Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Red and blue

The color red has been associated with quite a few things over the years. One major political ideology it has been associated with is communism. During the cold war we referred to the Russians as "the reds". Some people still refer to "Red" China.

Red is also associated with anger and violence. People taken by fits of anger occasionally "see red". When a criminal is caught in the act, we say he was caught "red handed", presumably a reference to spilt blood.

The color red is also associated with "sin". Seedy sections of town where prostitution is rife are referred to as "red light districts". A woman in a red dress is associated with wickedness and lust. Recall the song "Roxanne" by the Police…

Red is also the color used in our warning signs and of course our stop signs and stop lights.

Today, the color red is used to identify "Republican" leaning political districts and states. With all of the other connotations in our culture of the color red, it seems to me to be more appropriate to apply it to Democrats.

The Democratic party base is, for the most part, liberal, or even hard left. Socialists and communists. Many liberals celebrate behaviors and lifestyles that once were considered (and still are by many) to be sinful. "Free love" (by which is meant unrestricted and casual sex). Homosexuality and transgendered lifestyles. Recreational drug use.

Who can forget or deny the sheer anger that so many on the left expressed over the results of the 2000 election? Or the 2004 election? Why is it that so many liberals are still so seethingly mad at President Bush that they cannot speak his name except as an epithet?

Our national colors, red, white, and blue have specific meanings, at least when we're talking about the Great Seal of the United States.

"The colors of the pales (the vertical stripes) are those used in the flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valour, and Blue, the color of the Chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice."

I suppose you could associate hardiness and valour with the Republican party. After all, our nation's best and bravest, our military, is largely Republican.

The color blue signifies "vigilance", "perseverance" and "justice"… And we associate THAT with Democrats?

I ask you honestly… Which of the two main political parties do you associate with vigilance in the war on terror? Which of the two main political parties do you associate with perseverance in the face of adversity (in other words, which party doesn't want to "cut and run" in Iraq)? And finally, which of the two main political parties do you associate with "justice"?

I certainly don't associate Democrats with "justice". I'm reminded of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D — LA). This is the man that was caught on videotape accepting bribes of $100,000.00. This is the man whose freezer was found to contain $90,000.00 of that money in an FBI raid. This is the man whose lawyers are currently trying to argue that the charges of bribery that have been laid against him should be dropped because… get this… his actions more closely resemble "influence peddling" than taking bribes.

That's hardly the sort of argument you'd expect out of a man that respects "justice".

Of course I suppose the color blue could be associated with Democrats. We've all heard the expression "blue blooded". According to the thesaurus at Answers.com this expression means…

Of high birth or social position: aristocratic, elite, highborn, highbred, noble, patrician, thoroughbred, upper-class, wellborn.

Hmm… "elite" that certainly describes how the left and Democrats view themselves. Certainly "above" the "common" man. Maybe that's why they show such contempt for NASCAR fans or for the "bumpkins" in "flyover country".

There are plenty of examples from both major political parties of corruption. I think that one of the main differences between the parties is how they receive corrupt members. The Democrats tend to gloss over the corruption of their fellows unless it directly affects their party's election hopes. The Republicans tend to turn against their fellows when even the appearance of corruption raises its ugly head.

Similarly, both parties have their share of elitists. It seems to be a common disease among politicians of every stripe. Once they reach high political office they tend to think of themselves as above and better than the little people, their constituents.

On the other hand, the remarks regarding the socialist nature of the Democratic party are pretty well documented. The vast majority of governmental proposals raised by Democrats are for socialist programs. Socialized medicine comes to mind, but it's only one example.

As well, the hedonistic lifestyles espoused by their base seem to be pretty specific to the Democrats. There are very few conservatives that approve of, much less encourage these lifestyles (well, I suppose Libertarians are for the free use of recreational pharmaceuticals). Most liberals are at the very least accepting of these lifestyles, whether they actually espouse them or not.

One final observation regarding "alternative" lifestyles and Democrats… Have you noticed that the Democratic party wants us all to not only accept and tolerate these alternative lifestyles, they encourage them and educate our youth in them? And have you noticed that when a Republican happens to exemplify one of these lifestyles they immediately persecute him for it? Sinning Republicans are referred to as hypocrites. Isn't it strange that talking about them brings out the hypocrisy in Democrats?

