The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Jesus and Substance

G. Stolyarov II

Issue CXCI - March 31, 2009

Recommend this page.

Note: Left-click on this image to get a full view. 

This satirical work of quasi-art was made by Mr. Stolyarov using MS Paint. The image was deliberately designed to show too much Jesus and too little substance, as a commentary on the rather ridiculous proclivities of some who try to stuff Jesus into every area of their lives and to justify every single action in which they engage by reference to Jesus. It can be seen here that the image of Jesus does not fit within the boundaries of the picture; there is too much Jesus – a play on too many invocations of Jesus in the discourse of some. The blue sphere in the top left-hand corner represents substance – tiny compared to Jesus and occurring in about a similar proportion in conversations where Jesus is inserted into everything.

The basis for the image of Jesus was a painting by Giotto, “Jesus Carries His Cross.”

­­___________

See the index of Mr. Stolyarov’s art works.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXCI Index.

If we are to overcome the extremely genuine and massive threats to our existence coming from virtually all directions, it is essential not to take comfort in the demotivating illusions of a cosmic balance. The longing for a fictitious past bliss leads many to stifle the ambitions of some humans to create a better future. The advocates of the Eden myth seek to thwart the advocates of technological and societal progress – seeing them as taking humankind even further away from its original bliss. But only progress can help us avoid the gruesome destruction and oblivion that are currently in store for every single living individual, unless human ingenuity can enable us to pursue a better path – one which we must follow to push back the hostile aspects of nature and humankind alike and create a safer, happier, more prosperous existence.    

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

There is nothing to suggest any guarantees given human beings with regard to anything pertaining to their survival, happiness, or fulfillment. There is no cosmic justice and no cosmic “balance.” Rather, whatever justice people wish to obtain, they must create the conditions for. Human technologies, social systems, and esthetic and intellectual accomplishments erect a fortress of civilization which enables us to somewhat resist the onslaught of the elements. The fortress is currently quite shabbily built – with numerous gaping holes and inadequate structural support. Moreover, it is far from complete; indeed, even its foundations have not yet been completely laid. Humanity is still in a state of general barbarism – unable to even figure out ways to prevent individual humans from dying and to prevent human social and political systems from degenerating into either tyranny or chaos. But for all of our massive problems, our ancestors had it worse.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Obama Kicks Crutches from Crippled Soldiers

Edward Hudgins

Issue CXC - March 28, 2009

Recommend this page.

We’ve seen this week just what sort of warped morality guides Barack Obama and his administration. And we’ve seen just what we can expect if we allow them to take from us our freedom to make decisions concerning, among other things, our own health care.

The rapacious gang in Washington wanted to generate $540 million in revenue by refusing to pay for treatment of military veterans who suffered disabilities and injuries in the line of duty. Instead, the Obama administration wants to force veterans’ private insurance providers to reimburse the government for such treatment.

This proposal was not some overlooked line in the recent spending-spree bill, which the Democrats who control Congress refused to allow anyone to read before voting on it. Rather, it was put forward in a White House meeting by Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Veterans Secretary Eric Shinseki while meeting with an incredulous David Rehbein, the head of the American Legion.

Obama, who claims inspiration from Abraham Lincoln, clearly had forgotten the Great Liberator’s admonition from his second inaugural address near the end of the Civil War, “to care for him who shall have borne the battle.”

After several days of outrage from veterans and others, the administration decided to drop the plan. But this episode should not be forgotten because it showed how this administration is morally rotting from the head down.

First things first: The proper function of government is to protect its citizens. Soldiers in our military volunteer for this high calling. They risk and often lose their lives, and many of them come home with life-altering injuries. It is the moral obligation of government - to say nothing of the legal obligation - to assist those who have so suffered in their efforts to protect us.

Now consider what the Obama proposal revealed about the moral premises motivating him and his minions.

Here’s a president who pushed a so-called “stimulus” bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in new handouts and entitlements for those who haven’t earned them, appropriations that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Here’s a president who solemnly promised to go through budgets looking to cut earmarks, yet who just signed a $410 billion budget with nearly 9,000 earmarks, justifying his hypocrisy with a glib remark that it was “last year’s budget.” Here’s a president who wants to bail out individuals who bought homes they could not afford or who wanted to flip houses for a quick profit.

