Hopefully, this is a harbinger of the left's loss of the Midwest, as Hollywood continues to idolize liberal causes, Gore, et. al.
"WarmBoy" Al attempted to make his movie 'more than a political cause,' according to his speech, but it's clearly not. There is no convincing evidence that a) his outrageous claims are likely to occur, and/or, b) that humans are responsible for causing more global climate change than is naturally occurring over time.
In fact, if you think about it, the left has misnamed its cause rather intentionally. They castigate humans for "global warming," when it's not the recent, possibly temporary, warming trend that is debated. It is whether we know that human activity is primarily responsible for the warming. There is considerable evidence that CO2 levels were higher in prior epochs, without warmer temperatures. Climatology is far more complex than Al and company would have you believe.
At least the good news is, most people pay zero attention to Hollywood's latest causes for very long. In some ways, this 'award' probably diminishes WarmBoy in the eyes of those who might have taken him seriously as a politician. In fact, as Al tried to make light of the fact, the truth is, he hopes this pandering to the left on environmental issues may re-ignite his political career. Thus the joke about intending to read his announcement of another run for the Presidency.
Isn't it funny, that politics, being so, or almost purely, emotional, leads people to behave in ways that they cannot help? You knew the Hollywood crowd would give Al this Oscar. Despite how it reinforces the extremely liberal bias in Hollywood, and Gore's sucking up to this community. They just can't help themselves, no matter how obvious their motives are to other Americans.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Will Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Switch Parties?
I read or heard a news story this weekend concerning Joe Lieberman's possible party switch, which would trigger a change in control of the Senate.
One editorial by a flaming liberal, David Sirota, on the Huffington Post, here, ends thusly:
"So, to sum up: I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn't hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an "if") and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman's switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty."
Not surprisingly, I don't agree with Mr. Sirota. I think the Republicans would make substantial hay out of the conversion of a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, and prominent Jewish Senator. Plus, Lieberman might actually provide some spine to the Republican Senate team, and could probably write his own ticket. Think, Senate Majority Leader.
I have not yet written about Lieberman's prospective switch, but I've thought about it for some time. It would not surprise me at all. Ever since the Jeffords affair, the Senate's razor-thin margin of plurality has made this sort of thing entirely plausible. Rarely in the chamber's history has such a narrow margin of party votes allowed single Senators to temporarily wield such power.
How much do the Senate Democrats like their current perks? Enough to try to dissuade Lieberman, whose departure would mean the loss of so many recently-regained spoils?
In this case, unlike Jeffords, the Republicans would actually get an intelligent, respected Senator with strong and sensible opinions on some topics. Like Iraq.
Should be an interesting next few months.
One editorial by a flaming liberal, David Sirota, on the Huffington Post, here, ends thusly:
"So, to sum up: I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn't hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an "if") and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman's switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty."
Not surprisingly, I don't agree with Mr. Sirota. I think the Republicans would make substantial hay out of the conversion of a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, and prominent Jewish Senator. Plus, Lieberman might actually provide some spine to the Republican Senate team, and could probably write his own ticket. Think, Senate Majority Leader.
I have not yet written about Lieberman's prospective switch, but I've thought about it for some time. It would not surprise me at all. Ever since the Jeffords affair, the Senate's razor-thin margin of plurality has made this sort of thing entirely plausible. Rarely in the chamber's history has such a narrow margin of party votes allowed single Senators to temporarily wield such power.
How much do the Senate Democrats like their current perks? Enough to try to dissuade Lieberman, whose departure would mean the loss of so many recently-regained spoils?
In this case, unlike Jeffords, the Republicans would actually get an intelligent, respected Senator with strong and sensible opinions on some topics. Like Iraq.
Should be an interesting next few months.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Why Are There Any Intelligent Liberal Democrats?
Today I was shopping with my daughters, observing and enjoying the bounty and selection of products in some of the larger American retail stores- Target and Costco, to be specific.
My younger daughter was looking for an iPod, and we went to the electronics section to view the various models. On the way there, we passed the youth clothing section. Spring clothes are already on display.
What caught my eye is how stylish and varied the selection of tops, skirts and pants was for young girls and boys of a pre-teen age. Back in the day, when I was young, things were much more basic, even at a mid-line department store. Youth clothing was rarely the province of fashion, let alone in a more mass-merchandised retail outlet, like Target.
As I surveyed the many lower- and middle-class shoppers in both stores filling carts with merchandise, I wondered, why would anyone would ever think government could create such spectacular advances in the provision of high-quality, broad selections of goods for the general American public?
Who do liberal Democrats think have wrought such economic miracles? Central planners in Washington, D.C.? The lifetime civil servants over at Commerce, Labor, or the FTC?
Congress didn't create jobs. Neither did any President. The best they can do is set stable, dependable rules for treatment of capital and income, as well as Federal spending and taxation, then get out of the way.
Companies like Target, Costco, and many others like them will do the rest. They provide improved standards of living with their lower prices and wider assortment of products than were available even five years ago.
So why do I have liberal, intelligent, educated friends and acquaintances who vote for regulation-loving, income-leveling, tax-and-spend liberal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents? How is this possible?
What do these liberals think drives our economic prosperity and improvement in standards of living? Congressional witch hunts and higher taxes?
Truly, this mystifies me. I will never forget watching an interview with George McGovern sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, post-Reagan. He had attempted to run a bed and breakfast after retiring from the Senate, but it had failed. George regaled the interviewer with tales of over-regulation and the high costs of compliance with various local, state and Federal authorities. It was touching to see him admit, on camera, that, while a Senator, he had no idea of the awful, stifling impact on economic activity many of the bills for which he voted actually had.
One liberal possibly converted, a few hundred million more to go.....
My younger daughter was looking for an iPod, and we went to the electronics section to view the various models. On the way there, we passed the youth clothing section. Spring clothes are already on display.
What caught my eye is how stylish and varied the selection of tops, skirts and pants was for young girls and boys of a pre-teen age. Back in the day, when I was young, things were much more basic, even at a mid-line department store. Youth clothing was rarely the province of fashion, let alone in a more mass-merchandised retail outlet, like Target.
As I surveyed the many lower- and middle-class shoppers in both stores filling carts with merchandise, I wondered, why would anyone would ever think government could create such spectacular advances in the provision of high-quality, broad selections of goods for the general American public?
Who do liberal Democrats think have wrought such economic miracles? Central planners in Washington, D.C.? The lifetime civil servants over at Commerce, Labor, or the FTC?
Congress didn't create jobs. Neither did any President. The best they can do is set stable, dependable rules for treatment of capital and income, as well as Federal spending and taxation, then get out of the way.
Companies like Target, Costco, and many others like them will do the rest. They provide improved standards of living with their lower prices and wider assortment of products than were available even five years ago.
So why do I have liberal, intelligent, educated friends and acquaintances who vote for regulation-loving, income-leveling, tax-and-spend liberal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents? How is this possible?
What do these liberals think drives our economic prosperity and improvement in standards of living? Congressional witch hunts and higher taxes?
Truly, this mystifies me. I will never forget watching an interview with George McGovern sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, post-Reagan. He had attempted to run a bed and breakfast after retiring from the Senate, but it had failed. George regaled the interviewer with tales of over-regulation and the high costs of compliance with various local, state and Federal authorities. It was touching to see him admit, on camera, that, while a Senator, he had no idea of the awful, stifling impact on economic activity many of the bills for which he voted actually had.
One liberal possibly converted, a few hundred million more to go.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
