Archive for May, 2014

Constitutional tension

Robert N. Tracci provides today’s lesson in Consitutional tension with a current example of its abuse: Sacrificing the Constitution for the Democratic Party.

“Legislative leaders have never been so eager to strip themselves of powers the Constitution entrusts to them. Never before have they so openly colluded with the executive to do.

“Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution vests Congress with “all legislative powers.” Congress can arrogate executive power no more than the president can assume lawmaking functions. Of no less importance, Congress can validly relinquish legislative power to the executive no more than the president can properly cede executive authority to Congress. Messrs. Reid, Durbin and Schumer’s extralegal effort to endorse the executive exercise of legislative power does not confer legitimacy upon potential presidential action. Rather it compounds the constitutional injury such action would inflict while diminishing the institutional standing and credibility of the Senate itself.

“Constitutional vandalism of this kind must be repudiated.”

Countries do not become tyrannies because of just one. It takes collusion and cooperation.

Leave a Comment

The hardened heart

It seems that so much of what should be a reasoned debate is useless. Facts do not matter and denial behavior including projection, logical fallacies and the rest become predominant. Herschel Smith provides an analysis of a letter: Dear Christians With Guns.

“But since you don’t believe in God, you have no means to effect anything.  God doesn’t hear you, and Mr. Scott doesn’t control anything.  It wouldn’t matter.  You wouldn’t change God’s law with your prayers anyway, you would only be asking God to change your own heart.  It seems to me that you don’t want your views to be changed, so your heart is hardened.  You’re at a dead end, Anastasia.

As for me, you cannot possibly do anything to my views of the Bible and guns. I see things through the eyes of the holy Scriptures. I’ve pointed out that God’s law requires me to be able to defend the children and helpless. “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.” I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.”

There is a reality and there is a fantasy. All too often, it seems, the fantasy is too real for too many,

Leave a Comment

Pope Francis: just a man of the time?

Front Page Magazine has two columns on the Pope and his expression of the PC attitudes towards the people of Jesus’ ancestors. Caroline Glick describes Pope Francis’ Unfriendly Visit to Israel and Robert Spencer notes the problems with Pope Francis: Mahmoud Abbas is a “Man of Peace”. Both are mindful of the Biblical advice about false prophets. The Pope isn’t supposed to be politically correct in the manner that Jesus and his disciples made their own path.

A friendly visit?

“The Palestinians – and their Islamic and Western supporters – de-Judaize Jesus and proclaim him Palestinian in order to libel the Jews and criminalize the Jewish state. It seems like it would be the job of the Bishop of Rome to set the record straight. But instead, Francis’s discourtesy indicated that at a minimum, he doesn’t think the fact of Jesus’s Judaism should be mentioned in polite company.

Francis’s behavior during his public meeting with Netanyahu could have been brushed off as much ado about nothing if it hadn’t occurred the day after his symbolic embrace of some of the worst anti-Jewish calumnies of our times, and his seeming adoption of replacement theology during his homily in Bethlehem.”

and a man of peace?

“In allowing himself to become an instrument of Palestinian jihad propaganda, and spreading that propaganda himself, the Pope has done a grave disservice to free people and aided and abetted the genocidal jihad against Israel. The damage resulting from his trip is impossible to calculate at this point, but it could be immense. Pope Francis’s jaunt in the “State of Palestine,” was a tremendous show of support for the jihad against Israel, and a dark day for the papacy, the Roman Catholic Church, and free people everywhere.”

Add this to the understanding of the human side of economics and one has to wonder. The Pope is supposed to be a bit better in touch with the real world God created rather than the one human’s imagine.

Leave a Comment

Myth mongering: trying to deny the reality

The ‘Nixon got the IRS to go after political enemies’ has been popular lately what with the current IRS scandal. The ‘useless Bush wars’ is another one that denies the authorization to use military force. Now we have the outing of CIA agents as a stimulus to push another denial rationalization. William A. Jacobson describes how the WaPo perpetuates myth that Bush Admin Iraq War supporters “outed” Valerie Plame.

“A reader called to my attention this sentence in a Washington Post report about the Obama administration outing the identity of the CIA Station Chief in Afghanistan …”

“Scooter Libby was convicted for lying to prosecutors and obstruction of justice in the Special Prosecutor’s investigation, under a contorted theory that nonetheless prevailed with a jury. He was sentenced to jail, but the sentence was commuted by George W. Bush.