Yet here’s a president who would deny funds to those crippled in the service of their country and shuffle off the responsibility onto the shoulders of others.

This time the administration got caught and reversed itself. But this moral outrage should give every American a crystal-clear view of exactly what sorts of mentalities will be controlling their health care and making decisions for them if the Obama administration and Congress get their way.

It is already virtually impossible to opt out of the current government-regulated system if you’re a senior citizen. You’re automatically enrolled in Medicare when you retire and begin to collect Social Security. And if you and your doctor - virtually every one of them in the country - are taking Medicare money, the government will determine what you can be treated for and what sort of treatments are permitted. If you want to take out your own wallet and pay for some extra treatment that the government doesn’t authorize, forget it. It’s currently a crime.

If Obama’s callous policy toward wounded veterans disgusted you, consider what it will be like to have your health care controlled from cradle to grave by thousands of sanctimonious political hacks and stupid, incompetent federal bureaucrats.

If you don’t like the thought, you’d better take every opportunity to rub your fellow citizens‘ noses in this and similar decisions by Obama in hopes that they will wake up to the awful smell of servitude and demand the fresh air of freedom.
—-
Dr. Edward Hudgins directs advocacy and is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

For further reading:
*David Kelley, “Is There a Right to Health Care?”
*John Vincent, “John Q. Canada.” 2002.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXC Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

States, Not Washington, D.C., Need Our Attention

Chuck Baldwin

Issue CXC - March 28, 2009

Recommend this page.

It seems that most everyone focuses his or her attention on what is happening in Washington, D.C. People don’t seem to get excited about politics until a national election rolls around or unless the President makes some startling announcement. Even well-meaning leaders seem to spend the vast majority of their time dealing with policies that emanate from Washington, D.C. Already, I’m hearing leaders of the so-called Religious Right talk gushingly about who the next Presidential nominee of the Republican Party will be. Who cares? Do you mean to tell me that with all we have to deal with right now, we can’t find anything else to talk about? How shallow–and utterly ineffective–can we be?

In the first place, Washington, D.C., is a lost cause. It really is. We have about as much chance of flying to the moon in a glider as we do of seeing any significant change in Washington, D.C. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties at the national level offer any hope. The federal government is hell-bent on turning the United States into a socialistic global village, and the two major parties are in it up to their necks.

If the principles of freedom and independence have any chance of surviving the next few years, it will be because individual States have the courage to pick up the banner and fight. Therefore, freedom lovers need to focus their energy and attention more on State governments and less on national politics.

For example, the State of Missouri was until recently profiling supporters of independent Presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as being potential “domestic terrorists.” In addition, Missouri law enforcement personnel were being told that people who oppose practices and institutions such as abortion, illegal immigration, gun control, the Federal Reserve, the North American Union, etc., are potential “terrorists.”

See my original exposé on this story here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090317.html

Remember, this report was being sanctioned by Missouri Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon, the Missouri Highway Patrol, and the Department of Public Safety. In other words, the State of Missouri is officially endorsing the distorted statements, repulsive innuendoes, false accusations, and unwarranted warnings contained in this report. Whether the content of the report originated with the federal Department of Homeland Security or even with a private left-wing organization such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, it was the State of Missouri that was putting boots on the ground on behalf of this ridiculous report.

That is the way it always is: no matter what happens in Washington, D.C., it is the individual State that (for the most part) is left holding the bag. Unfortunately, it seems that most State legislators and governors have forgotten that it is their responsibility to protect the liberties and freedoms of their citizens, and have been unwilling to hold the line for State sovereignty and independence. Instead, they have allowed the federal government to run roughshod over not only the U.S. Constitution, but also their own State constitutions and authority. In fact, one might be able to say that most States seem to think that Washington, D.C., is some kind of glorified Pied Piper, which they must always follow like blind sheep. This is not the kind of union our founders envisioned.

States were always viewed as being the final arbiters of their own destinies and decisions. Had America’s Founding Fathers intended on Washington, D.C., being some sort of universal authority, the individual States would have all terminated when the Constitution was adopted in 1787. In other words, what Washington, D.C., thinks or wants means diddly-squat unless the State decides to go along with it.