This linkfest is for the 17th of October, 2007.

If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.

Just remember the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.

Breathing causes global warming

That's right. The very process that gives your body energy converts carbon found in your food and oxygen in your bloodstream into carbon dioxide. Every time you breath you are removing a little oxygen from the air and releasing carbon dioxide into the air.

In fact, there is no way to prevent a human being from releasing carbon dioxide into the air through the processes of life or even death. If you are breathing, you are emitting carbon dioxide. If you're not breathing, you're likely dead. If you're dead, you are either going to be burned in a furnace (cremated) or you're going to slowly rot away. Either of those two processes will release carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. In fact it's the main greenhouse gas that the global warming alarmists want us to worry about. And yet, it's a byproduct of all animal life.

Nature has a wonderful system for removing the carbon dioxide that animals produce from the air. It's called photosynthesis.

This is the process by which plants convert carbon dioxide, water vapor (another, much more powerful, but seldom mentioned in the mainstream media greenhouse gas), and solar energy, and convert them into glucose and oxygen. Photosynthesis is a wonder, and it's responsible for nearly all of the free oxygen in our atmosphere today.

Given that, you'd think that planting more trees would be the answer to the global warming problem. You'd be wrong though. There are other greenhouse gasses besides carbon dioxide and water vapor. There's methane. Guess what. Trees emit methane in the presence of air, and in large amounts. Researchers estimate that trees and other living vegetation produce between 20 and 30% of all of the methane emissions released globally every year!

Trees emit more than methane and oxygen. They also emit many of the chemicals that produce smog. The volatile organic compounds produced by trees are similar to the unburned hydrocarbons that come out of your car's exhaust pipe. Smog is produced when these chemicals mix with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and produce ozone.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the fast-growing trees that produce the most volatile organic compounds are planted more and more to satisfy our need for lumber. Apparently mankind is to blame for the smog produced by trees as well.

Interestingly enough ozone is considered a pollutant in the lower atmosphere, but let's not forget that there's an "ozone hole" in the upper atmosphere that's eventually going to let us all die of skin cancer.

If only we could find a way to move the ozone from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere… maybe something like the mechanism that moves chloro-flouro-carbons into the upper atmosphere where they allegedly destroy ozone.

The chemical reactions in that process are well known. There is some evidence that things aren't as bad as we've been led to believe, and nitrogen oxides in the stratosphere are a part of that evidence.

In any case, the ozone depletion story is just a side issue.

It also matters where you plant trees. Planting them in mid-latitude regions would only have marginal benefits, and planting them in northern latitudes will actually result in increased warming due to the albedo effect. Imagine that, trees are darker than snow, so they will absorb more solar energy and re-radiate it into the atmosphere.

What happens when trees die? Well, if they die on their own and aren't "harvested" for lumber they sit and rot. The carbon that they've accumulated is slowly converted into carbon dioxide and methane and re-released into the atmosphere. Apparently trees are only a "short term" carbon sink.

I guess we can forget about carbon-sinks to offset our carbon emissions. Buying "carbon credits" doesn't really reduce our carbon emissions anyway, it's just a way to transfer our burden to someone else. Someone who'll in all likelihood plant trees in the wrong place. It's just another way to transfer our money to someone else in exchange for feeling a bit better about ourselves. I'll come back to that in a bit.

If the only carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere was the result of the processes mentioned so far, I don't imagine that anyone would be alarmed about global warming. However there are other anthropogenic sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide that are "significant", and that we can "do something about".

We obtain roughly 80% of the energy we use by burning fossil fuels. Over 50% of the electricity produced and used in the United States is produced by coal burning power plants. Our cars, trucks, airplanes and ships generally burn petroleum in one form or another.

Coal is nearly 100% carbon. Petroleum is made up of various hydrocarbons. Burning either one of them is guaranteed to produce carbon dioxide. Burning petroleum will also product water vapor, mentioned above as the most powerful of greenhouse gasses.

