About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Katrina, Bush and global warming

I wonder if it will take several disasters on the scale of Katrina -- I mean on the US territory -- for the Bush (or the next) administration to finally face the problem of global warming. Let us not kid ourselves, this sort of catastrophes are one of the consequences of the (very likely human-induced) changes to our climate.

Contrary to popular belief, global "warming" isn't simply about making every place on earth hotter. The warming up of the earth's atmosphere has complex consequences, including the manifestation of more extreme weather patterns (both in the high and the low ranges of temperature, depending on latitude and other geographical characteristics).

But of course, if the catastrophe happens somewhere in east Asia, the average American will only be mildly affected, both emotionally and economically. On the other hand, the sight of a major American city (New Orleans) under water, the most recent estimate of possibly thousands of deaths, and especially the price of gas hitting almost $4 a gallon, well that's a different story.

Far from hoping for more catastrophes, I do however realize that this is typical of the history of humanity: for all our self-pride in being the "rational" animal, we seem to only respond to emergencies that affect us directly. Well, Bush and other warming-deniers may have a series of 'em coming up in the next few years.

38 comments:

  1. Yeah, but conservative Christians have already come up with a different explanation for Katrina, that unfortunately might be more plausible to most Americans than the idea of global warming.

    Supposedly, god got miffed enough about this event to send a hurricane to stop it:

    "The 34th annual Southern Decadence festival, which evolved over the years from a party for a few friends to a six-day street party attended by more than 100,000 people, runs this year from Aug. 31 to Sept. 5.

    Unofficially dubbed the 'gay Mardi Gras,' Southern Decadence is filled with dozens of parties and thousands of uninhibited gay men frolicking in the street in search of beads and brethren."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh yeah, don't forget that many people are too willing to believe that the hurricanes that hit Florida last year, the tsunami, and Katrina are all proof that "the Rapture", the Antichrist, and the Apocalypse aren't far off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While not specifically about the focus subject, I wanted to draw attention to the recent Pew Poll which (summarized by me) says that most Americans believe that schools 'should' teach the controversy.
    Here: "http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?incamp=article_popular&pagewanted=print"

    Then there's this piece: "http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/083005N.shtml"

    And this: "http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/083005N.shtml#2"

    And this: "http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29herbert.html?th&emc=th"

    Sure - NY Times motives are often suspect. I find them frequently complicit in churning the propaganda machine over critically-thinking-objective journalism. But this is exposure in the big time - even out here in the midwest where folks are corn-fed and skeptical of government intentions.

    I alway want to be careful to show some respect for people's beliefs - if you challenge them too quickly, most will withdraw and not engage, further closing down their minds. But I find it perfectly valid to present cogent arguments that contrast what is commonly believed versus what is known to be as close to verifiable truth as possible.
    In the end, people will believe what they feel is in their best interests - however preposterous and intangible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Adrienne, insightful comment as usual. However, it seems to me that God could be a bit less sloppy in punishing people. I mean, flooding a whole major city and devastating an entire region just because a few gays were having some fun? Besides the highly questionable ethics exhibited by the deity, His seems to be getting worse by the century!

    ReplyDelete
  5. More than likely he's just dealing/ communicating with us on a level that we might understand. (you know, the US is very materialistic) And that's not a matter of questionable ethics, M. That is some aspect or another of information theory in use, I imagine.

    I tend to prefer the idea that God could be inflicting some discomfort on the US for our influence in the Gaza thing myself.

    Just a thought. May turn out not be true, tho.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cal wrote:

    "More than likely he's just dealing/ communicating with us on a level that we might understand. (you know, the US is very materialistic)...God could be inflicting some discomfort on the US..."

    Me <-- Bangs head on keyboard. Weeps.

    With a "loving" deity like that, Cal, who needs enemies?

    Heck, who needs Satan, for that matter? Your "savior" is worse than his alleged enemy! After all, nobody is accusing Satan of sending hurricanes or tsunamis.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, that's one point of view.

    But what would you personally think of a parent who never told his/her child "no". What kind of a guardian would that be? That would be pretty much like having no parent at all.

