We all need to rise above and get beyond just this sort of bipartisan bickering. But before that, could I get in just a little more venting on right wingers? Please?

Ok, painting people with a broad brush is always only a rough approximation at best.

But.

What really cheeses me off about right wingers:

You don’t learn. You have a basic contempt for history, except, that is, for a sanitized highly edited version of history in which John Wayne or James Stewart plays you. Consequently, you keep making the same mistakes again and again and again.

Consider the Vietnam War, for example. Even aside from who was to blame that we lost it, whether it was because of the nattering naybobs of negativity of the press or because of Jane Fonda or because God’s displeasure with the lewd licentiousness of hairy beatnik poet free love pot smoking crazies, it needn’t have been a total loss for us. We could have learned from it. We could have done some soul searching and looked into what went wrong. We could have examined the war fever attitudes by which we let ourselves in for this. We could have analyzed the failures of intelligence, which as today, had to do with there just having been purges in the state department of those who “weren’t being good team players” but who, unfortunately for us, just happened to have also been among the few who understood that part of the world. But no. Introspection is just so Europe. It’s just so France. Nothing will do for us Americans but continuous air headed vacuous cheer leading from all citizens at all times.

Hence, sure enough, after the immediacy of the disgrace of it had subsided a bit, we marched right out to La La land and hired ourselves an actor to play us who told us that Vietnam really was a glorious noble venture. No, don’t bother with all those troubling thoughts about it. Pay no attention to those negative people who keep trying to convince us that there was anything to have learned from it. Pay no attention to those veterans. See John Wayne there. That’s how it was. That’s the image. Just believe it with all your heart and it will be so. Jesus will make it be so for us because we’re His chosen ones. And so we believed.

And so here we are now, engaged in Vietnam II.

But hey, no problem. Just leave it to our skilled amesiologist cheer leader Republican Party to have re-written this once regrettable period of our history. Ipso facto presto chango, all regrets gone. Regrets, what regrets? This is the glorious America we’re talking about here. Once again, it will be a new morning in America under the ever so cheerful leadership of yet another air headed history hating cheerleader.

Oh he’s dissing the sacrifice of our brave troops. No, you’re doing that. You’re pissing away the lessons that were purchased by their blood. And you’re setting up yet another generation of kids to be misled again.

Dog dam you for that. Dog dam you, you servile air headed history forgetting nitwit cheerleaders.

Anyhoo, convince me that I'm wrong, please, but the above is how I'm reading Mitt Romney, another air headed ever so cheerful cheerleader.

One comeback I'd expect is along the lines of:

Oh yeah. (That's a tried and true come back). You're going to save capitalism for us. That's good. Then who's going to save us from you?

And to that I'd reply: That is a good way to frame the problem.

As I see it, we humans are a clever animal, of which I'm proud. But we do have this one problem. Our brilliance is optimized for speed rather than accuracy. We tend to think stereotypically and that's not a bad thing necessarilyt. It has enabled us to survive. We have a set of stereotypes of how the world works, and these can fire at the drop of a hat, with just the slightest hint of cue. That capacity has saved our necks countless times.

But it does tend to lead to this perceptual problem of over-extrapolating. We extrapolate too much from too little information. Everybody does this. I don't think there have ever been any exceptions, including all the prophets and sages of all ages. No one has ever gotten above and beyond this failing in our makeup.

But.

There is a saving grace.

With full awareness of this failing, and specifically setting out with the goal of overcoming it with the help of others. we can just barely manage to overcome it. That's what science is. Science is the methods and standards we've worked out by which humans can overcome this tendency toward over-extrapolation. As we have seen, this works.

But.

We get lazy after awhile. We never had to do the heavy lifting of science over eons and eons from the school of hard knocks. We just had the whole thing handed to us without our having had to lift a finger.

And so we've forgotten the discipline by which this came about. We've forgotten how difficult it was, how much deliberate effort it took for our ancestors to get beyond the limits of their stereotypical thinking.

And now, once again, it's time for us to re-learn this.

Because if we don't and if we continue to slide back into superstition and comfortable delusions we prefer because they are flattering to us, this spectacular technical society of ours, this culmination of centuries of struggle against delusional thinking could go right down the toillet.

You know what I suspect God's reaction to that would be? Well, that experiment seems to have failed. No worries. Let's move on.