The coal industry claims to have found a way to produce energy from coal that doesn't produce so many greenhouse gasses. I don't believe it. After all, as I mentioned just a paragraph ago, coal is nearly 100% carbon. The only thing that will result from burning that carbon is carbon dioxide. So 100% of the emissions from burning coal are greenhouse gasses. There's no way to cut that number.

Despite what you may have heard, nuclear energy isn't likely to replace fossil fuels as a source of energy for a long time, if ever. The wastes produced by nuclear fission are highly radioactive and difficult to dispose of. I'm sure that most people would agree that nuclear wastes are far more dangerous to the environment than global warming.

Hydro-electric power is under attack by environmentalists as well. Apparently damming rivers to take advantage of the gravitational potential energy in all of that stored water is bad for fish.

How about extracting energy from the wind? That works in some areas, but really have you seen the wind farms? They require huge amounts of clear land in areas that generally have reliable winds. Environmentalists object to the clearing of that land, and the destruction of the ecosystems that exist where people want to put wind farms. Politicians don't want their view obstructed, so they don't want wind farms where they live. Those turning fan blades also endanger birds.

Bio-fuels are given as an alternative to fossil fuels. Ethanol is one of them. Producing them has its own drawbacks. Just as wind farms require large amounts of land, so do bio-fuels.

Just as burning hydrocarbons produces carbon dioxide, water vapor, and leaves unburned hydrocarbons in the air to produce smog, so does burning ethanol. Making ethanol from sugars also produces carbon dioxide.

Fertilizing the soil so that the crops used to produce ethanol will grow requires chemical fertilizers. The soil runoff from the farmlands pollutes the rivers and streams, resulting in fish kills.

Solar energy is yet another alternative to fossil fuels. Many people have solar water heaters on their roofs. The heated water is used for everything from bathing to heating their homes. Other ways to use solar energy exist though.

One of the most familiar is probably the "solar panels" that are used on so many spacecraft. Some homes and businesses have these solar panels on their roofs. There are environmental problems with these as well. Once again, the area required for solar panels is quite large. Small panels simply won't receive enough energy to be practical.

The other problem with solar panels is that the processes used to make them require toxic chemicals. The same chemicals that are used to make computer chips are used to make solar panels. Disposing of that chemical waste is a problem, but at least it's one that the chip makers have been forced to deal with for a long time.

Much has been made recently of the potential of cars that burn hydrogen, whether they use pure hydrogen in the combustion process or use fuel cells. Hydrogen is after all, the most abundant chemical element in the universe, and the only by-product of its combustion is water vapor.

The problem with that though is that free hydrogen is pretty scarce here on earth. Hydrogen is a very reactive element. We find it in hydrocarbons. We find it in water. We seldom find it in an uncombined form. To obtain the hydrogen needed for fuel we have to separate it chemically from whatever it's bound to, and that process requires energy.

In fact, because no energy conversion process is 100% efficient, producing hydrogen for the hydrogen economy will require more energy than the combustion of that hydrogen will provide. It's a sure bet that we won't be burning hydrogen to provide the energy to produce hydrogen.

All of these "alternative" energy sources have their drawbacks, just as the burning of fossil fuels does. One of the biggest drawbacks of bio-fuels and hydrogen is that it simply shifts the point where the environment is contaminated, either with carbon-dioxide or other pollutants, back away from the consumer. "Out of sight, out of mind", you know.

Consuming less energy is one way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It's for this reason that many of our cities are mandating that we stop using incandescent light bulbs and start using more energy efficient "compact fluorescent" light bulbs. Never mind the fact that we don't produce them domestically.

The vast majority of compact fluorescent bulbs are produced in China. Producing them requires energy, and nearly all of the energy used by China to produce them comes from coal-fired electrical plants. To meet the increased demand for compact fluorescent light bulbs, China will have to boost their manufacturing capacity by a factor of ten. That's certain to require more coal-fired electrical plants, and China has overtaken the United States as the worlds leading emitter of greenhouse gasses.