    This really is a cause and effect world. And that is a good thing.

    My experience with skeptics goes back to early childhood. And I observed that even the most educated among us, can make rather serious errors in their deductions.

    But in the end, we all do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "But what would you personally think of a parent who never told his/her child 'no'."

    Telling one's child "no" can be a good thing. If one's child does something wrong, punishing that child by forbidding him or her from watching TV for a night or a week can be a good thing. Punishing a child by giving him or her a few spanks is not something I'm really in favor of, but it's still definitely far out of the realm of abusing that child.

    Beating the crap out of one's child for any reason at all is inexcusable. So is killing one's child as "punishment" for a transgression. Killing a whole bunch of children because one of them did something wrong is downright monstrous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. God believes in the old adage: "Adversity builds character". Obviously the people along the Gulf Coast were a little short on character so God sent in a bit of well deserved adversity. He knows best and his children should damn well just take their punishment and say "Thank you Lord".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Even more compelling than the possible link between Katrina and global warming is the link between Katrina's damage and the Iraq war.

    There are several articles addressing this issue out on major sites by now. Here's a quote from one of them:

    "...Articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune and public statements by emergency management chiefs in New Orleans make it clear that the Bush administration slashed the funding for the Corps of Engineers' projects to strengthen and raise the New Orleans levees and diverted the money to the Iraq war.

    Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune (June 8, 2004): "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm sorry, Massimo, but is there any way you can filter out the crap in the comments section? I'm most certainly in favour of free speech, but I don't think your blog should be hijacked by morons. I find Adrienne's patience quite endearing, but ultimately pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm sorry, Massimo, but is there any way you can filter out the crap in the comments section? I'm most certainly in favour of free speech, but I don't think your blog should be hijacked by morons. I find piero's condescension quite endearing, but ultimately pointless.

    I surely hope that this natural disaster focuses the attention of the public and our national leadership on the effects of global warming. Unfortunately, it would seem as if the recent events of the Gulf Coast aren't Bush's highest priority. While people were dying in floodwaters, he was doing this:
    http://americablog.blogspot.com/poorjudgement024mp.jpg

    My natural inclination is not to politicize stuff like this, but, recalling how the Republicans behaved after 9/11 I don't feel all that bad doing just that. The policies put into place by George Bush have undoubtedly weakened our country's ability to respond to domestic problems. In 2001 the part of FEMA's budget that was devoted to the levees in NO was cut by about 50% in order to pay for the Iraq war. A large % of the Louisiana National Guard is deployed in Iraq, along with a lot of equipment and vehicles which could have been used in a rescue effort. Never one to take responsibility for his actions, he told a blatant lie this morning on Good Morning America during an interview with Diane Sawyer. He claimed that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of those levees". This is totally false, various agencies knew about the problems with the levees for years. If Bush won't even own up to how his fiscal and foreign policies negatively impacted this situation, I don't see him as willing to acknowledge the role that global warming played, either.

    Bush has become a lame duck earlier in his second term than any president prior. It started when his SS proposals went nowhere, then public sentiment turned against the war, now we have gas over $3. Stick a fork in him, he's done. I don't expect any progress on the environment or, frankly, any other issues of importance for the remainder of his term. The Democrats, for all their failings, have put up candidates in the past two presidential elections with solid environmental records. My hope is that they capitalize on the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans to take back Congress in '06 and the presidency in '08. However, having a Democrat in the White House is no guarantee on environmental issues. After all, it was Clinton who first refused to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty. It will take pressure from the public to get anything meaningful done, no matter which party holds the reins.

    As a student of economics I'm very interested in how prices can work as a signaling mechanism, and how people respond to incentives. There may actually be an upside in $4/gal gas prices, if it gets people to start thinking about our country's over-reliance on oil. Since it's a finite resource and it's clear that it's use is contributing to global warming it's essential that we come up with alternate sources of energy, and a better solution to our transportation needs than 2 SUVs per household. Better to start building support for alternate fuel sources now than 20 yrs from now when it will really be too late.