Chasty Said (Dec. 2: 5:38 PM): What cheeses me off about right wingers

Hasty, Chasty, I don't know about that cheesy business, being "cheesed off". Spraying cheese has got to be very unhealthy vs spraying pee, and OH so painful! If it's cheese coming out of ya, that means your digestion of food or doctrine is too hasty, and thus ye be Hasty, Chasty, seesty? You're revealing yourself in a public forum, for crying out loud, along with every liberal-conservative candyassdate for pubic office.

Say Cheese.

It would be mighty painful to piss cheese, especially if it’s hard-brick mozzarella through Dick, or whatever thy preference may be: Cheddar, Romano, Swiss, even Cottage Cheese would have a rough go. I think you’d need a cathater, and perhaps a Cathy to cram it in, that ye may piss right. Your piss is her kiss. And here, I insert a symbol: ☺

Street

You guys still cheesed off about your political plight? It would be mighty painful to piss cheese, especially if it’s hard-brick mozzarella through Dick, or whatever thy preference may be: Cheddar, Romano, Swiss, even Cottage Cheese would have a rough go. I think you’ll need a cathater, and perhaps a Cathy to cram it in, that ye may piss right. Your piss is her kiss. And here, I insert a symbol:

Street

Well Chas I kinda would like to ask a question of you . Would you vote for President of this country who's a cheerleader of the Iraq war ?

Its clear you dont care for cheerleaders , so I guess that leaves out Clinton & Edwards since they signed the 2003 war resolution .

But in the last presidential election did you vote for Kerry? I mean , even he was a cheerleader , yup he signed this resolution as well . he sure did .

Maybe I'm old fashion is some ways , but I always think its a sign of good character to stand behind my commitments . I cant say I think much about people who sign a agreement and then piss backwards when things got harder than they expected and walk away . I mean one day folks supported the war and the next day they dont , well if you ask me these arnt the type of people I would ever count on for much . They've more than show their true colors I think .

Tell you what Chas , if you want I can give a list of fine folks who voted for the war and now after things have been hard vote to not to support the cost of war .

Sell outs I call them , But first they sell out their own selves , if a person sells out his or her own self you gotta know they'd sell you out as well in a heart beat or the next hard time . No surprise there .

Another thing that cheeses me off about right wingers:

To be a right winger means never having to say you're sorry.

To be a right winger is lay the blame for everything that ever goes wrong from a short list of tired old standards:

Jews, non-whites, the U.N., Satan, socialism.

I'd tend to like right wingers a tad more if I'd ever hear something remotely along the lines of:

You know, we were wrong about DDT. Yes, it needed to be banned. We were wrong to attack the messengers and call them all those mean names and accuse them of being closet socialists

We were wrong about lead. Yes, it should have been removed from gasoline decades earlier. What were we thinking? We were wrong to attack the messengers and call them all those mean names and accuse them of being closet socialists

We were wrong about anthropogenic climate change. We were wrong to have wasted 30 years in being in pig headed dogmatic denial over it. We were wrong to attack the messengers and call them all those mean names and accuse them of being closet socialists.


And Ok, we left wingers were wrong about socialism being the natural successor to capitalism. Geez, are you ever going to stop reminding us of that? Can you blame us for suspecting in the late 19th century that capitalism was about to implode? Can you blame us for suspecting that it had imploded in the 1930s? And don't be too sure we were wrong about that. It still might. It's kind of up to capitalists to come its rescue before it implodes.

But anyway, we were wrong in thinking that a command economy could do better. And some of us of the 1930s sure had it wrong in seeing the Soviet Union as a model to be followed. Boy, were we ever blind about Joe Stalin.

Speaking for myself, I'm over that. I'm thinking it's capitalism maturing to where it can be sustainable or it's game over for the experiment of civilization. Course that might be as wrong headed as all the other stuff people have gotten wrong over the centuries.

Predictions are always risky, especially about the future. (Yogi Bara)

At the same time, I maitain, right wingers are wrong in seeing pure laisez faire capitalism as the ideal. Right wingers are wrong in failing to see that allowing a few individuals to get a lock on the lions share of resources and political power is a bad idea. Right wingers are blind to the harm this is doing again today just as it did in the latter 19th century.

