that Rawls viewed justice not over a period of time but rather in a brief, contemporary period, not factoring in the countless factors that affect a society's results. In other words, the rest of society be damned, for if group A suffers now, so must group B, and C, and D, and so on, so we all feel better.

One cost to society with cosmic justice is financial. Sowell gives an example of class warfare--hating the rich. Instead of hating a particular class of people, Sowell contends that proponents of cosmic justice are merely "talking about individuals at different stages of their lives." Furthermore, "[T]he vast majority of the wealth of Americans is concentrated in the hands of people over fifty years of age." Thus, for example, taxing the rich is tantamount to taxing one's self in 15-20 years when decades of hard work result in accumulated wealth, wealth that the so-called victims failed to accumulate of who have simply not lived long enough to accumulate.

Barack Obama has spoken many times of taxing the wealthy in order to give to the poor. But the results of excessive taxation on productive and wealthy people comes with predictable results: movement of wealth overseas to tax shelters; removal of assets from the economy; utilization of loopholes in the tax code; decline in philanthropic work; less investment (i.e. new jobs) from the wealthy; and so on.

Another cost was discussed more by F.A. Hayek. He wrote, "Economic control...is the control of the means for all our ends." In other words, the loss of economic freedom IS the loss of freedom--the two are intertwined.

Folks like Barack Obama promise freedom. Instead of the freedom to pursue one's dreams, they mean the freedom from want. Or, as Hayek put it, "The so-called economic freedom which the planners promise us means precisely that we are to be relieved of the necessity of solving our own economic problems." Consequently, a large class of people never learn, or try, to solve their own problems and live off of the movers and shakers (see also the financial results above). Likewise, "There is hardly an aspect...over which the planner would not exercise his 'conscious control.'"

Thus, cosmic justice from Barack Obama will cost the society both in economic well-being and individual freedom.

Saturday night in California, Barack Obama said, "We still don't abide by that basic precept of Matthew -- whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me.”

He was speaking at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in southern California in a forum with John McCain, his GOP opponent for the Presidency of the United States.

But what did he mean?

Well, Barack Obama is as liberal as a Democrat gets these days. This means that he prefers government charity, which requires taxing the people and distributing those involuntary contributions amongst “the least.”

Certainly it is problematic for any society to have some of its citizens in poverty, and the United States is no exception. Likewise, those of us who do well and have few unmet needs should generally feel compassion for those less fortunate than us.

Furthermore, the Bible—the source of morality in this particular forum—does charge the believer with caring for the poor. Matthew 25:40 states, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Clear enough, but Matthew 6:2 declares, “So when you give to the needy”—which the believer is clearly charged with doing—“do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets to be honored by men.” This charge is, without doubt, one aimed at the individual (obviously, groups can and should act charitably, but it is the individual doing so on his own accord that make a group).

Here, Barack Obama is wrong. He is simply trying to woo Christian voters based on their sense of duty in this critical area. His type of charity requires a powerful third party, taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots against the haves’ will. In turn, Obama, his political brethren, and his supporters can self-righteously claim to have “helped” the poor by simply supporting Obama’s policies.

But this robs the individual of his personal responsibility for helping the less fortunate. Instead of taking time out on a Saturday morning to work a soup kitchen or buying a few extra cans of vegetables and taking them to a food pantry, the individual knows that the government will do charity work for him (how poorly they do it, notwithstanding).

Thus, the Obama way of charity frees the Christian from his personal responsibility and, in essence, causes him to neglect one of his duties. Therefore, Obama is wrong and Christians should not mistaken collective charity—in which all one must do is agree to allow for some additional income tax withholding, which takes no effort—for real charity.

Recently I saw a pair of interesting bumper stickers.

One read: “God bless the whole world, no exceptions.” The other: “God bless the rest of the world, too.”

These bumper stickers are certainly responses to the popular “God bless America.” Certainly the “God bless the rest of world” crowd sees “God bless America” as some selfish, jingoistic, ultra-nationalist sentiment, while their sentiment is—take your pick—fair, equitable, more high-minded, compassionate, etc.

I look at it this way: I am a Cincinnati Reds fan. Say I put on a bumper sticker that says, “Go Reds” and a group of folks in the city start displaying bumper stickers that proclaim, “Go the rest of the National League, too” or “Go entire National League, no exceptions.” It makes no sense.

Another way: As a Reds fans, I severely dislike the Chicago Cubs (actually, their fans), so I root for anyone playing against the Cubs even though I don’t really care for, say, the Brewers, Cardinals, or Astros. Thus, I am, effectively, declaring, “Go everyone aside from the Cubs, too.” Meanwhile, the innocent Cubs fan clearly thinks I dislike his club (which is true).

