No, It’s Your Fault
By Rich Trzupek
After initial attempts to dismiss ISIS as small-time crackpots – or as the President so famously declared them: “the JV” – the left has rethought the rise of the new caliphate and come up with a startling conclusion. ISIS is on the march because:
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
It’s Bush’s fault!
Seven years out of office and W is still screwing up the world, at least to progressive eyes. I have little doubt that twenty years hence there will be a forest fire in some remote part of the world that results in the extinction of the rare sticky-fingered salamander or some-such and some lefty will declare that but for the misguided policies of George W. Bush the little fellas would still be walking the earth.
It’s the eternal excuse, the reasoning that trumps everything. Whatever is wrong is, was and always will be Bush’s fault – with the possible exception of Detroit. On second thought, no. Let’s blame Detroit on Bush too. I’m not sure how you get there, but I’ve little doubt that some lib has the necessary theory.
On the other hand, in progressive world, whatever is right is the result of far-sighted progressive policies and programs championed by the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And don’t you go throwing Hillary supporting going to war with Iraq in our face. It’s pretty darn obvious she was fooled by Bush. Or Cheney. Or Rice. Probably all three.
Anyway, the “ISIS is Bush’s fault” logic goes something like this: When Saddam was in charge of Iraq, the Middle East – or at least that part of the Middle East that encompasses Syria, Iraq and Iran was a rather stable place. Oh sure, you had your atrocities, and your suppressions, and your sectarian violence. Who in the third world doesn’t? The important thing is that Saddam kept things relatively quiet, mostly by torturing, murdering and molesting anybody who disagreed with him, but it was a small price to pay for stability.
An interesting sort of “stability” it was, to be sure. Saddam gleefully funded terrorists, especially those of the anti-Semitic variety. He and his boys worked the “oil for food” scam, enriching himself, his pal Putin and various UN scumbags. And, as even the New York Times was eventually forced to rather tortuously admit, Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction, in the form of chemical weapons of the sort he had used against the Kurds.
Most importantly, in the modern re-telling, religious fanatics weren’t out to destroy western civilization before we invaded Iraq, or if they were, Saddam’s iron rule ensured that they would remain powerless.
All of this, of course, it complete and utter horse-puckey. The ISIS nuts are the same religious fanatics that have infected that part of the world for centuries. The only difference between ISIS killing and oppressing everyone they don’t like and Saddam doing the same thing is that Saddam didn’t do it the name of religion, at least not quite so openly.
Iraq under Saddam was a nice place to live if you happened to be Sunni and often something of a hell on earth if you happened to be a Kurd or Shia. Wherever the ISIS cancer spreads, the same rules apply, often enforced by the same thugs.
What’s frustrating as hell is that there was a brief period of time when the thugs were forced back into their holes, thanks to the remarkable efforts of thousands of American servicemen and women. But then some genius decided that doing what pretty much have always done when we’ve cleaned up somebody else’s mess – leaving a stay-behind force sufficient to keep the peace – wasn’t necessary in this case.
By Rich Trzupek
Among the right, center and that portion of the left that actually understands what liberalism is about there are essentially two schools of thought regarding Pam Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) contest that encouraged people to draw the prophet Muhammed.
For some, there is no question that AFDI had the right, under the First Amendment, to sponsor such a contest and artists had the right, under the First Amendment, to compete in it. But, for this first group, this event was a knowing insult to Islam and therefore to many devout Muslims and it was poor judgement on Ms. Geller’s behalf to organize it. If anything, according to this first group, Ms. Geller set back the war against the looney-bin jihadis.
For a second group, there is no question that AFDI had the right, under the First Amendment, to sponsor such a contest and artists had the right, under the First Amendment, to compete in it. But, this second group believes that an event that constitutes a knowing Islam and therefore to many devout Muslims is actually a good thing, because it demonstrates that our commitment to the First Amendment trumps the sensibilities of any religious group. If anything, according to this group, Ms. Geller has helped to clarify the war against the looney-bin jihadis.
Veteran readers will likely expect that I will side with the second group and veteran readers will be right. It’s not that I enjoy knowingly insulting a religion – any religion – but because making the point that no religion is above insult in America is rather important right now.
