Is It Hot Enough For Ya?

Look, up in the sky, it’s a bird…it’s a plane, no it’s Booga Booga! “Dr.” Al Gore and his traveling medicine show is at it again, hawking his latest anti-Global Warming elixir. Actually he’s morelike a witch doctor. All that’s missing is a bone through the nose, a little paint on the face and a couple of ominous rattles in his hands. His new film, ”An Inconvenient Truth” is making the rounds like a bad recurring dream. This is your life…Booga Booga. The movie, which is turning out nice numbers at the box office, (albeit on a proportional basis that factors in much fewer screens), plays more like a sad, syrupy, sentimental attempt to revitalize one man’s failing political career than an authentic news story based upon fact. At various points you wonder when Ralph Edwards is going to appear saying, “do you recognize this voice, from your 4th grade biology class?” One could write this off as one big hilarious joke, in a long line of hilarious Al Gore-jokes, if not for the very serious threat we face from the Al Gore-brand of radical, leftist environmentalism. Their “junk science” may be silly and easily dismissed, but their efforts to expand the powers of government are not!

Before detailing with some of the deceptions in this latest Global Warming Hoax, it should be remembered that Al Gore’s family has a considerable interest in the Occidental Petroleum Corporation. This company has been cited for creating many environmental hazards over the years. It would seem appropriate and logical to me that one should clean-up one’s own backyard first before pointing fingers at others.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Lab in Australia, has this to say about the film, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that his film is commanding public attention.” Carter maintains that most of Gore’s scientists are not even in the climate field. Carter’s assessment is that they can provide no conclusive proof that human emissions of CO2 are having any significant impact upon the global climate. Carleton University paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson agrees, “there is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geological] time frame.”

Nevertheless, Gore keeps chanting away demanding we stop analyzing his data and accept the “consensus truth.” To make him happy we simply must come forth with an acceptable sacrifice to appease the angry gods of Global Warming. Booga booga. We’re not suppose to listen to folks like Dr. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg Climatologist, who says, “these models (mathematical computer models that predict Gore’s apocalyptic visions), have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios.”

Professor Patterson contends that it is completely unsubstantiated to believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming, “in fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years!”

I could go on with countless other quotations from scientists who are experts in the field of climate research, but for those with a superstitious point of view, what difference does it make? The crucial point is: how would Al Gore’s agitprop affect us, if it actually succeeded in gaining political acceptance? By the film’s end it’s no secret what the true agenda is. The key to the witch doctor’s sacrifice is America’s endorsement of the global environmental treaty known affectionately as the Kyoto Protocol. The goal of this accord is in getting top industrialized nations to cut their industrial emissions by 5.2 percent from their 1990 levels. Canada, an early signer to the treaty, has since renounced it as an unrealistic and over-burdensome policy. MIT professor, (and Democrat), Richard Lindzen calls Kyoto “baseless” and “bad” for its potential impact on government policies and the economy. He adds, “there’s no current Western leader who’s as well informed on the [climate] issue as Bush. European politicians are just using Kyoto for cheap virtue.” President Bush has always been against Kyoto. Gas prices would be in the $3.50 range, electric bills would nearly double, coal prices would rise by a factor of 153%, the GDP would be cut in half and the cost to the economy would tally in the hundreds of billions- if we listen to the witch doctor!

Al Gore seems to pride himself on being more of a prophet than a witch doctor, but I wonder if he’s contemplated what the good book says about what should be done with False Prophets? Maybe we’ll get a voodoo dance out of it yet. Anything would be better than the Macarena Megalomania we’re seeing now! (send comments to wfc83197@aol.com)

To Spank, or Not to Spank

Another San Francisco Liberal is busy at work- introducing a bill in the California State Legislature to ban spanking. No, this isn’t a new measure to regulate proper Bathhouse decorum. Democrat Representative Sally Lieber has proposed a law that would outlaw the spanking of children three years old or younger, carrying a penalty of jail time, or a $1,000 fine, for convicted parents.

This begs the question: at what point does the State have a right to infringe upon a parent’s right to discipline their own children?

Naturally, there are some genuine cases of child abuse that should be confronted by government intervention, but where does one effectively draw the line? Is spanking always wrong? Not if one believes in the Biblical injunction of “spare the rod, spoil the child.” In fact, one can make the case that “sparing the rod” is a form of child abuse in itself. Tolerating disobedience and neglecting the responsibilities of applying “adequate” discipline is one of the surest ways to corrupt a child. The results of an undisciplined child can be far-reaching and tragic. The duty of child-rearing is clear: either discipline them when they’re young and in the home, or society will be forced to discipline them when they’re old and in prison! Aka, spank me now, or spank me later.

We all can’t wait for TV’s Super Nanny to show-up in a van to fix little Johnny’s “problems” with fancy “time-out” games. Sometimes, a swift smack on the rear is the most direct way to communicate what it takes this modern-day Mary Poppins to do in an hour! The simple idea is this: Stove Hot, pat on rear stings, but not as bad as three degree burns and a visit to the Emergency Room. Children need strong suggestions about how to control their behavior in order to avoid serious injury to themselves or to others. By stinging their little behinds one transfers this notion in a meaningful way that the child clearly understands. Not all 3 year olds can “reason” why- Stove Hot.

Another argument against this Nanny State proposal is the idea that we already have too
many people in our society abdicating their individual responsibilities in favor of “collective” solutions. Adopting this additional area of government oversight will only suggest to many that here is yet another opportunity to surrender one’s natural sovereignty in favor of government usurpation. Such unconstrained belief in the efficacy of government- for matters of personal responsibility- results only in furthering the negative trends of victimization and dependency among the People. Supplanting the natural, God-given order of “Parenting-done-by-the-Parents,” yields a condition where, ultimately, no one takes responsibility for the hard work of nurturing a child. If the child belongs to EVERYBODY, the child effectively belongs to NOBODY. Sometimes, frankly, “The Village” is just too darn busy to break-off a switch and stripe a few legs! Bottom line: initiatives like Ms. Lieber’s only encourages the damaging belief that it is the government’s responsibility to raise a child.

There are currently 28 states in the US that ban corporal punishment in schools. Those
states which “do not” are characteristically Red, and in the South. Studies have also shown that Christians are disproportionately in favor of spanking by a ratio of 9 to 1. It’s interesting to note, that although recent surveys show that only about 33% of Americans currently support this form of discipline, in the 1930s, the rate was similar to today’s Evangelical point of view- about 90%. Does anyone truly believe that our Society in America today is trending toward too much discipline? Isn’t it more likelythat most of our societal ills are the result of just the opposite trend: an overly permissive culture that tolerates every manner of deviancy?

NY Sen. Patrick Moynihan used to warn, “we are defining deviancy down beyond the limits our community can afford to recognize.” He was referencing the Durkheim Constant, advanced by preeminent Sociologist Emile Durkheim in 1895, which states, “by defining what is deviant we are enabled to know what is not, and hence to live by shared standards.” A quick perusal of the Jerry Springer Show should assuage any doubt regarding the direction we are heading in vis a vis our “shared standards!”

So, this battle in the Culture War will continue. Fifteen European states currently ban spanking in both home and school. The European Network of Ombudsmen for Children, (ENOC), which regards spanking as child abuse, is urging all governments to work collectively towards abolishing all forms of corporal punishment. The actions of Ms. Lieber are yet another example of how liberals in this country are taking us down that primrose, socialist path of “Government Knows Best!” Robert Young where are you?
(send comments to wfc83197@aol.com)