Thus, I am probably correct in concluding that the “God bless the rest of the world, too” crowd doesn’t really give a Cubs crap about the rest of the world; they just dislike America.

In baseball, I want my club to win because the other club is trying to beat the Reds. Now think of the post-9/11 world—a world with war between the United States and terrorists. God bless America is, essentially, a “Go Reds,” or “Go America,” cheer. “God bless the rest of the world, too” is, conversely, a cheer for everyone playing against America.

“God bless the whole world, no exceptions” is as vacuous as responding to person consoling his ailing family member by offering a “God bless you” with “But God bless everybody else, too.” In other words, “God bless America” does not mean “Screw everybody else.” It means what it means: God bless America.

And the other fellow is probably a Cubs fan, too. Now, on to the next obtuse bumper sticker…

We have examined how the quest for what Thomas Sowell calls “cosmic justice” leads to a third party wielding arbitrary power over the governed. But those who seek cosmic justice, naturally, adhere to a certain vision of the world. After gaining power, such actors attempt to adjust the people to their respective visions.

Sowell cites “Lenin, Hitler, and Mao” as “the pre-eminent twentieth-century examples of leaders who sought to adjust people to visions.” The vision that came before each of these men was simply unacceptable.

Not that he could be anything like Lenin, Hitler, or Mao, but one can sense in Barack Obama similar inclinations: that the past was undesirable and that the nation must be molded into a new way of thinking (think “change” and “hope”).

For example, Obama has made several comments slamming the United States for its past. When he answered a seven year-old child’s question as to why he wanted to become president, he answered that American is not what once was. Likewise, he has proclaimed, “We,” referring to himself and his camp, “are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” He clearly views himself as a visionary for a future molded to his vision.

Obama fits what Thomas Sowell described as the visionary’s “superior—almost therapeutic—role.” He has explained that under his rule, American will finally care for the sick, feed the hungry, and drop the sea level.

His broad, utopian pronouncements only confirm that Obama has an all-encompassing vision; however, he has, obviously, not been able to act upon it yet as he is not yet president. Still, one can get a sense what he might do based on past statements.

Obama once hinted to minority journalists that reparations might be necessary to make the union more perfect. Likewise, he has proposed another round of stimulus checks funded with a tax on oil companies as well as many other business behavior-changing tax hikes. Each of these indicates an inclination in Obama to use the power of the federal government to make the masses adhere to his vision.

F.A. Hayek wrote about French planner Saint-Simon “that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be ‘treated as cattle.’” Barack Obama, a pure liberal and quasi socialist, is clearly interested in wielding the power of the federal government to achieve the American of his dreams, perhaps even to the point of treating us like cattle.

That advocates of cosmic justice pursue a utopian, and thus impossible, conclusion requires a third party to "wield power to control outcomes." This is what F.A. Hayek would have called "distributive justice." In other words, an "enlightened" power would divvy out justice as he or she saw fit according to his or her conception of justice.

To such people, a free market world where individuals act in the context of the rule of law (again, rules known in advance) leads to inevitable inequalities. This, to them, is injustice.

But as Thomas Sowell wrote, "If some group is not receiving justice, then whether this is due to governmental or private actions is seen as secondary." Injustice, or unequal results, is unacceptable.

What naturally follows is the plea for an overseer. Sowell wrote that when injustice exists, "someone must oversee the social results of these transactions and intervene directly to ensure that the desired results or prospects are arranged." Hayek described such a situation in this way: “To produce the same result for different people, it is necessary to treat them differently.”

In other words, "[S]omeone must be empowered to constrict other people's freedom."

And in the case of Barack Obama, we find such tendencies in several areas. This past week, he suggested taxing oil companies and cutting rebate checks to taxpayers. Why? The people have suffered injustice at the hands of profiting oil companies. More on this subject in a later post.

Another example: Obama spoke of raising the capital gains tax, but only on the rich. Why? The rich, he said, didn't deserve their tax cuts--that is, they didn't deserve to keep money they earned in a free market system where individuals voluntarily enter into transactions with one another.

Here, Barack Obama is directly attacking the concept of traditional justice, a system where the players play according to the same set of rules—that is, they are governed by laws, not by men. Victors are victorious as a result of competition, which Obama and his intellectual bedfellows see as creating injustice.

Yet, as Hayek wrote, "under competition the probability that a man who starts poor will reach great wealth is much smaller than is true of the man who has inherited property, it is not only possible for the former, but the competitive system is the only one where it depends solely on him and not on the favors of the mighty, and where nobody can prevent a man from attempting to achieve this result.” That is, the American way: lifting one’s self up by one’s boot straps.

