No Connection

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021810/content/01125106.guest.html

“Don't you realize that this is nothing more than in a roundabout way of getting cap-and-trade legislation and get the Republicans to sign on to it? This is nothing more than a trick. There aren't going to be any new nuclear power plants. The government's going to be loaning money. The government doesn't know how to build anything. It's going to take years and years and years for regulatory approval. Obama's own base is gonna stop 'em. Obama's own base is gonna oppose it. It ain't ever going to happen. But he's going to get a lot of praise: "He's coming around, no more windmills, no more solar panels, Obama is going nuclear." It's a lie. Everything they say is a lie”

The world that Rush Limbaugh lives in is a strange and demented one. He is a true partisan hack. Only someone with a dislike towards Obama as strong as Rush has would see a proposal to build nuclear power plants as a front to bring in cap-and-trade. How does this even make any sense? Where’s the connection between nuclear power and cap-and-trade? One is a form of energy the other is a system to pay for credits and reduce carbon emissions. I’m a supporter of both nuclear power and cap-and-trade (though I would prefer a free market system over a government mandated one) but, this is just ridiculous. I don’t disagree with the assertion that the government will be unable to build the plants, we had this same issue in Ontario with government plans to build a new power plant being suspended. The point here though, is that Rush is drawing connections where none exist. Look, I get it, government can be highly incompetent and we shouldn’t be too optimistic about the prospects of a nuclear power plant getting up and running anytime soon. Notwithstanding that however, putting forward ideas that border on the thought of a conspiracy is not part of an intelligent debate.

Go Ahead Sue: We Have the Truth!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021710/content/01125115.guest.html

“In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud), ok let’s assume global warming is a hoax (it’s not) could Al Gore be sued for fraud? He certainly gained from The Inconvenient Truth but, so do Holocaust deniers yet they are not sued for fraud. Why is this? It’s because they believe in their own deception and it is not intentional. Therefore, you could argue that, “sure the evidence now shows global warming to be a hoax (again not true) but when Al Gore made the Inconvenient Truth he believed in the evidence we had at the time, he wasn’t intentionally deceiving anyone. “ Al Gore is simply repeating ideas that have been put forward by scientists before him, would they be sued as well for originally creating the idea? Who exactly would sue Al Gore? One of the elements of common law fraud is “plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity”, which means that anyone who has always maintained that climate change is a hoax could not sue Al Gore since, they were not ignorant of its falsity. It may be possible that a believer turned denier could sue Al Gore but only if they could improve that they were somehow damaged by the results of Al Gore’s actions. They would have to prove for example, “that because of Al Gore’s movie I went out and bought an electric car. I was seriously injured in a crash because the car was small and did not offer adequate protection.” A case like that would be very difficult to prove. What about the company that sold the car? Why wouldn’t you charge them for knowingly selling you a dangerous vehicle?

It amuses me how Al Gore has become the poster boy for climate change issues. As if attacking his credibility somehow undermines the climate change argument. Apparently it’s all a lie created by him so he should be sued for fraud. What about all of the organizations that maintain that climate change is real?

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

How do these organizations gain financially from saying climate change is real? More funding perhaps but, their primary goal isn’t to gain funding it’s to study climate change.

Not too long ago I paid a visit to Info Wars, the site run by conspiracy whack-job Alex Jones. On the forums there was a title “Al Gore Sued by 30 000 Scientists for Global Warming Hoax”. I did a Google search for more information. All that came up were links to sites that if their names are any indication are dedicated to conspiracy theories, providing a video that was posted to Youtube with the same title. I did some more digging and discovered that the so-called “30 000 scientists” is based on the Oregon Petition. While it may have 30 000 signatures, not all of them belong to scientists and some were made by pranksters (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308). The creator of the petition has admitted to doing no direct research into global warming, further undermining the credibility of this petition. Even worse, he has aligned himself with HIV denialists and anti-vaccinations (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-2). Yet we are expected to believe that this is all the work of someone with a credible view on climate change.

You know what? I’m going to change my stance; Al Gore should be sued for fraud, just so we can further expose the lunacy of these climate deniers. In fact, John Coleman, who sas called for Al Gore and other climate change proponents to be sued wants to use the legal system as a forum for the debate saying, “"I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html). I personally think it would be hilarious to see that plan back-fire on the deniers. If their argument is that taking this issue to court will settle things once and for all then so be it. Here is a challenge to the deniers, take us climate change proponents to court. If you win, we will pay. If we win, then in agreement with your own terms, it will be settled, climate change will be declared real once and for all. The ball’s in your court deniers.

