Jump to content
ODIOT (Our Debate Is Over Too). But here’s my response to you: surely you don’t mean to infer that because the government once may have been on the right side of a tobacco debate decades ago that you are now comfortable deferring to their judgment in all things? Learning tobacco health chronology is without a doubt on my list of things I no longer have time for - so I’m going to take your word for it. Perhaps you’re older than me but I just don’t remember the decades of national prosperity or the very foundation of the industrial revolution being built on the tobacco industry. On the other hand, I think affordable energy did have a little something to do with those things. I was 12 when I started smoking (I was stressed from my folks apologizing to me about Kennedy’s nuclear war). It took me maybe 2 days to figure out that it may not be a good thing for me to do. That was many years ago and my memory’s not what it once was, but I don’t recall being contacted by the federal government to tip me off about their health concerns pertaining to tobacco. Maybe that is why I quit, but I honestly don’t think so.
The point is its apples and oranges. The benefits derived from cheap energy are in no way comparable to the benefits derived from tobacco. The commonality that there are companies and employees involved in both endeavors and the government is opposed to both means NOTHING when it comes to a logical assessment of whether CO2 emissions are likely lead to dangerous global warming. A more meaningful correlation from my perspective is: Al Gore’s family raised tobacco. Al Gore promotes global warming alarmism. Therefore Al Gore is wrong about everything and only interested in profiteering (I find this truism actually works pretty well!).
Same thing applies to your North Atlantic observations. Climate changes. Just because you once saw some ice melt or just because someone makes an entire movie of glaciers melting, it does not mean CO2 emissions are the primary cause. If you had instead flown over the South Atlantic, would you now be a skeptic because the polar ice cap there has grown to a record extent? Lastly, I’m afraid it has everything to do with politics Robert, everything.
It boils down to a question of how to wisely allocate resources –in this case financial resources. I ask you, would the planetary environment be better served by spending kajillions of dollars, sacrificing GDP here in the states, and imposing economic hardships on ALL of us and our kids for the sake of what is going to be, at least according to the experts, a completely ineffectual effort - a mere gesture really - to combat so-called global warming? Or by sending just a fraction of that proposed expense to China for the express purpose of adding pollution control equipment to the power plants there? Plants is dire need of emission controls as highlighted in another post on this page. The answer is pure politics. You have a good weekend too.
ODIO. But in my opinion you’re being way too hard on yourself and may well be freaking the kids out a bit too. Seriously, here in the Yampa Valley things really aren’t too bad environmentally speaking. In fact, they’re pretty good. Too many eurasian doves but other than that, few complaints. Thank goodness I wasn’t raised with my folks apologizing for having already screwed things up. I’ll bet yours didn’t do that either. Personally I had enough issues to grow through without that anxiety thrown into the mix. I’m curious, what’s a kid supposed to say to something like that? Gee pops, that’s ok? No wonder kids today spend hours and days escaping to Call to Duty land or Facebooking as though they’ve lost all hope for a meaningful existence.
Better in my view that we educate them about the relationships between existential needs (food, water shelter), lifestyle choices (such as choosing to become a permanent inhabitant in a once pristine mountain valley), resources (raw materials, energy, ag products) and environmental impacts. Better to tell them the world’s not perfect but it’s manageable and with their help and some wise decision making, things can and will continue to improve. Oh, while you’re at it, tell them wind and solar power aren’t the answer in spite of their parents generation’s manic insistence that it be so. Teach them to think for themselves, let them draw their own conclusions, and trust them to meet the challenges they’ll face. Do that and we’ll all be amazed at the results.
Or we can continue to teach them that somebody else has already figured out what the answers are and here’s what they need to do. Continue to reinforce the idea that centralized government intervention is the best mechanism available to them to improve their lives and the state of the world and we should simply trust and support certain officials, especially unelected bureaucrats, because after all they know best. Do that and we’ll all be amazed at the results too. Millions upon millions of people have already been amazed at those results.
Personally, if the day comes when I feel compelled to apologize to my kids or grandkids for an attribute of the world that develops or worsens to their detriment on my watch, it's more likely it will be for failing to protect and preserve their liberties and personal freedoms to the same extent that I was able to enjoy mine. That’s the legacy that was gifted to me by my predecessors and the one that I’ve far too long and far too easily taken, and allowed my children to take, for granted. But that’s just me. Have a good weekend Dave.
A third recall effort in Colorado is gaining traction. The crosshairs are now trained on Senator Evie Hudak of Westminster. If you did anything at all to support the successful recall efforts of Senators Morse and and Giron, you know your voice and your signature and your financial expression of support can and in fact did make the difference. The battle was won, but the war continues on.
I'd urge everyone with an ongoing interest in this issue to educate themselves about Senator Hudak's role in the same political debacle that Senators Morse and Giron have already been held accountable for. In the interest of fairness alone, Senator Hudak should receive the same treatment.
I prefer the term "post-constitutional representative republic" as the best descriptor of our current form of governance. Not my phrase, but the most accurate I've come across.
One person not surprised by the end of the Cold War was President Ronald Reagan, the man who provided the steadfast leadership required to finally bring the communists to their knees in that conflict. Sadly in my view, and given the contemporary state of world affairs not coincidentally, President Reagan also happens to have been the last clear eyed conservative to occupy the Whitehouse.
Contrast Reagan's example with the cross eyed, stumbling, constantly evolving leadership style of the current administration and you have more than ample justification to stay out of this particular conflict as Mr. Douglas suggested.
Mr. Bonnifield asks, "Do we have what it takes fight that war?" In terms of our present day leadership the answer is no.
Last login: Friday, November 1, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.