Traditional justice tells us that this is the better way because "the mighty" does not exist, only men playing the same game, even if they vary in ability, interest, etc.

For Obama, such conditions will not do and they require "change" laced with "hope," a "new direction." But the mitigating factor is his set of policy positions. A Barack Obama presidency would bring: higher taxation on successful, hard-working people and additional programs to move that income to third parties who have "suffered injustice" and mandated energy policies aimed at service justice for the planet and for the poor. An overseer would ensure these ends.

Unfortunately for the United States, an overseer intervening to ensure desired results will require the executive branch to "constrict other people's freedom" in the name of cosmic justice. Hayek wrote, "[A]ny policy aiming directly at a substantive idea of distributive justice must lead to the destruction of the rule of law.”

In other words, the overseer would be another step back in the direction from which we came.

Now that we have looked at different conceptions of justice and how they ultimately apply to a power broker (an overview), let us look at a key aspect of justice: equality. From here, we will gradually work our way to the end result, which is the type of government we would have and the ramifications on society’s freedom and well-being.

Barack Obama has spoken of equality on many occasions: in the context of a “living wage,” “economic equality,” and “equality of opportunity” among many, many others.

But does Obama mean laws that allow each citizen an equal playing field in the context of law or laws that play favorites with certain groups and are designed to generate equal results?

Well, in this year’s campaign, Obama has touted: a “living wage” that arbitrarily increases wages for certain workers; mandating that employers provide certain benefits that were not part of the original employee-employer agreement; equal pay for men and women; etc.

Clearly, Barack Obama intends to support legislation that will foster equal results, not true equal opportunity.

As we will discuss later, an equal playing field does not mean that every person has an absolutely equal chance because there are so many mitigating factors that cannot be accounted for or controlled. However, as we will also discuss, dictating or fostering equal results requires actions we would scoff at when thinking objectively, making the equal playing field—that is, rules known in advance—the only true equality of opportunity.

In other words, as Thomas Sowell wrote, equality is a “mirage.”

As Sowell put it, “Numbers may be equal (2 + 3 = 5) because they have only one dimension…” but because “human beings are even more multidimensional, defining equality among them becomes even more problematical and ultimately arbitrary.” That is to say that life is not a zero-sum game. A few examples:

Much of the discussion of equality, or inequality, involves “the rich” and “the poor”—the “haves” and “have nots.” F.A. Hayek, as well as Thomas Sowell, found these debates problematic.

Hayek wrote that the conflict between formal equality and substantive equality has created “widespread confusion about the concept of ‘privilege’” to the point that such words have almost no meaning. To those seeking cosmic equality, privilege exists when any inequality exists. But Hayek, too, wrote of the multidimensional aspects of human life that cannot be accounted for or controlled. Under the rule of law—again, where rules are known in advance—privilege only exists when reserved for a particular group.

While in the case of privilege as it relates to the inheritance of wealth, the law doesn’t prohibit any group from doing so. Instead, the multidimensional nature of human life creates this “privilege.”

Furthermore, Obama has used the “rich” and “poor” terminology on the stump. However, “…most of the statistics that are thrown around concerning ‘the rich’ and ‘the poor’ are aggregate statistics about income strata as of a given moment,” Sowell tells us. “In short, neither the rich nor the poor match the classic picture of a class into which people are born, live, and die…”

But still, F.A. Hayek wrote, “[S]ocialists…have always protested against ‘merely’ formal justice”—which is to say, against rules known in advance, the level playing field. Where Obama is wrong is his conception of equality. He speaks of making wages equal, which is an end result, not an equal legal structure.

In short, Obama’s mistake, according to Sowell: “…defining equality…is ultimately a conceptual, rather than an empirical, dilemma,” thus making his concept a mirage.

Over the next 100 days, we will explore the rhetoric and policy proposals of Barack Obama using two classic books as yard sticks: F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” and Thomas Sowell’s “The Quest for Cosmic Justice.”

Hayek’s masterpiece examines the necessary realities of collectivist thinking. Sowell’s work looks at conceptions of justice and their ramifications on freedom in society. Continuing with part I:

In “The Quest for Cosmic Justice,” Thomas Sowell defines two conceptions of justice. One is traditional, which judges justice in terms of a “process.” Rules are known in advance and everyone is “judged by the same standards.” From there, inequalities naturally occur; however, results are fairly simple to measure and opportunity is generally equal. Sowell cites former baseball star Mark McGwire, who hit 70 homeruns one season, making it easy to judge him on equal terms compared to other players and conclude that he was the best homerun hitter.