Zero Tolerance Has Gone Too Far

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/new.york.doodle.arrest/index.html?hpt=C1

I’ve heard it time and time again, “kids are out of control, there’s no discipline in schools the way there was in the past, kids don’t have to face the consequences of their actions” This latest story from CNN makes such statements a load of bullshit.

“Alexa Gonzalez, an outgoing 12-year-old who likes to dance and draw, expected a lecture or maybe detention for her doodles earlier this month. Instead, the principal of the Junior High School in Forest Hills, New York, called police, and the seventh-grader was taken across the street to the police precinct.

Alexa's hands were cuffed behind her back, and tears gushed as she was escorted from school in front of teachers and -- the worst audience of all for a preadolescent girl -- her classmates.”

All of this for doodling something that wasn’t even close to being offensive on her desk. When our leaders talk about zero tolerance on crime, I doubt this is what they had in mind. The article mentions other stories of children being hand-cuffed for actions that cannot in any rational world be considered offences.

“The Strategy Center, a California-based civil rights group that tracks zero tolerance policies, found that at least 12,000 tickets were issued to tardy or truant students by Los Angeles Police Department and school security officers in 2008. The tickets tarnished students' records and brought them into the juvenile court system, with fines of up to $250 for repeat offenders.”

Ticketing students for not showing up to class is beyond absurd. In the working world if you don’t show up to work you will be fired, unless you have a really good excuse this punishment is justified. You will not however, be charged for not showing up to work. Whatever happened to giving detentions? Treating children like criminals is not going to encourage them to come to school it only fosters resentment towards the system.

“"Instead of a graduated discipline approach, we see ... expulsions at the drop of a hat," said Donna Lieberman, an attorney with the New York branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Several studies have confirmed that the time an expelled child spends away from school increases the chance that child will drop out and wind up in the criminal justice system, according to a January 2010 study from the Advancement Project, a legal action group.”

“Zero tolerance policies” is a euphemism for lazy school officials who don’t want to address the causes of the issues. I hardly think it’s a revolutionary proposal to suggest that rather than punishing kids so harshly for actions that are hardly criminal, we use our time and effort to take action to encourage children to come to school using positive reinforcement.

Let’s not forget about the police. Is it not true that children are raised to look up to the police as protectors of our civil liberties? What then becomes of the image of the police when they are hauling a young girl out by handcuffs for doodling on her desk? The duty of the police is to protect the people but, who are they protecting in this case? It appears to be the paranoid school staff that fail to see how cruel and unusual this punishment is. Common sense is lacking in both the police and education departments. It’s rather sad to see that the institution that is supposed to be preparing children for the future is inept at making logical decisions.

I’ve heard it time and time again “children these days are out of control and too rebellious”. Well now I say, rightfully so, if this is the system they are being subjected to then they should act out against an institution that at one time used reasonable approaches to dealing with inappropriate behaviour but has now dived into the deep end of insanity.

Hardly Number 1

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021710/content/01125112.guest.html

Do you ever wonder how it is, and why it became so, that a population at any one time of less than 300 million people created the highest standard of living? Progress, economic, political, education, by any standard you want to measure, the United States of America has been the greatest collection, population of human beings in the history of the world."

America’s number one, America’s number one, America’s number one! I’m sure if you continue to repeat that statement over and over you’ll come to believe it. There’s nothing wrong with an American wanting America to be number one (who doesn’t want their country to be number one?) just stop making the claim that you are number one when the actual numbers say otherwise. The Human Development Index ranks the United States at 13th overall in 2009 (Canada is 4th by the way). The U.S does have the number one economy (based on 2008 statistics) according to the IMF, World Bank, and CIA World Factbook. The runner-up Japan, is not even close and I doubt the recession will hurt America’s standing in this regard. The U.S is undoubtedly wealthy but, GDP isn’t the best measure of the living standards of all the people. Still, I’ll give this one to Rush, as far as economics are concerned America is number one. Politics is an area that can’t exactly be ranked. What is being ranked has to be defined first. When it comes to performing in math and science the U.S doesn’t rank at number one (http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/education-rankings-by-country/).

If we speak of America being number one statistically then when looking at the economy, education system and HDI then the only category by which they are number is the economy. The HDI ranking speaks a different story to the idea that America has the highest standard of living. The idea that America is number one comes from a nationalism that causes one to take pride in their country. There’s nothing wrong with having pride and love for your country, just don’t let it distort reality.

