Conservative Monitor

It is a fact that Earth’s temps have not warmed for nine years, and yet the Global Warming true believers keep trying to make us believe that carbon emissions are going to send the planet a catastrophic heat wave. All this is quite silly. To call carbon emissions pollution is like saying the cycle of life is a problem for earth. Anyone who knows anything about biology knows that humans exhale carbon dioxide, and plants soak it up so they can create food, store energy, and convert the CO2 into Oxygen. More CO2 only means more vigorous plants. Besides, we BREATHE carbon dioxide with every breath, and it does us no harm (unless of course there is no Oxygen in the mix).

Does CO2 cause a greenhouse effect? Perhaps, but it certainly does not hold a candle to the effects of the sun, and this should be pattently obvious to even the casual observer. If the sun were to turn up a few degrees would we feel it? Certainly. If it were to go down a couple of degrees would there be an effect upon the planet? Where do you think all of our past ice ages have come from? In fact, at one time, half of North America was covered with Ice, and this was a mere 50,000 years ago.

By my recogning we are in for another ice age. Or at least a cold spell. And they do happen. They have been chronicled for the last 5000 years, and when they happen, they are not so pleasant in Northern climes. The negative effect on economies is well documented, especially in the area of agriculture.

In light of the fact that we can have no effect on the Sun’s energy output, and it is obviously cooling, it might behoove us to try to create a greenhouse effect to minimize the undoubted cooling trend. In fact, it is clearly irresponsible to pass legislation that, if global warming alarmists, are correct in their assumptions about greenhouse gasses, make it cooler on the planet.

In recent history wars get labeled as belonging to the President who is in power at the time of the conflict. Vietnam has long been known as “Johnson’s War”. It was largely this label that caused the Texan’s failure to run for president in 1968. Then there was “Bush’s War”, Iraq. Many speculate that it was largely this label that helped hand the Republicans their electoral defeat in 2008.

There is some validity in giving a president personal responsibility for a war. Largely there is considerable personal interest of a president for a conflict that occurs during his (or her) term. Often many of the decisions that bring on a struggle and determine its course can be traced specifically back to the commander-in-chief.

Whether Johnson’s War or Bush’s War were moral, or strategically intelligent is still debated among historians and political scientists. Yet, what is not disputed is that both of the presidents in question felt considerable pressure to see their wars to a successful conclusion. Success did not attend the struggle in Viet Nam. However, the surge in Iraq seems to have been a successful operation.

With this in mind, I think it would be a good idea to start calling the war in Afghanistan, “Obama’s War”. Not that I want to see the President saddled with a bad name. (Although it might become a wedge between him and the peaceniks.) On the contrary, by tying Obama’s reputation to the war, we encourage his best efforts toward victory there. I don’t think that Barack Obama wants to be known as the man who allowed the terrorists to take over a whole country as a base of operations. He is already heavily invested in success there and in neighboring Pakistan. In speeches and in policy he has made it clear that he believes victory in Afghanistan important to national security. I say that we support him as much as possible in this struggle because winning this war will be good not for Obama or even the country, but for all of humanity.

Let’s win “Obama’s War”.

One of the best books of any genre I have read this year is Kyle Mills’s Lords of Corruption. It is not a monumental work. It is not an indepth analysis of arcane economic, philosophic, or political ideas. It is simply a thriller. But it comprehends so much, using terse words, intense sentences, action-packed scenes, and to the point narrative.

This is a book I have been waiting a long time to see. A well-written novel based on reality that is undergirded with conservative ideas. Yet the conservatism is not the point of the book - the story is the point. And it doesn’t really matter if the author is conservative or has a conservative perspective. What is important is that the objective reality is taken for granted, it is ingrained in the characters and the plot. There is no hypothetical pie in the sky. And because of it, the work rings true.

In my indepth review of Lords of Corruption I go into detail on the plot and its revelations about African Aid. Suffice it to say, this book paints an accurate picture of what happens when good-intentions are not connected with intelligent application.

Great book. Get it, and read it.

President Obama did the right thing in the pirate incident concerning the Maersk Alabama. Before the Navy Seals took care of the incident I was wondering if he would have the courage and intelligence to take out the pirates before they made off with the Captain of the ship. I hope he continues to exhibit such fortitude.

It was not that long ago that acts of piracy were a capital offense. Hanging was the prescribed sentence in most cases. There was a good reason for this. It served to discourage such acts and allowed people to trade peaceably around the world. This was the result of the Pax Britanica, followed mercifully by the Pax Americana.

As well as this single incident was handled, we should be doing more of it. To fail in this regard would mean an end to peaceful transit by cargo-ships, passenger liners, fishing boats, and other ships in the ocean’s sea lanes. The closing down of sea traffic could have disastrous affects around the world, affecting trade and diplomacy. In fact the amount of piracy that has been allowed to go on up till now has created rising costs in goods and services and terrorized a fair number of sailors.

The point is that if we stop being the world’s policeman on the ocean highways that these highways will decend to chaos. And this will be just the begining of a decline of the world into violence and destruction.

There is a new documentary out about the young men and women who served in Iraq, Perfect Valor. It is a tribute the sacrifice these people have made to keep their country safe, and also to help others in the world to live free of tyranny.