We have had plenty of people cowed by this particular prohibition. A young cartoonist from Seattle is still in hiding after suggesting that cartoonists should have a “draw Muhammed day”. A film-maker in California remains in jail after making a truly awful internet video that the Obama administration said was so insulting to Muslims that it sparked the violence in Benghazi. Threats of violence convinced Comedy Central to do something they had never done before: sheathe the comedic arrows of Trey Parker and Matt Stone aimed at a religion.
As a practicing Catholic, I don’t care for the myriad of insults that Catholics and Christians of all sorts put up with on a daily basis. From comedians to comic strips to columnists, a day doesn’t go by without somebody, somewhere insulting my faith. The same is certainly true of those of the Jewish faith, and though they are not as numerous in this nation as other religious groups, I’m sure that Buddhists, Hindus, Druids and plethora of other faiths bear insults as well.
Many of these insults fall into the category of what, in the Christian faith, we would call “sacrilegious”, with “Piss Christ” being the most famous, but hardly the only, example. In medieval times, that sort of sacrilege would see the artist dragged before an ecclesiastical court that would surely have ordered his execution is a particularly creative and painful way.
These days, a Christian might write an angry letter or two, or – if they’re feeling especially motivated – participate in a peaceful protest, but for the most part we shrug, shake our heads and move on with our lives.
Now though I will lay claim to knowing a good deal more about Islam than the average American, I make no pretense of being an expert. But we know that modern Christians and Jews and Buddhists, etc. react to insults aimed at their faith peacefully. We also know that some Muslims react to insults aimed at their faiths with violence.
There are two possible reasons for that violent reaction: either people believe that Islam demands a violent reaction to such insults and members of the faithful are acting in accordance with that teaching, or people do not believe Islam demands a violent reaction to such insults and members of the faithful are acting of their misguided accord.
If the truth is the former, then events like Ms. Geller’s help to bring that truth to light, a truth that is important to establish when fighting this global war on terror. If the truth is the latter, then events like Ms. Geller’s help bring that truth to light, a truth that is equally important to establish when fighting this global war on terror.
Either way, America never has been and must never be a place where insults to any religion are prohibited, either by law or by public acquiescence to threats of violence. Kudos to Ms. Geller for driving that point home.
By Rich Trzupek
It is a myth, albeit a popular myth, that the Founding Fathers of our nation designed America as a democracy. They did not. They designed America to be a republic in which the people are represented indirectly rather than directly managing the affairs of state as would happen in a true democracy.
In truth, the founders had a healthy fear of democracy and with good reason. They believed that a pure democracy, in which everyone has an equal share in running the government, would quickly dissolve into chaos, anarchy and rule by the mob. This is of course exactly what happened when the French experimented with something that was supposed to be democracy after the revolution of 1789.
Over time, the United States drifter farther and farther away from the original design of the republic. We can argue whether those changes have been for the better or not, but it really doesn’t matter because there’s no back to the way it used to be. Suffice it to say that if Thomas Jefferson or James Madison or any of the rest came back to life in 2015 they would be horrified to find how far down the road to pure democracy the country they founded has gone.
In parts of the nation we are feeling the effects of democracy in action and the riots in Baltimore are just the latest example of what happens when popular rule leads to populist politicians being handed the keys of government.
Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is unfit to run a rural town with two hundred residents, much less a major American city. Anyone in a position of power who throws their own police force under the bus and lends support to the absurd notion that the men and women in blue routinely target citizens for abuse because of the color of their skin is an idiot or an anarchist. (Not there is much difference between the two).
There are bad cops to be sure, just as there are bad teachers, bad grocery clerks, bad carpenters, etc. You don’t define any of those professions by the worst examples you can find, you define a profession by the standard to conduct common to the profession and by the level of performance to be found among the rank and file to whom those standards matter.
I’ve had the privilege of knowing a lot of cops during my time on this planet. The consistent level of professionalism that I have seen among cops today amazes me. There is no comparison to the police that I commonly encountered in my youth, growing up in the South Side of Chicago.
They were good and, for the most part, sincerely dedicated. But there was a combination of smugness and cynicism among the cops of fifty years ago that made the “informal” part of police work as important, if not more so, than the by-the-book portion.