Right wingers I suspect are especially wrong about their theology as being a cure for anything. Or, at the very least allow MY theology to be enshrined too. My theology, as you recall, consists of this main idea:

God has given us the big picture, yes. But. Here's the rub. Each of us only has a tiny piece of it. The joke on us is that we all have to cooperate with those we absolutely can't stand in order to get the entire big picture.

[QUOTE=chaster,Dec 12 2007, 12:11 PM] Another thing that cheeses me off about right wingers:



Sat what ? You want a pat on the back for stopping the use of DDT. Chas , for Christ sake read this will you http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/

DDT could stop hundreds of thousands deaths per year , but hey whats a few million deaths between you and your enviro Pals , not very damn much if you ask me . Pull your head out of the enviro sand Chas . Your loosing o2 to your brain .

Effects on human health

The effects of DDT on human health are disputed since studies have yielded conflicting results.

[edit] Toxicity

[edit] Acute

* DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicological Program and "moderately hazardous" by WHO.[32] It is not considered to be acutely toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes or used in soap.[33] Indeed, DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.[34]

[edit] Chronic

* Occupational exposure to DDT was associated with reduced verbal attention, visuomotor speed, sequencing, and with increased neuropsychological and psychiatric symptoms in a dose-response pattern (ie, per year of DDT application) in retired workers aged 55–70 years in Costa Rica. DDT or DDE concentrations were not determined in this study.[35]
* In one 1969 study, 24 cynomolgus monkeys and rhesus monkeys fed up to 16 mg/kg/day of DDT for 130 months were compared to a control group of 17 monkeys. Six animals in the dosed group died, and the study demonstrated "clear evidence of hepatic and CNS toxicity following long-term DDT administration." Although the exposed group developed two malignancies and three benign tumors, compared to zero in the control group, statistically this is still "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates."[36]
* In another study, humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years afterward. Although there was "suggestive evidence of adverse liver effects", no other adverse effects were observed.[37]
* Farmers exposed to DDT occupationally have an increased incidence of non-allergic asthma. [38]
* A study of Native Americans exposed to DDE primarily from eating contaminated fish found that elevated blood DDE levels were associated with an increased incidence of diabetes. These results are consistent with previous studies on diabetes incidence and organochlorine exposure.[39]

[edit] Cancer

* The EPA, in 1987 , classified DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen based on "Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE." Regarding the human carcinogenicity data, they stated "The existing epidemiological data are inadequate. Autopsy studies relating tissue levels of DDT to cancer incidence have yielded conflicting results." [40]
* A study of malaria workers who handled DDT occupationally found an elevated risk of cancers of the liver and biliary tract. Another study has found a correlation between DDE and liver cancer in white men, but not for women or black men. An association between DDT exposure and pancreatic cancer has been demonstrated in a few studies, but other studies have found no association. Several studies have looked for associations between DDT and multiple myeloma, and testicular, prostate, endometrial, and colorectal cancers, but none conclusively demonstrated any association.[41]
* A Canadian study from 2007 found a positive association between DDE and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.[42]

[edit] Breast cancer

Several studies have looked for associations between breast cancer and DDT exposure. Almost all studies have measured DDT or DDE blood levels at the time of breast cancer diagnosis or after. While individual studies have yielded conflicting results, taken as a whole, the studies of this design "do not support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT is an important risk factor for breast cancer."[43] These types of studies have been extensively reviewed:

* In 2007, the journal Cancer published a review of all of the epidemiological studies on breast cancer and DDT and DDE published between 2000 and 2006. The authors state that "Positive findings for well-controlled studies in the early 1990s of associations between breast cancer risk and the insecticide DDT, its breakdown product DDE, and PCBs prompted additional study. Snedeker reviewed studies of DDT/DDE and dieldrin, concluding that existing research strategies provided conflicting and mostly negative evidence…Updating the picture to 2006 provides…essentially unchanged conclusions for DDT/DDE…[I]n light of these findings, additional study of incident breast cancer in association with biological measures of DDE/DDT levels near the time of diagnosis is not a promising avenue."[44]

* A 2005 review in The Lancet, states that "In a study in 1993, 37 breast cancer patients had higher serum DDE concentrations (11.8 μg/L) than controls (7.7 μg/L), and results from several subsequent studies supported such an association. However, large epidemiological studies and subsequent pooled and meta-analyses failed to confirm the association."[41]