“Libby, a close confidant of Dick Cheney, however, was not the leaker.

“The leaker was an Iraq War critic in the State Department, Richard Armitage. Christopher Hitchens reported at the time”

They’ve got a twofer going on this one. Not only a ‘both sides do it’ excuse for the current example but also a blame shift away from the culpability of friends in the previous example.

Then there’s the whole issue of screaming about useless investigations compared to what happened to Libby, but that’s another story.

Leave a Comment

Judicial oligarchy?

Individuals who set themselves above the electorate and tell the common voter he’s nuts?

“Lawlessness breeds more lawlessness, and a feckless response to bullying invites more of the same. Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down much of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, federal judges have overturned marriage laws in 13 straight cases. Unlike millions of voters, they apparently think natural marriage is unworthy of legal protection.

“How did we come to a place where judges think that marriage certificates don’t need a bride and groom, and that it’s racist to ask someone to prove who they say they are before they cast a ballot?”

KNIGHT: Hubris in high places” describes what he sees as an ominous trend.

Leave a Comment

Incrementalism when all else fails

The banners of “equality” and “fairness” are quite attractive. What is under the banners, though, can be quite ugly. But who looks under the covers? TELFORD: A stubborn devotion to Internet regulation describes one case.

“The “Open Internet Order,” an FCC order adopted in December 2010, intended to place strict federal regulations on ISPs, forcing them to treat all data equally. Veiled under the pretense of “fairness,” these net neutrality regulations could have prevent ISPs from providing efficient Internet service to consumers, as all data are not created equal, and different types of Web content (simple text and live streaming video, for example) require varying degrees of service. Under this order, ISPs would not have been allowed to differentiate between simple and complex data, prioritize high-demand content such as Netflix or take other steps to compete, innovate and attempt to make Internet service better for their customers.

“Fortunately for everyone who uses the Internet — from developers all the way down to casual Web browsers — a federal court struck down the order earlier this year, determining the FCC lacked legal authority to impose such a regulation. Rather than accept defeat, the administration moved on to Plan C, pushing the politically unpopular policy through yet again, this time softened to allow traffic to be differentiated, but only if bureaucrats at the FCC consider it “commercially reasonable” on a case-by-case basis. This version of net neutrality has Google, Facebook and other White House-friendly tech giants in an uproar.”

Persistence is an admirable trait but when that persistence is after controlling someone else, it becomes something else.

Leave a Comment

Net Neutrality

J.C. Dvorak takes on the The Net Neutrality Hysteria, one of those appealing labels applied to a questionable effort for government control at the expense of those ‘greedy, evil’ corporations.

“It stems from a belief that without some sort of law or government edict, the evil ISPs—mainly Comcast—will go out of their way to screw customers by practicing all sorts of devilment.”

“So … why hasn’t it done this already? Nobody can really answer that, except to say some unenforceable FCC principles, suggested years ago, are being used to stem any corrupt practices.”

“After years of fear that the government will take control of the Internet, now everyone is begging them to do it. The two liberal commissioners on the FCC pretty much said that problems are coming and rules need to be put in place. This pre-crime thinking will result in regulation that will encroach on everything.”

“The public can find a lot of ways to punish a corporation that abuses its privileges. This situation should not be escalated to the point that the FCC has anything to do with it.”

The Snowden episode is used as an example to illustrate why the government cannot be trusted. That illustrates a bias on its own that tends to detract from the case made. Fundamentally, it conflates the matter of knowing with that of doing. The net neutrality effort isn’t just a listening issue, it is a control and doing issue. It is about having the government regulate the internet service business to control content and how it is handled. It is being done with an unwarranted suspicion of the targets involved and an anticipation of something that might happen but hasn’t yet – notice how that same set of tactics is used by the climate alarmists?

Leave a Comment

Ethics, politics, and the current state of affairs

Victor Davis Hanson provides a list: President Obama’s ethical vacuum — “Untainted administrators and department heads are few and far between.”

In all of these cases, politics trumped ethics. Because Mr. Obama professed that he was on the side of the proverbial people, administrators assumed that they had a blank check to do or say what they wished without much media audit. The mystery is not whether some administration officials were incompetent or unethical or both, but whether there are any left who are not.

and, no, both sides are not the same. Asserting so is just a denial of reality.

