An Email to Climatologist Roy Spencer on the Basis for Climate Change Concern

On March 6, I sent the following email to climatologist, and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer. It goes to a very common fallacy underlying the issue of climate change — one that seems to be widely held by the media, and by some scientists.

[Introduction]

I just briefly perused your website, and found it both interesting, and well presented. I do take issue with several of the assertions and assumptions, but I thought it more relevant here to take issue with one very significant, in fact central, statement which you make, and for which, you have some apparent support [Edit: The word support is a bit misleading here; what was meant was that the idea is held by others.] Namely, on this page here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

“Since computerized climate models are the main source of concern over manmade global warming.”

I don’t think that they are. The great science historian Naomi Oreski has correctly noted, for example, “Indeed, one could reject all climate models and still accept the consensus position because models are only one part of the argument—one line of evidence among many.”

For some people, they may be the main source of concern. There are a few reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is the overwrought desire to achieve a level of precision and exacting prescience, which makes it far easier to convey that this is a problem than does the more conceptually difficult idea of a range of risks in combination with a range of probabilities as to what those risks are based in turn then again upon a known set of factors.

Models also give a potentially powerful way to further our understanding, and begin to test certain ideas. (Unfortunately, however, models DO NOT give us a way to test the idea that our activities now will have a very strong effect on future climate, and I believe confusion over this is prevalent.) They give a way to further refine, and work with, data.

They provide a starting point rather than an ending point; namely, this is a problem, here are the ranges, we can update and possibly further refine with further observation, but there’s not much else without something approximating modeling. They hold out the ideal of that much else. They are obviously an invaluable aspect of the study of this phenomenon, and are heavily focused on for the reasons just stated (and perhaps others). This DOES NOT, however make them the basis for concern.

Some over-reliant statements by climate scientists upon models notwithstanding (and quite consistently I believe), I would strongly assert to all those who do claim that computerized models are the main source of concern over climate science, that this view is highly mistaken. I don’t believe that computerized models are even close to the main source of the most legitimate concern over manmade climate effect. I also believe there are plenty of leading scientists who, for the most part, agree. (Not that, as you I am sure are well aware, general agreement or disagreement proves or disproves the vitality of an assertion, but it is often relevant to note.)

Of course, we could now examine the actual causes for (for lack of a better word) “concern,” but then that would make this email untowardly long. But I wanted to emphasize to you that this idea that models form the basis and rationale for why our atmospheric greenhouse gas altering activities pose a robust long term problem, is highly mistaken.

Of course, to accept this, you might have to re work some of the approach you have taken to the issue. Thus you might not accept it. But I believe you would then be in grievous error on the issue.

[closing]

As of yet, I have not received a response; any responses received will be duly noted.

What’s the Most Fundamental Difference Between a Free, Civilized Society, and an Unfree, Uncivilized One?

What’s the Most Fundamental Difference Between a Free, Civilized Society, and an Unfree, Uncivilized One?

The right to fair representation.

When I was in law school, I decided I did not want to become a defense attorney.  I decided that I did not want to be in the position of feeling comfortable defending some defendants, but not others. At the same time, I realized that while I had that right, I thanked God that it was a personal decision, and not a societal one.

If it becomes a societal one, we lose what sets us apart from non free, non civilized countries. We lose what makes us a true society and country, based upon laws, and justice. We lose what sets us apart from most of the countries we dislike, and even loathe.  We lose the glue of justice that defines our Liberty.  The liberty of all of us — becomes subject to the dictates and whim of popular opinion or perception.

This might be the most important founding principle of this country.

It might appear easy, in “obvious” cases.  Such as, for instance OJ Simpson, who just might well be, short of a non coerced, completely credible confession with supporting details and proof, the most guilty defendant in modern history either acquitted or convicted.  Or, such as, a terrorist who we just “know” is guilty.

But our country is founded upon the very lucid and critical idea that there simply is nowhere to draw this line between “as obvious a fact as the sun rising in the East” versus “we think it’s as obvious a fact as the sun rising in the East, but we’re wrong.”  And thus upon the notion that a right to fair representation and trial is a fundamental and inherent liberty for all.

Popular opinion does not produce this.  Often, by its very nature, popular opinion produces just the opposite. It is precisely for the reason that by definition we can’t know which times are which, that our system of Justice, our basis for fairness, has preserved this right as perhaps our most basic liberty amongst — and from — our fellow man.

As an example of how much rhetoric is getting out of control in America (here is another, somewhat different type of example), Liz Cheney’s group, “Keep America Safe,” in an ad has targeted the attorneys at the DOJ who have done defense work for loathed defendants, and is trying to make them scapegoats; even going so far as to imply, appealing to society’s most base, and worst, emotions and ignorances, that they are “terrorist sympathizers.”  Those people, who perform the most basic and essential function — unpalatable as it is it forms the backbone of our free and civilized society — are being scapegoated and targeted.

Even some conservatives are condemning the ad. Many more, should.

Paul Mirengoff, who writes for an extremely conservative website (Powerline), essentially makes the case when he notes:

I would rather give up my law license than represent Osama bin Laden’s driver….However, I would not deserve to have a law license if my personal views on this matter caused me to launch vicious, unfounded attacks on lawyers who exercise their right to represent despicable clients.

I would only change the last sentence to read “on lawyers who help exercise our Justice’ system’s most basic need, to ensure that everyone have the right to legitimate representation.”

Sam Stein, of the Huffington Post, has a story on it, even suggesting Mirengoff compared this to McCarthyism.  Mirengoff clarifies, a bit, on his blog as follows:

In response to Stein’s questions asking me to compare the video to “McCarthyism,” I said the implication that the DOJ lawyers share al Qaeda’s values is almost certainly false. I also said that some of McCarthy’s assertions were true and others were false (or unfounded, I’m not sure which word I used).

That, if I recall correctly, was the extent of my willingness to compare the video to “McCarthyism.” I don’t think I said or implied that the video is comparable to or worse than the totality of what goes by the name of McCarthyism or to the “crusades” launched by Sen. McCarthy.

While Mirengoff according to his follow up did not compare this to McCarthyism, I think there troubling, parallels. I loathe communism, but to loathe and attack people themselves for their personal political views is absolutely un-American. To call them out and go on a witchhunt for them perhaps represents one of the most fundamental threats to a vibrantly functioning, free, sovereign, representative democracy.  While Texas textbooks may be trying to slightly re-write history with respect to McCarthy, the ironic thing is that the seeming “American” sentiment against communism, taken to extreme and hysterical ends, caused one of the more un-American episodes in our history.

Simply suggesting that Justice Department officials are terrorist sympathizers because of their pro bono working upholding perhaps the most basic element of our system of justice  is of course not yet on par with McCarthyism.

But ultimately, in concept, it is in some ways perhaps worse.  Defending those whom many might not want to defend is central to our system of justice, while Communism is a radical political theory that is very different from our system here in the U.S.  But just like McCarthyism (which also led to difficulties finding jobs and even fundamental rights being taken away), such scapegoating also appeals to our fears, apprehensions, prejudices, biases, and worst if unrecognized emotions. It is the enemy from within to a just and good society.

Unfortunately, simplistically appealing and emotionally connecting sound bites can take on far more life and superficial attractiveness than key underlying principles of freedom, but it is the latter that keep us who we are, and make us different from , the countries we loathe.

Defending the accused is central to our entire Justice system.  To start to impugn the integrity and character of those who do — let alone hint, suggest, or assert that they have ‘terrorist sympathies” for so doing —  is one very very short step away from attacking and undermining the very core of a justice system that most notably separates us from non civilized, and non free societies the world over.

Along these lines, and on a sour note that is just a few shades down from these same attack ads themselves, another of the three main (and prominent) Powerline attorney bloggers, in the same post as Mirengoff, suggests:

One wonders: do these firms, or these lawyers, normally make a practice of volunteering to defend criminal defendants? (These detainees were not criminal defendants, for the most part, but the analogy is nevertheless apt.) My guess is that they do not. What, exactly, drew them to the cause of the terrorist detainees? Was it a humanitarian impulse to defend the friendless? Or were the country’s wealthiest and best-connected law firms lining up for the privilege of taking on the terrorists’ cases? Were the lawyers who volunteered to represent terrorists driven by ideology? That is to say, were they part of that large segment of the establishment that tried to undermine the foreign and national security policies of the Bush administration? If so, what ideology do these individuals now bring to the Department of Justice? And what roles are they playing within DOJ?