    -mjrmjr

    ReplyDelete
  13. Piero

    Dissenting opinions work somewhat analogous to friction ... without em, progress can't realistically be measured or understood.

    But in my estimation, one should always wonder about persons who think that economic problems, natural disasters and social issues are irrefutably "the other political parties" fault.

    Such a position is pointless and logically inconsistent with reality.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wholeheartedly agree about the importance of dissenting opinions. As someone who is ultimately a utilitarian, I agree with John Stuart Mill when he said that(I'm paraphrasing here, perhaps poorly) without poor or incorrect ideas to test your own against, you'll never know whether you're right or wrong. Or you may find that you're the own who possesses incorrect ideas. Either way, you'll never know unless dissent is permitted and even encouraged.

    First, I freely admit that a lot of what happens in this world is totally beyond the realm of politics or political parties. Second, it's obvious to anyone who read my posts where my biases lie. However, as it stands today, Sept 1, 2005, one party controls all three branches of the U.S. Federal Govt. That party is the Republican party. When looking to assign political blame, I look to the party in power.

    In retrospect I think the Clinton years were pretty good but when he was in office I was very critical of many of his decisions. No politician gets a pass in my book simply for being a Democrat. I direct you to the portion of my previous post in which I criticized Clinton for not signing on to Kyoto and noting that even with a Dem in power, it's ultimately up to the people to force change through. I hold every politician to the same standard. Might I further add that it was the owner of this blog and not myself who first brought up politics in the context of this recent natural disaster?

    You have two posts on this thread; in one you either misunderstood or blatantly mischaracterize my views on this matter and in the other you hurled a gratuitous ad hominem attack against another poster. *I* will never call for someone's posts to be "filtered" but I will request that you quit replying if you have nothing of substance to add.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "..in the other you hurled a gratuitous ad hominem attack against another poster."

    Which comment?

    Would be surprised if I did what you suggested here.


    The Left's usual problem with the Right seems to be that most expect the individual in charge (especially if they happen to be conservative) to fix the world's social issues.

    And why? Worries, fears, guilt, over the rest of the world's possible feelings of class envy - what is it really?

    It's also a puzzle to me that if the US does go to war, or even happens to show up on foreign soil at all, any and all poverty, tribal disputes instantly become the product of our interventionism. ??? Very strange that this should nearly always be true.

    Sometimes instead, eons of ill managed resources and diplomatic relationships (not necessarily by any gov but their own) may have placed that people group in the position that they were in.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Piero, I'm referring to the 11th comment in this thread, posted by you at 7:17pm in which, having added nothing of substance to the discussion yourself, you refer to another poster as a "moron".

    While it's folly to think that the government can "make everything better" in any and all situations, it's not at all unreasonable to expect that our government ought to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to a natural disaster on our own soil.

    The only point I'm trying to make with regards to Iraq is that the limited resources which we possess have been misallocated. Had the budget cuts to FEMA not been made they would be better equipped to respond. Were the LA Nat'l Guard soldiers not thousands of miles away, they' be better able to respond.

    Even a country as rich as ours has limited resources. It is up to our elected officials to employ these resources in a wise manner. It is clear to me that they have not done so.

    -mjrmjr

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mjrmjr,

    I think you are getting two posters confused.

    Cal is the one who posted "The Left's usual problem with the Right seems to be that most expect the individual in charge (especially if they happen to be conservative) to fix the world's social issues."

    Piero is the poster who apparently wants the censorship of Cal's posts.

    Good posts, mjrmjr.

    ReplyDelete
  18. cal-
    As adrienne pointed out I got the posts mixed up. I must have thought that your post that I responded to was a 2nd one from piero. So, my mistake on that, I guess I'm not used to the formatting of this blog; I'll have to be more careful in the future.

    -mjrmjr

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, I thought Piero & - mjrmjr were the same individual too.

    I guess if you (whom ever you are) were referring to the eleventh comment; it was not directed at me anyway. Disregard the political meanderings then.

    cal
    (shall try to sign my "name" from now on)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Even some Catholics are getting into Apocalyptic mode.