A Chicago cop in the sixties had no time for a wise-ass punk like me. They had to deal with real criminals and having to futz around with petty teen-age vandalism was just a pain-in-the-rear that took time away from their real work. It wasn’t worth dragging my sorry butt through the court system and having to do all that paperwork, so they took care of things “off the book”, so to speak.
At best, that might involve a call to one’s parents or parish priest. At worst, a quick trip to the local precinct might be in order. It’s amazing how persuasive the combination of a well-placed fist and phonebook can be.
It’s different now. Today’s police officers are true professionals. They have to be equal parts counselors, attorneys, arbitrators, clerks and – if there is any time left – law enforcement officials. More than one retired cop has told me that they don’t know why anybody would join the cops in this day and age, with the threat of litigation and the reality of continued demonization of their profession looming around every corner.
And now we have another idiot mayor joining the dolt in New York in trashing the people that lay their lives on the line to protect us, all for the sake of kissing up to the mob. Funny thing about mobs though. You can’t really control them. You might think that you’re on their good side, but they can change direction and come after you at any moment. Rawlings-Blake may have been fine with letting her police stand by as the mob burned and looted businesses in her city, but she might feel a little differently when the mob goes after City Hall.
By Rich Trzupek
The Global Warming crowd is in trouble. According to the polls, each year fewer people are concerned about the supposed effects that human activities are having on the planet’s climate. In a world getting uglier and more violent every day, the climate change fantasy is low on the average person’s list of priorities, if it even appears at all.
In response, the alarmists have played the only card they have played and are capable of playing: hysteria. Or more to the point, they’ve doubled down on the hysteria level, yet again. The crisis, they cry, has reached epic proportions! 2014 was the hottest year on record! No March has been warmer than this past March! And on, and on, and on, and – on.
Let’s start with the last assertion. Clearly, the March just past was not the warmest in Chicago history. Quite the opposite in fact. However, Chicago is not the world and it may be that global temperatures were moving in quite another direction last month.
Now we arrive at an interesting place. How do we know whether temperatures are increasing or decreasing or holding steady? There are three main sources of temperature data. One is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), which is administered by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The GHCN is best described as the surface temperature record, and it is the dataset that activists and politicians who ascribe to the alarmist point of view reference when they assert that the climate crisis is real and getting worse.
There are two other significant global temperature records. These are the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH) system, both of which use satellites to monitor global temperatures. The RSS and UAH datasets disagree – strongly – with the GHCN data. According to the satellites, global temperatures have been pretty much stable since 1998, 2014 wasn’t the “hottest year on record”, March 2015 was not especially distinctive, etc.
So the question is: why the disagreement? The alarmists would have you believe the satellite data is simply wrong, a rather remarkable assertion since the satellite networks were put in place to prove the “truth” of man-made global warming.
But, there is something weird going on with the surface temperature record, which is – at the risk of repeating myself – the only global temperature dataset that supports the alarmist’s predictions.
To understand what has been going on, let’s take a look at an entirely representative temperature record. The following is the temperature record from a weather station in Puerto Casado, Paraguay, in its raw form. That is, these are the temperatures that were actually recorded at the weather station:
You don’t need a degree in the sciences to see that the raw data does not suggest there has been any sort of recent increase in temperatures at this station. And again, this station is typical of what the raw surface temperature data looks like at most every surface station.
However, the raw data is not what the alarmists use when they appeal to hysteria. To do that, they need to use “adjusted” data that they claim is more accurate. Here’ is the same dataset, following NOAA “adjustments”:
Rather alarming, no? But accurate? As the “adjusted” surface temperature record deviates more and more for the satellite records, an increasing number of scientists have questioned the basis and validity of the adjusted surface temperature data. Toward that end, a group of distinguished scientists, led by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, have gathered together to investigate the nature and effect of the “adjustments” that NOAA has been making.
This investigation could be, and probably should be, the death knell of global warming alarmism. But, as invested as the left and their allies are in this particular fantasy, it probably won’t be the case. Mores the pity…
By Rich Trzupek
In 1770 British soldiers killed five colonists on the streets of Boston. The incident became known as the Boston Massacre, raising the same sort of fury among the populace that the Kent State shootings would two hundred years later.