This is in effect an end run around accusing them directly, but effects similar ends, for the same reasons that our system is designed the way it is in the first place. If our views become defined by the actions, character, or views of those we have defended, the system similarly can not function, and its most basic principle, essentially, is enervated and ultimately destroyed.

It’s not even relevant to consider that there are terrorist detainees who were innocent. But just imagine if there was another, larger, more powerful country than the United States, that swept up Americans accused of heinous acts, some innocent, and either punished them without representation, or did so in effect because any citizen serving that necessary function would then become bastardized in their countrymen’s eyes.

What would we think of such countries?

With respect to every country that does follow such a pattern, we feel very poorly of them. And for good reason.  Yet their thinking is no different than where we, if we are not careful, could go to as well, for the same reasons that are routinely being expressed in rhetoric in this country today.  And we would be as bad as them. Perhaps, given our proud traditions of liberty and justice for all, our Founding Fathers vision, our founding documents, and history as the greatest nation on earth, we would be worse.

We cause al-Qaeda to lose by minimizing the significance of what al-Qaeda does, by working feverishly to eradicate that and sister organizations, and by continuing to marginalize those involved or would wish to get involved, not as warriors, enemy combatants, soldiers in a war, people captured on a “battlefield,” all of which convey (at least abroad) the slightest hint of legitimacy, but as the lowly common, depraved, murderous criminals that they are.  We cause al-Qaeda to win by in return abandoning our own set of principles, allowing them to change who we are, much for the worse.

Why It’s Helpful to Move Past “Cash for Clunkers” Type Thinking on Automobiles

This was shared with a Senator (via Legislative aides) during the ‘cash for clunkers’ debate and bill presage last summer. It is posted here unedited, for reference, and because the analysis is increasingly relevant today.(A similar letter/analysis which complements it is here.)
____________

The claimed greenhouse gas and oil savings of S 1200 over the bill that passed, fully appropriated, represents .00746% of our net greenhouse gas emissions, and .035% of our total passenger vehicle oil use, based upon ‘06 figures. (Even less if we base it upon gross emissions of about a billion tonnes more.)

As transportation is responsible for around 68% of our oil use — with passenger vehicles responsible for around 61% of this (heavy trucks another 21% or so) — addressing oil reliance means addressing super high efficiency and alternative fuel vehicle transitioning. Similarly, vehicles are responsible for about a fifth of our CO2 emissions (17% give or take of total greenhouse emissions in CO2e) and play a rapidly increasing global role, particularly in India and China where, to have any diplomatic credibility on the issue, we have to become a leader on it.

This issue thus is ongoing. (And likely will come up in specific cash for clunker form in just a few months when the current 1 billion appropriation runs out.) Given vehicles’ overwhelming role in oil use, the best way toward meaningful progress on this is to frame the critical national security aspects. This will provide a means for powerfully reaching across the aisle — and, more importantly, getting most Americans on board, since almost all of us want to address climate change, stop importation from the Mid East, or both. National security, and its appeal to precisely the key climate change opponents that are critical to getting on your side, has been vastly under-emphasized, and underutilized.

I can not emphasize this enough. Some Democrats may or may not think oil reliance is a big deal. But what is necessary to consider is that many people in America do, inside of Congress and out. And often these are the same who may otherwise not be as open to climate change address — and sometimes even fight against it because of misperceived macroeconomic harm. And it’s certainly not a bad thing to get off of foreign oil. In fact, it’s smart. Now we have a means with one policy to solve everybody’s problem, and all get on the same page. That is, with respect to the vehicles we drive, the essence of it comes down to what most of us want — using far less oil.

It’s counter productive at this stage for us to be subsidizing the purchase of any new vehicles that don’t make significant steps toward oil and CO2 (and N2O) eradication, and which does not have the effect of further prompting the market in this direction. After the current minimal program funding expires, and we have tried to bolster sales, it will be more appealing to make the argument that it is time to support the growth of our economy in the direction of those productive capabilities that solve the increasing challenges we are facing — herein being national security compromising oil reliance and CO2 emissions — rather than continue to contribute as a root cause to them.

The key is promulgating the availability and development of vehicles that meet this goal. for example, Ford’s Fiesta ECOnetic gets 65 mpg. Replace an 18 mpg vehicle with a 65 mpg one, and over 12000 miles we will save 482 gallons of gas, and 9352 lbs. of CO2, for that one vehicle alone. This is the same as driving a vehicle that gets 35.5 mpg (2016 yr CAFE ave.), for 17,110 miles, using clean air as its fuel, and emitting nothing but clean air. As told to Business Week, however, there are no current plans to bring it to the U.S. because of no perceived demand, mainly because there is no market mechanism to price in the vast external costs of gasoline. (In pure economic terms, this amounts to an enormous gasoline subsidy.)

GM’s Chevrolet Volt gets a claimed 150+ mpg equivalent its first 40 miles after charge. (This is a sketchy figure in an inordinately complex and imprecise subject area, but the car under the right circumstances can achieve this equivalent, and much higher.) The 40 mile range is enough to cover most routine commutes and trips. It gets a more constant 48-50 mpg when running via gasoline generator thereafter.

The car’s emissions savings are harder to precisely calculate because of measurements in mpg equivalents and variability in how much it is driven above the 40 mile between charge cutoff. More important even, is the issue of electricity generation fuel source variability, and nighttime charging potential when power plants tend to otherwise overproduce. Thus,the vehicle can potentially use some fossil fuel produced electricity with minimal net CO2 emissions when plants, to keep from powering down (which is inefficient and so avoided), overproduce at night. Obviously, excess wind or hydro capability at night in certain regions would be the ideal, and amount to zero net emissions. In sum, the CO2 emissions improvement of the Volt should easily exceed that even of the ECOnetic, and can continue to improve as we move forward and provide viable energy alternatives.

If the average Volt runs one quarter of the time on gasoline (a fairly conservative estimate), The Volt would not only potentially have an exceptional per vehicle net emissions impact, but an extraordinary per vehicle oil impact. That is, eight Volts would likely use around the same oil, or less, in total than one 24 mpg vehicle. (And ten Volts would likely use around the same oil as one 20 mpg pick up truck or SUV.)

There are plenty of other “right direction” cars available or in production now — such as the stylish 62 mpg five seater Volkswagen BlueMotion Polo, the 70+ mpg four seat Peugeot HDi 308, the 65 mpg 3 + 1 Toyota iQ, the ostensibly 150-200+ mpg equivalent (hard to say though) Mitsubishi i-MiEV, the Volkswagen Up, the less appealing California based Coda (which is really a re tooled, China produced, Hafei), and the more expensive Tesla S, among others. But it is helpful to focus foremost on American vehicles when framing this, and also to stress the fact that most cars represent a composite of (international) inputs anyway. What is also key to remember, and properly frame, is that this is what the market has started to produce, without the proper incentives. [The market can, and will, do far better with the proper incentives. ]

The key consideration is not just to promote the movement toward purchase of these vehicles, but market development and emphasis in this direction. Throwing money at it or giving companies funds to “do this” can be semi wasteful, because while consumer preference can shift based upon manufacturer development, consumer choice is still the driving factor. More importantly, these same manufacturers, as history has shown us time and time again, while developing these “technologies” thus subsidized, will still market and aggressively push what they think consumers want.

Thus the bottom line is to develop policies that inspire the market itself to achieve this, which means both the supply and demand side of the equation. A high gasoline tax, with the revenue to be used as offsetting stimulus and low income, inelastic gasoline demand curve consumer hardship amelioration, would be most effective — but is politically unpalatable. (It is also seen as potentially inflationary, although that could be offset as well.) A Clunker subsidization program, that targets specifically the types of vehicles outlined above, would accomplish this also, and generate substantial economic growth all at the same time. And, properly framed, it can be sold across the aisle, and certainly to most of America, who when they get the bottom line numbers, want us to do this; oftentimes, overwhelmingly so.