* A 2004 meta-analysis of studies on the association of p,p'-DDE and breast cancer concluded that "Overall, these results should be regarded as a strong evidence to discard the putative relationship between p,p'-DDE and breast cancer risk. Nevertheless, the exposure to DDT during critical periods of human development—from conception to adolescence—and individual variations in metabolizing enzymes of DDT or its derivatives are still important areas to be researched in regard to breast cancer development in adulthood.[45]

A new study in Environmental Health Perspectives found a strong association between exposure to the p,p-isomer of DDT early in life and breast cancer later in life. Exposure to the o,p'-isomer was negatively correlated with breast cancer (i.e. a protective effect was observed), and no association was observed for DDE. Unlike the studies discussed in the reviews cited above, this was prospective study in which blood samples were collected from young California mothers in the 1960s while DDT was still in use, and their breast cancer status was then tracked. (As discussed above, previous studies measured exposure more recently, long after DDT was banned in the US.) In addition to suggesting that exposure to the p,p-isomer of DDT is the more significant risk factor of breast cancer, the study also suggests that the timing of exposure is critical. For the subset of women born more than 14 years prior to the introduction of DDT into US agriculture, there was no association between DDT levels and breast cancer. However, for women born more recently—and thus exposed earlier in life—the most p,p-DDT exposed third of women had a fivefold increase in breast cancer incidence over the least exposed third, after correcting for the protective effect of o,p-DDT.[43][46]

[edit] Developmental and reproductive toxicity

DDT and its breakdown product DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity; meaning it is chemically similar enough to estrogen to trigger hormonal responses in contaminated animals. This hormonal-mimicking activity has been observed when DDT is used in laboratory studies involving mice and rats as test subjects, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure.

* A review article[41] in The Lancet concludes:

Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria...DDT might be useful in controlling malaria, but the evidence of its adverse effects on human health needs appropriate research on whether it achieves a favourable balance of risk versus benefit.
Future perspectives: Although acute toxic effects are scarce, toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation. The research focus on human reproduction and development seems to be appropriate. DDT could be an effective public-health intervention that is cheap, longlasting, and effective. However, various toxic-effects that would be difficult to detect without specific study might exist and could result in substantial morbidity or mortality. Responsible use of DDT should include research programmes that would detect the most plausible forms of toxic effects as well as the documentation of benefits attributable specifically to DDT. Although this viewpoint amounts to a platitude if applied to malaria research in Africa, the research question here could be sufficiently focused and compelling, so that governments and funding agencies recognise the need to include research on all infant mortality when DDT is to be used.

* Human epidemiological studies suggest that DDT exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed. Some researchers argue that these effects may cause increases infant deaths in areas where DDT is used for malaria control, and thus offset any benefit derived from its anti-malarial effects.[47][48]
* Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley suggests children who have been exposed to DDT while in the womb have a greater chance of experiencing development problems,[49] and another study from the same year found that even low-level concentrations of DDT in serum from the umbilical cord at birth were associated with a decrease in cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[50] Similarly, Mexican researchers have demonstrated a link between DDE exposure in the first trimester of pregnancy and retarded psychomotor development.[51]
* A 2007 study documented decreases in semen quality among South African men from communities where DDT is used to combat endemic malaria. The researchers found statistically significant correlations between increased levels of DDT or DDE in blood plasma and decreases in several measures of semen quality including ejaculate volume, certain motility parameters, and sperm count.[52] The same researchers reported similar results in 2006 from a study of men in Mexico.[53] A review of earlier studies noted that "Studies of populations with a much lower exposure than that seen in current malaria-endemic areas have shown only weak, inconsistent associations between DDE and testosterone amounts, semen quality, and sperm DNA damage."[41]
* One recent study suggests that women exposed to DDT while in the womb have more difficulty getting pregnant as adults than non-exposed women. On the other hand, prenatal DDE exposure increased the probability of pregnancy.[54]
* DDT exposure is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found "a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy losses." [55] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT, suggesting that these finding are relevant to the debate about DDT and malaria control. [56]

Yet another thing about right wingers that cheeses me off:

Our right winger tends to confuse faith with wishful thinking.

Once our right winger gets a notion into his head, especially a notion he sees as a simple minded panacea for all questions so that our right winger is absolved of any duty of ever having to give the matter another thought, that notion is there to stay unto the end of days. You have evidence, you say? Evidence smevidence. The mere evidence that may be provided by mere human beings is but the impotent slings and arrows of Satan’s minions against the mighty fortress of our right winger’s wishful thinking.

