At the bottom of this story is a link to a story claiming that the Chinese government wants the United States to move forward with climite change legislation, some form of cap & trade, in spite of the science not being settled on whether humans actually cause global warming.
While it may be surprising that the Chinese, who build coal-fired power plants seemingly every day, want the United States to act, it should not be. The Chinese economy has been growing by leaps and bounds in the last several years and certainly the Chinese see an opportunity to catch up with the US economically. This assumption, that the Chinese hope to compete with the US economically, is the key to understanding why they hope the US will curb its carbon emissions.
Carbon based fuels produce the vast majority of energy in the US and the US economy relies on a steady stream of energy to sustain itself and to grow. Any legislation that attempts to slow carbon emissions will also slow economic growth. Green energy, whatever that may consist of, is certainly not reliaible or plentiful enough to pick up the slack that would surely result from legislation that cripples carbon based energy.
The Chinese realize that this is the case, which is why they support the US crippling its own economy for the sake of the Earth. Obviously the Chinese don't care about global warming. If they did, they would slow down the proliferation of carbon based energy in their nation. What the Chinese care about is slowing the US economy to make it easier for China to catch up.
Democrats want to pass cap & trade legislation to help "save the Earth." China wants the Democrats to pass cap & trade, even though the science isn't settled according to the Chinese, to cripple the US economy. Politics certainly makes for strange bedfellows...
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/TOE6290AL.htm
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The Seismic Political Shift that is Health Care
According to the Daily Caller, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has urged her rank and file Democrats to walk the electoral plank for the health care bill when it arrives on the floor for a vote. Many have suspected that Speaker Pelosi might be willing to compromise her majority to obtain passage of landmark health care legislation.
Carefully considered, the apparent plan appears to be reasonable with the all-but assured impending defeat of a number of House Democrats in November. Rarely does the President's party pick up seats in his 1st midterm elections and rarely will a majority as large as the Democrats current on grow, especially in a year with such political tumult.
Speaker Pelosi is risking further losses but, in my estimation, feels that passage of health care reform is much more important than the additional seats her majority may lose. The question is whether this gamble will still be as appealing if the House is ruled by Speaker Boehner in 2011.
Another question one must ask is why health care legislation is so important to the Democrats. Given the benefit of the doubt, Democrats can set forth an image of doing what is right in the long run at the expense of their political majority - a noble image if I've ever witnessed one. However, the cynical side of me understands that the health care legislation currently being considered will alter the political discourse of America forever. Such tight government regulation of a private industry promises that the debate of health care in the future will take place on Democrats' terms. Arguments over who regulates industry better and who provides better government services is inheretly a battle of who is better at big government - conservatives don't will these battles.
Speaker Pelosi is willing to compromise her current majority for the sake of altering the political discourse in America to the point that one of the nations largest issues will always be debated on Democrats' terms, promising a political advantage for liberals far into the future.
All of these considerations are in addition to the even more cynical notion that health care legislation is so important to liberal Democrats because they are power hungry. Again, health care is a game changer because once the government is in control of your health care, government can usurp control over other parts of your life with the guise of saving money. "No, we cannot allow you to eat foods with trans fat, or smoke as much as you like or drink as much as you like because it's unhealthy and we, the government, cannot afford to pay for your treatment. We must control your habits to save you, the taxpayer, money."
It is for these reasons, the seismic political shift that liberal health care legislation will insure, that the current plans for health reform must be defeated. At state is our health and our liberty. Health care legislation must be argued predominently on philosophical terms. Democrats will pull at our collective heart-strings if we argue the finer points of policy but cannot defend their philosophical position of more government power over the lives of individuals and less liberty.
The American people understand the most fundamental of concepts, liberty and tyranny, and it it is only the American people that can stop liberal Democrat health care legislation. When Democrats make their final push in an attempt to shove health care down our throats, we must show these elitists who is in charge.
Carefully considered, the apparent plan appears to be reasonable with the all-but assured impending defeat of a number of House Democrats in November. Rarely does the President's party pick up seats in his 1st midterm elections and rarely will a majority as large as the Democrats current on grow, especially in a year with such political tumult.
Speaker Pelosi is risking further losses but, in my estimation, feels that passage of health care reform is much more important than the additional seats her majority may lose. The question is whether this gamble will still be as appealing if the House is ruled by Speaker Boehner in 2011.
Another question one must ask is why health care legislation is so important to the Democrats. Given the benefit of the doubt, Democrats can set forth an image of doing what is right in the long run at the expense of their political majority - a noble image if I've ever witnessed one. However, the cynical side of me understands that the health care legislation currently being considered will alter the political discourse of America forever. Such tight government regulation of a private industry promises that the debate of health care in the future will take place on Democrats' terms. Arguments over who regulates industry better and who provides better government services is inheretly a battle of who is better at big government - conservatives don't will these battles.
Speaker Pelosi is willing to compromise her current majority for the sake of altering the political discourse in America to the point that one of the nations largest issues will always be debated on Democrats' terms, promising a political advantage for liberals far into the future.
All of these considerations are in addition to the even more cynical notion that health care legislation is so important to liberal Democrats because they are power hungry. Again, health care is a game changer because once the government is in control of your health care, government can usurp control over other parts of your life with the guise of saving money. "No, we cannot allow you to eat foods with trans fat, or smoke as much as you like or drink as much as you like because it's unhealthy and we, the government, cannot afford to pay for your treatment. We must control your habits to save you, the taxpayer, money."
It is for these reasons, the seismic political shift that liberal health care legislation will insure, that the current plans for health reform must be defeated. At state is our health and our liberty. Health care legislation must be argued predominently on philosophical terms. Democrats will pull at our collective heart-strings if we argue the finer points of policy but cannot defend their philosophical position of more government power over the lives of individuals and less liberty.