A Senate Letter on Huge Gains From Increased Efficiency Vehicles

This was shared during the ‘cash for clunkers’ debate last summer. It is posted here unedited, for reference, and because the analysis is increasingly relevant today.
____________________
Here is the analysis that I referenced. Although it makes the case against both bills, you can also use almost any part of it to make the case against moving forward with the House version, or for positively altering it.  It is also reasonably brief, as, obviously, respect for your time is paramount. Therefore much was left out in terms of further example, support, analysis, and proscriptive remedies.  But please also do not hesitate to follow up, or have someone from your office, follow up, with respect to any and all questions and concerns.

Also please note that a big part of getting bills accomplished, as you obviously are probably having to deal with every day, is getting everybody on the same page, and putting forth the most pertinent points, in a broad based, and appealing way.  This point is also lightly touched on below, but it is worth noting here that I have shared this analysis with a broad spectrum of experts on the matter. Not one mainstream environmentalist has disagreed with it, and not one conservative analyst has taken great issue either, simply because of the large national security, oil reliance ramifications.   The economics has been backed up and supported, as well. And everyone, in terms of actual voters, that I have shared the basic ideas with, have been in agreement as well.

In ‘06, the U.S. was responsible for 6.17 billion metric tons of net greenhouse gas emissions.   Using this figure as the baseline, S. 1200 would, according to the press release, save an amount equal to .00745% — 75/1,000,000 — of our net greenhouse gas emissions over the House (and Stabenow) version,  and .031% — 31/100,000 — of our net greenhouse gas emissions in total. It would also save less than .035%  or 35/100,000 of our total passenger vehicle oil use (using 8 million barrels a day as the base figure), over the House version, and .14% — 14/10,000 — in total.

But even these figures may be overly optimistic.  They don’t appear to take into account that some of the subsidized transactions would occur anyway (and that there are energy costs involved in the production of each replacement vehicle, although that consideration can be exceedingly misleading).  [Editorial update: In hindsight, the bills had a slightly better effect, because a lot of people did choose to use them for  higher efficiency cars than the bills required for subsidy, most notably the now highly reputed Ford Fusion.]

More importantly, they also don’t consider that the subsidized vehicles, unlike those being targeted for replacement, can not otherwise, for all practical purposes, be scrapped a year or two down the road and replaced by far more efficient vehicles as these become available — but will instead perpetuate the status quo for years. These vehicles may also ultimately decrease our future fleet average, if we otherwise come close to achieving our new vehicle sales fleet mpg average target   (35.5 mpg for cars and light trucks combined by 2016, with smaller, incremental increases in earlier years.)

Here are the basics:  The ultimate goal of any pro-Detroit assistance is to create job opportunity and growth.  Other vehicle stimulus packages will have this same macro economic effect. If there is a concern, nevertheless, to help Detroit specifically, there is a way to do this and have this very same bill, with a little tweaking — have not just far more broad based appeal over the House version — but be far more effective.

It is also critical to keep in mind that properly framed — and I have already gotten feedback from people in both political parties outside of the beltway — almost everybody is on board with reducing gasoline usage for one or both of the following reasons:  Decreasing CO2 emissions and moving us toward the necessary greater international credibility on the issue (particularly with respect to nations such as India, and China), and improving our national security by mitigating our needless reliance upon foreign oil — here emphasized for framing purposes.

I will skip the lengthier analysis of vehicles on the market and the necessary restructuring of this legislation in order to meet the same expressed, and desired, ends, and yet at the same time meet them in a way that is more broadly appealing as well.  That needs to be done via separate inquiry and/or in person. But the follow-up proscription suggested below will also give some critical insight into how practical and effective such a measure can potentially be — even with respect to our Detroit based companies.

It may also be far more cost effective than many other subsidy, or technology study programs, to extend a properly constructed reward program with progressively, and aggressively, higher efficiency targets. (And at the same time, be more politically palatable than significantly raising oil based fuel taxes. Note also that at least some of this idea is not dissimilar from S. 247 introduced back on Jan. 14.  But the similarities and differences, and how some of that can be reintroduced while having even more appeal and at the same time more vigorously serve to prompt the market itself to develop, produce, and purchase far more and higher mpg and alternative fuel vehicles — the necessary requirement for us to effect these dual problems of oil and emissions — are subsequent points to make.)

This would not only prompt such vehicle replacements, but shift the development, production, and demand aspects of the market in this direction as well. This, in turn, would also have the critical, and underestimated effect, of altering market parameters in the proper direction and thus rendering further significant market movement and design improvement far more likely and easier to build upon.  This sounds somewhat conceptual, but it is a key requisite element for solving these challenges.

Consider two American candidates for significant cash for clunker type targeting, and compare them in stark contrast to the vehicles that we would nevertheless be subsidizing the purchase, and thus perpetuation (and even increase) of, under the current proposals:  The Chevy Volt, and Ford’s Fiesta ECOnetic diesel. (Note that diesels are not currently popular here merely because there has not yet been a reason for them to be, which as a basic truism of market capitalism, will change when the reasons change.  Emissions aside, they can now also easily be made as clean, or cleaner, than gasoline internal combustion engines. In fact, Volkswagen’s recently introduced Jetta TDi (diesel) has been extremely well received in the U.S. thus far.)

The Volt gets 100+ mpg equivalent its first forty miles after charge — enough to cover most routine commutes and trips — and 48-50 mpg when running via gasoline generator thereafter.  The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic gets 65 mpg. (There is also a Fiesta Van ECOnetic version due out in a few months, that gets in the 70s.  In fact, Fiesta’s full size transit van ECOnetic, which is not available in the U.S., but which requires the correct policies in order to be, gets 32.6 — an enormous improvement over what is on the road in terms of work vans today.)

Replace a vehicle that gets 18 mpg, with one that gets 65, and this would prompt the market to develop even better and more efficient versions of such vehicles; and we would save 482 gallons of gas, and 9352 lbs. of CO2, over a typical 12,000 mile driving year, for that one vehicle alone.  This is the energy and exhaust equivalent of driving a vehicle that gets 35.5 mpg — the new CAFE requirement average for the year 2016 — for 17,110 miles, using air as its fuel, and emitting nothing but air.

What if the vehicle to be replaced was one of the 24 mpg vehicles, say, one year from now; only it can’t, because it is almost brand new. What would the savings have been otherwise, by switching over to the 65 mpg vehicle?  315.4 gallons of gasoline, and 6118.67 lbs. of CO2, over 12,000 miles of driving distance.  Enough, again, in a net emissions and oil usage sense, to fuel that soon to be standard 35.5 mpg vehicle for 11,196 miles, on pure air.

Yet Ford is not currently planning to bring the ECOnetic to America. According to Mark Fields, Ford America President;

We just don’t think [Americans] would buy that many diesel cars.

Of course we wouldn’t, when we are considering the subsidization of replacement vehicles that get 24 mpg, instead.

Unblemished Risk Assessment on Climate Change Reduction.

Cornell economics Professor Robert Frank offers up a solid op-ed in today’s New York Times on the economics of climate change. (Calling it a big step up from this recent climate monstrosity in the Times is an understatement):

Organizers of the recent climate conference in Copenhagen sought, unsuccessfully, to forge agreements to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. But even an increase that small would cause deadly harm. And far greater damage is likely if we do nothing.

The numbers — and there are many to choose from — paint a grim picture. According to recent estimates from the Integrated Global Systems Model at [M.I.T.], the median forecast is for a climb of 9 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end, in the absence of effective countermeasures.

The gist of the piece is that based upon non political, objective, logic based risk assessment, and basic economics, there really isn’t a decent case against immediate climate change redress. Summarizing, Frank notes:

In short, the cost of preventing catastrophic climate change is astonishingly small, and it involves just a few simple changes in behavior.

