It seems the main argument being espoused here by these assorted bloviators and blowhards is that global warming means, backed by the latest “models”, warmer winters with less snow, less ice, less of all that nasty stuff we just got a foot and a half of here in Chicago.
You can’t have it both ways: Warmer winters with less snow cannot equal global warming at the same time that colder winters with more snow equal global warming. To claim this is the case is to demonstrate the factual illegitimacy of your cause and the moral bankruptcy of yourself.
In comments following the video I found this observation:
“its no the ppls fault its the roads not being salted fault”
Obvious schooling and literacy issues aside, this is a supremely immature reasoning and conclusion. But I fear it is all too commonplace today.
To read the comment literally, we see the fallacy of blaming an inanimate, amoral object. But to take the apparent, obvious, or implied meaning, the government is to blame.
Because the government wasn’t there to plow and salt the roads, these people have suffered damage to their property and cars. That’s what is being said.
What about life requires that the government be responsible for such things? Sure, the government owns and is responsible for maintenance of the roads. But are they required to avert any “act of God”, preventing them from hampering the free exercise of stupidity on the part of the citizens of that government?
I would argue that the government has a reasonable obligation to work to maintain the safety of those things it owns and maintains for specific use and benefit of it’s citizens. If inclement weather is expected and normal, reasonable foresight should be employed to allow an efficient and orderly clearing of the snow or ice. But the government bears no responsibility beyond reasonable protection.
These people driving, and every person engaging in the fruits of freedom and/or liberty, take their safety and security into their hands. Each person is responsible for acting in a manner which minimizes risk to themselves and others on their own. Not because the government requests or requires them to, but because it is the right thing to do.
The government does not have the power in and of itself to say that speeding is wrong. Instead, it has the responsibility demanded by ethics to set reasonable restriction to promote the maximal good to each individual while not inhibiting the liberties of all.
So these people in the video went out on a snowy day with the responsibility to be aware their cars would not operate in the way they are used to them operating. They should have driven at much slower speeds and operated generally with much more caution.
As technology builds up, shielding us from elements of nature, we tend to forget that nature is a much more powerful force than technology and operates on rules much more established and concrete.
I did not watch the now (in)famous CNN YouTube Debate. I’ve seen several of the shorts of what people thought were particularly bad and good moments of the debate, and I cannot shake the feeling that this attempt at de-scripting what is traditionally a very scripted process was little more than one more attempt at political theatre. It was a meeting of the Reality TV-obsessed culture with American politics. And as with Reality TV, the attempt at bringing meaning and significance failed astoundingly.
Who in their right minds thinks that CNN had any goals of balance in the selecting of the questions aired on this debate? [cricket noises]
Who thinks that when choosing the video questions for the Republican candidates they will include even half the number of softball fluff piece questions as they did for the Democrats? [cricket noises]
I don’t believe that Mr. Romney’s argument that this violates presidential decorum is particularly effective, there are ways a populist debate could be held that would not only honor the level of this office but also present the American people, and not just the egocentric snowmen and sock puppets, a chance to submit real questions.
The main stream media have abdicated the throne of impartial honesty and it would seem that taken as a whole, the blogging community has begun to usurp the joining throne of popular trust. What we should have are debates online, either video or written, where the top five blogs from either sector of the political continuum mediate questions and host the forum. The bloggers would be responsible for the content of the questions. We already know where each of the bloggers stand based on their history. There is no lying veil of impartiality, instead there are no unknowns. We know who and what they are. We judge their questions based on what they’ve said in the past. This will result in a much more accurate and honest question system.
There is no such thing as impartiality today. CNN is the joke of the Honesty Dept. I don’t blame any candidate who refuses to walk on to that particular stage. But we still need debate. The form and the structure of a debate are useful for comparing differing viewpoints.
I don’t believe that bloggers hold enough power to be able to make a major national occurrence of this yet. Maybe next cycle. But either way, we need to start planning now.
Water conservation has intrigued me for a while. It all began when I asked a colleague why she chose to become a vegetarian. Now I have numbers of friends who are vegetarians, one who even thrived as he went through boot camp. I respect them and have eaten with them countless times. I was simply curious about this colleague’s rational.
“Well,” she said, “What would [this state] look like if we used all the water used to produce beef to water the landscape. It would be so much greener.”
What?!?! How the heck would that work? How would you transport the water? How effective would a state-wide watering campaign be? How would you ensure that no more than 50 percent of the water evaporated before it soaked into the ground? (The best way is to mimic western Washington state’s system; 200+ days a year of rain.)
Further, I thought, trying to comprehend the silliness, “Isn’t water kind of like a renewable resource? There’s no more and no less of it on the earth. It’s just in a different form or location.”
And she seriously defended her reasoning.
That reminded me, what are the values of watering bans? In Texas, where it rains less than 100 days a year and there are few resources in which to store water, controls may be necessary. Even in California, limits may be necessary when the snow pack is low or in Southern California, which gets its water from the Colorado River.
But are they necessary in Washington state and Oregon where it rains more than the sun shines. When utility districts in these states encourage water conservation despite the surplus, the only response can be, “Uh, tell that to God.”
JUNE 19 EVENT TO EXPLORE HOW WATER PRICING COULD AID CONSERVATION
BOSTON – Even though the Commonwealth is blessed with adequate rainfall and full reservoirs, many towns* greet summer with watering bans and other draconian conservation tactics that seem better suited to the desert Southwest. Why? Economists Sheila Olmstead and Robert Stavins, in their new Pioneer Institute study Managing Water Demand, argue that heavy-handed, punitive restrictions on water use are not only expensive, but often ineffective.
Loud noise, large crowds, the unwashed masses of todays’ global-warming zombies all gathered and listened to washed up acts playing washed up noise, all in the name of cooling the earth. Funny thing is, most people there probably thought cooling the earth meant giving it a drag on a reefer, and were hoping the “mouth” of the earth would open near their particular venue, and were vaguely concerned that the even organizers might have trouble finding enough of the precious stuff to give the earth a big enough hit that it would actually make a difference.
What is of particular interest to me is the bureaucratic red tape and restrictions placed by unthinking public entities on the construction of Nuclear power plants. Liberals and their ideology are the primary reason why Nuclear plants are considered taboo today. Nuclear energy is safe, clean, does not salmon runs or kill birds, uses a common natural resource, and have not been built in decades. Chernobyl, the skull and crossbones of the anti-nuclear-idiots society, has not turned out to be the ecological or even medical disaster it was warned of becoming. Three mile island “radiates” less energy than a person gets during a normal day from the sun. Nuclear meltdown is a bugaboo, not a fact. To those who it exists as a fact, there are many other “facts” which have similar import and veracity.