Leave a Comment

cost of green

The subject is Ivanpah. California’s New Solar Plant: Burning Up Taxpayer Money, Land, and Wildlife by Benjamin Zycher describes the situation:

“the nominal capital cost per kilowatt (kW, one one-thousandth of a MW) of capacity for Ivanpah is about $5600, a figure that ignores some costs that are important but hidden. In comparison, the Energy Information Administration publishes estimates of the capacity costs per kW for coal, combined-cycle natural gas, nuclear, and on-shore wind capacity: respectively about $2700, $885, $4800, and $2075. For solar thermal plants in general, the EIA estimate is about $4750. (Bear in mind that these figures are for capacity costs only; they exclude fuel, operations and maintenance, and other costs.) The per-kW capacity cost of Ivanpah is well over twice that of wind power, which cannot compete federal production tax credit guaranteed market shares, and other subsidies.”

“The EIA estimates of total system (that is, including variable and other costs) levelized costs per mWh for solar thermal, conventional coal, natural gas, nuclear, and on-shore wind generation are, respectively: $243, $96, $66, $96, and $80. (Again: The wind estimate is far too low.) … True enough: Renewable power may enjoy future technological advances, but technological improvement is likely to characterize all electricity production. Accordingly, such future improvements in renewable generation do not necessarily imply increases in renewables’ competitiveness, particularly given the diffused energy content of sunlight and wind flows, a reality impossible to change.”

Then there’s the footprint. “Ivanpah sits on 3471 acres of Mojave desert” which compares to just a few acres for a traditional power plant. Not only is the land covered and the biosphere it supports drastically impacted, the materials requirement to cover that land with solar collection devices has a manufacturing and installation footprint that is often ignored.

“Ivanpah is a monstrosity, the kind that only a marriage among Beltway politicians, crony capitalists, and environmental Leftists could engender. It is the classic illustration of the dismal reality of “renewable” energy, and thus serves a public purpose very different from those argued by its proponents: It helps to reveal the truth of modern environmentalism.”

But is anyone listening? The amount of government funding put into this sort of boondoggle is horrendous yet is doesn’t seem to make any impression.

Leave a Comment

The will of the people?

You have to wonder. When the citizens of a state overwhelmingly pass a constitutional amendment only to find that their officials don’t defend it and the courts dismiss it, what will happen next. This scenario has happened in California, Utah, and, now, Oregon. Ed Morrissey has the story about how a Federal judge overturns marriage definition in Oregon constitution.

“Remember when traditional marriage advocates put their trust in constitutional amendments to keep activist judges from unilaterally imposing a requirement to recognize same-sex marriage? In Oregon, that’s not ancient history; 60% of voters approved the constitutional amendment just ten years ago, when several states did the same thing in response to state courts changing the definition of marriage. The strategy didn’t last, as a federal judge overturned the clause in the state constitution — after the state refused to defend it”

In this case, the issue was settled by the voters. … the Attorney General is the people’s lawyer, their legal representative as well as their top law-enforcement officer. If the state’s elected lawyer doesn’t want to represent the people in court, then he or she should resign and let someone else take the job. The people deserved to be represented in court by their paid attorney, whether the AG liked the law or not.

If attorneys argue — correctly — that rapists and murderers deserve a defense, then why should that be denied to the people of Oregon and California?

Dereliction of duty, political activism on the bench, and shoving it down the throats of the people. The question is what will happen when the people decide that enough is enough?

Leave a Comment

Both sides do it?

One of the excuses or rationalizations for inappropriate behavior is that ‘both sides do it.’ This comes up in the IRS scandal trying to pretend that wishing to sic the IRS on political opponents (e.g. Nixon, R) is the same as actually doing it. A pattern is beginning to show, however, that is making the ‘both sides do it’ rationalization rather thin. Communications have surfaced that implicate Democrat Party leaders in misconduct in regards to the IRS scandal. Another is described by John Hinderaker about how Democrats persist in illegal use of capital visitor center.

“In addition to being tasteless, the event is illegal for the reasons we stated here. Today, Candice Miller, Chair of the Committee on House Administration, wrote a polite letter to Nancy Pelosi pointing out the legal issues with the Democrats’ use of the Visitor Center for a partisan political event.”