The real problem with the estimates is that the outcome may be worse than expected. And that’s the strongest possible argument for taking action. In a rational world, that should be an easy choice, but in this case we appear to be headed in the wrong direction.

(A few quick examples of how the market could be motivated to effect much of this change on its own, while preserving personal choice and promoting growth at the same time,  are here.) Ironically, the piece could have painted a stronger picture for action and been more objective and accurate at the same time.  For example, it concludes:

Most people would pay a substantial share of their wealth — much more, certainly, than the modest cost of a carbon tax — to avoid having someone pull the trigger on a gun pointed at their head with one bullet and nine empty chambers. Yet that’s the kind of risk that some people think we should take.

First, and more controversially, this follows the common and likely erroneous presumption that addressing climate change sensibly “costs” money rather than simply serves to shift what constitutes GDP.   But more pointedly, Frank’s assessment is based upon a probability of 10 percent of a rise of 12 degrees or more.  Yet the same M.I.T study Frank relies upon for this, as noted earlier in the piece, projects the median rise to be 9 degrees. (In other words, half of the projections come in above 9 degrees, half lower, if no remediation action is taken.)  Thus, to continue the analogy, the other chambers are not “empty.”

Frank notes this himself earlier:

Essentially, the risk is that if current estimates turn out to be wildly pessimistic, the money spent to curb greenhouse gases wouldn’t have been needed to save the planet. And yet that money would still have prevented substantial damage. (The M.I.T. model estimates a zero probability of the temperature rising by less than 3.6 degrees by 2100.)

Thus, NONE of the chambers are empty; and half of them are not that far off from the 12 degree “bullet.” But what was left out of this assessment is that if current estimates turn out to be wildly pessimistic, there are still other significant reasons why the expenditures would not have been a waste.

First off, as noted above, they won”t serve as “true” expenditures in the long run — but will shift what we do spend our GDP dollars on. So if they “do nothing,” we probably would have preferred having more flat screen TVs (metaphorically speaking) and instead we will have more historically stable CO2 levels.  But since in the long run happiness is not correlated with absolute levels of wealth, but rather an ongoing increase in growth and job opportunities, even this is fairly trivial, again, in the long run. (Implementing cleaner, less destructive fuels prompts jobs and GDP growth the same as building a few extra flat screen TVs does.)

But they won’t do nothing, even apart from the climate change issue.  Much of the climate change challenge stems from fossil fuel use.(The rest stems from deforestation, changing agricultural practices and grazing ruminant livestock, and other sundry causes.) We have to get off of these anyway. They are finite. Extremely so in the case of oil. We might as well get off of them now.

And in addition, fossil fuels also cause considerable harm in addition to being largely responsible for an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to levels that on a sustained basis may well be unprecedented in the past fifteen million years:

They are responsible for a large proportion of our atmospheric pollution, CO2 (which is not a “true” pollutant), aside.  In the case of coal, they are also responsible for a majority of the toxicological poison mercury that is bio-accumulating in our food chain. Also in the case of coal, they are responsible for a significant amount of degradation to the natural landscape and watersheds where coal is mined. (Sometimes even causing the irreversible destruction of entire mountain tops).  And in the case of oil, they are responsible for unnecessary national security vulnerabilities created by relying upon, and sending hundreds of billions of dollars to, foreign oil selling regimes overseas that we often view as hostile to our interests.

Another interesting aspect of the piece is when Frank notes that we may be “headed in the wrong direction.” Quoting Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert, Frank notes:

“Global warming is bad, but it doesn’t make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don’t feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning.”

But we’re also headed in the wrong direction for a few other reasons. Number one is an incessant parade of nonstop misinformation on the topic, along with poor media coverage of it.

Number two is that climate change is abstract. We can’t feel it, touch it, taste it, see it, or smell it. Sure, we see and feel the weather everyday, but climate change is a decades long process; the weather at any particular time is all but irrelevant, and of course, all over the board.

Number three is that, perhaps given a natural desire to believe such conclusions, people tend to confuse the lack of precision or absolute certainty on climate change with the certainty of the physics that underline the phenomenon; including the certainties that heat drives climate (ultimately through the oceans), heat trapping gases trap heat, and levels of heat trapping gases have ratcheted upward at geologically breakneck speed to extremely high levels — and are still climbing.

Number four may be the most infrequently mentioned, yet, after misinformation, perhaps the most important.  An increase in atmospheric trapped heat is ultimately going to warm or otherwise alter the planet, and produce some sort of radical change (likely warming) through the oceans.  It takes an extremely long time to heat up oceans. (And, as we would expect, oceans are slowly retaining more and more heat.) Decades, if not more.  For this reason, among others, there is a considerable lag in climate change between cause and effect.

That is, given natural variability, we won’t “know” the effects of climate change (as opposed to mere, bizarre, variability) for years. And even then we still won’t because there will be multiple decades of effect built up in the pipeline.

It’s abstract, it’s in the future, and there are considerable cause and effect, and potential variability lags on top of that.  Those things, however, do not make it any less real. We are, however, very counter productively, treating it as if they do.

If we purchase a stock at 100 dollars, and we knew it had an 80 percent probability of going to zero, and a 20 percent probability of going to 125, we would sell it in an instant. And at a steep discount from 100 dollars, also. We would never go “but we don’t know with certainty that it is going to go to zero” as a rationale for doing nothing.

But that is precisely what we are doing, with respect to climate change.  The precise number of the effect is all but irrelevant when it comes to future harm.  What matters is the range of likely outcomes, their expected probabilities, and likely, attendant harm for each.  Somehow — perhaps through natural confusion over the science, and the four reasons listed above along with the one posited by Gilbert and Frank — we are completely confusing this.

The suspicion here is that misinformation driven by ideology is in fact playing the leading role, with the other factors merely facilitating the process and allowing for easy and in many cases, perhaps even earnest, confusion and misinformation promulgation on the issue.

He “Could” Have Had Other Issues — Like Maybe Extreme, Psychopathic Beckism?

New Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown:

You don’t know anything about the individual. He could have had other issues. Certainly, no one likes paying taxes, obviously.

He could have had other issues.

Brown, as part of his same answer:

They want us to help solve the problems that are affecting Americans in a very real way.

They are angry at the government for not “solving problems.”

Let’s take the following, unfortunately, non longer hypothetical situation — the very same one to which the new Massachusetts Senator was referring:

Man is angry at IRS.  Man burns down his house (where his wife and daughter live), on purpose. Man flies his airplane into an IRS building killing and wounding innocent people – sort of like al-Qaeda did in New York and Washington D.C., in 2001.  But, thank God, with far fewer casualties.  Scott Brown’s response?  ”People are angry.”  ”They want us to help solve problems.”   “He could have had other issues.”

The Dallas Morning News Reports:

Stack apparently set fire to his house in Austin and posted a long anti-government screed on the Web. It had Thursday’s date and was signed “Joe Stack (1956-2010).”

In it, the author cited run-ins he had with the IRS and ranted about the tax agency, government bailouts and corporate America’s “thugs and plunderers.”

“I have had all I can stand,” he wrote, adding: “I choose not to keep looking over my shoulder at ‘big brother’ while he strips my carcass.”

Is there any chance this person did not listen to a lot of Glenn Beck?  Read about what Beck is really telling people, while arrogant and privileged pundits, who have little clue what is going on in Middle America, while ironically scolding other arrogant elitists, scoff at his influence or importance. Here is Beck, the same person whom the Washington Post promoted, as just another informed, “common sense” thinker:

Beck: “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out.”[xii]

Beck, further back, “I want to kill [Rep.] Charlie Rangel with a shovel,” several times.

…[Beck] – playing out a mock poisoning of Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and stating he was thinking about doing just that…”“every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames”…..he even poured pretend gasoline (water) out of a gas can onto a guest, and held up a lit match to simulate what he suggested President Obama was doing to the American people…

…[Obama's] “letting the terrorists onto the streets!”

