"When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything" ~ G. K. Chesterton.
The left has its "end of the world" type of theology, or rightly called, eschatology. I have dealt with this before, it will be added at the end, however, this "Swine Flu" example is fitting. Listen to Joe Biden and his "mania" about something which we are being told today by experts is nothing but a regular flew season (in fact, even less deadly than normal seasons of the flu):
What did Joe do a couple of days after this interview? He hopped on a train to go home after his work day (costing us tax-payers another $250). This seems to be a theme in Washington... and as of late, this has been a problem on both sides of the isle -- although still much more prominent on the left. That is, expecting the public to fall in line with mandates, and the mandaters living above what they expect the general public to do. this is elitist. So while Gore goes around the country and world telling people how to live a life which he himself doesn't. A prime example of this is summed up in the cartoon below:
Do you understand? People are traveling around the world saying New York and Florida are going to be under water and it is now too late to do anything about it! Another figure is saying do not take public or private transportation or even put your kids in school. What Christian with influence like the current Vice President or past Vice President is traveling the world or getting on CNN and calling for drastic measure or preaching that the world will end because of man's actions?
Christians do not even thing in the worst portion of Armageddon that the world will end. Postmillennialist, amillenialist, or premillinialist Christians preach a time of a thousand year reign of Christ after He (not us) sets things right. Democrats are saying "let US set things straight" in order for the world not to end. This secular proposition by the left has come to fruition in 166 to 244-million people being murdered by utopians just in the 20th century alone (more than the entire history of all deaths by religions since recorded history). Doesn't that frighten you a bit, that politicians say in order to stop the world from coming to an end you must vote for their legislation pumped down the tubes by organizations that the co-founder of Grean Peace say are:
“I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology…. many environmentalists are showing signs of elitism, left-wingism, and downright eco-fascism. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism. The public is left trying to figure out what is reasonable and what is not.”
I don't want that pill thank you very much. Yet here we are: Cap n' Trade, Swine Flu, Global Warming, etc. Pills being pushed down the throats of the common man. This common man may wake up with a Biden in his and her living room one day controlling even your thermostat! The "Right" isn't telling people of same-sexes not to be a couple. In fact, here in California they have the exact same right in Civil Unions that my wife and I have: hospital visits, tax breaks, health-care options from employers, and the like. But that is not waht the whole thing is about. However, they will tell us that they don't want the government telling them how to live... exept about how much water to flush in their toilet, how much water can come out of their shower head, what type of light bulb to use in the privacy of one's home, or now even how low or high to set a thermostat. That isn't government intrusion... no... that is liberals trying to save the planet for their utopin dreams -- that will never come to fruition, mainly due to the Left's view of man and his nature (the below is from a larger paper I wrote in a response to friend who was going to San Francisco University of California):
In many cases, “modern liberal” positions are based on the idea of tolerance, the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases. This in turn is based on moral relativism, the idea that morality is relative to the individual and the situation (which distinguishes it from “classical liberalism”). Again, what is right or wrong for you may not be right or wrong for others. As a result, you cannot tell others not to have an abortion, not to look at or publish pornography, or not to live by an “alternative lifestyle.” Educational environments must be “value free,” there must be no restrictions on sexual and artistic freedom, and according to some, even activities such as recreational drug use should be decriminalized. Because there are no absolute values, each person must discover his own morality, a process taught in our schools as “values clarification.”
The liberal contradiction lies in the fact that every liberal position claims to be morally correct and objectively true. It is right to allow abortions and wrong to oppose them. Tolerance (in its modern definition) is good, intolerance is bad. Children should be allowed to grow up in a value-free environment; parents should not impose their own values. Modern liberalism takes a moral stance on every issue, but it undermines its own foundation by claiming that there is no moral absolute or guide to adhere to.
To put it into simple terms, yet once more, when a liberal tells you that you cannot tell other people what to do, he or she is contradicting himself by telling you what to do! And there is another side to the liberal contradiction. While many liberal positions are based on tolerance and complete individual freedom, other liberal positions are based on strict authoritarianism.
According to contemporary liberalism, the common good (what Rousseau called “the general will”) necessitates the suppression of individual rights when it comes to “saving” the environment, creating a more “equitable distribution” of wealth, achieving “equality” between races and sexes in all walks of life, and enforcing a strict separation of church and state. Paradoxically, that same “common good” takes a back seat to individual freedoms when it comes to the detrimental effects of: pornography and sexual freedom, reduced police power and criminal punishment, or drug use, or firearm mandates, etc..
Let me hasten to add that I too am for tolerance, equal rights, and ending unjust discrimination. I too am for freedom of speech, artistic freedom, academic freedom, and the separation of church and state. I too am for protecting the environment and helping the underprivileged. But I am for these things because I believe in the tenants of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, not because I reject these absolutes.
