A Comment or Two or Four

I tried to comment on my Uncle John's blog about James Lee, but my computer won't show me the word for the word verification.

So for my audience, let me set up what my Uncle John said (and remember I am paraphrasing through the glasses of my opinions): A few days ago, Uncle John posted something about what a crock global warming is and that it is based on flawed science with publicized errors and everyone should wake up and protest against environmentalists or some such stuff--remember I'm paraphrasing. Anderson gave a similar speech at Toastmasters and I was amazed, but I digress.

Then yesterday, Uncle John posted a picture of James Lee, the guy who took hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters and was killed by police, saying that he was misguided by flawed global warming hype and it is a good thing that he didn't kill anyone. So here is my response:

I hope your last post didn't push him over the edge--it is kind of eerie that you just posted about global warming being a myth (most likely prompted by some report in the right wing radical conservative newscast that is called "fair and balanced")and then there is a radical on the other side to balance out the universe.

[Gee that sounds a little mean. Nothing personal, but I am really adverse to a lot of the opinions exressed as "news" on Fox news. There it is.]

My theory is that we liberals are just too easy going and accepting of McDonalds, so the radical among us must go to an extreme. Kind of like the conservatives and anti-abortion radicals who kill doctors. Many conservatives (lets call them the young and middle aged white guys) were complacent about abortion because, hey, less child support (or the women conservatives who were a little more true to "keep your government out of my body" then the rest). So the hard core conservatives had to get more and more radical to make some noise. I condemn the anti-abortion radicals who promote violence and kill doctors and judges and I condemn James Lee too.

But it is my fault. I should have responded to your last post, Uncle John, to show the world that your opinion is not the majority and it is not based on sound premises. [I am reminded about the debate over whether smoking caused cancer 30 or 40years ago.] Are you denying that the ice caps are melting? Because that is real and it will have real consequences. Do humans cause it? Look around. You don't need a bunch of studies to show you what you see with your own two eyes. Humans have a huge negative impact on the environment. The question is, can we live with the consequences? And who decides? Some countries are going to be adversely affected by other, bigger, stronger countries (U.S.). We have a bunch of science to address and solve a number of problems, but it takes resources and political will. You have one opinion and I have another opinion. But calling the whole debate of global warming garbage, because of a few errors and deliberately blinding yourself to truths you see with your own eyes, is not a responsible way to conduct political discourse. Neither is blowing up buildings or killing people. And neither is silent complacency: I should have called you out in your last post.

Lee did highlight something that I did not realize. I did see the Discovery Channel as an environmentally responsible outlet and yet I am well aware that the message can be shaped and shaded. We can call a War "Iraqi Freedom", when in fact we were unjustified provokers against a sovereign nation. [Do you want to talk about false data?] We get a free pass for this crime, because nobody in the whole world liked Sadam (including me, by the way--he took a gun and shot his political opponent in front of a sitting congress--he poisened an entire region of his country that he was supposed to lead--he attempted to kill Bush, Senior--digressing, sorry) and 9/11 bought us some free "look the other way" juice. [Am I the only person who has a nagging feeling that radical muslims had nothing to do with 9/11? Where's the gain? Follow the money is what the "watches too many crime dramas on tv" mind of mine says. But look at me digressing.]

Everyone needs to pay attention. It shouldn't take a violent radical act to provoke reasonable people to sit down and discuss things logically. Well as close to logical as two people with extremely different views can muster anyway.

Also, Uncle John, I disagree with your premise (in a comment on Uncle Marcel's blog) that government spending for NASA is good and government spending for the FDA is bad (again paraphrased from the perspective of my opinion). I don't know what kind of crystal ball you have that you apply to your food before you eat it, but I beleive that it was the Bush policies (with origins in the 70's and 80's of deregulation) of decimating governmental agencies that has led to the massive reports of salminella poisening from eggs. The FDA does not have sufficent resources to do the job we expect of it. I for one, want to strenghten the FDA, not weaken it. Necessity is the mother of invention--they will build a better mouse trap if they are forced to do so. But if we spread the investigators thinner and thinner, business will cut costs however they can, and safety will take a back seat to profit. I just don't trust that those corporate farms have a management team that watches Glen Beck's 9/12morals and values to live by (which by the way look very similar to these posters at the Christian Science organization near my office--I think it is based on that guy, E.Ron Hubbard or something like that. I always liked those posters and I support values too without becoming a brainwashed follower--oops, I'm digressing.)

I hate getting into political debates because everyone gets so emotionally involved in their opinion (me included). I think that the media and politicians foster that on purpose. I am going to use florecent light bulbs and drive a hybrid and try to conserve water and try to limit my footprint on this planet and vote for solutions that address the issues of the stress that humans bring to the planet at the expense of other humans (I'm just not an animal person--I cannot get excited about endangered species--I've tried, but there it is) whether the temperature was one or two degrees more or less in the data from a study on global warming or not. But I will most likely keep eating at McDonalds. All I can do is try. And I suspect Uncle John that you too use florecent bulbs and do not waste gas and are not an irresponsible global citizen. Every time we actually chat, I feel that we are very similar, but I guess we have really stayed away from politics in person. Ah, the luxury of the internet. The next time I see you in person (and you me), I hope that we will smile and silently agree not to discuss politics in person. On the other hand, please comment--a robust and open debate on political issues is the very foundation of our great country.