    One priest in Canada thinks that the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in various places is a key sign of the coming end of the world.

    Boy, the Xtian god sure has a big grudge against gay people, doesn't he?

    -A

    ReplyDelete
  21. First, an apology. I should not have resorted to insults. It's just that when tradedy strikes I get extremely frustrated by nonsensical attempts not only to link natural disasters to a deity's will, but to justify that will by claiming that somehow we are responsible for pissing the deity off. I was especially frustrated by Cal's post: do you really think your god would kill thousands of innocent people, many of them children, just to prove a point? Would you, if you were God Almighty, see fit to destroy thousands of your offspring because some other of your children don't behave as expected? I know you will answer something on the lines of "Well, we cannot possibly know God's motives, because we are so imperfect, so I don't have an answer; but since God is perfect there must be an answer, unfathomable though it may be". Yet when trying to prove the existence of God, believers don't shrink from rational arguments: a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, etc. So why is it that when trying to explain calamities believers always end up dismissing rationality as "the wrong way to approach the fundamental questions" or something to that effect? If you were consistent, you would just stay silent about God, because you cannot possibly know anything at all about it/he/she/whatever. Consistently, you could not even claim to believe in it/he/she/whatever. How could you believe in something you cannot possibly know anything about?

    ReplyDelete
  22. piero wrote:

    "do you really think your god would kill thousands of innocent people, many of them children, just to prove a point?"

    Trouble is, Cal's deity (the "Biblical" one) doesn't really believe in human innocence. Nor does he have much sympathy for human suffering, especially when he's causing it as part of a "lesson" to humanity (see the book of Job).

    The OT is full of horrible mass killings that Cal's god either orders or performs in a fit of pique. In light of this, why should we be surprised, then, at the stuff Cal is spouting on here?

    What gets me is when Xtians tell each other "Just remember, God is in charge," when tragedy strikes. I gather that Xtians are supposed to find this to be a comforting thought. But why? After all, the Xtian deity was allegedly in charge when 9/11 happened, when Katrina struck, during the San Francisco earthquake, at the height of the Black Plague, you name it.

    For my part, I like to respond to cal's posts not because I think cal will change his mind, but in the hope that any Xtian lurkers out there nourishing a grain of doubt will maybe read my posts and start to inquire further and doubt a little more. That's how my own de-conversion started. As Darrow said, "Doubt is the beginning of wisdom."

    --Adrienne

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Trouble is, Cal's deity (the "Biblical" one) doesn't really believe in human innocence. Nor does he have much sympathy for human suffering,"

    And so suffering, as an idea, is not "relative", like other secularist values? Why not?

    There are in this cause and effect universe various elements of life, even if some are difficult, that we can always count on. But if God doesn't exist, mind you, humanity is 100% responsible for all the suffering you see right now, today.

    Is humanism up for all that? With your definitions of innocence and guilt, there just isn't a lot of wiggle room if one can't blame a deity or his followers.

    For future ref: Not that it matters and sorry to confuse or disappoint, but I am actually just a girl, adrienne.

    "cal" is short for a full name.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cal, in a universe without god humans aren't responsible 100%. Natural disasters aren't human made (at least until recently, since global warming may in fact be responsible for things like Katrina), and even much human suffering is hardly the fault of intentional evil (more often than not it is the result of circumstances and/or stupidity). And for the part we are responsible for, well, then, we can do something about it!

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Cal, in a universe without god humans aren't responsible 100%."

    In a literal humanist universe, it has to be that way. And from a progressivism pov, one would think that you would actually be working towards the model of taking MORE responsibility for who we are and what we have become, then less. This model for human responsibility ought to be consistent, M, if you imagine it should be taken seriously. It can't merely be borrowed from the Christian world view just for the purpose of critical idea mongering and then abandoned at will


    "(at least until recently, since global warming may in fact be responsible for things like Katrina)"

    A lot of sane and even very secular scientists think that the warming we observe is just part of a usual pattern that the earth experiences on a regular basis. I don't doubt that technology has its effects on nature at large. But it's certainly not rational to attribute a huge % of the factors to the US only. One can think of more then a handful of countries that produce quite a bit of technological and industrial products, and have very little (far less than we do) controls on the by product. Mexico & India, I’m certain of.

