A Political Glimpse from Ireland

The President-Elect of the United States has named lefty ideologue John Holdren as his chief science advisor. Holdren, of course, is a big supporter of the global warming religion, and of giving the government massive power to wreck the economy in support of his beliefs. It is very dangerous to have an ideologue in charge of science policy when nearly all research is now funded, at least in part, by the government.

This is reminiscent of our last Democrat president, Bill Clinton. He managed to offend nearly every one of the lefty interest groups at one time or another, but he was fond of giving the environmental leftists nearly everything they wanted. Toward the end of his term, he made a huge chunk of Utah off limits to mineral exploration by presidential fiat; he didn’t even have the courage to announce it in Utah, but did it across the state border in Arizona.

New York Times science writer John Tierney points out Holdren’s history of being utterly wrong on many matters, and his association with failed doomsayer Paul Erlich.

Professor Frank Tipton, a mathematical physicist, writes:

AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the power of the state is used to silence one’s scientific opponents. The case of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. Lomborg is a tenured professor of mathematics in Denmark. Shortly after his book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being critical of the “consensus” view on AGW and other environmental questions. Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would have been fired.

I find it very disturbing that part of the Danish Inquisition’s case against Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama’s new science advisor. Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are “dangerous.” I think it is people like Holdren who are dangerous, because they are willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.

Science policy is going to be damned important in the next decade. We need more electricity, and wind and solar just ain’t gonna do it, even if they worked, which they don’t, much. Nuclear power is clean, and safer than ever, but ain’t no Democratic congress or president gonna go there. It’s nearly impossible to build a coal-fired plant anymore due to bureaucratic roadblocks. And the thing is, even if the problems with wind and solar are conquered, we still need conventional capacity to back them up.

All the more reason to have a sober, sensible science advisor, and not someone with an axe to grind–especially when he has a history of being wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Hat tip: Powerline.

SHOCK OF THE YEAR
A University of Sydney study revealed that male science students have sex the least and female arts students are the most sexually active.

Yeah, like we didn’t know that already.

( Via Tim Blair )

I found this comment from BB-Idaho on a post on The Griper’s blog.

Eartha Kitt, whose voice and appearance never seemed to age, insulted Mrs Lyndon Johnson about her husband’s conduct of the VN war. In her case, that was also a protected right, but she was effectively ‘blacklisted’ by the entertainment media of the time and had to work in Europe for many years. It is interesting that we as citizens can complain freely, in fact it is a duty. Entertainers also have the right, but need be responsible to their careers as well, as indeed those with private power relationships, as office and workplace environments need be thoughtful in their criticisms.

I was thinking about this the other day in relation to the Dixie Chicks (remember them?). When Natalie Maines flapped her gums about how they were embarassed that President Bush was from Texas, it created a furor back in the US. Part of it was because the comments were made in London, capital of an ally in the war. Part of it was because of the timing–a few days before the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Of course, there were other entertainers expressing similar sentiments at the time. But the Dixie Chicks were a country group, and country music fans are more conservative. There was also some feeling that the Dixie Chicks were being somewhat rude, since GWB had invited them to perform at his inauguration in the days before they were famous.

The group, through a spokesman, issued a non-apology apology a few days later. Album sales plummeted, radio stations ceased playing their music, and concert ticket sales (in the US, at least) virtually ceased. Then the group appeared nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, and gave an interview to Diane Sawyer, where they wailed about censorship and death threats.

Censorship, of course, was not what was happening. Censorship is a government sanction; private citizen and businesses are free to make their own decisons about what to buy and what music they feature. Death threats are also part of fame; as Jonah Goldberg once wrote, his couch received death threats (the couch provided deprecating comments in some of Goldberg’s writings).

It didn’t help, either, when Maines et al let everyone know that they weren’t really sorry, and that they really didn’t like country fans, and had always wanted to be the kind of group that got invited to the Hollywood parties where the really cool people hang out and the cocaine flows like water. Country music fans got the message, and the group’s 2006 album was a commercial success, but concert ticket sales continued to lag their critical acclaim, especially in the southern US.

Back to BB-Idaho:

Opinion, as you note, is some times based on emotion; thus it triggers emotional response: even devolving into that type of argument known as Godwin’s Rule. Now us bloggers, we can say any doggone thing (and do). Our only responsibility is to avoid being victims and perpetrators of that doggone rule.

True dat. But we do need to be on the lookout; there have been proposals to “license” bloggers, and the leadership of the Democrats in the congress are hoping to pass legislation to force “fairness” on talk radio stations. As the major newspapers continue their slide to bankruptcy, and even the networks are slashing jobs in the news divisions, we have to make sure that the free flow of information and opinion is not held to the whim of the government.

Randal Hoven, writing at American Thinker, points out that on September 19, the economy was chugging along, unemployment was steady, the stock markets were steady, and John McCain was leading in the polls.

Then on September 21, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went on Meet the Press to announce the urgent need for a $700 billion bailout of banks. Seven. Hundred. Billion. $700,000,000,000. Over one quarter of the entire federal budget, after bailing out Freddie, Fannie and AIG and before the sweeteners were attached. Over five Marshall Plans, even after adjusting for inflation.

The world has not been the same since.

The bailouts and other measures have been more condemned by the right than the left, probably because The President-Elect of the United States’ advisers have unanimously agreed that it was the right thing to do, and that they intend to continue with more of the same.

Now over on Progressive Eruptions, bloginatrix Shaw quotes a NYT article on the housing crisis. It places most of the blame at Bush’s feet; the story is kind of amazing in that it fails to even mention two of the driving forces in the crisis–Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide). They were, after all the ones who blocked the reforms Bush & Co. tried to enact.

And over at Bloomberg.com, Kevin Hasset writes:

Instead, the forces that allowed the financial sector to blow up — deregulation, for example — were in place when he took office. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who failed to stem the crisis, was inherited from the previous president. Bush even tried to avert the crisis early and often in his presidency, as he sought strict limits on the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage-finance companies that were at ground zero of the crisis.

I guess we’ll never know what would have happened if instead of the bailouts, some of these companies were allowed to go through bankruptcy. There was indeed a credit crisis; banks had simply stopped lending money to anyone. That crisis continues for some. We’re seeing the impact in Minnesota; iron ore mining up in northern Minnesota was getting going again, after a 20-year decline. That’s stopped dead now as iron ore prices have completely collapsed.

Daphne writes on her blog:

Winter break is upon us people and boys everywhere will soon be rejoicing in their freedom from the bonds female tyranny. I would suggest you stock the pantry full of boy food and just lay back and enjoy it.

I sometimes see a mom in a store doing her best to ride herd on two or three sons under the age of 10. I wonder what it must be like for her–especially if she didn’t have brothers. They must seem like alien creatures beyond her comprehension.

It’s kind of like that for me, sometimes, because I had no sisters, just a brother. Families with kids of both sexes are the undiscovered country for me; I’m fascinated by the interactions and the bonds that develop.

I have a friend who has five daughters. I can’t imagine how he does it, but he does it well, and he and his wife are wonderful parents. They moved to a hobby farm a few years ago, and the girls are now well acquainted with the icky things that go on when you’re raising goats (for meat, not milk). Even more, about a year ago they decided that they would not buy anything new (except groceries) but would only buy used things such as furniture, clothes and cars. Imagine telling five girls that they can’t have any new clothes!

We don’t really grow up, us boys. We just get older, and we learn how to hide our boyishness, somewhat.