Captain Thomas Preston, officer of the watch during the incident, and seven other British soldiers were held for trial. Preston tried to find an attorney to defend him and his men, asking several loyalist lawyers to take the case. All refused, afraid of the reaction of the angry, rebellious radicals who would eventually push the colonies into revolution.
Unable to find help among his sympathizers, Preston to turned to his opponents. He asked John Adams, already established as one of the leaders among the radicals, to lead the defense. Adams accepted, to the consternation of many of his compatriots.
For Adams, it was a matter of principle. He believed that everyone, guilty or innocent, deserved representation under the law. The fact that he was working to end what he viewed as an illegal military occupation was neither here nor there. Members of that despised occupation force deserved a fair trial as much as anyone else.
Thanks to Adams’ defense, the eight were acquitted of murder. Two were convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, while the remaining six were cleared of any wrongdoing. Historians pretty much agree that justice was served.
Adams, never known for his modesty, would later say that defending Preston and his men was “…one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”
This is probably the most famous example of one of the features of American jurisprudence of which we are most proud: everyone gets representation. American attorneys have proudly, even arrogantly, followed that principle throughout history.
Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, James Earl Ray and hosts of other reprehensible murderers found representation. When the American Nazi party went to court to exercise their right of free speech in Skokie, it was attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union – the kind of organization that would never be allowed to exist under Nazi rule – that stood up in defense of that hateful organization.
Against the backdrop of that proud history, a recent New York Times story is truly chilling. According to the Times, no large American law firm is willing to represent those who oppose gay marriage in the case currently under deliberation by the Supreme Court.
Why? Because they are afraid of backlash from the LGBT community should they dare to do so. I am not aware of any parallel in American history.
This is not about how anyone feels about gay marriage. As a matter of my faith, I believe that marriage is a sacrament that is – exclusively – between a man and a woman. However, if secular authorities wish to define marriage in another way, that’s up to them. However the Supremes decide, I believe we should move forward and get along without rancor.
What this is about is whether or not people are allowed to express their opinions regarding gay marriage. It is ironic that the LGBT community, which surely suffered at the hands of forces of repression, has now become the poster-child for repressive behavior. Having “made it” to the mainstream, so to speak, gays and lesbians have embraced the culture of censorship they justifiably complained about, to an extent rarely seen in the United States.
It’s a sad situation, as some in the LGBT community have had the courage to admit. When the biggest law firms in the United States fear to follow a simple principle so famously championed by one of our Founding Fathers, one must wonder whether those firms have lost their way, or an interest group has grown too powerful for its own good, or both.
By Rich Trzupek
So, apparently, the truth-challenged theocrats who run the intolerant nation of Iran have come to agreement with a deal that will allow the west to enforce a treaty that ensures that Iran is unable to produce nuclear weaponry in the future. Or so the story goes.
Negotiations with Iran necessarily involved some aspects of self-deception. For the western powers, a prerequisite was the assumption that Iran was working toward some sort of legitimate, non-aggressive, goal by developing a nuclear program. Why in the world would anyone attempt to limit, rather than eliminate, this tyrannical theocracy’s nuclear capabilities unless that theocracy could establish some peaceful reason for needing that technology?
In reality, everyone – including the Obama administration – clearly understands that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are solely about the development of weapons of mass destruction. Sitting atop a virtually unlimited pool of oil, Iran doesn’t suffer from a desperate need of alternative forms of energy.
What of non-energy related nuclear science applications, like within the medical realm for example? Iran could obtain the isotopes needed for such work far more cheaply and much more easily by purchasing the material from established nuclear nations like Russia, France or the United States.
Accordingly, we play this game. We pretend that Iran has legitimate need of a nuclear program and Iran pretends to be shocked that anyone would think otherwise.
The President has pledged that Iran won’t get the bomb on his watch, a promise that would be comforting but for Obama’s failure to follow through on such pledges in the past. Remember that line in the sand that Assad was forbidden to cross, for example? Not only did the Syrian thug cross it, he positively danced his way across.
I take the President at his word when he says that he doesn’t want Iran to get the bomb, in other words, but I have long ago lost any confidence that the guy knows what the hell he’s doing, particularly when it comes to dealing with foreign thugs. This is the administration who presented Russia with a “Reset” button for cripes sake. How’s that been working out?