“Tomorrow evening’s event promises to be a clown show, and an illegal one, at that. The fact that the Democrats have sunk this low is one more sign of how intellectually bankrupt the party has become.”

The Koch Brothers obsession is about trying to overturn the Citizens United where the SCOTUS decided that corporations could speak as citizens. The use of taxpayer facilities to air a deceitful propaganda film with Congressional leaders chipping in to denigrate their opposition is the example here. That isn’t something both sides do.

Leave a Comment

The case of Lennart Bengtsson – a victim of modern extremism

Luboš Motl has the rant of the day: Lennart Bengtsson will probably remain a renegade, anyway.

“I must say: Welcome to the real world, Lennart Bengtsson. Maybe he didn’t expect this reaction. I surely would. You know, the movement of climate psychopaths belongs among the most aggressive extreme components of the far left and new fascist political movements of our epoch. They have no respect to any moral and human values that would transcend their sick propaganda whatsoever. They’re ready – and eager – to destroy human lives. Some of them are bloody, treacherous beasts of prey dressed up as friends. In the world of Academia, they’re omnipresent. It doesn’t mean that they’re the majority; they are surely not. But their concentration and their aggressiveness is high enough to cripple and poison every large enough research group or institution.”

“It seems unlikely to me that by having resigned from the GWPF board, Lennart Bengtsson will revert his standing in the “community” to the previous conditions. These climate fascists have probably labeled him a dangerous renegade, a heretic, a doomed apostate. Special folders and pages on the black lists have been dedicated to him. Some of the alarmists may be somewhat moderate but the most consequential ones are the infinitely unhinged individuals whose desire for the ideological “purity” (meaning 100% šittiness) within what they consider “their ranks” knows no limits.”

To underscore the observation, it appears that Henninger did a census of this year’s PC impact on graduation speakers in a WSJ column. Worried, yet? 

Leave a Comment

Racism and slavery rationalizing ideological hatred

When a wealthy sports star cites a slavery background as a proper grievance in modern society, there is a lie being promulgated. Jack Kerwick describes the Inconvenient Truths about Race & Slavery.

“the very word “slave” stems from “Slav,” i.e. a reference to the experience of millions of (white) Slavish people who endured centuries of slavery at the hands of African Muslims.”

“it was the “African elites” who “converted” the African masses to Christianity and that it was these same elites—not European abductors—who sold their fellow black Africans into slavery across the Atlantic.

Of the 12.5 million Africans sold during the era of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, Gates further observes, only about 388,000 were shipped to America.

“An honest discussion of race in America would include the fact that whites were slaves, for sure, but it would also have to accommodate the obscene truth that as many as 4,000 free black families owned slaves in the antebellum South. More stunning still is that, arguably, the first slave master in early America was a black man.”

Slavery is still a problem in the mid-East and in Africa yet that current problem is set aside to whine about an institution that was abolished in Western Culture based countries more than a century ago. Slavery and racism are being abused in an egregious deception.

Leave a Comment

Washington Times Columnists and the interesting times we live in

The Washington Times has been providing a lot of thoughtful commentary this week. Here’s a sampler.

TYRRELL: Another futile quest of the noble left, tilting at windmills – Liberals’ climate anxiety is offset by assurance of moral superiority.

“The American left has no practical solution for many of the problems that agitate it and that its neurotics hope will agitate us. Put another way, the left is given to setting the American people off on noble quests for which there is no solution. A case in point is global warming, or climate change.” … “Just as the left has no practical solution for global warming, it has had no solution for arms control, universal health care and, in fact, the expenses of the welfare state.”

DIAZ: Acceptance of a public God by the high court – Prayers don’t need to be generic to be constitutional.

“The court rightfully concluded the government has no place in directing the content of a person’s prayer. This was a 5-4 decision, though, and that is concerning. Should the dissenters have gotten their way, government would have the duty to police the content of every legislative prayer to ensure its “inclusiveness” and especially that no one’s feelings are hurt.” … “The dissenters want the court to assume nefarious motives to organized religion and to Christianity in particular. This is a dangerous view that promote distrust in our citizenry. It asks every citizen to presume those who are not like them are not to be trusted.”

CODEVILLA: Who’s afraid of the USA? No one – Liberals’ quest for a global order has emboldened adversaries.