    It's all good and fine if you merely want to see the US punished, just because it seems right to you. But you know as well as I that then you have not really addressed the problem in a complete and reasonable fashion, in a way that really takes care of all the pollution that the whole world leaves out there. The world’s addiction to consumption isn’t just the US’s problem. The US is an largely an immigrant country. Therefore WE are about as innocent, guilty, arrogant or humble as the rest of the world.


    “and even much human suffering is hardly the fault of intentional evil (more often than not it is the result of circumstances and/or stupidity).”

    But stupidity is mostly intentional if it comes from faith interested persons? What about that matter of Palestinians and Jews. How do you decide what just stupidly and what is intentional harm caused against a person or people group? I personally think that both parties can be wrong.

    Instead of just putting a firm foot on the neck of envy and jealously between people groups, if one aids in the support of an idea that a people group who did not work for what they (can) have, can have what they have not worked for, you are asking for a lot more of the same. I.E. increased levels of envy and jealously.

    Interventionism then, really must do a whole lot more than follow the strongest and most vocal of people groups and distribute rights in accordance to the prevailing feelings.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cal wrote:

    "[Cal, in a universe without god humans aren't responsible 100%.]

    In a literal humanist universe, it has to be that way."

    This statement makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Care to defend it, cal?

    "It can't merely be borrowed from the Christian world view just for the purpose of critical idea mongering and then abandoned at will."

    What makes you think M is borrowing from the "Xtian" world view at all, Cal? In fact, your misconception that M is borrowing from an Xtian worldview (in which a god is ultimately responsible for everything) may be the source of erroneous statements like the earlier one about humanist universes.

    And btw, cal, "Adrienne" is my real first name.

    --A

    ReplyDelete
  27. >>>[Cal, in a universe without god humans aren't responsible 100%.]

    >>In a literal humanist universe, it has to be that way."

    >This statement makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Care to defend it, cal?

    Good question by Adrienne: what's your (apparently very peculiar) definition of humanism, Cal?

    The short definition present in the American Humanist Association:

    Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

    So, considering this (and other material available at http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/), it seems a bit far fetched to conclude that"literal humanism" (whatever that be) would require us to take responsibility even for natural disasters like earthquakes or asteroid collisions, etc.

    So?

    J

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's real simple. If the meaning of suffering is not relative, neither is the meaning of whose responsibility the suffering is attributed to. One is meaningful only if the other is.

    OR the meaning of suffering is relative, like varied other secular values (today’s it's this, tomorrow that) and we don't really pin responsibility on anyone.

    But that would be preposterous.

    In a world that God really has no activity in whatsoever, who must ultimately responsible for hardship?

    >Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.<

    Those sound like nice and reasonable words, but if you think about it "progressivism" for all it's high-minded sounding aspirations in fact requires far less of us on personal level. As in the case of the meaning of suffering, one can compare it up against the consistent method of assessing the worth of ideas, or the one merely that seems (feels) best to us.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cal, please explain the following:

    * why you think anyone or anything needs to ultimately be responsible for suffering? Why can't suffering just happen by accident?

    * what you think the alleged "meaning" of suffering is, or why suffering must have some sort of meaning at all?

    --Adrienne

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't mind your questions, A, you know I'll tackle nearly anything. But someone with a wit of common sense ought to honestly address this question first.

    'In a world that God really has no activity in whatsoever, who must ultimately responsible for hardship?'

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cal, you asked:

    "'In a world that God really has no activity in whatsoever, who must ultimately responsible for hardship?"

    My answer: Essentially the same as Massimo's. It all depends.

    Some hardship is caused directly or indirectly by the actions of others. In that case, it is logical to assign responsibility to the person or persons who caused the hardship.