Take DDT for instance. Once our right winger got it into his head that DDT was a simple cheap panacea for dealing with pesky vermin, that notion was ensconsed unto the mighty fortress of our right winger’s faith right alongside and defended with as much intensity as his faith in Jesus Christ The Savior and Nukular Energy as the cheap easy way to never have to give it a another thought.

Read this please .

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Link...micals/ddt.html

Gosh, I guess there was never a thing to worry about. Still, I have this nagging doubt over this from that site you cited, Yankie:

"DDT has a long half-life, and residues sometimes persist for years in certain environments. Also, DDT is an organochlorine. Some organochlorines have been shown to have weak estrogenic activity, but the amounts of naturally occurring estrogens in the environment dwarf the amounts of synthetic estrogens."

Here's a thought. Let's do a big experiment on our life support system here. Here're these compounds that were never present in the biosphere over the couple of billion years over which it evolved whose effects on the biosphere aren't fully understand and that have a humongous half life. If there're downsides to this, hey, no worries; future generations can deal with it.

After all, all compounds we introudcue into the biosphere should be considered safe until proven otherwise. Especially if they're really really cheap and easy to use. Right, Yankie?

On second thought, let's not. Let's not run that experiment.

Tell you what, Yankie. Build yourself another planet and go run your experiment there, if you would, please.

American Council on Science and Health . I wonder whether that might another great example of right wing science at work helping right wingers achieve better living through delusional wishful thinking. You think?

Here're some gems from their web site:

PERILS OF GLOBAL WARNINGS (from the Washington Times)
By Jeff Stier - They've finally gotten what they've asked for and it isn't pretty. The activist groups, plaintiff's bar, and complicit legislators have created an environment where "Sesame Street" is deemed inappropriate for children, restaurants are forced to protect themselves with Omnibus Warning Labels, and California's Proposition 65 requires cancer warnings on artificial Christmas trees. Read Full Article >>

9/11 HEALTH HYPE (Media's Bogus Asthma Scare) (from the New York Post)
By Jeff Stier. MEDIA coverage of 9/11 health issues is almost always skewed; the coverage of the new city Department of Health report on World Trade Center dust and childhood asthma was just the latest example. Read Full Article >>

Unnecessary X-Rays Should Be Avoided (But Which are Unnecessary?) (from TCSDaily.com)
By Dr. Gilbert Ross. American consumers should not be alarmed or confused by two recent studies that call our attention to the difficulty in deciding who should -- and who should not -- be exposed to radiation from medical X-rays... Read Full Article >>

Mourning TV's AM News (from HuffingtonPost.com)
By Jeff Stier. The days when you could count on hard news in the morning are long over... Read Full Article >>

Chemoprevention: The Latest Strategy in Reducing Breast Cancer Risk
Drugs are radically reducing the toll of breast cancer--both by reducing the likelihood of breast cancer recurring and, for certain high-risk women, decreasing the likelihood it will appear in the first place... Read Full Article >>

Mother Nature's Chemical Bounty (from the New York Post)
By Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan. It may come as a shock to you that even an all-natural holiday feast comes replete with chemicals... Read Full Article >>

Health Panel Finds All-Natural Carcinogens Galore in Holiday Dinner Menu
Scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health analyzed the natural foods that make up a traditional holiday dinner... Read Full Article >>

Secondhand Smoke Exaggerations Challenged (from HuffingtonPost.com)
By Jeff Stier. He finally threw down the gauntlet... Read Full Article >>

Facing the Facts on Fat (from the New York Post)
By Jeff Stier. Well, it turns out that the adage, "You can never be too rich or too thin," is only half true... Read Full Article >>

Big Bucks (Yours) Fighting Bogus Health Risks (from HuffingtonPost.com)
By Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan. EPA is funding a handful of researchers to investigate the role of "environmental chemicals" in putting children at risk... Read Full Article >>

A Steak in Causing Cancer? (from the Washington Times)
By Elizabeth M. Whelan. A recent report has a lot of red-meat-loving Americans worried... Read Full Article >>

Danger Questionable (from USA Today)
By Dr. Gilbert Ross. This article is another example of the "mounting evidence" that chemicals may cause endocrine disruption. Based upon what evidence... Read Full Article >>