“Ordinary Americans have more reason to fear the U.S. government than do our foreign enemies.”

“When Muslim jihadists began attacking Americans a generation ago, our progressive ruling class did not ask, “What is the obstacle to peace?” … Instead of addressing such questions, our ruling class empowered an apparatus of “homeland security” that supposes any American may be a terrorist, but which rejects focusing it on Muslims as “Islamophobic.” Thus, our ruling class made the designation “dangerous extremist” a matter of subjective likes and dislikes. It is impossible for officials who make up standards implicitly and unaccountably to do so apolitically. Barring explicit political decisions from the front door ensures that implicit ones come flooding in through the windows. When the line between peace and war is erased, when the definition of enemies is anybody’s guess, the sociopolitical opponents of the ruling class end up getting fingered as the “enemies of the people.”

PAPADOPOULOS: Bulldozers at the HAARP gate – Destroying an atmospheric research site would cost more than operating it.

“Alas, success does not go unpunished. Science agencies and laboratories, including the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Los Alamos National Laboratory financed the research, and more than 15 universities shared the thrill of scientific discovery and success. Operations and management of the program were the responsibility of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, and the Air Force now wants to shut it down.” … “Sacrificing a $250 million investment and threatening the future of U.S. radio-science research to save $10 million is absurd and wasteful.”

SOWELL: The height of utopianism – Building-height rules should be set by markets, not busybodies

“What we are really talking about are little coteries of self-righteous busybodies, who have been elected by nobody, wrapping themselves in the mantle of “the people,” in order to oppose elected officials, who have been elected precisely in order to give such issues the professional attention they deserve, in a system of representative government.”

There’s Government FUD Mongering, oppression in the name of security, wasteful spending, and “self-righteous busybodies” pushing the government to get it done. We surely live in interesting times.

Leave a Comment

Marking a descent into the depths

“Reading Paul Pillar’s smear of Sheldon Adelson saddened me. Paul, when I knew him, was as honest, as intelligent, as idealistic as anyone of my acquaintance. Forty-odd years later, is this what liberalism has come to? A dead end where its best representatives have nothing substantive to offer, but can only smear Republican campaign donors? Where formerly brilliant minds labor to justify a claimed equivalence between the Democrats’ “white primaries” of the 1930s and a Republican donor trying to find a good presidential candidate to support?

“Yes, I think that is exactly the depth to which liberalism and the Democratic Party have fallen. There is nothing left of principle; of honesty; of idealism; of intelligence. There is only malice, snarling in the dark.”

John Hinderaker: Paul Pillar, CIA Terrorism Expert, Descends to Anti-Israel Smear Merchant. The description is just another case. The Senate Majority leader still has his Koch thing, The House minority leader is still trying to figure out how to cover up scandals by smearing political opponents. 

Leave a Comment

Modern age simple-mindedness

You can see it in ‘debates’ and in ideology. It shows in the assertions made about motivation and war. It leads to severe dissonance because often the real world does not fit in with it. Professor Hanson describes a case in explaining Why Putin grabs what isn’t his and how “History’s aggressors [are] motivated by fear and wounded pride.”

In the modern age, especially since Karl Marx, we rationalize the causes of wars as understandable fights over real things, like access to ports, oil fields, good farmland and the like. Yet in the last 2,500 years of Western history, nations have just as often invaded and attacked each other for intangibles. The historian Thucydides wrote that the classical Athenians had won and kept their empire mostly out of “fear, honor and self-interest.”

It is these intangibles which drive the left and also create their antipathy towards concepts such as duty, loyalty, honor, and patriotism. It is the simple-mindedness that leads to strange rationalizations of international relationships and behaviors.

The Obama administration has tried to psychoanalyze Mr. Putin as lashing out because of weakness. Or he is supposedly an unruly kid cutting up at the back of the classroom. Or he is acting out a tough-guy “shtick,” as President Obama put it.

Maybe. It would be wiser, though, to review the historical causes of war, especially why conflicts break out. Aggressors often attack their weaker neighbors to restore a sense of pride. They calibrate self-interest not so much in getting more stuff as winning greater honor, feeling safer and instilling more fear.

Just as importantly, history’s aggressors embraced their fears and sense of honor because they thought they could get away with doing so scot-free — given the perceived loss of deterrence.