Whether the issue is gun control, or environmental “protection,” or smoke-free facilities, or land use codes, or police departments profiling potential “terrorists,” or any other issue that the federal government wants to get its grubby little fingers into, it is the individual State that must choose to say either Yea or Nay.

Therefore, the time has come for us to focus on the kinds of legislators, governors, sheriffs, judges, etc., who are leading our respective States. We must focus on holding our State officials accountable to the principles of freedom and constitutional government. The battle that is taking place in Missouri right now is a classic example.

Missouri residents by the hundreds and thousands need to get involved in that battle immediately. I understand Oklahoma and New Hampshire are deciding on terrific State sovereignty bills at this very moment. Residents of the Sooner State and Granite State need to barrage their State legislators in support of these bills right now. Montana is currently deliberating a couple of great bills. One would bring back gold and silver, and one is a major gun rights bill. Residents of Big Sky Country need to step up to the plate right now and let their legislators and governor know how important it is to pass these bills. I could go on and on.

Folks, Washington, D.C., is a pigsty. There is no remedy for that place. It doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House, or even which party controls Congress. If the last two Presidential administrations have not taught us that, we are brain-dead.

If there is any hope for lovers of freedom in this country, it will be found in individual States that are willing to shake off the filthy dust that has floated down from that putrid landfill on the banks of the Potomac, and stand up for freedom and independence the way Americans used to. And if the State we live in won’t do it, we might want to consider moving to one that will, because if we lose our liberties, it will be our own individual State that will have run up the white flag.

­­___________

Dr. Chuck Baldwin’s radio talk show, “Chuck Baldwin Live,” is heard 36 times a week on 5 different radio stations in the Pensacola, Florida area.

Dr. Baldwin was also the Constitution Party’s 2008 Presidential candidate.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXC Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Obama’s War

Alan Caruba

Issue CXC - March 28, 2009

Recommend this page.

“I’m retired from the United States Air Force and couldn’t stand being away from the wars, so I signed up to become a defense contractor/military advisor here in Helmand Province—home to some of the fiercest fighting in this theatre.” From far-off Afghanistan , I heard from a gentleman who typifies the kind of warrior spirit that can be found in the U.S. military.

He is busy helping to train members of the Afghan National Army on matters of military human resources as part of the International Security Assistance Force, the NATO mission in Afghanistan . He was responding to a commentary I had written about the insurgency in Afghanistan.

I did not and still do not favor putting U.S. troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan and had pointed out that both a British and a French general had concluded the same. To put things in perspective, I wanted the troops that former President Bush had sent to be withdrawn and I now heartily disagree with President Obama’s plan to transfer some 14,000 more troops there.

In all candor, I was among the many who grew disenchanted with the lengthening war in Iraq prior to the “surge” there, and I was wrong. Moreover, I am not a military strategist, so I draw my conclusions from analysis by those who are and, better still, from people who have served or are serving there.

Here’s a snapshot of just how bad the situation in Afghanistan truly is. The day before President Obama’s special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, arrived in Kabul , eight suicide bombers and gunmen attacked the justice and education ministries, killing 26 and wounding 57. The ministries are just down the street from where Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, conducts business.

To suggest that a functioning government exists in Afghanistan is tenuous at best. From everything I have read, not only does it not control Kabul , it barely functions beyond the city limits of the capitol, although the Afghan army under U.S. training has gotten some good marks.

The primary “industry” in Afghanistan is the growing of poppy for the manufacture of heroin. It is a major source of funding for the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist group that provided hospitality to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and likely still does. Here’s what you need to know about the poppy trade. Karzai’s government, such as it is, does not want to eradicate it. Neither does the U.S. The drug lords are allies because they do not want the Taliban to benefit, and neither does the U.S.

“The irony of ironies here,” says a trusted source, “is that in flying over Helmand province you can see all the desired indicators of a devastated economy coming back to life; paved roads, small business shops, even electricity. Everything the U.S. is committed to achieving for the Afghans and seemingly a real role model of a successful counter-insurgency campaign, and it all comes from opium profits!”

After 9/11, the U.S. retaliated by sending in the CIA and military to presumably chase the Taliban out of Afghanistan . It shares a long border with Pakistan, and that’s where the survivors headed in 2001. It is Pakistan, not Afghanistan, that is the real hotspot in the Middle East these days.