Money, Fats, and Science (from the New York Times Blogs)
By John Tierney. Here's a response to readers' criticism from Elizabeth Whelan... Read Full Article >>

MORE ARTICLES BY ACSH RECENTLY FEATURED ON OUR HOMEPAGE
Click for a list of pieces that appeared on this page in the twelve months preceding the pieces above. (For FactsAndFears pieces, click on our blog, above; for coverage by others about ACSH, see our News Center section.) Read Full Article >>

Chaster here, of the American Council on Science and Health. Worried about chemicals in the environment? Hey, don't be. Here, for example, is a beaker of Hydrogen oxide. Oh no, a chemical. Oh be careful with that dangerous sounding chemical, you say. Hey don't worry. It's a simple glass of ordinary tap water.

And oh, and here's some sodium chloride. Sodium chloride, you say? Doesn't that sound like a dangerous chemical?

Ordinary table salt.

You see folks, chemicals have always been a part of our everyday lives. Yes, there are some people who've been quite vocal of late who tend to be just a little - what shall we say? of a scaredy cat nature - who want to see danger at every turn who might want to try and scare you about dangerous sounding chemicals and casue you to be unduly alarmed. Well, don't be.

People, there's just nothing to be afraid of, nothing whatsoever, in the chemicals of our modern way of life. Why, just look at the many benefits that modern chemistry has provided us that throughout the entire day from morning until evening make our lives safer and more enjoyable, everything from plastics by which we have ligher less expensive more durable products to drugs to treat a wide variety of icky diseases to modern agriculture by which we are the least expensively best fed human beings ever to have lived. All examples of better living through chemistry.

You may rest assured that Modern chemists in clean white coats, such as I am wearing right now, are experts in our fields and would never ever ever ever ever dream of subjecting you to anything that hasn't proven to be completely safe from rigorous testing required by overzealous closet socialist government parasites.

So have yourself a cool glass of Hydrogen oxide and sleep well.

You might gather from this thread I have some "issues" about right wingers. Yeah, that I do. It comes from having come up in a right wing community in a right wing state and from having a whole bunch of right wing relatives.

Course, they are family. And you always have to take in family no matter what, which I would do without hesitation. Damn, but they do get my goat sometimes though. I guess there are other kinds of knot heads besides right wingers; those are just the ones with which I'm most familiar.

I wasn't ever really big on Boy Scouts. As I recall, I earned one merit badge, but I can't remember what for. It was memorable because I had to kiss my Mom on the cheek at the ceremony at the First Ward Church. I was soooo embarrassed about that.

The one thing that stuck with me from having been a Boy Scout, the quintessential lesson that I took to be at the core of Boy Scouts:

Always leave your camp ground cleaner than how you found it.

I think that lesson is what is at the heart of my environmental ethics to this day.

The most disgraceful dishonorable act a Boy Scout could ever commit would be to trash up the camp ground and leave it that way for others to clean up after you. You can hardly charge that the Boy Scouts is some kind of subversive organization designed to undermine free enterprise, truth, and the American way.

What blows me away is how so many right wingers, many of who probably were Boy Scouts and who probably earned many more merit badges than I did, can be so completely hostile to the core value that the Boy Scouts of America stands for.

Yankie and Say. Turn in your merit badges. You are a disgrace to the Boy Scouts of America. Shame on you. Shame on you.

For all the issues I have about right wingers, I could be re-converted in an instant. All it would take would be for right wingers to become champions of the core value of the Boy Scouts of America, namely that we are honor bound to leave the camp ground in better shape than when we found it, and I'd be back on board in a flash. You'd have yourselves at least a very verbose supporter in me.

I'm surprised that right wingers don't see environmental ehtics as a golden opportunity to renew themselves, to regain badly squandered credibility, and to actually do some good in the world in the bargain.

Come on guys, wise up. Instead of just talking about how important it is that indivuduals take responsibility for their actions, do it. Show a bit of guts as is in the tradition of John Wayne and stand up for something worthwhile for a change.

Am I right or am I right?

Chas, I hate to say it, but you sound just like this woman;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTv9dM4t_iY

Well, thank you for listening to my issues about right wingers.

I have to concede that we lefties have a lot to answer for when it comes to climate change. Would that we could go back to the 70s and not have derailed nukular power. Would that we could go back and not have made coal power the defacto default option.