By the way, there's another, serious drawback to the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs, or fluorescent light bulbs in general. Every fluorescent light in the world requires a vaporized drop of mercury to work. Mercury vapor is toxic, leading to brain damage. Environmentalists warn us about the dangers of mercury in the fish we eat, but they seem silent on the use of mercury to light our homes and businesses.

It's well known that other factors influence our climate, including variations in the intensity of radiation emitted by the sun as well as the influence of the sun's varying magnetic field upon the cosmic rays that reach the earth's atmosphere.

Massive cycles of warming and cooling have even been attributed to the solar system's orbit around the galaxy. As the sun moves along in its orbit its position relative to the galactic plane oscillates. As the sun moves above, below and through the galactic central plane, the intensity of cosmic radiation coming from the galactic center varies. Some scientists have correlated the periodic oscillation of the sun's position relative to the galactic plane with the ice age cycles.

We can't do anything about these non-anthropogenic factors. It's probably that they have a more significant effect on our climate than anthropogenic ones, especially when you note that there is evidence that our current warming cycle began before the industrial revolution.

Let's face it. Everything we do to make our lives more comfortable, or even possible has environmental consequences. While it's important that we clean up after ourselves, there is no escaping the fact that simply by living we are affecting the environment.

As for greenhouse gasses, nature produces far more of them than mankind. Volcanic eruptions emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, mankind's use of energy is responsible for a significant portion of what goes into the air.

Ultimately that use of energy is the target of the global warming alarmists. The global warming alarmists would have us fret over the carbon dioxide that we emit, even though nature emits more than mankind does.

The global warming alarmists would have us fret over the production of greenhouse gasses emitted by the cattle we raise for food, even though other animals that we do not eat also emit greenhouse gasses.

The thing is, the only way that mankind will reduce our carbon emissions is to reduce our energy consumption, or to find alternative energy sources. Those alternative energy sources also cause environmental damage, so they will ultimately fall under attack by "environmentalists".

We use the energy we consume for a wide variety of things. Without it, our society would be far less productive than it is, and many, many people would probably die of starvation or exposure to the elements.

Still a "crisis" like global warming (you do remember the global cooling crisis of the 1970's don't you) provides ample opportunity for government to get involved in finding a "solution". Vast amounts of government money have been made available for climate research.

This is seen by some as one of the reasons for the "consensus" among scientists that global warming is largely the result of human activity. When Michael Crichton published "State of Fear" and used this as one of his themes, people reviled him for it. People where I work actually loathed the book and some refused to read it because they thought of it as anti-environmental propaganda.

Research money provided by the government has to come from somewhere. I bet you can guess where. That's right, taxes. Global warming and the mitigation of global warming provide lots of opportunities for taxes. We can see this in proposed "carbon taxes" at local, state, federal, and even international levels.

All for little benefit. The United States rejected the Kyoto protocol because it didn't provide for carbon sinks, and because nations like China and developing nations were exempted. A far better reason would have been the fact that despite the massive costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol, the widely agreed upon temperature savings (amount of global warming avoided) for complete implementation of the Kyoto protocol by 2050 is only 0.07 degrees centigrade. That number is considerably smaller than the margin of error in calculating global temperature.

Global warming is a political issue more than a scientific issue. The biggest motivation for global warming alarmism is the opportunity for more government control over the world's economies. This is why the political left embraces it as a hot issue, and why climate change skeptics have been described as "deniers" worthy of Nuremberg style trials for crimes against humanity.

The futility of the proposed solutions to global warming is one reason why the political right rejects them. The fact that we may actually be better off in a warmer climate is another of the reasons why the political right rejects global warming as a hot issue. The notion of sovereignty destroying "global taxes" and the ultimate restrictions on human freedoms are even more reasons.

Climate change is just one of many environmental issues today where scientists and politicians are trying to alarm, or even frighten us. A rational look at it should give us all a clue that such alarmism is doing us all a disservice. What may have begun as sincere environmental concern has been co-opted into yet another mechanism for big government, and an opportunity for a socialist world order.

After all, breathing causes global warming.

Cross posted at NW Bloggers.

This linkfest is for the 16th of October, 2007.

If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.

Just remember the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.