Everybody Lies

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021710/content/01125106.guest.html

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the President. Being able to do so is the beauty of democracy. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to take this too far making insane comparisons that completely undermine the arguments they are trying to make. For example, I tried to find evidence that there have been tax cuts for small businesses alas, I could not. I feel inclined to *gasp* agree with Rush on this one that Obama isn’t being all that truthful. Rush it seems however, is not content with simply going after Obama’s idea but, his personal appearance referring to him as Dumbo because of the size of his ears. This comparison is not what we should expect from people who are supposed to be offering professional political opinion. It gets worse, Rush goes on to make comparisons to Hitler. Comparing your opponent to Hitler is a tactic over used by both sides of the political spectrum. It is evidence that you’ve run out of intelligent arguments and must now resort to issues that simply invoke rage in your readers/listeners. By all means, disagree with the President, it is not our duty to blindly follow our leaders but, for the sake of civilized debate, drop the childish act.

Rush unsurprisingly comes off has somewhat hypocritical for calling Obama a liar when he says, “I can't handle it. Nobody is calling it The Lost Decade but you, Dumbo. Nobody is calling it The Lost Decade. Who besides him is calling it The Lost Decade?” I believe I can answer that question.

“As the Washington Post reported in January, “The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times … It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers … There has been zero net job creation since December 1999 … Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999—and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009.” http://inthesetimes.com/article/5543/the_senates_reconcilable_differences/

I don’t have enough familiarity with the Post to say whether or not it’s pro-Obama but, it’s still proof that Obama isn’t the only one calling this the “lost decade”. If someone is lying you call them out on it, Obama dose seem to be lying on the tax cut issue, where’s the proof of these tax cuts? Rush is lying when he says Obama is the only one calling it “the lost decade”.

Rush states that “He (Bush) took the unemployment rate down to 4.7%” let’s examine that claim shall we. When Bush entered office in January 2001 the unemployment rate was at 4.2%. From 2001-2004 it reached a peak of 6.3% in June 2003 and sat at 5.4% in November 2004. Rush says that the unemployment rate began to sky rocket when the Democrats took control of the House in 2007 despite the fact that throughout 2007 the unemployment rate never goes higher than 5%. I want to know where this 4.7% comes from. It’s odd that Rush doesn’t mention that at some points during the 2001-2007 period that the unemployment rate goes as low as 4.3% during Bush’s early years. Rush isn’t exactly lying about Bush’s record but, he is being misleading by claiming that the unemployment rate began to sky rocket out of control in 2007. Things didn’t start going bad until the recession hit. Remember though, from 2001-2007 the unemployment rate reached a peak of 6.3%. Correct me if I’m wrong but, there was no recession going on then. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

Let’s continue with Rush’s odd lies, “state-controlled ABC News.” He can’t be serious can he? ABC is owned by Walt Disney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company). Walt Disney, the company that left wingers consider to be the face of evil out of control-capitalism is state-owned? Well if that’s the case then I want to see Obama and Mickey playing basketball at the White House.

I’ll say it again, there’s nothing wrong with calling out the President when he’s distorting the
truth or telling a lie. Keep in mind however, that you can’t fill your own rant against the President with lies when the main topic of the rant is about lying. It really undermines your argument.

How Effective was the New Deal?

A year into Obama’s stimulus act debate is still raging over whether the plan has been effective in pulling the American economy out of recession. I remain sceptical as the statistics make it doubtful that the stimulus is working still, we are only a year into this and I believe a more proper assessment could be done at the time of the next election in 2012. With the stimulus becoming front and centre in the news again we are seeing debate over the New Deal emerge. Was the New Deal effective in bringing America out of the depression? The statistics do not paint a very promising picture for New Deal advocates.

First off, the effectiveness of the New Deal was being debated during the time of FDR and continues to this day. Whether or not someone believes it was effective is likely to depend on their political views. Failures of the New Deal may not actually be blamed on the New Deal itself, but rather a lack of support for all the proposals that made up the New Deal. I’m simply going to stick with the statistics rather than delve into various political views to come up with answers for why the New Deal worked or did not.

After having read through the following information I developed the sense that the New Deal was not effective in actually pulling America out of the Depression.

“The number of unemployed in 1929 was estimated at less than four percent, but by 1933 the unemployment rate had jumped up to approximately 25. The New Deal was designed for complete economic recovery during the depression. However, the New Deal did not achieve full economic recovery. It actually had a limited economic impact. The New Deal failed to lower the unemployment rate below 14 percents. However, the New Deal did help maintain an average of 17 percent level the unemployment throughout the 1930s” Fearon, Peter. 2007. "KANSAS HISTORY AND THE NEW DEAL ERA." Kansas History 30, no. 3: 192-223

“Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938. Keynesian economists speculated that this was a result of a premature effort to curb government spending and balance the budget, while conservatives said it was caused by attacks on business and by the huge strikes caused by the organizing activities of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the American Federation of Labor (AFL)” Leuchtenburg p. 242-3

Employment levels appeared to improve only slightly from the 1933 high of 25%, though a strong economy is not one where unemployment sits at 14%. Things would not improve until World War II. “Private sector employment, especially in manufacturing, recovered to the level of the 1920s but failed to advance further until the war.” Today’s stimulus supporters will certainly point out that the World War II recovery was a result of massive spending, which is true. However, the spending in this case was heavily focused on manufacturing weapons for war as opposed to the New Deal and today’s stimulus which focuses on a wide and massive range of spending initiatives.