The American people understand the most fundamental of concepts, liberty and tyranny, and it it is only the American people that can stop liberal Democrat health care legislation. When Democrats make their final push in an attempt to shove health care down our throats, we must show these elitists who is in charge.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Gay Marriage Cannot Exist!
A common complaint against social conservatives is that they try to control your life in the bedroom. Some people may want to control your life in the bedroom but this is an archaic notion that does not apply to conservatives today. In fact, a true conservative who believes in the notions of individual rights and liberty simply cannot believe it is the right of the government on any level to interfere with the sexual preferences of anyone.
As a social conservative myself I believe that what you do in your bedroom is your own business. I cannot and do not intend to try to stop homosexuals from doing anything - except get married. Marriage is a special case because the marital union is based on Judeo-Christian principles which define marriage as between a man and a woman and is thus a religious institution.
Civil unions on the other hand, which are unions that afford homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples, is acceptable. It is not the business of the state to erode the sanctity of marriage. The state is concerned with the legal aspects of marriage and should allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals through civil unions. Conservatives should remain staunch defenders of the sacred institution of marriage but ought to realize the inherent legal inequalities that exists when homosexual couples are not allowed the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
Yes, I know, marriage is a legal institution and if homosexuals aren't allowed to be married then they do not have equal rights. That is why marriage should no longer be any business of the state. Civil unions ought to apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals while marriage should remain solely under the jurisdiction of the church. In other words, heterosexuals and homosexuals would have access to the same legal rights under the institution of civil unions. However, heterosexual couples who have entered into civil unions ought to only qualify their union as marriage if their union is recognized by their church. The key to legal equality is to do as the Bible teaches us when it says "give to God what is God's and give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Marriage belongs to God and civil unions to Caesar.
As a social conservative myself I believe that what you do in your bedroom is your own business. I cannot and do not intend to try to stop homosexuals from doing anything - except get married. Marriage is a special case because the marital union is based on Judeo-Christian principles which define marriage as between a man and a woman and is thus a religious institution.
Civil unions on the other hand, which are unions that afford homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples, is acceptable. It is not the business of the state to erode the sanctity of marriage. The state is concerned with the legal aspects of marriage and should allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals through civil unions. Conservatives should remain staunch defenders of the sacred institution of marriage but ought to realize the inherent legal inequalities that exists when homosexual couples are not allowed the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
Yes, I know, marriage is a legal institution and if homosexuals aren't allowed to be married then they do not have equal rights. That is why marriage should no longer be any business of the state. Civil unions ought to apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals while marriage should remain solely under the jurisdiction of the church. In other words, heterosexuals and homosexuals would have access to the same legal rights under the institution of civil unions. However, heterosexual couples who have entered into civil unions ought to only qualify their union as marriage if their union is recognized by their church. The key to legal equality is to do as the Bible teaches us when it says "give to God what is God's and give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Marriage belongs to God and civil unions to Caesar.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Libertarians & Abortion
I cannot understand the pro-choice stance of libertarians on the issue of abortion. What does a libertarian believe in more than individual rights? The pursuit of happiness and the ability to makes ones own decisions is at the core of their belief structure. To be left alone is their desire for all people.
It is the desire of all pro-lifers as well as the unborn (I feel comfortable speaking on their behalf) that the unborn be left alone. What individual right does an unborn child have if that childs life can be taken at the whim of its mother? Certainly not the right to life, which the Constitution claims is endowed to us all by our Creator and is unalienable. The rights of the mother are subjugated to the rights of the unborn child because the unborn child is defenseless. To disagree is to say that a mentally retarded child, because it is dependent on someone else to sustain its life, should only live if the person that the child is dependent upon desires. Being pro-choice simply because you believe in individual rights is a logical fallacy.
The central question of the abortion issue is this: at what point does life begin? If life begins when the sperm meets the egg, then abortion at any point post-conception is murder because it terminates a life - a life that has no choice in the matter. Any self-respecting libertarian should be pro-life if he believes that life begins at conception. There is nothing inherent about libertarianism that argues that life begins at any point after conception; being pro-choice is not inherent to being a libertarian.
I once heard someone say that abortion has the highest mortality rate of any medical procedure because half of the people involved die. The weight of such a statement ought to be more than any moral human being can stand. Many pro-choice Americans lament genocide across the globe and yet do not understand that they are in full support of perhaps the most egregious genocide of all, the American Genocide, which has claimed more than 50 million American lives since 1973.
It is the desire of all pro-lifers as well as the unborn (I feel comfortable speaking on their behalf) that the unborn be left alone. What individual right does an unborn child have if that childs life can be taken at the whim of its mother? Certainly not the right to life, which the Constitution claims is endowed to us all by our Creator and is unalienable. The rights of the mother are subjugated to the rights of the unborn child because the unborn child is defenseless. To disagree is to say that a mentally retarded child, because it is dependent on someone else to sustain its life, should only live if the person that the child is dependent upon desires. Being pro-choice simply because you believe in individual rights is a logical fallacy.
The central question of the abortion issue is this: at what point does life begin? If life begins when the sperm meets the egg, then abortion at any point post-conception is murder because it terminates a life - a life that has no choice in the matter. Any self-respecting libertarian should be pro-life if he believes that life begins at conception. There is nothing inherent about libertarianism that argues that life begins at any point after conception; being pro-choice is not inherent to being a libertarian.
I once heard someone say that abortion has the highest mortality rate of any medical procedure because half of the people involved die. The weight of such a statement ought to be more than any moral human being can stand. Many pro-choice Americans lament genocide across the globe and yet do not understand that they are in full support of perhaps the most egregious genocide of all, the American Genocide, which has claimed more than 50 million American lives since 1973.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)