It is the same phenomena behind Reid’s obsession with the Koch brothers and the simplistic ignoring of reality behind energy issues. There are a lot of words available, words like pride and hubris, for instance, but these seem to have no meaning for one side in today’s political divide. 

Leave a Comment

Official FUD mongering

“Let’s get one thing clear: The National Climate Assessment is a political call to action document meant for the president’s left-leaning constituency. What pretense of scientific support that decorates it quickly falls away under a close and critical inspection.”

Spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is a dubious and dishonest tactic. Paul Knappenberger describes how the recently released National Climate Assessment report raises [a] false alarm and how “Politics [is] certainly behind the president’s report.”

It boggles the mind how a ‘science policy paper at such a level could qualify for “Nothing could be further from the truth.” As Knappenberger notes, the assertions don’t even pass the laugh test. Yet they are put out as Truth.

worried?

Leave a Comment

Censure Reid?

Ralph Benko says Harry Reid’s Neo-McCarthyist Vilification Of The Koch Brothers Begs For Censure.

“In conducting a campaign of vilification and of leveling an accusation of “un-American” Harry Reid is disgracing the United States Senate in ways comparable to the misconduct of Joe McCarthy. Only by censuring Harry Reid can the United States Senate regain dignity. Harry Reid deserves censure for Neo-McCarthyism.”

But, you hear, both sides do it! That is like the recent story about how North Korea released a long list of U.S. civil rights abuses to show that ‘both sides’ do that, too. The tearing in that rationale is related to other scandals. Thomas Lifson describes The Democrats’ Dilemma on Benghazi.

“Though they may publicly deny that there is any scandal in the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, there must be doubts emerging, if only because we now know with certainty that a critical email was withheld in violation of a subpoena from the Issa Committee. Though most Democrats loathe Darrel Issa (and the entire Republican Party, for that matter), the expression “cover-up” is now in play, and the senior Congressional leadership of the party is old enough to remember the Watergate hearings, and the articles of impeachment that emerged from that process, authored in part by a young committee staffer named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Article 1 cited as part of the justification for impeachment:

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

The Bundy affair is another one that comes up and implicates Senator Reid as well. The corruption possibilities have a lot of meat for the conspiracists but isn’t getting much play. What is getting play dates back to the 1976 legislation that started the overturning of Western land homestead grants and rights. That was where the idea of using ‘protected habitat’ started as a means to grab land for politically correct development. 

A disjointed collection? Indeed. The common theme goes back to the Senate Majority Leader and his approach towards his political enemies and his accumulation of wealth while serving as an elected representative of the people. He isn’t alone in what he considers proper behavior.

Leave a Comment

Malthusians lack imagination?

One basic assumption of the modern era traces back to 1798 when Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population as illustrated by  the best-selling book “Limits to Growth” published in 1972 by the Club of Rome. It seems common sense: use something and you will run out of it. That is based on the zero sum presumption that all is fixed and nothing is created. The amount of wealth is fixed so rich are rich at the expense of the poor. The amount of oil is fixed so we will run out of that. The amount of land is fixed so we will run out of room for farms to feed the population. Matt Ridley says The World’s Resources Aren’t Running Out. “Ecologists worry that the world’s resources come in fixed amounts that will run out, but we have broken through such limits again and again.”

“In 1972, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University came up with a simple formula called IPAT, which stated that the impact of humankind was equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied again by technology. In other words, the damage done to Earth increases the more people there are, the richer they get and the more technology they have.”

The problem for these Malthusians is that life isn’t a zero sum game.

“Economists call the same phenomenon innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter’s tendency to think in terms of static limits. Ecologists can’t seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is discovered, or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls.

“That frustration is heartily reciprocated. Ecologists think that economists espouse a sort of superstitious magic called “markets” or “prices” to avoid confronting the reality of limits to growth. The easiest way to raise a cheer in a conference of ecologists is to make a rude joke about economists.”

It is a lack of imagination, an immaturity of cognition, a concern grown to a paranoia. It is a part of that guilt that those in areas where the wealth was created seem to feel or the envy that those in other areas seem to feel. The feelings defy history and reality. 

The future is what we create. The U.S., in particular, has shown that the limits of the past can be set aside. The fight of the present appears to be whether or not we will regress to those limits, and poverty, of the past or proceed to create a future of our dreams.

Leave a Comment