Part of the problem is that the administration, and many of the left, pretend there are only two ways to keep Iran from getting the bomb: reach an agreement, or bomb ‘em. But, there is a third way, one that we know works: keep the sanctions in place and, if possible, tighten ‘em up.
Our message should have been “dismantle your nuclear infrastructure or we’ll double down on sanctions. You think your economy is up crap-creek now? Just wait.”
Consider that about eighty percent of Iran’s populace are less than thirty years old. How long do you think young people like that are going to put up being ruled by eighty year old mullahs forcing a medieval form of theocracy down their throats if their economy continues to go to hell in an handbasket.
Pressing forward with the sanctions would continue to destabilize the mullahs and – just as we saw in the USSR at the end of the last century – people will eventually rise up against tyrants when conditions get bad enough. Regime change represents our best chance of getting Iran to abandon its nuclear program and the sanctions represent our best chance of fermenting enough unrest to force regime change.
Unfortunately, it looks like we’ll be stuck with this silly deal, which does nothing to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Instead, we have to hope that Iran will keep its promise not to use it.
And once the sanctions have been lifted, how long do you think it will be before the mullahs start to refuse international inspection? I’d give it like a month.
The people that will ultimately pay the price for this idiocy are the citizens of Israel. Unless Bibi takes action, which – once this deal starts to fall apart – I’d wager he’ll do in a heartbeat.
By Rich Trzupek
It is pretty clear at this point that the tragedy that cost 150 people their lives when a Germanwings airliner crashed in the French Alps was the deliberate act of a mentally disturbed co-pilot.
One needs no more evidence than the fact that First Officer Andreas Lubitz set the auto-pilot on the doomed Airbus 320 to descend to 100 feet and then deliberately locked Captain Patrick Sonderheimber out of the cockpit as the plane plunged to earth. Sane people don’t do such things, by definition.
Further details continue to emerge. It appears that Lubitz suffered from depression in the past and that his long-time girl-friend had left him the day before the crash. Vision problems that could have resulted in Lubitz losing his pilot’s license may have exacerbated a fragile mental state. His girl-friend chillingly recalls how Lubitz was determined to do something – presumably anything – that would make the name Andreas Lubitz resonate through history.
Lubitz succeeded in his supposed quest for immortality. Air carriers have already instituted new procedures, and will continue to institute such procedures, to prevent a disturbed pilot from being able to commit mass murder in the future.
As is, and has always been the case, the response to tragedy will be imperfect. Whatever corrections and protections we make as a society, evil will find a way around them. It has ever been so and will ever be thus.
Yet, the knowledge that we mere humans are incapable of achieving perfection should never persuade us to abandon the pursuit.
In that spirit, the Great Lesson that we ought to have learned from the Germanwings tragedy is the same one that we should have learned from the Newtown massacre and Columbine slaughter and the Egyptair crash – to name but a few examples: we need to take mental illness more seriously.
I make that statement as one who has to deal with mental illness. Notice I didn’t say “suffers from mental illness”, because I think that use of a pejorative like “suffers” demands a victim status that is ultimately counter-productive. There is little practical difference between mental illnesses and breaking a bone. Both are painful, disruptive and – thanks to today’s medical miracles – ultimately treatable.
My particular mental illness is defined as “anxiety disorder”, which is a form of bi-polar disorder that makes the un-medicated me somewhat manic/depressive and acutely prone to panic attacks. But for modern medicine, my condition would have long ago relegated me to hiding in my home, too terrified to deal with any of the uncertainties of real life. Would have kept me out of The Examiner as well, which would have pleased some percentage of readers!
After being diagnosed in my early twenties, I first did what many of us who suffer from mental disorder did: I hid in the shadows. I was embarrassed. I didn’t want anyone to know. Over time, I came to understand that was stupidity to the nth degree. Either this problem was or was not of my making. If it was a weakness, then equally weak individuals should know that medicine could offer strength. If it was not a weakness, then equally afflicted individuals should know that medicine could offer a cure. Didn’t matter either way. The net result was the same.
