The "war on terror" is a bumper sticker. If the U.S. government was serious at all about preventing future 9/11s, it would seal off airplane bulkheads and limit immigration from the countries with active terrorist organizations. Instead, the U.S. continues to train, organize, and sponsor the next group of terrorists who will occupy our attention in the next decade. A real first step to stomping out terrorism would be to go after the people in the U.S. government who sponsored the current group of "terrorists" ten or twenty years back. A second step would be for the US to stop its support of totalitarian regimes. There should, I think, be a law that no US forces should ever be sent to assist the government of a country if the government isn't elected. During the first gulf war, the Kuwaiti government should have been allowed to fall. Suddam Hussein had just as much right to govern Kuwait (as a dictator) than the dictator (king) of Kuwait had. What's the difference between the Kuwaiti secret police and the Iraqi troops? They're both illigitimate powers. The so-called "war on terror" is just a vast con that has given the government a blank check to persue policy agendas that have little connection with the interests of the average American.
"Nobody thinks anymore. They take the word of drugged out rock stars, the news media, and angry politicians."
Here's what I'm thinking, Glen. I'm thinking that you're making the assumption that people haven't read what the majority of scientists are saying - that they're merely relying upon rock stars.
Give people some credit. Sure, there are some who will just take the word of pop stars, but that's true Left and Right. The majority of people read up on matters that concern them and make at least relatively informed decisions.
Is it possible that if the majority of news and scientific reports they are hearing are wrong and that they've been misled by the majority of media and scientists? Sure, it's a possibility.
But then, thinking people would want to know what evidence there is to support the wild claim that there's a great scientific and media conspiracy to convince people of an untruth. Wouldn't you think?
Karlo, I agree. There are a lot of things the govt. should be doing to show that it is serious about terrorism. As for the other stuff, I think there ought to be a discussion about the history of the region, how we negatively affected it, and how that history can be used to influence future policy.
Dan, people like you and I inform ourselves and then draw conclusions. Of course our conclusions are influenced by prior belief systems, but nobody can help that. I think this is true for most people who blog about and read about politics and economics.
But I don't think that is true, as far as the general population is concerned. The masses are prone to be influenced without putting much thought into things. You mentioned both sides. I agree with you on that. The gay marriage debate and the nonsensical emotion over flag burning are examples from the supposed right. Look at the rise of Hitler or the popularity of segregationists in the old south. I would argue that the people of Germany and the whites of the old south were generally good people. They just chose bad people to follow. They didn't think things through, but just fell in line.
I don't have anything against these kids running around with global warming t-shirts. I am just frustrated that they are not willing to investigate anything. They are not even aware of Madonna's mansion, or Snoop Dog's mansion. I criticize the media, but most of those people probably don't even watch CNN or PMSNBC. They probably watch the E channel though and Entertainment Tonight.
It is just frustrating sometimes, thats all. Certainly you can relate to what I am saying, but from a different perspective. Remember that about 85% of the country supported the war, in the beginning.
I have to agree that most people don't make informed decisions. Being informed is hard work. Personally, I'm not nearly as informed as I'd like to be. Most people simply hop onto one or another band wagon. If people want solid information, they need to turn off the TV and either read books or journals (hopefully of the peer-reviewed sort).
Sometimes I think I would be better off if I was less informed.
I think it is wrong to think that a "majority" of scientists link global warming to being man made. It's a majority of scientists being reported on in the MSM. Which is hardly an unbiased source.
Glen, found your blog searching to see if what I heard yesterday was true. That live earth concerts had something like only 2 "M"illion viewers, vs. the 2 billion they were projecting. IF that's true, I love it! Maybe the sheep herd is dwindling.
Yes the t-shirts are going out of style.
Dan. You need to stop relying on Savage and Limbaugh for all your facts and venture out into the real world occasionally.
According to a meta-study (a study looking at all the related articles published in an extensive group of leading scientific journals), scientists who voice an opinion all think that global warming is happening and that it's a problem, and virtually all believe that human activities are a significant cause. I don't know where all these naysaying scientists are but they must have a hard time getting published in peer-reviewed journals. Evidently, their vast opus of research on the topic can only be found in Exxon documents and Bush administration reports. Incidently, the 2004 meta-study by Oreskes can be found in Science Vol. 306.
The short paper on the metastudy can be downloaded here.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/re...6/5702/
1686.pdf
(Actually, my summary of it, if anything, didn't state the point strongly enough. There seems to be NO disagreement with the consensus.)
Karlo, maybe you should stop assuming where I get my info. And if you looked a little harder you'd find just as much data opposed to your MSM blather. I read from both sides and find the data opposite of your view point more credible. And I don't need to post endless links to data available to everyone to believe as I do. You aren't going to change your mind anymore than I'll change mine.
And judging by the turn out for that fiasco called "Live Earth" I'M in the majority!
Even though you don't usually like linking to "all your data", could you provide a link to a meta-study that says the opposite? Your original comment wasn't that there were people who opposed the global warming view, but rather concerned the consensus. The meta-study is proof of a consensus. It isn't a short opinion piece in a popular magazine.
Commenting by HaloScan