[Showing a picture of Obama and other Democrats made to look somewhat ghoulish] “…These bloodsucker vampires are not gonna just be satisfied with sucking the blood out of (business),  their thirst for power and control is unquenchable. They will not stop… Either the economy becomes like the walking dead, or ya drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers“…

“Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. … And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did.”…

““Gun sales are going through the roof,” because “…a lot of Americans aren’t paying attention to this…the poem…first they came for the Jews and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a Jew? ….in the end, I think this is the problem. First, they came for the banks. I wasn’t a banker….I didn’t stand up and say anything. Then they came for the AIG executives….Then they came for the car companies — and I didn’t say anything………Until it gets down to you — most people don’t see they are coming for you at some point.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg for Beck. Riling up hatred, and blatantly misinforming people left and right,

The way to fight encroaching  Big Brother is to work for limits on corporate power, work for better and more accurate information, work against misinformation, work for transparency and accountability in government, work for increased, rather than continually decreasing privacy rights, and work to increase checks upon government and majority power. Many of those who are complaining about government the most, have been the more active supporters of the opposite of many of these same things — particularly when it comes to unchecked, government power, and civil liberties.

But this American, non Islamic Terrorist, suicide airplane bomber named Andrew Stack thought Big Brother “stripped” his carcass. This person who had a tax issue (who apparently wanted to use his home as a church deduction) thinks, or thought, everything he did, he did himself?  He never drove on roads built by others? Attended schools built by others?  Enjoyed the freedom of a country protected by a military, composed of others? He never sold, bought, or used a product that depended upon the creation of wealth from millions before him, and millions other during his own time here?  He lived in a vacuum?   Even the plane he flew, he  built from scratch, from materials he created out of tree branches in his back yard, after figuring out how to build an airplane, and also how to fly, himself, just like the Wright Brothers did, right?

NO. Perhaps he purchased the airplane.  And he was able to make the money to buy it because of his own efforts, and the efforts of everyone else, now, and before him.  Not in a vacuum.  And he was able to buy it because of the efforts of others;  to be able to build it, to be able to create and gather the materials and technology to build it.  And for the knowledge of others to build it. Just like almost everything he probably ever did outside of the the one thing that the same far right seems to rail against — relate to nature and the outdoors, smell fresh, unpolluted air, dive into unpolluted waters, gaze across unpolluted vistas, eat unpolluted food.  Pretty much everything else, aside from the other things that matter most besides justice — friendship, family, love — evolved with and from the multiple efforts of others, creating, working, laboring striving, both before him and contemporaneously.

This is not a brief screed against individualism or individual liberty.  This is one of the more pro individualism and individual liberty websites on the web.  But it is a brief screed against anarchy.  The idea that we all do things in a vacuum, is a fiction. A sad fiction. Yet we want Washington to “butt out” when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals from the potential infringements by others (or, sometimes, perhaps for better reasons, but those seem to be more classically Liberal causes today), but help “solve our problems” at the same time.

We all benefit (and, in some ways, are harmed) by the efforts and productivity of those who came before us, and who exist with us now.  It can’t be any other way.  If mankind truly were Angels, it might be that way.  But we would have no reason for government. No form, no order, we would all be perfect beings.  (And there would be less purpose in existence — everything would already be perfect, the unattainable, that toward which we strive, measuring our success by some barometer of what we think it might be, and how far off from it we are.)  But it doesn’t work that way. We’re human, not Angels painted on a canvas come to life.

This is brief screed against blatant misinformation, propaganda, scapegoating, and hatred.  Because that is blinding us to the threat of actual encroaching government power, while scapegoating only those we disagree politically, or “government” itself — whenever it is a government, it seems, that we did not vote for — for all fears, real and imagined.

As the third comment quoted here, notes:

…It’s interesting that this movement was quiescent during the eight years of the Bush administration, when the federal government clearly violated people’s civil rights…

Think back to 1995, when the deadliest act of terrorism prior to the September 11 attacks was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was a member of a militia, he was partial to libertarianism, he blamed the federal government for just about everything wrong with society…

Or think back even farther. In the 1920’s there was a certain political party that started out in Bavaria. A grass-roots party when it started, it attracted people who hated the federal government, and who were partial to conspiracy theories especially ones about Jews. It had no clear leadership until an enterprising fellow named Adolf Hitler came along. The rest, shall we say, is history.

Think this is a complete fiction? Here’s a random comment from the Seattle Post Intelligencer link above going over Brown’s statements:

Posted by unregistered user at 2/18/2010 5:14 p.m.

Deceptive choices – you have been getting lessons from capital hill.

My selection: He isn’t rationalizing it, he’s trying to understand it.

We all should. Just because you can understand or empathize with someone doesn’t mean you justify their decision as rational. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Brown was trying to undersand his actions.  People are “frustrated with Washington” (what else is new), so he flew an airplane, in a suicide bomb attack, much like Al-Qaeda did, into a building filled with innocent people. Now Brown understands it.  People are frustrated with Washington. But overseas, people of course are not frustrated with America.  Then there’s the far more troubling “emphasize” suggestion:

Emphasize with someone? He emphasizes with someone who purposefully flew an airplane into a building, murdering and maiming innocent people? What do we think about people overseas that emphasize with al-Qaeda?

America better wake up, or Glenn Beck will be right about one thing, that ironically, our collective (and, most notably, media) acceptance of his ignorance and hate filled rhetoric is contributing to; America will unravel from the inside.  Exactly what al-Qaeda — which, also ironically, is an overseas Middle Eastern version of conservatism taken to extremes — wants.

New York Times Blindly Plays Right into Tea Party Rhetoric, Media Abandoning Principles Contributing to Problem

(Updated below)

In a feature piece yesterday by David Barstow, the New York Times blindly plays into Tea Party rhetoric. And then in yet another display of ridiculous “false balance,” highlights the very first comment to the piece, which itself plays into the rhetoric far, far more zealously:

What a great article — very informative…

…These people, though, if they are the way you describe them, seem much more progressive in their views toward individual rights vs. government than any of the self-proclaimed “progressives” of whom I am aware.

I will start paying much closer attention. I might have just found a new political home.

In stark contrast, consider these recent questions regarding the same Tea Party movement:

The funny thing is Tea Partiers say they are for more freedom, but most of the real threats to freedom — creeping authoritarianism; an expectation that people are the same or similar; distrust of differences; condemnation of different views as unpatriotic, or, worse, as “traitors;” an increase in unchecked governmental power over citizens; an increasing governmental intrusion into both privacy and the morality of individuals; a continual evisceration of privacy rights and of course calls for a national ‘Id’ card, etc.; an increasingly powerful, creeping corporate oligopoly; an abominable and somewhat radical recent Supreme Court decision that granted corporations the dollar purchased speech rights of private citizens plus even more at the expense of actual, meaningful, individual free speech; sweeping security checks and procedures based solely upon religion or race; etc. – are advocated or supported by a majority of the so called “Tea Party” movement.

At least the newspaper didn’t block the following comment (like voodoo climate author Steven Levitt’ did on his Times blog column as noted here), one that raises a question that still begs an answer: Why was the following ridiculously misleading reference, among others, included in the Times piece?

“Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to some, given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member.”

That rings a little hollow. I have yet to meet a Tea Party member who doesn’t seem to despise the ACLU. (Though I am sure there are some.) The unrecognized hypocrisy is only scantily referenced by the note on the “relative passivity” through the Bush years, a far more imperial, more autocratic, far more intrusive, and a far more constitutionally violating, presidency than the current administration.

And Glenn Beck? That’s who you note many Tea Partiers are getting their information and spirit from? Maybe one of the biggest propagandists in the Western world since Benito Mussolini, and at any rate one of the most profoundly misinformed, wildly misleading, and exceedingly inflammatory voices of the modern age?

The real questions that need to be asked of and about the Tea Party movement, where a lot of well meaning people may be being mislead, a lot of rhetoric is exceedingly far from the reality, all while there is a lot of misplaced anger and misinformation brewing. (Just see link above about Beck lest you have doubts, as obviously, many who listen to Beck must.)