Accordingly, I became an unapologetic champion of mental health. As part of my everyday dealings with my fellow humans – whenever it comes up – I never, ever hide the details of my particular mental health story. Not because I think my story makes me a hero, which it doesn’t, but because I am sure that the world will be a better place the more we accept the simple fact that mental illness is just another form of illness.
Tragedies like Newtown and Germanwings are the direct result of society tippy-toeing around mental health issues. As a civilized society, we tend to protect the individual’s right of privacy with regard to mental health problems. That’s noble – and understandable – but the fact is that mentally-unstable people in positions to endanger lives, whether they be fellow students or airline pilots, should be subject to mental health evaluations before they are put in positions where they can endanger other lives. Let’s stop worrying about the stupid stigma issues and start focusing on the mental health of those people who are in a position to cause hurt.
Bet on Bibi
By Rich Trzupek
To the consternation of the left, including the President of the United States, Benjamin Netanyahu not only won virtual re-election as Israel’s Prime Minister, he absolutely trounced the competition. What are we to make of this?
The first thing that comes immediately to mind is that polling today is beset by corruption or incompetence or both. Pre-election polling in Israel almost universally predicted that Netanyahu’s Likud Party was going to lose a disturbing number of seats in the Knesset, making it difficult – if not impossible – for Likud to put together a coalition that would allow Bibi to retain office as Prime Minister.
That is of course not what happened. Likud came of the election stronger than before, having captured 30 seats in the Knesset, more than any other party, putting it in a commanding position as negotiations to form the next government begins.
How did professional pollsters miss this result? I’m no polling expert, but I suspect that polling in Israel suffers from the same sort of problems that beset polling in America. These days it seems that polls are often used as a political tool, reflecting the pollster’s desires rather than reality. Does that happen consciously or unconsciously? Your guess is as good as mine.
The other, and much more consequential, result of this result involves President Obama’s reaction to it. I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theories that frame Obama as a closet Muslim and/or anti-Semite who wouldn’t be at all disturbed if Israel were wiped off the map. I think he wants Israel to survive and believes it has a right to do so.
But, I do believe that the President is naïve in his approach to foreign affairs. He appears to sincerely believe in the fiction that, but for Bibi, a “two-state” solution could finally bring a lasting peace to the Middle East.
That’s utter nonsense. The two-state solution requires reaching an agreement with Hamas and any deal involving Hamas won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. Don’t take my word for it, take Hamas’. The following comes directly from their charter:
“Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it.” Hamas pledges to wage “jihad in the face of the oppressors, in order to deliver the land and the believers from their filth, impurity, and evil” in order “to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”
Given the opportunity, Hamas will happily agree to a two-state solution and then they’ll do exactly what they have always done: everything possible to destroy Israel. The state that used millions of dollars’ worth of construction supplies sent to it to build housing to instead construct dozens of terrorist tunnels cannot be trusted any farther than I can throw a Buick.
Bibi knows that. The majority of Israelis know that. Moderate Arab states like Jordan and Egypt know that. They also all know that Iran cannot be trusted to follow through on any nuclear deal to which it purports to agree.
Our current President is a petulant fellow. When he doesn’t get his way, he has marked a tendency to strike out – defying Congress, the Constitution, public opinion or whatever. Now that it appears certain that Bibi will stay in power, there is noise that the administration will do what had previously been unthinkable: abandon Israel at the UN.
Heretofore, the United States has exercised our veto power in the UN Security Council to defeat any attempts to impose a Middle East “solution” upon Israel. There is talk – and one hopes to God these rumors are unfounded – that the President will reverse that policy in the near future.
As a practical matter, no UN resolution cannot compel a sovereign state to agree to anything, so abandoning Israel in the UN won’t make any immediate difference in Mideast affairs. But, such a slight will have long-term consequences, every bit as disastrous as Obama’s decision – made against the advice of just about every military and policy leader – to entirely evacuate US troops from Iraq rather than negotiate a new status of forces agreement.
Once the nut-jobs perceive that America is no longer dedicated to preserving Israel’s sovereignty, they will grow ever more emboldened and aggressive. Fortunately for the Israeli people, they have a leader who is up to that challenge, even if we do not.