Conversely, there is social justice, or “cosmic justice,” which seeks to “eliminate undeserved advantages for selected groups.” In fact, rules known in advance are often discarded in the name of “social justice.” “[P]re-existing inequalities are to be counter-balanced.”

Essentially, traditional justice, with its rules known in advance, allows for impartial judgments precisely because the rules are known to all. On the other hand, cosmic justice “requires that third parties must wield the power to control outcomes.”

The ramifications here should be clear. Traditional justice requires some tolerance for inequalities, but all people have the same opportunities. Certainly mitigating factors exist, but the basic framework is simple and fair. Cosmic justice, with intolerance for any inequalities, demands that a power entity—government—pick favorites and determine results.

Next, move to Barack Obama: He has spoken of “economic justice.” Now that we have briefly (and albeit simply) read into opposing views of justice, one’s first thoughts about “economic justice” must be hesitant at best.

While Obama’s overtures are necessarily ambiguous at this point in the campaign, evidence still exists to clearly know what he means when wielding powerful concepts like “economic justice” (true, we already know he is a liberal Democrat and all the policy ideas that come along with such an affiliation).

Obama proclaimed, “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served.” Indeed, he promised, “[W]e’ll ensure that economic justice is ensured,” which means “restoring fairness to the economy.”

Here it is fairly clear that Barack Obama does not mean that we all know the economic playing field before stepping onto it; that each person can attain great achievements under the same system of rules. Instead, Obama is referring to the latter conception of justice: that is, cosmic justice.

Thus, Obama implies that he is willing to wield power, as the third party, to achieve results that he sees as just. Given that a third party decides what is just, the meaning of the term shifts over time, making it the polar opposite of traditional justice, which is inherently constant and neutral. Therefore, we can be sure that President Obama will wield justice that is “hand-made” and “forcibly configured to fit the vision of the power-holders.”

 

So Congressional Democrats are considering giving us another stimulus check. It is mighty generous of them to give us back some of our own money; or, in some cases, to give us back somebody else's money.

The idea of the stimulus check is a somewhat dubious economic idea, though few will deny that it is nice to have the extra cash. It appears that the checks did have some effect on consumer spending, though the extent is unknown at this point.

What the stimulus check policy is designed to do, practically and in reality, is to garner political favor. Instead of offering a long-term solution, such as signaling to taxpayers that rates won't jump up when the tax cuts expire, Congress has opted to patch a leak in the economy with masking tape. But because we get a check, we're to be happy.

However, the politics of the situation, however favorable they may be for the wise in Congress, are only part of the equation. What I dislike about the first round of stimulus checks, and what I dislike even more now that a second round is under consideration, is the mindset behind them.

It is about control.

Rather than simply keeping tax rates low so we have more cash on hand to begin with, Congress wants to dictate when we should have more money. They dole out the bacon when they deem it appropriate.

The same would hold true in any other case where Congress wants more control, be it with energy or health care or whatever else may come to mind.

In countries with socialized medicine, when costs catch up with utopian visions, services are rationed. Patients have to wait for treatment or do without because government effectively has control over what care patients receive.

When countries have control over energy, such as oil, it is likewise rationed, creating gas lines and waste.

And it is this mentality that the ruling Democrats bring to the table. The wise know how and when to spend your money better than you do, with much less knowledge about your particular situation, to boot! It is this mentality that we cannot afford as a country.

Thus, as the editors of National Review recently wrote, "Don't stimulate me."

 

David Remes, attorney for 15 Guantanamo Bay detainees, dropped his slacks at a press conference to demonstrate the horrible acts his clients endure. Other media outlets have expressed sympathy for those held at Club Gitmo. Indeed, a good friend of mine feels that the recent Supreme Court decision bestowing habeas corpus rights upon Gitmo detainees was a good thing because it repudiated a policy he though shameful.

In other words, those poor chaps!

But Remes, our pals in the media, and my friend all forget who the detainees are, what they’ve done, and how they’ve treated our guards.

On the first two items, all detainees were caught on the battlefield or other similar settings. Each was fighting against US forces and many of them—probably most—are high-level terrorists with a great deal of knowledge.

On the third item, these detainees have ne’er been boy scouts. Their behavior has ranged from immature to hostile.

For instance, the Boston Globe reported 440 detainee attacks against US guards between 2002-2005. These attacks included: head butting; assaults with broken toilet parts, a bloody lizard, kitchen utensils, and radios; dousing guards with urine and feces; hitting guards with steel chares; and so on.