Some may argue that the Obama Administration is not “far more constitutionally violative,” just “more constitutionally violative.”  But the points above all stand.  As do perhaps some of the potentially more chilling points made by yet another Times reader:

Is the tea party movement just a folksy grass-roots movement or is there something more dangerous brewing here? Apparently tea party activists are motivated by a fear that the federal government is too big and too intrusive. Many tea-partyers are libertarians and some are attracted to the militia movements. The events at Waco and Ruby Ridge are often mentioned.

It’s interesting that this movement was quiescent during the eight years of the Bush administration, when the federal government clearly violated people’s civil rights. It was only after the first black president in history was elected that this movement, which exclusively attracts white people, really got going.

Think back to 1995, when the deadliest act of terrorism prior to the September 11 attacks was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was a member of a militia, he was partial to libertarianism, he blamed the federal government for just about everything wrong with society and guess what? The events at Waco and Ruby Ridge were major motivations for his act.

Or think back even farther. In the 1920’s there was a certain political party that started out in Bavaria. A grass-roots party when it started, it attracted people who hated the federal government, and who were partial to conspiracy theories especially ones about Jews. It had no clear leadership until an enterprising fellow named Adolf Hitler came along. The rest, shall we say, is history.

Unfortunately many times more people will read author David Barstow’s false balance and far right kowtowing Tea Party fluff piece, than some random comments.  And that fluff piece is in the New York Times:  ”Fair and balanced” coverage of the Tea Party movement disconnect between assertion and actual fact is often worse elsewhere.

A few things to add here:  First, it is not only a black president, it is a moderate, rather than right or far right wing President (not withstanding that Tea Partiers are convinced he is a “socialist”) who also just happens to be black, and, even less coincidentally, a Democrat.

Second is that these are loose, and potentially somewhat unfair connections, by and of themselves. The real problem is the excessive rhetoric, and its often enormous disconnect with reality. This is something that the media, as exemplified by this leading Times story, is not serving as a check upon, but often as a simple parroting stenographer for.

Third, is a statement I would again reiterate, famously made by the late Louisiana Governor Huey Long.

Fascism, shall come, in the name of Anti Fascism.

As the Times piece noted (emphasis added):

That is often the point when Tea Party supporters say they began listening to Glenn Beck. With his guidance…

Glenn Beck. Here (again, see middle portion) is just a synopsis as of last summer (Beck’s gotten even worse since) of some of the profoundly ignorant, outrageously hypocritical, highly inflammatory, and incredibly misleading assertions an obviously spintastic Glenn Beck has foistered upon both himself, and an increasingly angry listening public – not angry at Beck for misleading them, but angry at others, and other things, real and, often imagined, because of Beck.

That Person.  The person who expresses more anti Fascism fervor — almost everyone who disagrees with Beck is a “Nazi,” by the way — than perhaps anybody in America. And who exhibits many of its underlying tendencies.

Refer back to the famous quote by Huey Long, above, “fascism shall come, in the name of anti-fascism.” Consider last comment block quoted just above. Apply.

Many Tea Partiers are no doubt well meaning, and very earnest, and maybe not always radical right wing folks.  But when the gap between rhetoric and reality gets as large as it is becoming today, and the biggest purveyor of that gap in the United States becomes the de facto leader or “inspiration,” it should be a wake up call to Democrats, Liberals, Independents, Moderate Republicans, and in particular the media, that something simply has to be done in this country to start to lessen the growing gap between rhetoric and reality. A vibrant and secure democracy simply can not function this way.

Maybe it would be helpful, if instead of a kowtowing fluff piece, the New York times engaged in actual journalism, and did a real piece on the issue. But then, some suggest (including myself), it is the breakdown in our media’s role as a Fourth Estate check that, more than anything else, is enabling this increasingly large disparity between rhetoric and fact in America today, and which is, in many ways, starting to become a mirror of it.

It’s not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said that given a choice between having government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, he would “not hesitate” to choose the latter. And he was not talking about simply shouting out in the village square — a vital and separate right also guaranteed by the First Amendment.  (And which today, in its modern technological equivalent, is reflected in the increasing prevalence of Internet “information and opinion” sites and reliance, that ironically enough, because of its ease and immediacy, is serving as a further threat to the media itself) . But it has no check upon it.

As I noted here (also on the New York Times site):

People shouting out in the village square is a key part of democracy, and clearly protected under the First Amendment. But it’s not journalism, and it’s not a substitute for the Fourth Estate.

Despite the fact that the Internet does bring excellent access to information (both correct and incorrect), it is still really nothing more than the modern high tech version of the village square.

And as such popularity and popular will and opinion are in effect tending to serve, more than anything, as the determiner of what is “right” or correct, even when it comes to objective facts — whereas in reality, popular opinion is often wrong, and can not serve as a check upon itself. It is why a fourth estate was so vital.

As these two – a fourth estate merging into just a more sophisticated if not as polarizing version of a parroting stenographer, and a (Internet) popularity arbiter of what is news and what is important and what gets read — merge, we are gradually losing the essence of this critical Fourth Estate check that Thomas Jefferson once thought even more important than government itself.

We are beginning to see the results of this:  With people who say they are for less government intrusion, more individual liberty, yet who actually tend to despise the ACLU; who say they want strict adherence to the “Constitution” yet in most cases supported a Bush Administration that was not only imperial, highly secretive, and completely lacking in accountability, but which employed an extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of the Constitution which gives the Executive the Unilateral Discretion to do whatever he/she wants in the name of “national security,” obviating the basic reason our Constitution was designed in the first place, and exactly what our Founders feared in motivating them to create it; people who say the are for individual liberty and less government services, but who suddenly only rose up in outspoken, and often demonizing anger, after a far right administration left the White House, and was replaced by a moderate Democratic Administration. People who in many cases, are taking up arms, and supporting militias. Not against an autocratic governmental regime, but because what was an increasingly autocratic leaning government regime, has just been replaced by a far more moderate one.  Whom a certain individual has nevertheless convinced many people is “coming after” them.

People who are being led by one of the most manipulatively misinformed, misleading, demonizing, and inflammatory voices in a long, long time. Glenn Beck.

With this person, another world class expert in rhetoric and little else, as their Keynote speaker.
____________

Update: The Cato Institute continues to sometimes kid itself: A few days ago, Vice President Gene Healy writes:

Anyone who’s been to a Tea Party rally knows this is no Astroturf movement. These are ordinary citizens, rightly furious that the federal government has sold the country a junk mortgage on its future, sticking America with an unsustainable debt.

They may be “ordinary citizens.”  But with Glenn Beck as perhaps the prime instigating force — as even the fluffy New York Times article above supports — and with Sarah Palin perhaps not far behind, these are ordinary citizens who have been greatly mislead and have a lot of illusions regarding political processes in America.

Government debt is what they say is a lot of the “fury;” but which programs are they advocating to be cut? And they are more furious about “pork”?  In the middle of the night several years back, after the Bush Administration’s Medicare Administrator (Tom Scully) threatened the program’s chief actuary if he shared his true cost estimates with Congress, one of the biggest corporate handouts in the history of the world was occasioned. At taxpayer expense.

That medicare “prescription drug plan” within just fourteen months of its original passage, was expected to cost well over a trillion dollars.  Most other pork complained about is barely even noticeable in comparison, combined.   Where was the outrage over a one trillion dollar giveaway — count to a thousand, that is how many billions are in a trillion — to corporate interests, at taxpayer expense. Where was the outrage?

To make matters worse, the Bush Administration did it by misleading Congress, as even some leading Republicans have complained about. Where was the outrage?  Where were the Tea Parties?

The closest thing we had to Tea Parties before today — one could call the outrage leveled against the Clinton Administration the tea party precursor — was during the Clinton Administration — an Administration that inherited absolutely gargantuan budget deficits, and enabled by favorable productivity gains due to the widespread implementation of computer technology along with sensible fiscal policies, left the incoming Bush Administration with a surplus.

Whether it is a good idea or a bad one (thought most economists fully urged this action), the current spending at least had the stimulus angle and a belief that this country was in dire economic times.  Where was this outrage when the Bush Administration was doubling our historical outstanding national debt at a time when total military and national security spending was still lower (percentage wise, the only measurement that matters) than during any decade but one in the past half a century?  When the Bush Administration was literally shredding the basic preventative purposes of the Constitution, rendering it void at the Executive’s discretion and thus Articles I and II essentially voluntary?