People often say that we have no business telling other people what to do. But should we let the world decend into chaos and butchery? If we do so, sooner or later the senseless violence will come to our own shores. We had to stop Hitler in the 1940s. We had to stop Saddam Hussein in the 2000s. He was an evil dictator who killed his own people by the hundreds of thousands.

The people who have gone to first destroy the evil of Saddam and then to bring peace to Iraq deserve credit. This film does that.

I just finished Paul A. Ibbetson’s new book, Feeding Lions: Sharing the Conservative Philosophy in a Politically Hostile World. Ibbetson has a straight-forward, straight-shooting presentation that leaves little room for doubt about where he is coming from, while at the same time giving plenty of room for thought.

I will ever applaud writers who exhort the conservative to speak out, to work diligently to spread conservative ideas of freedom and capitalism. For it is only through these ideas that society can advance in an equitable manner. Anything else spells the destruction of society.

The book hits hard against liberals, but at the same time attempts to speak to them. It is a clear explanation of conservative ideals in a form that most will be able to understand. In this way this volume is a political education in itself. It explains principles and then applies them to specific cases.

The book makes extensive use of autobiography, and it is effective in using personal experience to illustrate important points (for example the vital need for a work ethic). If I have one bone to pick with Mr. Ibbetson it is his insistence that all Conservatives are Christian. I would agree that America is a conservative country, that Christianity, on the whole, has been a good influence on society. However, I do not see Conservatism as a religious movement. It is rather a secular one founded on ideas that have been tested over time, and that work. Its premise is that change comes in increments and when the change does not work, then society’s rules must be ratcheted back. Perhaps Christianity is simply one of the ideas that were accepted long ago that worked. William James, the great American Philosopher of Pragmatism, certainly thought this was the case.

But that is a small bone. On the whole this is a forceful effort by up and coming radio talk-show host, Paul A. Ibbetson.

Read my in-depth review of Feeding Lions.

Just ran across Steve Pomper’s book on how to avoid getting a traffic ticket, Is There a Problem Officer?. No, it isn’t about how to drive faster than a police car. Or how to make a few tricky turns when the patrol officer isn’t looking. (I have tried that and it doesn’t work.)

The book contains anecdotes, tips, and thoughts from cops all around the country. He drops a couple of hints in his rundown on the book:

Don’t cry; you definitely won’t avoid a ticket that way.
Common courtesy will take you a lot further than speeding will.
If you deny fault, you can’t expect to receive a warning to correct the problem.

You might want to visit Steve Pomper’s Blog. He has some interesting thoughts about politics as well as law enforcement.

I got this little note on an essay I wrote way back when on the origins of the term… MoFo:

Hello. I invented the word mofo when i was in 5th grade, around 1997. We needed a way to swear without the teacher knowing we were swearing. Given your expertise on the word, is this just one of those things where you invent something thats already been invented, or did I invent the lamest insult ever?

I think the commentary is worth reviewing, as it says something about the way people think.

No question that you can help people too much. The welfare state fosters unproductive citizens by rewarding unproductive behavior. If women are paid to have children out of wedlock, they will do it. If people are paid not to work, they will not work. It seems axiomatic. Though there are people in higher institutions of learning who do not understand the concept.

If it works for individuals, it also works for organizations, especially states. In his article Is Political Correctness Deadly to Africa?, best selling author Kyle Mills, explains how foreign aid and charity (and its politically correct applications) has basically worked to hold Africa back.

You can close your eyes and visualize the process. We give money to support some regime. We plow in money to help feed starving people. We send in supplies that are administered by corrupt officials. We do all of this thinking we are doing someone some good. But the people who are benefiting are those lining their pockets, made more secure in their position by controlling the flow of aid that we provide.

Ultimately, we would be better doing nothing at all in Africa than what we do now. Millions die of Malaria every year because liberal aid is conditional - those receiving aid cannot use DDT to control mosquitoes. Millions more die of AIDs because of politically correct notions of how the disease should be fought. Every dollar that goes over there is taking away some part of someone’s need to work.

I am not saying we should cut off aid to Africa. What I am saying is that we need to be more strict about the manner in which it is administered. Good intentions are NOT good enough.

Is there a battle between Islam and Christianity? Without a doubt there is something going on, and it involves violence, passion, religion, and ideology. I have just finished reading James Gauss’s Islam and Christianity: A Revealing Contrast. In this book he compares the two religions from the perspective of their holy texts.

The contrast between the two religions is indeed revealing. Perhaps the area that most concerns modern readers is the relatively passive nature of Christianity as opposed to the violent exhortations in Muslim texts. There is little question that Jesus taught his disciples to stoically turn the other cheek. He pointedly said that the meek shall inherit the Earth. But this is not the way of Mohammed who, finding himself in battle through much of his life ended up santioning violence, especially toward people who did not follow Islam.

Dr. Gauss also points out that in Islam women are denegrated to the point of mere chattel. There are passages in the Koran that literally state that women have a lesser mental capacity than men. Women are even forbidden to worship in a Mosque.

For excellent insight into the struggle that undergirds today’s world conflicts, one could hardly go wrong in perusing Dr. Gauss’s book. Yet I should make one disclaimer. As a conservative, I do not always adhere strictly to the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I am among the last to advocate turning the other cheek. Yet I do believe that peace is good. I am a believer in the old Strategic Air Command motto, “Peace through Strength”. Nevertheless, Christianity is a good philosophy to rein in the passionately violent nature of humans in general. As we know War is Hell.