You tried to tell us that even from the perspective of radioactive isotopes, it'd take a whole lot of Chernoblys to release as much as the worlds' coal plants do. The thing with a nuke plant, though, it can release a whole shzia load of it right now. Whereas coal plants release it over broad area over time so as that we don't notice it. Some advantage.

That we chose the worse choice because its planet busting problems were out of sight and out of mind within our miniscule attention spans does indeed reveal the extent to which we lefties are idiots.

I was talking with a local businessman who was telling me of a proposed wind farm that got derailed because it might kill some birds. Well, for crying out loud. Some kilt birds is a thing not to be ignored but you have to weight that against 40% of the world's species going extinct from climate change. Not just a few individuals kilt but extinct.

You know, if it's kilt birds you worry about, the thing to do is to decentralize your power distribution away from big old humongous plants over to large numbers of widely ditributed small sources, such as solar and wind. Because what kills far more birds than windmills do are power lines. People tend to overlook the big picture a lot of the time.

Therein is the problem. We tend to veer from one idiotic extreme to another and this does not average out to sensible. It averages out to the worst of all worlds quite often.

I mean there is an extreme group that still holds sway over Utah who'd continue burning fossil fuels right up to and beyond the brink of disaster from climate change. Just over the mountain from my home town, Fillmore, over in Severe County they just voted to grant a license to build another old fashioned climate busting coal fired power plant. Idiots.

I think the remedy is that sensible people need to get off the sidelines here and take over from extreme elements. Sensible people tend to be the silent type, which is admirable most of the time but now and then becomes a fault. Extreme elements have a lot of faults but one virtue they tend to have I wish they didn't; they tend to be very good at getting their way. At least they get involved. If only we could convince knuckleheaded nitwits not to get so involved, we'd have far fewer problems. But the reality is such that, if sensible people are to find sensible workable solutions to things, you just have to get off the sidelines and get into the ugly fray of our ugly broken down old busted awful but still the only one we have political system. This is the only way we're going to get to get to where we're making some rational choices on energy here like we so haven't done over the past 40 years.

I tend to think we urgently need to get to where we're living more rationally across the board, starting with family planning, but that's probably asking too much of people.

I mean ok, let's pursue nukular. But stop viewing that as a single simple solution to everything. Stop pretending that it doesn't have a whole raft of serious unresolved perhaps unresolvable problems. I'm prepared to accept that those unresolvable problems of nukular power may be preferable to the unresolvable problems of alternatives such as coal power, but I'm not prepared to buy into a bunch of typical right wing delusional wishful thinking that everything about nukular is fine and dandy.

Like I was saying, a right winger fault is you tend to want to find one simple thing and then stick with that unto the end of days regardless of anything. That lefties then tend to become myopically single minded in depriving you of that choice is party your own danged fault for your being so single miindedly fixated on the one true thing you have faith in. Stop confusing faith with wishful thinking, will you?

Well, I guess the same holds true for us lefties too.

Right wingers I know tend to see the world as “put here” for our use. “The wilderness wasn’t put here just for back packers to enjoy,” they’re fond of pointing out to us constantly; “wilderness was put here for everyone, including your enthusiasts of motorized recreational vehicles.”

I have one relative who naturally sees all questions as being free enterprise vs. “gumment parasites.” “Look at a Disney theme park,” he says. “There you have high volumes of people and natural looking settings maintained well. So why can’t our national parks be managed this way? Answer: because our parks are managed by incompetent good for nothing couldn’t get a real job in the real world government parasites.”

My response to that relative: Well, in the first place, there is no responding to that relative. It’s a one-way street. He lectures. Others listen. You regularly listen to his the-way-it-is lecture regardless of whether you asked him for his opinion or not. He doesn’t do listening.

But, if I could talk to that relative, I’d say something alone the lines of “It’s not about who gets to enjoy the wilderness. The wilderness wasn’t “put here” for anyone, hippy back packer or off-road-vehicle enthusiast. That’s not to say that it ought to be off limits to people. The point is, there is an important human interest to maintaining health of natural systems that goes beyond narrow human interests of it being one big fun house for nitwits. The world isn’t one big Disney theme park that was specifically “put here” for your enjoyment. There’s more to it than that. The Disney people are competent at maintaining their theme parks, but when it comes to being competent managers of a planet, well, just look at how well the corporate world in general is doing at it.