Pakistan barely qualifies to be considered a nation. It was created when India declared its independence in 1947 as a place, along with Bangladesh , where Muslims could flee rather than become Indian citizens. Great numbers were slain and, although many remained in India, they are second-class citizens there. Wherever Muslims are not in the majority, they are heartily disliked by those who are. Bangladesh later broke with Pakistan to declare its own independence.

Simply put, Pakistan has almost always been ruled by its military, as was the case most recently of President Musharraf, who also retained his rank as a general. The current president just agreed to a deal with the Taliban to relinquish control over a large portion of the nation. Even under Musharraf, the government was never able to exercise any real control, and it is the Taliban’s intention to take over all of Pakistan , imposing Sharia law.

Militarily, there is virtually no way the American military, even including NATO forces and the Afghan army, can effectively conduct a counterinsurgency there. The society and the terrain are not hospitable. Re-supply of our forces now comes through Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as routes through Pakistan are viable, but increasingly lethal.

Writing jointly in Small Wars Journal.com, officers from the United States Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps offered a lengthy analysis of what would be required to win out over the Taliban. The question they addressed was “How Should the U.S. Execute a Surge in Afghanistan?”  The paper does not reflect official policy.

They noted that the failure to execute an effective counterinsurgency (COIN) to date has resulted in a security situation that “has steadily deteriorated since 2006 largely due to the lack of forces required.” Keep in mind, Afghanistan is not Iraq, and the two cannot be compared in terms of the application of a military solution.

It is not that the U.S. does not know how to conduct a counterinsurgency. The principles involved were known to the Romans, who conquered Gaul . Afghanistan differs from Iraq in that it has “a predominantly rural population with strong tribal loyalties, a historically weak central government, and [a] large, porous border [that] make the operational environment in Afghanistan much more challenging.” Or, in other words, damn near impossible.

“There are approximately 42 million Pashtuns spread throughout the region, with 14 million living in Pakistan . These Afghan Pashtuns serve as the center of gravity for the Taliban” that are estimated to number between 10,000 and 15,000 “hardcore insurgents.” Two-thirds of the Pashtuns live in Western Pakistan along a 2,430-kilometer border with Afghanistan . They were the original source of the Taliban movement and are “unlike any operational problem faced in Iraq .”

Now do the math. For a successful counterinsurgency it will be necessary to have a 20-to-1,000 security force density in the Pashtun areas. This would require more than 280,000 military personnel. There is simply no way the U.S. alone could achieve this “for an Afghan population well over 32 million, even with the help of NATO and Afghan National Security Forces.”

The latest report from Kabul is that the International Security Assistance Force, established by the United Nations in 2001, now numbers about 55,000 troops, of which nearly half are U.S. military. If it cannot even secure Kabul, what are the odds it can have any success throughout some of the worst terrain for battle to be found anywhere in the world?

The British forces in poppy-rich Helmand province have been trying without success for three years to establish a measure of security there.

The decision by the new Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, to move more troops into this situation ignores the reality of waging war in Afghanistan. If he had no stomach for the war in Iraq, it is doubtful he will be willing to sustain the increased casualties that will result from simply putting more of our troops in harm’s way.

The confrontation with Islamic militancy throughout the Middle East and the extension of its deadly intensions worldwide is going to be a long fight. The U.S. would do well to pick somewhere other than Afghanistan to wage that war. If the Russians with some 100,000 troops were eventually defeated by the local tribes (with weapons assistance from the U.S.), it seems clear that the current mission has little hope for success. The Russians had 14,000 casualties by the time they left.

We should leave now. The Taliban are analogous to the street gangs that every city in America has had for decades and longer. Meanwhile, the U.S. needs to protect the Gulf States, Iraq, and Israel . The odds are that we will have to engage Iran at some point, and tying up troops elsewhere is a bad strategy. It is now Obama’s war.

­­___________

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXC Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

The Myth of Global Warming

Jim Hollingsworth

Issue CXC - March 28, 2009

Recommend this page.

INTRODUCTION

            When Al Gore screams out in Senate testimony: “The Earth Has A Fever” he is not so much developing a scientific theory as he is seeking to use fear to drive a political agenda.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued four reports and in each one they have become more convinced that man is the chief cause of global warming, and that this warming is and will be seriously destructive to life as we know it.

