Now, guess what? I’m involved with another Irish liberal Democrat, Daphne. How could I be so lucky? I wonder, could the Irish be genetically Democrats? So far no political sparks - a few little rubs here and there, but nothing remotely angry or confrontational. She has requested, "Be a bit less strident in your wording, just to lessen the possible anger of readers." She may be right so I am trying - not to change my positions - just to soften my rhetoric. I'm certain to ramble about quite a bit in this writing which is opinions, not news so feel free to buzz off at any time.
Incidently, I have decided that politics is a purely emotional thing with little or no logical, rational or reasoning vector. I have also decided that politicians never appeal to logic or rational thought, only emotions or instincts. How else could you explain the differences between what they promise before elections that virtually all of even their supporters recognize as a pack of lies. Contrast that with their performance after being elected when most of what they actually do is not remotely related to their promises, but mostly amounts to payoffs for money and support during the latest election. There is no rational component to that, at least not to the voter.
I have a well developed plan which, among other benefits, cuts off a great deal of the ability to "pay off" supporters with money and privilege. Of course, no politician in his or her right mind would support such a plan because it provides direct benefits to the people and not the politicians. It would also prevent much of the now overwhelming power of buying votes with public money. It has become my opinion that Republicans are just as self-serving in this as are Democrats. It’s just that it is still fairly new to them and so Democrats, with their many years of full control, are far more experienced and thus much better at fleecing the public than Republicans. Besides, the main stream media are virtually all firmly in their pockets for whatever reason. One slight slip by a Republican and the wrath of the media immediately descends in vast numbers. Said individual usually is relegated to the political trash heap. Similar or even more serious actions by a Democrat and excuses are provided, explanations are given, hidden virtues are suddenly brought to the fore and even prison sentences are pardoned. Said individual either continues to hold his office or is provided another well paying and often influential position. Examples of both are so numerous, a listing would be meaningless, but one typical one is provided in the next few paragraphs.
I am appalled at the main stream media and at liberal Democrats for their constant expressions of hatred and demonstrated hypocrisy, especially in things like the Foley case. I have several friends who are gay. Their lives do not revolve around their sexuality any more than mine does. Yes, it is an important part of who they are, but they have families and friends they love and care for just as I do. Sex has nothing to do with those relationships.
The main stream media - ABC, CBS and NBC have aired about 150 comments and reports on Foley and he has merely been accused of sexual comments in private Internet exchanges with an underage individual. From these comments and reports you would think Foley’s sexual activities were the only thing he did or thought about.
The New York Times (Liberal Isvestia) lead the charge in defaming Foley. He then resigns his seat in Congress in shame and continues being the subject of critical reports by the main stream media. The Republican party severely chastised Foley who had not been convicted of anything. The liberal main stream media continue bashing the Republicans with Foley.
Typically, when Democrats do far worse, there is no such flurry in the media. Consider Representative Mel Reynolds of Chicago who in 1995 was convicted of having actual sex, (not Internet sex) with an underage campaign worker and sent to prison. He kept his Congressional seat up until he went to prison. He was treated to a mere twenty reports by NBC, and CBS combined. He was never mentioned by ABC who had earlier in the year touted him as a "Person of the Week" and praised him for his work with young people. In 2001 he was pardoned by President Clinton.
The following describes the essence of how liberals and their friends in the media treat criminal liberal Democrat politicians like Mel Reynolds who spout their agenda: "Jessie Jackson has added former Chicago democratic congressman Mel Reynolds to Rainbow / PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton's last-minute forgiveness spree.
"Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a- half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious; however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer. (Apparently OK if you are a Democrat.)
"This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate, won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. His new job? .....Youth counselor."
Once again the Main stream media will never report on this, certainly not just before an election.
Quite obviously is much better to be a liberal Democrat if you are a criminal or evil doer. Republicans punish members merely accused of wrong doings. Democrats applaud and support members convicted even of major crimes. Yes! There is a difference.
The blatant efforts by the media to unseat Republicans and replace them with Democrats is obvious to all but the most feeble minded. Just before the election a report was leaked describing a meeting between media supporters and high ranking Democrats. The purpose of the meeting was to coordinate efforts in the media to aid Democrats and defeat Republicans in the upcoming elections. The media were livid about this disclosure of their true nature.
It is obvious Democrats are frequently and effectively promoted by the media while Republicans are lambasted at every opportunity. It is easy for them to do this by repeated reporting of (or creating) Republican negatives and Democrat positives. Besides things like the Foley incident, look at two others:
1. The economy. Remember "It’s the economy, stupid?" Clinton ran on and was supported in the media for "the best economy ever." Report after report on the booming economy came from the media. Now when virtually every economic indicator shows we truly do have "the best economy ever," with most statistics far better than the best during the Clinton years, the media is virtually silent about it. Rest assured you will see none of the constant praise for the economy like that heaped on Clinton by his fawning media. Any media reports will minimize any and all good economic news, of which there is an overwhelming number at the present. Let a single possibly negative report come out it will be reported and analyzed ad nauseum by these so called "objective reporters."
2. Then there is the price of gasoline. Once more, during the election, numerous Democrat operatives and candidates accused Bush of manipulating gas prices to help Republicans. This was frequently reported in the media. How many times did that same media point out the facts about gasoline pricing? -- 0 -- What partisan chicanery! Does Bush control OPEC or the world prices of crude? Or do the American oil companies? This is complete nonsense and highly inflamatory, but many of the American electorate are either so stupid or ill informed they believe it. Once again it is the media’s fanning of emotional fires that works while facts are totally ignored or misrepresented.
