Thursday, June 07, 2007

Response to William's Recent Comment

I would like to briefly respond to a comment of a few days ago, and break it off in several pieces.

Because I will be away from my computer today, I will post what I can and add more to this post over the weekend.

On June 5, William wrote,

"after reading your profile, I thought how could this woman be a conservative? Particularly, loving nature, hiking etc... and apparently supporting the worst environmental administration in our lifetime?"

And here's my response to that:
You're too young to know this, but our air and water quality, among many other things' is so vastly improved from when I was a child, and coming of age in the sixties, that it's hard for me to be too upset about how "bad" things are today in that department. It is truly a staggering improvement. That is not to say there's not always room for more improvement.

Did you know that CO2 levels actually decreased last year in the United States even as GDP went up several percentage points? Of course that won't satisfy you or your idealism, but it is a point worth noting here in the non-MSM.

But to a larger degree, I would bet that you and I vastly differ on what the true precursors of improved environmental quality really are. I'm sure you would say that more laws and regulations are required, not to mention our country's signing on the Kyoto Treaty. I've heard the arguments ad naseum.

You see, I believe, however politically incorrect, that democracy, free markets, the rule of law, low taxes, strong property rights and economic prosperity are the greatest enhancements of environmental quality there can be.

Conversely, where you find tyrannical regimes, dictators, controlled markets and economic impoverishment, you find environments and environmental quality in deep decline. I think of North Korea. Or the decimataion of Iraq's wetlands under Saddam. Or Cuba. And let's watch what will happen to the envronmental quality of Venezuela in the years to come.

This is all I have time for right now. I will address that and that alone. I am not willing to be assaulted by multiple comments, psychological studies and the like. Those are for your blog. I am sticking to my own knitting here. And remember, it's your First Amendment right to leave when and if you so choose.


William said...

I agree, things are much cleaner than in the 1960s where I grew up. I don't subscribe to Climate Change hysteria. It is undeniable that it is happening and that human activity has contributed to it, but I seriously doubt that man can do much to mitigate this in our lifetime, despite what Al Gore has led us to believe. The tipping point has likely been reached. As you pointed out, with the conscienceless level of pollution by countries like China, there can be no easy solution. And btw, stats of the kind on which global warming theories are based must be viewed over a millenia, what happens year to year is meaningless, except maybe to those with some political agenda.

I know it is difficult to listen to the truth if you care about the environment and you are a Republican. Since Bush began campaigning for President in 1999, the 30 biggest utility companies owning the majority of the 89 dirtiest power plants in America have poured $6.6 million into the coffers of the Bush presidential campaigns and the Republican National Committee (RNC). In return, Cheney sat down with big energy companies in 2001 in secret, and developed America's energy policy. Executives from big oil lied when they testified before congress on this issue, claiming they did not meet with Cheney. 4 years later, a White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001.
This policy has allowed the polluters to pollute more - payback for campaign contributions. New Bush policies allow power plants to emit more mercury. The money trail is so clear. Why the level of secrecy if it's all on the up and up? Why would the Sierra Club take this issue to the Supreme Court with Cheney refusing to reveal such details about OUR energy policy? Doesn't this secrecy and lying strike you as suspicious? This is how Republicans do business. This is ditto for timber and mining companies. The Bush administration's plan to allow commercial logging in California's Giant Sequoia National Monument has been ruled illegal in federal court. Bush administration’s plan to eliminate safeguards for old growth forests and the rare plants and animals that inhabit them has also been ruled illegal in US District court.

I could cite a dozen more cases where the Bush Administration's environmental policies have been ruled ILLEGAL. Government suits against polluters have fallen 70% or more under Bush. In one of her last acts before resigning, the Bush Administration's top environmental prosecutor Sue Ellen Wooldridge just bought a million $ vacation home with Conoco Phillips Vice President Donald R. Duncan, nine months before agreeing to let the company delay a half-billion-dollar pollution cleanup. How much more information can you delete and ignor?

Again, simply Google the words Bush and environment. The only good news you'll get is from

And it persists on the local level, where I live - Republicans control the city council and planning. Developers in bed with local government have produced high density poorly constructed housing, slashing and burning sensitive environmental areas to make way for profit. TN Senator Bob Corker, a developer, was sued over such an incident.

I could write a dissertation on this topic but I'll close here and urge you to not rationalize the truth.

Bob said...

"I am not willing to be assaulted by multiple comments, psychological studies and the like. Those are for your blog. I am sticking to my own knitting here. And remember, it's your First Amendment right to leave when and if you so choose."

That is one of the strongest, most assertive paragraphs I have read in a long time!

Webutante said...

Thanks, Bob.

William, Sorry, I just can't get wigged out about all this, but I'm glad you have something to worry about that gives your life meaning.

I am much more concerned that the big oil companies get a new refinery built here in the US, because the time is coming when we're going to need it.

As for the big oil companies giving to Bush/Cheney: I say better them than the People's Republic of China giving millions to Clinton/Gore through the Buddhist Temple episode.

Now one more thing: I am grateful every day that Bush has kept his eye on the ball of the most pressing issues facing this country during his administration and we have had no new 9/11 type attacks on our soil. I do not think Bush is perfect, but I do think history will be much kinder to him than the MSM now it.

William said...

Not asking you to get wigged out by it, just accepts the facts.

Your crediting Bush for protecting us from another 9/11 is folly. The whole concept of "we've got to fight 'em over there so we don't fight 'em over here" is bogus... with 12 million illegals coming in under Bush, what exactly is keeping the terrorist out? Military and terrorism xperts (even at the conservative think tank - the Heritage Foundation) have said that Bush has exaggerated the threat 'that the enemy would follow us here'.

This method of securing power by fear is common in all authoritarian regimes. Note the following quotes:

“I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” — Dennis Milligan, Chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party

it's the leaders of a country who determine policy...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering
2nd in command of Nazi Germany
Sound like a familiar tactic?

You 'trust' Bush to keep us safe when he lets 12 million illegals in, spends more in Iraq in ONE WEEK than on the US Border Patrol in ONE YEAR, not to mention he was warned specifically and repeatedly during the spring and summer before 9/11 ... then he went on vacation - for a month.

" I am grateful every day that Bush has kept his eye on the ball of the most pressing issues facing this country "

You're amazing!

Vienna, VA said...

William, what I always ask my friends - most of whom are Republican, and most of those of the conservative bent - is this: would you have a problem with President Hillary Clinton listening secretly to your phone calls, or reading your emails?

Would you support a Korea type plan in Iraq and saber-rattling with Iran under President John Kerry?

Would the meetings energy industry lobbyists had with President John Edwards still be considered "top secret", and would that be a good thing?

Would the leadership shown by President Al Gore after Hurricane Katrina be considered a "heckuva job"?

If under President Bill Richardson, civil servants were fired for not being loyal Democrats, or US Attorneys were fired for not doing the bidding of the White House, would the reaction on the right still be, well that's their right to hire and fire at will?

Or how about if under the Obama administration, career covert CIA agents (and for the sake of argument, lets assume these agents were conservative Republicans) were exposed for purely political gain? Would the right wing noise machine belittle the agents as either a) glorified secretaries, b) non-covert agents because they drive themselves to work, attend Christmas parties and shop at the local Safeway or c) no big deal anyways, so who cares?

My guess is if the tables were turned, and the type of things happening today were happening under any Democratic President, the reaction on the right would be a 180% turn from where it is today. I can tell you, however, that I would be equally outraged if these things happened under any Democratic president.