    However, if hardship is caused accidentally, by an impersonal force such as nature, then there is no logical reason or requirement to hold anyone or anything responsible for causing it.

    My question for you: why should anyone seek to establish responsibility for the hardship caused by an impersonal, non-sentient force (say, an earthquake). Why not just accept this type of hardship for what it is: namely, an accident for whom no living creature can be blamed?

    --Adrienne

    ReplyDelete
  32. "However, if hardship is caused accidentally, by an impersonal force such as nature, then there is no logical reason or requirement to hold anyone or anything responsible for causing it."

    Not even GW?

    "My question for you: why should anyone seek to establish responsibility for the hardship caused by an impersonal, non-sentient force (say, an earthquake). Why not just accept this type of hardship for what it is: namely, an accident for whom no living creature can be blamed?"

    And again: Not even GW?

    My sister and I have both been working with refugees in our respective cities, but she much more than I. If you knew the things I know, seen what I have seen, you would understand that there is something highly unusual about this whole situation. And I really can't explain this one to you, A. You'll have to sincerely want to know what it all means for yourself.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cal wrote:

    "Not even GW?"

    If Katrina was caused by global warming, then GW certainly contributed to it. I would still say that he's not 100% responsible, though.

    And as you pointed out in an earlier post, there are reputable scientists out there who say this is just a completely natural 20-yr cycle of especially bad hurricanes.

    So there's no way to tell for sure if human folly contributed to Katrina. Human and especially governmental folly did contribute to the degree of damage inflicted by Katrina, however.

    But as much as I dislike Dubya, I still don't hold him responsible for earthquakes. I specifically used an earthquake as an example in my earlier post just for that reason.

    "And I really can't explain this one to you, A. You'll have to sincerely want to know what it all means for yourself."

    So you are dodging the question with the cornered theist's commonly employed answer of "It's a mystery"/"non-believers wouldn't understand." Which means you can't provide a real answer.

    Too bad, I was really curious about what the answer to that particular question was going to be.

    --Adrienne

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm curious too. But there are just certain things in life that you have to have some desire of your own, so that your heart is open enough to accurately hear the intent of what is being said and not find fault with absolutely everything that is placed before you.

    That's just the way it is. Right now my duty as the wife of the sheriff's dept. chaplain, is to help some people who can accept my humble efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "That's just the way it is."

    No, that's just the way you *want* "it" to be.

    --Adrienne

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'd call this whole thing 'highly unusual' too. Highly unusual in kind of a My Pet Goat sort of a way. Prior to the year 2001, the American public was used to seeing their president spring into action when the nation faced a catastrophe.

    Responsibility for the cause of Katrina itself is a topic best left to scientists who study climate change. However, you don't need any specialized training to analyze where responsibility *after* the hurricane lies. Bush screwed this up badly.

    http://www.fwmj.com/plex/media/thelegendaryko/George%20Bush%20Doesnt%20Care%20About%20Black%20People.mp3


    mjrmjr

    ReplyDelete
  37. Your apparent preference for a particular political party doesn't change the fact that this was a remarkably complicated situation.

    How would you feel about having to offer aid to a state, city or county where most of the politicians would take an opposing view just because it was YOU making the statement?

    Think it through.

    Political activism by either party is clearly complicit in the ineffective ends and means you have observed through this crisis.


    cal

    ReplyDelete
  38. Wow lot of comments. Mine is on the origional blog not Gods deity. I am not some conservitive that thinks global warming is some farce and need not be researched. But I am tired of people blaming every natural disaster on Global warming. Major hurricanes hit back in the 1600s. Guess what, they just said "Fuck that was one hell of a storm" Not "was that from global warming?" Blaming humans for hurricane katrina because of global warming with no evidence that global warming actually caused the hurricane ( keep in mind I am not denying that humans cause global warming, I just feel there is lack of evidence at this time that the warming isn't natural cycle of the planet earth) is no better than blaming humans bad behavior and saying it was Gods wrath. Show me one shred of evidence that global warming caused the hurricane. Every Ice age was preceeded by global warming.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.