In the second paragraph Healy does briefly note at least part of this seeming “oddity.” (Which, if one understands the tea party, and the true motivations and mis-perceptions behind it, is really no oddity at all):

Yet there are those who doubt the new activists’ sincerity, asking, in effect, “Where were you when George W. Bush was spending faster than Lyndon Johnson?” It’s a fair question.

It’s also one, among others, that Healy never answers.

The answer can be found, in the post above.  And in the ravings of Glenn Beck, and others.  And in the media kowtowing to this, with, title aside, absurdly fluffy pieces, and the even more inane mainstream media liberals’ blinding dismissal of it all.

I’ve emailed Healy and invited him to comment on the above post, including this update.

Palin’s Blinding Hypocrisy, and the Tea Party “Platform”

A recent post illustrated the frightening yet typical hypocrisy of former half term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as she called for Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to be fired for calling a liberal pro health care reform attack ad strategy “f**king retarded” (based on his use of the word “retard,” in a private meeting), yet initially had no problem with, and even said she “agreed” with, Rush Limbaugh when Limbaugh also used the word, and called liberals themselves, “retards,” multiple times, publicly.

Which brings up a more fundamental, and troubling point, on this very same issue of unrecognized hypocrisy and Tea Partiers, who recently held a convention where none other than this same Sarah Palin was the Keynote speaker.

While perhaps not as blatant as Palin’s absurd triple standards,  the main Tea Party “message” also has an element of unrecognized, and much more troubling, hypocrisy to it.  A hyprocrisy that is causing many to overlook that the main Tea Party message is misleading to both Tea Partiers themselves, and to most of America.

It also goes to the heart of what America either is, or isn’t, all about: Freedom, liberty, and in the case of the Tea Partiers claims, less government.  Does less government just mean less regulation that actually protects individual rights more than it protects unfettered corporate rights, less spending on help for the unfortunate in a society, and more of everything else, including unchecked governmental power, intrusion, and moral and social preaching, if not prescription — things that have no place in a truly free society?

Consider again Palin a  few days ago saying she “agrees” with Rush Limbaugh very non satirically and publicly calling a broad group “retards” multiple times over, while calling for Rahm Emanuel’s firing because Emanuel in a closed door strategy session referred to an ad campaign strategy itself as “f*’g retarded.” There is not much better example than that this so called “freedom beacon” Sarah Palin is actually invoking such speech control based upon her own, subjective, selectively imposed, and extreme interpretations as to call for somebody’s firing for the simple use of a common figure of speech used to denote foolishness, that in other, far more extreme, pejorative, direct and public employments was (originally, until it was pointed out to her), perfectly fine to Palin.

That’s the world view that imposes something entirely different, rather than the same set of rules, conditions and expectations, based upon one’s own subjective view of things, no matter how disparate.  In a nutshell, that is the initial basis for any type of fascist, authoritarian, or totalitarian rule. It’s okay if we do it. It’s a crime, or worse,  if anybody else does, and let’s base our policies, the country, and sometimes in the Tea Partiers’ case, our hatred, upon that unrecognized dualism.

Palin started off her Tea Party speech by stating “Don’t you just love America!?”  Everyone it seemed screamed yeah out loud (again, see video clip provided courtesy of the Daily Show).

But what is it that Tea Partiers (a few of whose espoused, rather than seemingly practiced, principles, I might agree with) love about America?

Is it our founding principles?  Most of those are slowly falling by the wayside to far right powerful government ideology.

Is it the idea of a robust Fourth Estate? That has been routinely lambasted and torn apart by the far right in this country except in those instances where it simply resembles exactly what one wants to hear, and in the manner it wants to hear it, cleverly couched as “fair and balanced” news, as the Fox Channel does presently, and what is in fact the opposite of an independent, robust, investigative check upon government, power, groupthink, groupthink run amuck, misrepresentation and rhetoric  – and which up until recently had formed an essential cornerstone of our robust representative democracy.

Is it love of the people?  Fox’s Sean Hannity, one of the main leaders of the Tea Party movement, wrote a best selling book which on its cover alone puts “Liberals” in with traitors and terrorists. Fox’s Glenn Beck is even worse. Tom Tancredo speaks at the convention, and manipulatively and even derisively calls “Barack, Hussein, Obama” (with special emphasis on the middle name) a socialist ideologue. Other talk show radio hosts, who seem to form a cornerstone of hatred, routinely conjure up hateful images and inflammatory rhetoric that appeals to our worst emotions and biases.  So it doesn’t seem to be love of the people of this country (unless one is the same as everybody else, which is a theme more fit, ironically, for pre wall collapse U.S.S.R. or, in the extreme, of course, Totalitarian Germany.)

What about other people.  Is it just love of half of the country’s people, and spewing hatred for the rest?

There is a big difference between disagreement with policies, and hatred for that disagreement, or for groups that are different than oneself.  For example, I’m a big supporter of serious immigration reform, and have been for a long time.  It’s a right wing view.  Some Liberals hate this view, and sometimes, opposite of Republicans, and missing the forest for the trees, ignore the fact that I am aligned with liberals on some key issues such as environmental and energy sensibility, openness and accountability in government, restricted and checked governmental power[i], health care reform and cost reform (but only sensible health care and cost reform, that addresses the root cause of the problem, over reliance upon for profit health insurance, otherwise I am an opponent), and rigorous anti trust enforcement to ensure we have a robust, and fair functioning capitalistic, not oligopolistic, market and economy.

I even think the U.S. should not be putting out information in two languages, and I hate when banks and other companies do it. It only discourages incentive to learn the language that most speak, and keeps people apart, and from being able to effectively communicate with one another.  (Interestingly, many recent and even not so recent, but language sheltered, immigrants have told me they agree completely with me on this. ) But I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t blame America’s problems on Immigrants, or on anybody but all of us, for various reasons.

But Tea Parties seem to scapegoat immigrants. Not all, but many. They certainly don’t seem to love them.  And if racism does have a place still in American society — and it seems it does — its role seems to be far more fully realized among the Tea Party crowd, than elsewhere.

So it is not love of America’s people that the Tea Partiers Love.

It is not love of our founding principles of limited, checked government with a president restrained in full by the will of he people and the constitution, a judicial systemt that serves as a check upon the unfettered will of the majority against the inherent rights of the minority, or love of that which has also made our democracy great, a robust and completely independent hard hitting fourth estate that Thoams Jefferson once called more important to our democracy than government itself.

Is it love of our mountains, land, and its natural pristine rugged beauty? Many who identify themselves with the Tea Party movement have a strange argument for efforts to move of us of fossil based fuels — fuels which are adding to an atmospheric forcing that has already ratcheted GHC concentrations to levels that are higher than any observed over the past three quarter million years, whose reliance upon compromises our national security, and sends countless billions to unfriendly and often repressive regimes, which also, GHG aside, greatly pollute the air, and in the case of coal, add to our bio-accumulation of key toxins (such as mercury) and devastation of landscapes, watersheds, and even, in some cases, whole mountain tops.  They argue that these efforts are designed for the purpose of “wrecking the economy” or because of “hatred of mankind” regardless of the fact that most scientists are telling us that we are undertaking an exceedingly risky path when it comes to potentially radical future climatic shifts with potentially devastating implications for mankind — particularly future generations.

So it doesn’t seem to be love of the natural environment, ecology, and the land.

What is it then?

Love of unfettered corporate anarchy, rather than rigorous, true capitalism, and love of rhetoric is what, at times, it seems to be. Particularly love of  rhetoric unrecognized as such, and that is the scariest thing of all.

And it is what American, including many earnest, well meaning, Tea Partiers themselves, should be most concerned with.

And Palin is probably better at misleading rhetoric than anybody in America. Save perhaps for this gentleman, another Tea Party favorite, and someone who almost got all teary eyed when he met Palin (see below).

The guy who spends most of this time railing about Fascism, and exhibits more of its underlying traits than perhaps any other leading figure in America today.Glenn Beck.