I wonder how the election would have gone down if the main stream media actually did report things objectively?
So I shall continue writing, and probably continue irritating those I have irritated in the past with (hopefully) factual information. It seems factual information (like my latest bit about global warming, or the above few paragraphs about Foley and Reynolds) is most irritating to those driven to the left by their hopeful, but irrational feelings. Many on the left are like rabid sports fans providing great adoration and emotional support for the objects of their adulation and hatred and animosity for those on the opposing team regardless of facts about either. I have come more and more to believe that reason and logic have absolutely nothing to do with these emotional attachments, either fans for sports heros and their teams, or voters (primarily of the left, but many from the entire spectrum) for politicians and their parties. Both have a large component of complete irrationality and defy all reason and logic. "Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind’s made up."
I only hope the movie that prompted all this isn't thinly disguised anti-establishment crap like so many of this type of movie tend to be lately. I have become so suspicious of any movie with a message. I don't mind obvious messages, even political ones. That's what most creative writers do, give wings to their opinions. What I do mind and what really ticks me off are message films (or writing) that pretend to address a usually popular theme and then spend most of the film promoting or berating some political or social group or idea often in an almost subliminal fashion. I certainly despised both the method and the message of "Farenheit 911," but it was at least honest about its promotion of socialism and message of hate for conservatism and capitalism and I respect that, the only honesty connected with the movie.
I can't think offhand of a simple example of the other kind as, most often, the propaganda comes through in little vignettes or comments buried in the film so as to be impressed on the watcher (or reader) while not being noticed. These subliminal agenda promotions are much the same as hidden advertising: the Coke can on the kitchen counter, the cigarette in the glamorous actress's hand (now long gone), the flashy new car with prominent brand pronouncement. Movie sets are a treasure trove of hidden advertising opportunities for which companies pay huge amounts of money.
Al Gore's book and movie about global warming is a classic example of a major complex example of political propaganda. It is clearly a political message and agenda thinly hidden within a very myopic view of climate and climate change. Based largely on anecdotal information of very limited scope, even his accuracies are thin as he deals solely with the greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 on climate, ignoring all other factors. Many of these other factors: ocean currents (move far more heat energy than the atmosphere), atmospheric dust particles, variation in cloud cover (both dust and clouds reflect the sun’s heat), variations in solar energy output, variations in the earth's position and attitude relative to the sun, may easily out shadow the greenhouse contribution to warming by factors of as much as ten or even more.
It’s interesting to note that as recently as the 1970's the same groups now so concerned with global warming were expressing the same kind of concerns about global cooling and what were we to do about another eminent ice age. (They have been coming on after about ten thousand year warm periods for a very long time and we are now more than ten thousand years past the end of the last ice age.)
Climate and weather form an extremely complex system about which we still understand but a tiny part. Weather predictions of a few days are fraught with inaccuracies that grow exponentially with time. A carefully considered forecast for the tenth day in the future has roughly the same degree of accuracy as a dart board throw at a collection of the weather reports for past days at or near the same time and location of other years. (Actually, one comparison of just such predictions gave a slight edge to the dart board.) World climate is at least several orders more complex than weather. When we can predict when and where a hurricane will strike before it forms, then we may begin to have an accurate and realistic understanding of climate.
The man-made increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) effect on climate, even if it is enough to tip a precarious balance, may much more be brought about by the destruction of forests than by the burning of fossil fuels. The known annual cycling of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to increases and decreases of active plant growth in the northern hemisphere each summer. (Because most land lies in the northern hemisphere.) This powerful CO2 engine, tipped by forest destruction (a human activity), may have changed enough to be the major cause of the steady increase of CO2. The contribution of fossil fuel consumption could be corrected by enough increase in forest, the largest force in removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
One other important consideration, other greenhouse gasses like water vapor and methane could be major factors affecting atmospheric temperatures. Dust particles in the air and clouds can cause a cooling of air temperatures as they reflect sunlight and heat out into space. Another factor about forests is that they absorb enough heat energy from sunlight to have a substantial effect on both the air temperature above them and the amount of moisture in that air. The disappearing snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly linked to the cutting of the forest around the base of the mountain as the now drier, warmer winds blowing up the slope resulted in much less snow. That particular situation was more a contributor to global warming than a result of it.
None of these factors are even mentioned in Gore’s work, primarily because they would work against his particular agenda. They are also completely ignored by the media who like to attack entities (like the oil companies) which they can paint as evil, greed driven monsters and so divert attention from their substantial failings while promoting their own, self serving agenda and attempting to preserve their so called "objective" stance.
I could go on, but I urge those who want to know the truth about what most knowledgeable scientists think about climate change and global warming look for some unbiased opinions. Nigel Calder describes many of the conflicting theories about climate change and how and why it happens in his book, "Magic Universe." This is a collection of short articles on things like the carbon cycle, ocean currents, biosphere from space, ice-rafting events, earth systems, plate motions, earthshine, the sun's interior, solar variability, the gravitational disturbances caused by the planet Mercury, volcano explosions and other forces and events that all can have an effect on the earth's climate and can contribute to global warming and cooling. There are many other studies of the earth's climate forces that provide truly objective insights into our future weather and without a political objective. Of course, those serious studies don't sell like the catastrophic predictions of a national politician who gets lots of media coverage. Maybe we should hear Paris Hilton's opinions on global warming. I'm sure the media would cover that, probably on the front page.