By Rich Trzupek
Last week, liberal Senators Markey, Boxer and Whitehouse sent out an intimidating letter to the Heartland Institute, an organization I proudly support, and ninety nine other businesses and institutions that dare to question global warming alarmism. Being a bit disgusted by their strong-arm tactics, I decided a reply was in order. Here’s what I wrote:
Senators Markey, Boxer and Whitehouse,
As a scientist who has volunteered my time and talent to help the Heartland Institute defend the tradition of open scientific discourse, I was saddened by the intimidating tone of the letters that you sent to Heartland and 99 other businesses and institutions that have dared to question “global warming” heterodoxy. As an American, I was appalled.
How dare you. How dare anyone who has been elected to represent the best interests of the populace – not just that portion of the populace that can be counted on to preserve their exalted position in government – engage in this sort of bullying. I know, as you know – but as I am certain you will never have the courage or integrity to admit – that these letters did not result from desperate personal intellectual wrestling with the nuances and details of climate policy. The average American is not yet so dim nor so cowed as to believe that you have any personal grasp of these issues.
I believe, and I am sure the majority of Americans believe – including your supporters – that these letters were generated at the behest of and largely authored by environmental advocacy groups that have a vested interest in promoting “global warming” hysteria, with suitable editing by your PR staffers. I very much believe that about the only thing that can be attributed to you personally regarding these letters is your signatures. If you would wish to dispute that, I invite you to discuss the “settled science” of “climate change” with me, with Joe Bast of Heartland, with Dr. Roy Spencer, with Dr. Richard Lindzen or with any of the cadre of public-policy experts and climatologists who dare to disagree with “climate change” heterodoxy in any public forum.
You won’t do that of course. For that would force you to confront the greatest irony of climate change heterodoxy. You insist that climate change is the supremely important issue of our age, but you abrogate any personal responsibility to understand the science behind the claim – except for the most rudimentary (and therefore most meaningless) aspects of the issue.
I do not understand how or why your personal refusal to personally learn the detailed scientific nuances of an issue that you say is so tremendously important to the future of civilization can be justified. If I thought planet Earth were in danger of extinction from pixie dust, I sure as hell would personally do everything I could to become an expert on the sources and effects of pixie dust. Most everyone on your side of the global-warming issue defaults to “the science is settled” BS, which is simply a way of making sure that you don’t have to personally understand the science while you create politically-profitable alarm.
And when we talk about the science being settled or not, let’s be clear on what that means.
1) That increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will increase the amount of energy (heat) retained in the atmosphere,
2) That the increased use of fossil fuels to generate energy has, and will continue to, increase the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Bill Nye, the Science Lie, and Al Gore, the Warming Bore, have spent an enormous amount of time and money attempting to convince whom they seem to assume to be a moronic public of these two well-established facts. Everybody understands that everybody understands those two points, except global warming disaster fanatics and their pliable pawns in the mainstream media and left-wing politicos who try to convince the populace that “deniers” reject these facts.
Not so. The salient questions are: 1) how significant is the effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and 2) what can we do about those increasing concentrations. There is compelling case to be made that the answer to question one is “not much” and the failure of alarmist models to predict the global temperature stability we have experienced over the last eighteen years strongly supports that case.
The answer to question two, as far as America is concerned, is almost certainly: “nothing”. For more than a decade, the U.S. has made tortuous efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases through a jumbled, ill-conceived, combination of federal, regional and state initiatives. Those efforts have clearly been successful. USEPA data clearly shows that domestic greenhouse gas emissions have continually declined since 2008, and anyone familiar with this ill-conceived jumble of federal, regional and state initiatives in place knows that trend will continue well past 2020.
But, to what end? If you insist that greenhouse gases are pollutants, then you must admit that they are global pollutants and the data shows that the massive reductions the United States has made, and will continue to make, have no discernable effect on global concentrations of greenhouse gases. The bottom line is that if your concern about the supposedly catastrophic effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were sincere, you would spend your time and energy to find ways to reduce emissions in China and India, rather than bullying independent organizations like Heartland and courageous scientists like Dr. Soon who dare to expose the appalling incompetence of alarmist climate scientists and the hypocrisy of those who support them.
As a final note, I wish to make you aware that this letter will appear in Examiner Publications, a suburban chain of newspapers published in the Chicago suburbs. If you should wish to offer a reply, we will be happy to do publish it.