            We are told that “the science is settled” and that there is “a consensus” of scientists who believe we are headed for disaster if we do not stop burning fossil fuels.  Yet, there is a growing number of scientists who disagree.  Over 32,000 scientists have signed “The Petition Project,” over 9,000 of them with Ph.D.s proclaiming that man is not the chief cause of warming and that this warming will not be disastrous. 

            True science does not depend on a consensus, but on a careful analysis of evidence as found in nature. One scientist noted that once scientists have a theory about something, they work hard to prove themselves wrong.  History is replete with examples where scientists were just plain wrong about life matters, but continued research revealed the truth.

            It is our contention that the present emphasis on man-caused (anthropogenic) global warming is a myth, in fact a carefully orchestrated hoax, not to further science, but to gain more control over the peoples of the world.  It is incumbent on each of us to search out the truth in this matter and act accordingly. 

THE EARTH IS WARMING

            There seems to be little disagreement among scientists that the Earth is warming.  In fact, the earth has continued to warm since the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.  But that warming has not been an even warming with years of warming followed by some years of cooling, but each period leaving us just a little warmer than before.

            We are told that the Earth has warmed about half a degree centigrade a century for the past 150 years.  The actual amount of warming as recorded is difficult to support, given that a half-degree is about all the closer we could record temperature until very recently.  There are just 1,221 weather stations in America, and few of these have been in the same position for the entire time.  Some have moved to new locations, and others have had cities grow up around them, which raises the average temperature.  Temperature readings can vary a couple of degrees depending on whether they are next to a building, on a slope, in a valley, or on a hilltop. 

            There appears to have been more warming in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere, but it needs to be kept in mind that there are few weather stations over the ocean, in Africa and South America, and even fewer in Antarctica.  It is very probable that the earth is warming, but by less than half a degree.

CARBON DIOXIDE IS A POLLUTANT

            The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.  That is not a scientific statement made by a scientific body, but a deliberative statement made by a political body. We often forget that Supreme Court Justices are human just like the rest of us, and though we expect them to know more about that law than we know, we do not expect them to be experts in every field of endeavor.  The greatest evidence for this is in their own decisions (or opinions), which are often 7-2, 6-3, or 5-4.  One vote one way or the other would change the outcome of the decision.

            Our atmosphere is approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.04% carbon dioxide.  From that “trace” amount of carbon dioxide are built all the plants we see on the Earth.  Far from being a pollutant, Carbon Dioxide is a natural substance required for all plant life.  All plants use Carbon Dioxide to grow, and in the process they give off Oxygen. Animals use Oxygen and give off Carbon Dioxide.  This relationship is the miracle of life that enables both plants and animals to survive on Earth.

            Growers know that increasing Carbon Dioxide increases plant growth, and for this reason Carbon Dioxide is sometimes used in greenhouses to increase plant growth.  It has also been demonstrated that an increased level of Carbon Dioxide enables a plant to survive and even thrive at warmer temperatures.

            Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

CARBON DIOXIDE IS A GREENHOUSE GAS

            The principle of a greenhouse is quite simple: Light enters through the glass and strikes the surface.  It is transformed into infrared rays which are longer and do not so easily pass back through the glass.  You experience the greenhouse effect when you leave your car shut up in the summer and notice how hot it is.

            The greenhouse effect we note for the Earth is a little more complicated.  The infrared rays that are re-emitted from the Earth are actually trapped by the greenhouse gases which warms the gas and heats the Earth.  It is this effect which makes our Earth habitable, otherwise it would get very hot in the day time, and very cold at night; very very hot in summer, and very very cold in winter.

            The main greenhouse gas is water vapor.  Where there is more moisture in the air, the climate is more tempered.  Thus, while daily temperatures may vary on the desert as much as fifty degrees, they vary only a little in the tropics. 

            Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, and the next is Carbon Dioxide.  However, doubling the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere will not double the temperature rise.  There is a definite limit, and that limit is determined not by the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, but by the amount of solar radiation “reflected” from the Earth.  Once all the infrared rays have been “captured” by the greenhouse gases, there can be no additional increase in temperature.