Like Lara Avara said once. Hey, the natural world isn’t rocket science after all. No, it’s far more complex than that.

Right wing theology takes right wing arrogance to a higher level still. To our right winger Aryan white male Northern European Christian Patriarch theologist, the entire cosmos was “put here” and organized for the specific benefit of your Aryan white male Northern European Christian Patriarch.

I don’t see it that way. I think the entire human experiment could fail and the cosmos would carry on as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. Because it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary.

A thing that cheeses me off about right wing mentality, it tends to see everything in very narrow egotistical self-serving terms. It takes a philosophy that amounts to “It’s all about me” and dresses it up to appear all holy and righteous, but at its heart, it’s still very much “all about me.”

I saw on CSPAN where EPA director, Stephen Johnson, was roasted by the Democratic senate for his recent decision to deny California’s request for a wavier from Clean Air standards so that they can enact more robust standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This decision, two years in the making – two years it took this clown to come up with this finding- comes down to this logic: Global warming is a global problem. Therefore, the state of California does not have a special compelling interest in addressing this problem at the state level. Request denied.

We have a global emergency here in human caused climate change, which director Johnson acknowledges, which G W Bush acknowledges, which for that matter the very Senator James Enhofe of Oklahoma, the staunch Republican senator who for decades had maintained that this whole concern is based on “junk science” now acknowledges. We have some people ready willing and able to step up to meeting this challenge. We have an agency ostensibly charged with environmental protection blocking this because it’s a global not a regional problem.

Does this make a dog damned bit of sense to you?

In one sense, I suppose, I ought to be encouraged. In terms of words, I have won. In terms of words all but a few knuckle-dragging holdouts now acknowledge this concern of human caused climate change. In words. In terms of policy, however, the policy from this administration continues to have its head firmly and consistently up its rectum.

What is it with these people? Director Johnson looks to me as if he might be a church goer. My guess is he’s a family man. He doesn’t jump out as one as being a lying low life scum bag of a piss poor excuse of a human being. So what is the deal here? Why the duplicity? Why the inexcusable behavior that disgraces us all?

Jesus H. Hosafat, people. Lead, follow, or get out of the dog damned road.

A genuine short coming we have here in this part of the country is this protective wall we have around us. In all fairness, we within this wall aren't dummies. We tend to be savvy business men with feet on the ground. Utah was recently rated by some group or other in 2nd place for well managed government, and I don't disagree with that. In general we manage our affairs pretty well here. Our schools are crowded and under-funded, and yet academically, we compare well with other states. We run budget surpluses here, our roads are well maintained, we have low crime, and we have low taxes. Generally, our communities here demonstrate the many benefits of genuine conservatism. A people with solid foundations of ethical values tend to get along well with a minimal amount of governance. That principle really works, and we demonstrate that here.

Any group of people, though, is bound to have some blind spots in their thinking. There's the rub. When we do on the rare occasion get something wrong, we don't tend to be self-correcting about it. We tend to want to believe in the infallibility of our ship so badly that that becomes the highest value, even when our ship is the Titanic and has collided with some unpleasant reality.

We tend to only trust our own here. Unless you're thoroughly vetted with the correct religion and the correct party line of thinking here, you essentially have zero credibility within this culture. That's a bit similar to the shortcoming the Soviet Union had. A person advances within the hierarchy through fidelity to the static doctrine, the party line. Generally, this isn't a bad thing but now and then it results in astonishingly maladaptive behavior that puts the whole ship into peril.

This cultural short coming tends to short circuit the very thing that has made this country the success that it has been, the capacity to be self-correcting.

Now and then it just might be possible that we have something wrong within the everlasting protective walls of our culture here, but from childhood on we train our minds here to where, even if an outsider were right about something, our minds are so thoroughly closed to that possibility it's not even thinkable. We'd rather keep our minds buried in the sand of our comfortable doctrines than confront the uncomfortable possibility that our thoroughly vetted way of thinking and venerable leadership might have something wrong on some subject.

On climate change, we need to get over this and sooner than later.

Look at this as an opportunity, an opportunity to show again that genuine conservatism arising from a solid foundation of ethical values and well informed with good science works. It's up to you to prove that or disprove that.

One member of a religion that is popular here recently defended to me the practice of having large families. From these large families, he said, will come the leadership that we need to meet these environmental challenges.

So where's the leadership?