The hour badly spent

It’s been noted, in the past, that this sometimes turns "kinda ragey." Well. I was willing to give the Collegian opinion column the benefit of the doubt, but, well, they really do suck.

“Fairness” should become the official motto for the Democratic Party. In the official party platform found on their Web site, the words “fair” and “fairness” appear 35 times, compared to the words “free” and “freedom,” which appear only 28 times.

Did Tim Hadachek actually read the Democrats’ platform, or did he just press CTRL+F until Safari gave him a "Safari has finished searching this document" popup window? Which do you think it was?

Hadachek implies by negation, of course, that the Republican Party is the party that represents Freedom. I’d be inclined to believe this if I pathologically forget that Republicans have repeatedly tried to assault our civil liberties, treating the Bill of Rights like a naggy voicemail message from your mom. If you ask me, it’s more like the Bill of Lefts. Ha ha, I tried to coin a new phrase and it came off dorky. I suck.

Take for example the party’s position on the energy industry. Like a baseball team benching their best home-run hitter in favor of the untested rookie, Democrats want to hinder the largest contributors to our economy — the oil companies — forcing them to invest in unproven and inefficient alternative sources.

Fuck innovation. Hadachek wants us to stick with oil FOREVER. It’s the least we could do; energy companies like Enron have been so kind to us. And it’s not like we’ll ever run out of oil.

This is like the fair-trade policy mentioned in the Democratic platform and by candidates like Sen. Barack Obama, as found on his Web site. The Fair Trade Federation lists its main tenet as “setting a minimum floor price for producers around the world.”

In practice, this creates an artificial market in which small foreign farmers receive extra money for producing crops like coffee, that they aren’t very good at growing.

Fuck small foreign farmers! We’d rather be ripped off by large American organizations! We’d rather let Dick Cheney’s cronies at Halliburton pocket taxpayer cash in the name of the War On Terror! McCain/Palin 08!

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., favors a return of the “Fairness Doctrine,” which, until 1987, forced radio broadcasters to provide balanced viewpoints on controversial issues.

Today, as conservative talk-show hosts dominate the airwaves, Democrats say it isn’t “fair” that there aren’t more liberal points of view. But liberal hosts have the same opportunities as conservative ones; it’s only their small audiences that keep advertisers from supporting their programs.

Hadachek makes no gesture toward addressing the substance of the complaints against conservative talking heads in the media: that they use fearmongering and rely on pandering to the prejudices of uneducated people in order to get ratings, in lieu of promoting intelligent debate, and that this is actually damaging to the listeners but they listen to it the same way people gorge on junk food. Hadachek’s logic is that as long as they’re popular, they must be right (see what I did there). That’s because political discourse is a commodity and nothing more.

An entire society based around fairness has been tried in the past — it’s more commonly known as communism. Communism was like one big T-ball game; everybody was guaranteed a spot on the team, but no one ever improved, because the ball was just sitting there on a stick.

There it is: to neocons, fairness = communism. Hadachek blatantly ignores the more obvious connotation: justice. The concept probably didn’t enter his mind!

This cartoon ran with the editorial:

It’s supposed to represent Democrats. I think it kinda looks more like Hadachek: a braying, uninsightful jackass.

[Source: K-State Collegian]

Oil companies: as evil as the sweet black gold they pump from the deep, ancient heart of our planet, or just trying to make a buck in America like the rest of us? Earlier this week, Tim Hadachek weighed in on the issue, challenging us to put down our shrill, knee-jerk griping every time gas prices creep up a couple of bucks (what do you really need that for, anyway? You’re either giving it to Big Oil or Big Farm). We should examine this in terms of the basic principles of our economic system.

Oil companies want to make as much money as possible, and this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Our economy works best when everyone is free to make as much profit as their skills, intelligence and resources will allow them, as long as it is done fairly.

So why do Democrats want to punish oil companies for living out one of the greatest American ideals?

On average, the largest oil companies make only about 9.7 percent more than they spend each year, slightly above average for an S&P 500 company. Many companies have much larger profit margins.

Google, for instance, operates with a profit margin of about 25 percent, according to CNN on April 29.

I’ve always been disgusted with the way Google and their hegemonic “algorithms” rip us all off every chance they get, then use their leverage to choke the competition. Look what’s happened now! We have to pay whatever price the free search engine cartels wanna stick us with. They’re basically the internet’s warmongering Ritalin dealers. Who among us can honestly go without Ritalin? But, again: greedy as Google is, I can’t really fault them just for trying to make a buck in America.

Adding new taxes on oil companies essentially is punishing them for making money. But basic economics tells us they should make money. They produce a commodity that is of limited supply and in high demand.

Why penalize a company that is willing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to bring us energy?

Blaming oil companies for high gas prices is like blaming farmers for high food prices.

In the future, we will just outsource the functions of our government’s legislative branch to Exxon’s board of directors. We will outsource our judicial branch to the Mob. The only decision left for President Palin will be whether to waterboard the Liberals in a vat of boiling crude oil or to extradite them to a detention facility in Saudi Arabia, where Blackwater will sodomize them with WMDs.

 [Source: K-State Collegian]

Months ago, when Brett King first ran an article about Indiana requiring voters to produce valid ID at the polls, the issue seemed a bit strange, and I couldn’t put my finger on exactly why. Requiring IDs to vote seemed like a benign enough idea, but why, exactly, was it necessary?

I can’t imagine Indiana has a huge turnout of illegal aliens sneaking by pollsters in droves, causing severe upsets in the makeup of school district boards or whatever. And most of the time, when I hear about election fraud, it’s less likely to be "Mr. Worthington paid 8,000 fake constituents to show up and vote" — which is properly called voter fraud — and more probably along the lines of "Mr. Worthington bribed a single official to toss out 8,000 ballots" — which is more properly called election fraud.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Justice John Paul Stevens said that Indiana’s desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system are important even though there have been no reports of the kind of fraud the law — backed overwhelmingly by Republicans — was designed to combat.