MAN IS THE CHIEF PRODUCER OF CARBON DIOXIDE

            There appears to be a definite link between temperature and Carbon Dioxide.  Early analysis of ice cores indicated that as the Carbon Dioxide increased, it caused a rise in temperature.  Subsequent analysis of the core data has revealed that the temperature rise came first, followed about 800 years later by an increase in Carbon Dioxide. 

            There is no question that man produces Carbon Dioxide.  He produces Carbon Dioxide simply by breathing. But he also produces Carbon Dioxide by burning fossil fuels.  Every fossil fuel except Hydrogen produces Carbon Dioxide when it burns.  Some products produce more Carbon Dioxide than others, depending on their chemical composition.  Methane produces less Carbon Dioxide, and wood produces more.  It is important to keep in mind that when wood burns, it produces Carbon Dioxide, but when that same tree dies and rots, it also produces Carbon Dioxide. 

            The ocean is a tremendous storage tank (carbon sink) for Carbon Dioxide.  But as the oceans warm, they can hold less Carbon Dioxide.  The warming ocean releases Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.  An increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide will cause more Carbon Dioxide to be absorbed by the ocean.  But which comes first is difficult to know.  It is much more likely that some natural factor, such as changing solar radiation, is actually warming the Earth, warming the oceans, and thus increasing the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

RISING TEMPERATURES ARE HARMFUL

            We are told that there will be great species extinction because of rising temperatures.  We pick up a magazine and there is a polar bear standing on a small iceberg hoping to survive.  The truth is that most populations of polar bears are expanding, and loss of sea ice is not a problem for them.  Most of the loss of sea ice area has been caused by changes in wind patterns.

            Rising temperatures are actually beneficial to most plants and animals.  While humans can adapt from the very cold to the very warm, most people prefer a warmer climate, and many migrate to the south during the winter.  Plants actually increase their habitat when temperatures warm, moving higher in latitude (farther north) and higher in elevation (up mountains) when conditions warm, but they still maintain their present habitat.  Animals, of course, can easily move to cooler climates if they prefer.  Actually, plants do well with warmer temperatures, especially when the rise in temperature is accompanied by a rising Carbon Dioxide level.  Plants are affected more by rainfall than they are by temperature.

            As far as people are concerned, it is important to note that ten times more people die each year from cold than die from the heat. 

REMEDIATION VERSUS ADAPTATION    

            Most of the measures suggested to remedy higher levels of Carbon Dioxide (Remediation) will be deadly for world populations, especially in underdeveloped countries.  Because gasohol is produced from corn, efforts to substitute alcohol for gasoline is causing world-wide food shortages, and raising the price of most grains.  This has become so critical that some places have even had riots over food prices.

            The United States was not a signer of the Kyoto Protocol (treaty).  But those countries that did sign have greatly missed the mark.  The only way to reduce Carbon Dioxide production is to reduce burning of fossil fuels: gasoline, diesel, coal, natural gas, wood, etc.  These are the main sources of energy, and though we might be able to cope by building more nuclear power plants, much of the developing world will be very dependent on these other resources over the next several decades.

            And even if we were able to reduce our carbon footprint, most of the rest of the world would not. China and India are two very large developing countries and have expressed no interest in cutting production of Carbon Dioxide.  Unless they participate in remediation, what we do will have very little total effect. 

            Rather than causing world poverty by reducing Carbon Dioxide, it will make a lot more sense to adapt to a changing temperature.

CATASTROPHE AWAITS INACTION

            Floods, drought, hurricanes, these, we are told, are all signs of coming catastrophe from global warming.  Yet, these are normal parts of any climate.  Climates change from warm to cold, from wet to dry.  Our Earth has weathered many serious changes in climate, from the Ice Ages to ages of tremendous plant growth (with high levels of Carbon Dioxide), yet the biosphere (plants and animals) has survived.  We shall continue to survive because we are very adaptable. And, as time goes on we will develop even more innovative ways for adapting to changing climate.

            Some politicians know that they can gain more control over our lives through programs designed to remedy global warming.  We need to be vigilant to see this does not happen.  We can make better use of our energy; that just makes good sense and helps each one of us.  But, most of the suggested programs from wind farms to solar energy to hybrid automobiles will cost almost as much energy to produce as they actually save.