Huey Lewis once said that facism will come, in the name of anti-facism.  Glenn Beck is America’s Exhibit A.

Sarah Palin, with her emotions stirring ‘freedom’ speeches when she doesn’t even know what the word means, but can spin the head off a carrot with her rhetoric, is Exhibit B.

Glenn  Beck, meet Sarah Palin. The statute of Liberty, slightly withers in the background.
____________________________________
Endnotes:

[i] Although a few liberals think more restrictions are needed, but in general that argument is vastly over stated by the far right, a fallacy which Liberals themselves often don’t see the importance of, and so play right into.

Sarah Palin Hypocrisy and Myopia: Out of Control?

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in a closed door strategy session, called a strategy by some liberal groups to air ads attacking some Democrats who were balking at Overhauling health care reform, “f**king retarded.”

Though it has not used the term ‘f***king retarded,” this website has taken strong issue with certain ‘liberal’ oriented political strategizing views very recently, albeit likely for very different reasons than Emanuel may have.  But the phrase itself is a comment slang expression for “very foolish,” and in almost call cases is not used, intended to, or even taken in any way to, refer to or impugn the mentally disabled. And if it were, or was, used in this latter fashion, this site would be among the first to castigate anyone for so doing, as a base and cowardly form of cruelty.

But that clearly has no applicability to Emanuel’s common slang usage. Usage, which, moreover, was being employed to refer to strategy alone, as an adjective,  not to an individual or group of  individuals.[i]

Yet Palin is outraged. And calling for Emanuel to be fired because of this.

Now let’s look at number one rated talk show host in America, and despite his far right leanings (or perhaps because of them), sadly sometimes cited de-facto leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh:

Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards….I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards.

Limbaugh almost never gets the facts correct [ii].   And here is no exception, as he ascribes something to Emanuel that is completely untrue -Emanuel didn’t call anybody anything; he referred only to a strategy itself as “retarded,” which is something very different from what Limbaugh stated Emanuel did and what Limbaugh did himself, and, if employment of this term is in fact offensive, far less so in this context than in Limbaugh’s case:

Limbaugh did not only impugn individuals directly, he said it multiple times, and he used the term as a noun directly, in describing a group of people. He also said it publicly, on air to millions of listeners, as opposed to in a closed door strategy session.

So if what Emanuel did is grounds for immediate firing, what might this much more egregious statement by Limbaugh be grounds for? Let’s ask Sarah Palin:

Sarah Palin, on Rush Limbaugh’s statement[iii]:

I agree with Rush Limbaugh

She also, ridiculously, called what Limbaugh said, satire (read the comment in blockquotes above by Limbaugh again, lest you have any doubts.)  This is about as satirical as the speech Palin gave herself at the recent Tea Party convention.  Yet in the spin world of Sarah ‘If BS were currency, she could bail out Wall Street herself” Palin, satire is a new magic word to simply employ, no matter how ludicrous, to shield or blind oneself from the reality of raging, pathological hypocrisy.

_____________________
Endnotes:

[i] Other, more reputable, sources, however, misrepresented what Emanuel stated as well. Here is the headline to ABC’s famous news blog, the note, with Jack Tapper, “Rahm Apologizes for Privately Calling Liberal Activists ‘Retarded.’” This is blatantly misleading, and can be ascertained even by a very careful reading of the very article itself. Ironically, Fox, whose online news coverage is not nearly as bad as their television coverage, which in effect serves as a ‘fair and balanced’ craftily veiled advocacy channel, did not mischaracterize Emanuel’s statements like ABC’s political blog did. Even the highly ideological, and often heavily slanted, New York Quote, got Emanuel’s quote right. How did ABC not?

[ii] Note that the Daily News, whose publisher, Mort Zuckernam, is considering a run for the Senate – simply repeated Limbaugh’s assertions as true when they were not. See note [i] immediately above, also.

[iii] Steven Colbert fairly effectively mocked this, by saying on air that Sarah Palin was a “f*ing retard” because Palin knows its okay to say if you don’t mean it, just like Palin said of Limbaugh (despite the fact that Limbaugh made it very clear he did mean it.)  The far right but sometimes informative site Newsbusters, apparently missing the entire point on a show that is almost entirely satire (but yet not chastising Rush Limbaugh for calling people retards seriously), became heavily self righteous over this and in turn actually, and seriously, accused Colbert in its headline of blatantly calling Palin what Limbaugh had called Liberals, missing the entire gist of Colbert’s point even though it’s fairly obvious from the very clip they themselves play.  This is a classic example of why the semi  Orwellian named site “Newsbusters” is listed in the blog roll to the right, under “ideological.”

Creating Jobs, Spurring the Economy, Solving Energy Problems, and Lessening Government Dictate, with One Same Swift Strategic Approach

The best way to create jobs is to solve another problem at the exact same time.

Tax the crap out of gasoline. Yeah, unpopular; but Dems have the majority in Congress, and tend to support it (as do some moderate Republicans). Just do it, sell it, it’s about national security and getting off of sending billions to hostile foreign regimes.

Do it more as a value added tax in addition to just end user tax. Take all the funds from this tax and use thusly: Give hardship relief, but only on a well communicated sliding scale so that people begin AND CONTINUE to make adjustments themselves. All of this will go right back into the economy while encouraging the market itself to further adjust and create.

Next, bag the tax credit idea and instead do immediate credits for solar penal installation on roofs. Make it a big credit too, so that anyone living in a sunny area is getting some power from the sun, and almost no environmental cost, increasing further development and economies of scale in this industry, and transitioning us over to cleaner, more independent, fuels.

No tax credits; they are abstract, and the full value is never realized.

Tax electricity. That’s right. Electricity, generated from coal. Sounds politically bad? Right now we tax hard earned income. That’s bad. Instead, we will be shifting some of that burden onto a revenue raising program that at the same time inspires the market, and ends the undue non true capitalism penalization of industries and end uses that don’t rely upon excessive externality cost electrical use or production.

Same hardship remuneration applies, while people incrementally, with six month at a time decreases in hardship assistance, learn to adapt with positive change:

We can’t ask what is perceived to be sacrifice of industry (though we are de-facto subsidizing some industries now too, with other ones right now unduly penalized because their lack of harm is not integrated into their price) yet just give handouts to the economically disadvantaged without asking them to learn to adjust also — and there is PLENTY of adjustment that can be made short and, increasingly, longer term, when money is at stake — at the same time.

DON’T pour money into R & D. This is a common call by many, but it is a waste. Let the market do it. Then the money not only inspires the research, but concomitantly the development and implementation at the same time, for no additional cost. It’s a waste to simply give industry money for “research, if they do x or y or promise to look at z.”

Take the same money, and later use for deficit reduction. Right now, trying to bring jobs back, use it for reward. Not as efficient as economic discentive (e.g, a tax on coal fired electricity) but choose broad behavior parameters that are already established, and again, grant immediate purchase and investment credits.

Not for bicycles or stuff like that that also has other uses (cool and helpful as bicycles are), that’s another waste. But for stuff which only serves to produce or use far cleaner energy.

Use the rest for direct stimulus in the way of immediate construction, but smaller scale that also indirectly enriches communities, towns and cities, and DOES NOT further support more fossil fuel based uses or needs. Bike paths can be construction ready anywhere, and have the opposite effect, encouraging biking. Don’t put up electric lights unless they are solar powered. Install solar charging stations, wind or geothermal powered, for local electric vehicles, bike and walking paths, tennis courts, etc.

And those are just a few quick examples.  Everything in such a jobs or stimulus bill needs to be designed to either discourage fossil fuel based behavior while encouraging the opposite, while not regulating people and letting them and the market decide, while inspiring the market further at the same time, all while stimulating jobs and the economy rather than further dragging it down.

If Dems with a solid majority can’t sell that, what can they sell? (Oh, yeah, I forgot:  Apparently nothing. But that can change when they learn not necessarily how to do it, but that they must do it. Who might teach them that?)

Use the market to solve the climate change, pollution and energy security problems all at the same time, without increasing government encroachment, and while creating jobs and spurring economic growth all at the same time.