Economic historians appear to be split on the effects of the New Deal.

“1995 survey of economic historians asked whether "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed with provisos, and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed”

"EH.R: FORUM: The Great Depression". Eh.net. http://eh.net/lists/archives/eh.res/feb-1997/0010.php. Retrieved 2008-10-11.

I believe the issue with the New Deal is that it wasn’t simply one single program aimed at repairing economy but a wide range of programs and reforms. The result is that it becomes difficult to determine what programs were effective and what weren’t, if all we do is examine it as a whole to say whether or not it worked. For now I have to remain sceptical on the effects of the New Deal. The dismal employment numbers during the 30s have me leaning to the side that says it was not effective. Today it seems that the effectiveness of the New Deal will remain a political talking, either it worked or didn’t. If we are to draw a conclusive and solid assessment of the New Deal then every single program and reform would have to examined individually to determine its’ affects on the economy. We could discover exactly what worked and what didn’t and use that knowledge to fine tune the current recovery effort in America.

Ronald Reagan: Not all he's cracked up to be

Ronald Reagan, the way the right goes on about him today you’d swear he was an infallible god. Republicans argue that his Presidency was the golden era of conservatism and a highlight of American political history. There’s no doubt that Reagan sought to bring in many conservative reforms. “He also strongly advocated the Republican ideal of less government regulation of the economy, including that of undue federal taxation” (Kubarych, Roger M (June 9, 2004). "The Reagan Economic Legacy". Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/7092/reagan_economic_legacy.html. Retrieved August 22, 2007.). However, upon closer examination of his political career we see the picture of a man who if he were around today, may face harsh criticism from some of his supporters on the right.

Whenever the right calls for the return to the age of Reagan, I have to wonder who they are talking about. Sure he held many conservative values but, he hardly seems like the ideal model of a right wing politician today. “In his first term, he froze government hiring and approved tax hikes to balance the budget” (Cannon, Lou (2001), p. 47). Can you name a single Republican today off the top of your head who would support tax hikes? I certainly can’t. During his time as the Governor of California Reagan signed an abortion bill into law, though to be fair he later regretted the decision and declared that he was pro-life (Cannon, Lou (2001), p. 51). Now imagine if a Republican today even considered supporting a pro-abortion bill. Such a decision could gain support among the moderates but, today’s right doesn’t appear to be interested in gaining the moderates. They want a pure brand of conservatism.

Today Obama comes under have criticism for increasing the debt and deficit, it is a cause for concern no doubt. Reagan wasn’t exactly a model of balanced budgets himself considering his “order to cover newly spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion” (Cannon, Lou (2001) p. 128). To be fair this will likely pale in comparison to the national debt by the time Obama leaves office but, it doesn’t undermine the fact that the debt grew under Reagan.

Any politician today that considers doing anything other than rounding up all the illegal immigrants and building a giant wall along the Mexican border would be condemned by the right, that is unless of course your name is Ronald Reagan.

“Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982, and had lived in the country continuously. Critics argue that its contention subjecting employers to sanctions were without teeth and that it failed to stem illegal immigration Graham, Otis”

(January 27, 2003). "Ronald Reagan's Big Mistake". The American Conservative. http://www.otisgraham.com/otis_graham_writings/art_ronald_reagans_big_mistake.html. Retrieved August 15, 2007

If Obama where to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants he’d likely be accused of being an immigrant himself and a supporter of terrorists and other enemies of the state. Speaking of which, Reagan negotiated with America’s enemies, as opposed to the current Republican stance of war, war, and war.

“Prior to Gorbachev visiting Washington, D.C., for the third summit in 1987, the Soviet leader announced his intention to pursue significant arms agreements” Keller, Bill (March 2, 1987).

"Gorbachev Offer 2: Other Arms Hints". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D81131F931A35750C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all. Retrieved March 17, 2008.”

Today it seems like a rather revolutionary idea that the U.S. military is planning to bribe the Taliban to bring those in the organization who are less extreme over to our side yet here we have Reagan, talking to the leader of a nation he once referred to as an “evil empire” (a statement he later disagreed with himself).

Reagan did manage to bring in a new era of conservatism in American politics but these policies were mixed with the decisions of a man who in today’s political climate would have been labeled a moderate. Whoever the ideal Republican of the right is today, it’s not Reagan.