            Common sense demonstrates that this great planet has survived many changes in climate and will do so again.  Government programs to help would be far better directed toward clean water the world over, as well as better sanitary conditions and food production.  Even control of such things as malaria would be a greater help to mankind than any effort to control global warming.  Besides, most of what you hear about global warming is a myth.

___________

Jim Hollingsworth is a building contractor in Kootenai Coutny, Idaho. He has run for State Representative three times and is active in causes of liberty in Idaho. He receives email at: jimhollingsworth@verizon.net. Web site: www.IdahoansForHollingsworth.com

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXC Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Light Up the World for Humans

Edward Hudgins

Issue CXC - March 28, 2009

Recommend this page.

Environmentalists worldwide are urging people to turn off all their lights for one hour on Saturday, March 28 at 8:30pm local time. “Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming,” declares the “Earth Hour” website.

Michelle Minton, “Human Achievement Hour to Counter Earth Hour.” Competitve Enterprise Institute, March 19, 2009.

­­___________

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXC Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Bankruptcy is Economic Stimulus

Ron Paul

Issue CXC - March 28, 2009

Recommend this page.

The distraction on Capitol Hill this week has to do with the jackpot bonuses that executives at AIG recently received.  The argument is over a relative drop in the bucket.  The total amount of bonuses given out was $165 million.  The government has put $170 billion into AIG so far.  Many now are demanding we get this money back.   We ought to be spending our time and effort doing something more worthwhile, like figuring out how the Federal Reserve is handling the trillions of dollars they are creating and pumping into the economy, and how that is affecting the purchasing power of dollars in your pocket.

The big mistake was appropriating the TARP funds in the first place.  A Johnny-come-lately bill of attainder won’t stop the spending epidemic.  This whole situation is a perfect demonstration of why “doing nothing” and letting failing companies fail would have been much better than sinking valuable money and resources into them. 

When a company makes a profit, it is a signal that it is taking resources and increasing their value while controlling costs.  When a company operates at a loss, it is a signal that it is decreasing the value of its resources or letting out-of-control costs outstrip any value it has created.  A company operating at a loss is therefore an engine of wealth destruction.   Bankruptcies are a net positive for the economy because more productive competitors are rewarded by opportunities to buy up remaining assets at bargain prices to strengthen their operations.  In an economy that allows this kind of growth and change, any jobs lost by bankruptcy are soon replaced by new ones as the most efficiently managed businesses gain access to more assets and expand. 

Bankruptcy was the stimulus that we needed in the case of AIG. More bankruptcies would clean out malinvested resources and enable economic growth again.

AIG, by losing money and maneuvering their operations to the brink of bankruptcy, was telling us that they were inefficient.  So what did we do?  We forced the taxpayer to assume the losses, and now we are supposed to be shocked that it is not working out.  Had AIG gone bankrupt, it would have been impossible to hand out these bonuses.  The taxpayer would have been fleeced for $170 billion less last year.  Had they gone bankrupt, the world would not have come to an end, it would just continue on with one less engine of wealth destruction.

We should have learned from Japan.   The 1990’s is referred to as Japan’s “lost decade” because of the zombie banks kept on life support by the Japanese government.  Any productivity was redirected through these engines of wealth destruction, resulting in long-term stagnation.  We should and can avoid this outcome if we come to our senses.  

A recession should be a time of strengthening and regrouping for an economy. But as long as the government insists on maintaining the status quo by propping up failed institutions, we will continue to dig a bigger hole for ourselves.­­

___________

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

To learn more about Congressman Ron Paul, visit his Congressional Home Page.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXC Index.

The Eden myth suggests that there is natural guarantee of happiness and justice given to humans, but humans have chosen to stray from the origins of that guarantee – God, Nature, or an analogous reified entity. Therefore, humans suffer – but not because suffering is the default state, but rather because humans did something wrong in rejecting the bliss of the default state. The Eden myth might state that humans deserve lifelong suffering for the sins of Adam and Eve or their ancestors or post-Renaissance Western civilization – but it is in some ways much less grim than reality. The appeal of the Eden myth to many people is that it suggests the existence of an underlying balance and goodness about the world as such – implying that somehow, beneath all that nastiness, everything is fundamentally all right. It is not.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II