Global Warming Alarmists are Insignificant (in the Big Picture)

We often work ourselves into frenzies over political issues such as global warming. The Chicken Little’s of the world are screaming the sky is falling because of SUVs, light bulbs, and ultimately - YOU. The cry is that WE are the problem. Consider Al Gore’s statement in an Inconvenient Truth:

We are dumping so much carbon dioxide into the Earth’s environment that we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.

Note the use of the word WE. The problem with Al Gore and every other alarmist out there is a question of perspective. WE - humans - are truly insignificant in the big scheme of things.

Consider the earth as compared to other planets (click on pictures for closer view):

Now consider the earth as compared to Jupiter:

Next, mull over the earth as measured up to the sun for a REAL perspective on what causes global warming:

But let’s not stop here. Reflect on the sun as compared to Arcturus:

Finally, compare the sun to Antares. The sun is only one pixel in size compared to Antares:

Remember the earth? Consider yourself on this earth and your SUV or light bulb. Are we truly so egotistical as to think we are anything but an insignificant speck in the big scheme or things? Do you really believe your light bulb and SUV are of greater importance than the sun (or Antares which, incidentally, is only the 15^th largest sun). So, the next time somebody comes to you sanctimoniously preaching that YOU are the problem, you will know THEY are insignificant.

Source for photos: http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm

Technorati : climate change, conservative, global warming, science

Is Ron Paul Truly a Conservative?

“The American people now have a real conservative in the race for president they can support,” stated Kent Snyder, chairman of the Ron Paul 2008 committee after Ron Paul announced his intentions to jump into the 2008 race. But in reality, is Ron Paul really a Conservative?

We can find that information at Project Vote Smart (vote-smart.org). According to the website, Ron Paul’s Conservative ratings range from 62% to 100% on any given year. His liberal ratings, however, are more telling. They range from 40% to 50%. They are the highest of any Republican presidential candidate. As a comparison, John McCain’s liberal ratings have ranged from 10% to 35% in recent years. Most Conservatives do not view John McCain as a true Conservative.

So where is Ron Paul’s liberal bent?

• Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
• Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.
• Claims the War on Drugs has abused the Bill of Rights.
• He’s for legalizing medical marijuana and has a 30 rating by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
• Rated “A” by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record.
• He supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 57%.
• Paul supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 50% in 2005 (the latest data).
• Ron Paul has voted closer to Democrats on military issues than Republicans.
• He has a 29% approval rating on national security issues by the Center for Security Policy (closer to Democrats than Republicans do).
• In 2006, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Representative Paul a grade of “F”.

Ron Paul is NOT a Conservative any more than Hillary Clinton is a Conservative. Despite his adoring fans on the web (and only the web), Ron Paul, who was suppose to have surged after his “victory” over Giuliani, is in second to last place in the national polls.

Technorati : 2008, Ron Paul, conservative, politics, president

Liberal Guilt: The Reason for Indulgences, Protests, and Policies

What do The Dave Matthews Band and Coldplay have in common with the likes of Al Gore and John Edwards? They all suffer from liberal guilt. Coldplay, for example, funded 10,000 mango trees in India to make amends for their emissions in the production of their CD. The Dave Matthews Band has said it will offset 100% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from all of its touring activities since 1991. It is comparable to the medieval practice of buying indulgences to eliminate guilt. Al Gore and John Edwards are not only buying offsets but espousing guilt-based policies.

Shelby Steele describes this liberal guilt well in his piece “White Guilt”:

They struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with. When they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group’s former sinfulness.

Here lies the root issue of liberal policies and actions. In other words, we have program after program of government funded “guilt offsets” to help relieve liberals of their shame-ridden past. Consider the war on poverty, social security, affirmative action, global warming, universal health care, and the countless other guilt-based agendas.

Guilt leads to blame. Their need to correct some perceived injustice means they must amend others actions as well—the louder the better so the world will know they are doing something about their supposed disgrace. Consider protests of the following: the Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, Kyoto, “undocumented workers,” Bush policies, and so many more. Guilt, blame, guilt, blame—the same pattern over and over.

It is cognitive dissonance. Liberals assign guilt to oneself or, worse yet, to others who disagree with them. This allows them to circumvent feeling bad about themselves, or in terms they recognize—having a negative self-image. This, unfortunately, manifests itself into the myriad of government programs costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Because liberals are repeatedly offsetting their guilt, this leads them to be sanctimonious. P.J. O’Rourke puts it best:

The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things — war and hunger and date rape — liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

So, the next time you hear liberals espousing the “need” for a policy or program to “help the poor,” “save the environment,” or “help the children,” understand its root cause. It is their own inability to move beyond their own guilt-ridden self image.