So I was kind of puzzled as to why we would focus the crackdown on the electorate, when the angle of entrenched-power cronyism seems more likely and more pernicious. Then I ran across some new information:

The Indiana law was challenged in separate suits filed by the Indiana Democratic Party and by another group of plaintiffs that included elected officials and community groups.The plaintiffs argued that the state had failed to justify a requirement they said would place a special burden on thousands of eligible voters in Indiana who lack driver’s licenses, a group that disproportionately includes the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities.

Writing for the 2-to-1 majority at the appeals court, Judge Richard A. Posner agreed with the plaintiffs that the law would have the greatest impact on people who were “low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates.”

I guess it always comes back to red vs. blue. Therefore, Brett’s column this week welcomes us to the New World Order; in which the poor and the undesirables don’t have a say, just like in the Old World Older. As long as we’re getting all regressey, why not just do it exactly the way we used to, where you had to be a property-owning white male in order to vote?

The problem with his argument, though, is the fact that Indiana provides free IDs to citizens who do not have a driver’s license.

Fair enough. I guess this is just like that time conservatives insisted that the government which governs best, governs least, except apparently under certain arbitrary conditions.

After the Democratic Party’s claims of voter fraud in many elections - including the 2000 presidential election - any individual with at least a small amount of common sense would think helping to curve voter fraud would be a good course of action.

Having eligible citizens voting in elections is essential to the progress of our republic, but to encourage participation, voters must feel their vote matters and won’t be canceled out by those attempting to commit voter fraud.

Yeah, a little perspective on that whole Y2K Florida debacle: the problem was NOT that non-citizens were voting. It’s that electoral authorities and the police were removing people from the poll lines and stopping them from voting, and that this took place only in overwhelmingly Democratic neighborhoods. It was pretty clearly NOT voter fraud and SO election fraud. And it wasn’t just the Democratic party making those claims: local newspapers told the stories of a pretty fair number of individuals who were there to witness democracy inaction. I can’t help but wonder if Brett King’s equivocation was accidental right-wing cluelessness or purposeful right-wing malice.

 

In "Climate hype? People should look at the research," Mark Wampler presents the issue of global warming as bunch of blowhards shouting at each other. One side makes one claim, the other side claims the opposite. Which side is right? It is apparently not Mark’s job to check up on either of their claims. His job is to present one side as a bunch of wild-eyed kooks, and show the other side as being calm and rational without even adding any science to the article, as if his point is self-evident. Instead of putting forth a single bit of evidence either way, he just sells us an image of the people behind the argument, and so undermines the validity of his own headline.

In actuality, leading scientists are divided on the seriousness of the perceived global warming threats. While the cries of ignorance are abound, there is not an overwhelming amount of scientific data that supports climate change disaster.

Underneath Mark’s PR job, his point is that, ecologically, we have nothing to worry about. But what is this conclusion based on? Someone else said so. But why did that person say so? How do rising temperatures affect ecosystems? What does hotter air actually do to the environment, and how does this affect the human population? Though they seem like obvious questions to bring up in an article on global warming, Mark just glides right around them, preferring instead to just cherry-pick some "experts" from either side and call it a day. A vast majority of the scientific community does indeed believe that global warming, a result of increased CO2 emissions, does have lasting effects. This isn’t some radical hairy-fringes brainwashing; this is chapter 13 in a textbook I’m holding in my hand right now.

Measurements made on bubbles of air trapped in Greenland and Antarctic ice deposits show that there was little change in CO2 concentration in the ten thousand years before 1860 [which coincides with intensifying industrializing in Western countries - ed.]. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone up by over 20 percent since 1860 and is today increasing faster than ever. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently 27 percent higher than it has been at any time in the past 650,000 years.

Once industrialization become widespread and far-reaching, CO2 concentration throughout the atmosphere rose. More CO2 concentration bulked up the earth’s greenhouse effect, according to Konrad Krauskopf and Arthur Beiser’s twelfth edition of The Physical Universe, ©Mcgraw-Hill, 2008.

    "As fossil fuels continue to be burned at a high rate, the greenhouse ‘window’ of CO2 becomses a better trap for heat and the atmosphere will continue to warm up," according to Krauskopf and Beiser.  The proliferation of greenhouse gases produces a global warming feedback loop: as Earth’s average temperature rises, more ice melts. With less ice, sunlight is absorbed instead of being reflected back into space, making the temperature rise further. Krauskopf and Beiser go on:

On the basis of plausible assumptions, the best guess is that the average temperature in a hundred years will be between 1.4°C and 5.8°C higher than it is now. Even the lower figure represents an extremely quick jump, a warming rate nearly 40 times faster than the warming that ended the most recent Ice Age. At a 5.8° increase, the world would be an unrecognizably different place.

But that’s all just "scientific research," which is frequently the least persuasive point one can make in a red state. So if the back-and-forth thing is more your style - as if science is a basketball game - I defer to an international group of scientists who recently convened to report on the effects of global warming. Their results line up nicely with the figures in my textbook. Almost like lovers spooning (actually I don’t really know much about stuff like that). It’s as though their research is based on universally accepted nuggets of information. "Facts," so to speak. Before dismissing them as batty doomsday rhetoreticians, global-warming maniacs, whatever, be aware that they do have a large part of the scientific community behind them. They are the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and they won a Nobel Prize last year. They are among the scientists Mark sourced for his column. Too bad he didn’t manage to fit their research in with his argument.