One ambitious detainee managed to escape his cell during a routine contraband search, punching and busting a guard’s tooth in the process.

Sympathy for these men is specious at best.

Source(s): http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/07/16/to-protest-gitmo-punishment-covington-parnter-drops-trou-in-yemen/; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002355520_gitmo02.html; http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/08/01/gitmo_guards_often_attacked_by_detainees/;

 

The Democrat Party appears poised to whip the Republican Party in this fall’s election cycle based largely in part on a series of tall tales.

First and foremost—though not playing its former prominent role—is the Iraq War. We’ve been told that it is a quagmire. Senator Edward Kennedy called it “George Bush’s Vietnam.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has just called the president a “total failure” due in part to the war.

Yet, as a poignant Veterans for Freedom ad tells us, violence is down to record lows, the Iraqi Army is taking control of more and more of the country, and political progress looms. The Administration is now talking major troop reductions.

Second is the economy. The misery index is back, at 10%, which is, of course, nothing compared to the 21% achieved during the Carter years. Chief among economic concerns are the housing crisis and oil prices.

The Congress mandated more “equitable” lending so to give lower income folks a shot at the American dream. Combined with government-affiliated groups like FannieMae and FeddieMac—which allow mortgages to be sold and pooled into securities, thus freeing lenders from giving a damn whether or not the loans defaulted—and we have a crisis.

It’s a crisis that would fix itself, but now it is spreading to depository banks. There have only been around 100 bank failures (compared to 1,000 some 30 years ago), but the government is stepping in to save failed banks instead of allowing the market to trim off the irresponsible fat. Reform and federal control is needed, we are told.

Within the economy, the main concern is oil prices. Democrats like John Dingell have said for years that we don’t pay enough for gasoline. Presidential nominee Barack Obama said that the only thing wrong with $4.00/gallon gas is that we got there too soon.

The problem here is a supply problem, combined with rising world demand (India and China). Democrats such as Senator Patrick Leahy claimed that supply could not possibly have anything to do with oil prices. Then, the same Democrats pressured the president to lean on the Saudis to increase supplies and to release strategic oil reserves to ease the supply of oil. Furthermore, Senator Charles Schumer claimed that if the Saudis produced only a half million more barrels each day, gas prices would drop considerably.

Unfortunately, this is the same party that has restricted oil exploration and refining capacity for years—behavior that continues to this day. If we could get a half million barrels each day from US soil, why not get it?

Third is the climate change scare, which is also related to the oil crisis. Reducing carbon emissions—that is, oil-based fuel consumption—was imperative. Before this year, the idea was to tax carbon (or, that is, gasoline and oil and other carbon-emitting products). That is still the plan, but the Democrats are not so vocal about it in light of oil price hikes.

But alas, this one is folly, too. A group representing more than 50,000 physicists is opening the climate change debate, thus ripping apart the “consensus” that never existed. The leader of the group, The American Physical Society, once called global warming science irrefutable; however, he now finds himself on the other side of the debate.

For a party so keen on pointing real problems (and fake problems and problems that are misdiagnosed), there are an awful lot of tall tales. Hyperbole involving quagmires, loss of civil liberties, the misery index, and a dying planet, all under the banner of “change,” has hoodwinked far too many Americans hungry for something new. Sadly, the public may realize its errors too late in the ballgame.

Source(s): http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm; http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M3YWQ5MTE3Yzc0ZmY3OGM1YmU0OTVhZWUwZjQ0ZTk=; http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDRjYzY3OTg3MzU4ODgxNTYwODMxMTdlY2MwZGRhMTk=;

 

If I remember correctly, it was in 4^th grade (perhaps 3^rd) that my teacher presented a lesson on photosynthesis. The basic lesson was that, through photosynthesis, plants converted sunlight into chemical energy. With carbon dioxide, the plants made a needed carbohydrate, or part of its energy. The process also made plants green.

In other words, photosynthesis and carbon dioxide were good for plants.

Something must have changed, even though my biology and chemistry professors in college (circa 2003) never told me so.

Hans Joachim-Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute in Germany and his fellow researchers have discovered, or rediscovered, that carbon dioxide is, or may be, good for plants.

According to the researchers, yields for certain crops increased by 10% with higher levels of carbon dioxide.

It appears that the researchers may have excavated that 4^th grade textbook I once read. The funny part is that I, at 29 years of age, recall the lesson from some 20 years ago.

One rumor has surfaced that researchers are also on the brink of a discovery that water is also good for plants, but reports at this point are unconfirmed.

Source(s): http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080708124018.8nen8ib9&show_article=1