If I were to reject the idea of moral truths, what possible motivation (moral duty) could I have to champion these or any other causes? More important, on what basis could I hope to persuade others of the importance of these causes? It is inconsistent to claim to be concerned about rights while rejecting the moral foundation from which rights are derived.
The rejection of one’s own moral foundation leads one to be not only immoral, but also illogical. It leads to positions that are inconsistent with themselves and each other (self-deleting). It leads to outcomes that directly counter one’s original intention and that threaten one’s own goals. It is unfortunate for the liberal agenda, but the liberal contradiction poses just such a threat. And it is not a threat from “conservatives” or from any outside source – it is a threat from within. Because of the rejection of the moral foundation for liberalism, liberalism is failing to protect the rights it claims to cherish. “What is is?” Please Mr. President!
Hypocrisy in the left is much more rampant today than any religious figure that may be "out there" in the world today.
The Politics Of "Pandemics"
Sunday, May 03, 2009
“Congratulations to all you American media morons, you’ve got your country worked-up into a frenzy…everybody knows that swine flu goes away just as quickly as regular flu, but for you its all about audiences and profits, so you’ll hype this for all it’s worth, wont ya?”
The talk show caller was so enraged at me, he had begun slurring his words as he spit them out in rapid-fire succession. It was last Friday, May 1, and I was making another one of my semi-regular appearances as an interview guest on a popular afternoon drive radio talk show in British Columbia (the show hosts and I have a good rapport, as they jokingly refer to me as “almost their favorite American” ).
After the caller spewed his venom, one of the co-hosts deferred to me, saying “Austin, your response?”
I pointed out that President Obama and Secretary Napolitano from the Department of Homeland Security had chosen to speak repeatedly about the “swine flu pandemic.” Never mind the fact that out of a population of roughly 304 million U.S. citizens, less than 150 cases of swine flu have been identified in only 19 of the 50 states. No, no, forget that. Our government officials were “taking care of us.”
To illustrate my point, here’s a fun little excerpt from a news report filed on Monday April 27th - - which was oh-so-many press conferences ago - - by the McClatchy-Tribune news service:
“Faced with the global outbreak…the Obama administration has been relying on a member of the president's Cabinet with almost no background in medicine - Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security. Over the past two days, Napolitano has been a constant presence on television screens and in news reports, urging calm, offering reassurance, laying out the facts and the government's response to the spreading outbreak.”
That was the “news” of a week ago, when Napolitano had already become a “constant presence” in the media.
So who, precisely, is trying to “hype this thing for all it’s worth?”
And by the way, the governmental hype doesn’t begin and end with Obama and company. It was President George W. Bush himself who, in 2006, held a press conference to announce the launching of a new governmental website devoted entirely to information about the “bird flu pandemic.” Likewise, Bush’s Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff noted at the time that "the avian (bird) flu bears the potential for societal disruption of unprecedented proportion.”
At that time, the Bush gang was trying to recover from all the blame assigned to them a few months earlier for Hurricane Katrina. Recall that, in the aftermath of that disaster, it was open season for Bush-bashing, complete with Rev. Louis Farrakahn insinuating that the “white” President Bush had bombed New Orleans' protective levees so as to deliberately flood black neighborhoods.
So Bush had a political reason to “not waste a good crisis” back in 2006. And what might be the Obama gang’s reason to utilize this current crisis for their own benefit?
Well, let’s start with Ms. Napolitano. Perhaps she needed to become a “constant presence” in the media, because a week earlier she had people demanding her resignation after her announcement about pro-life activists and U.S. military veterans being on her list of “terror threats.”
Initially, when that news broke, Napolitano insisted that she “stood by” her report, but eventually ended up apologizing to a veterans group for her assertions. So what better time to be all over the national news media, “urging calm,” “offering reassurance,” and so forth? The “crisis” was certainly not wasted.
I must note here that, prior to the enraged phone caller spitting at me on the Canadian talk show last Friday, my discussions with the program hosts had nothing to do with “swine flu.” I was actually being interviewed about President Obama’s declaration that America’s interrogation of terror suspects before he took office had amounted to “torture.”
I had pointed out that the President Obama who declared interrogation to be “torture,” was the same President Obama who 2 weeks earlier had ordered Navy snipers to kill 3 terrorists holding Americans hostage at sea. Those terrorists (we called them “pirates”) didn’t have the great blessing of being taken in to custody, or being held at Guantanamo Bay Prison, or being “water boarded.” They were simply shot to death, at the order of President Obama.
My point on the show was that no President can allow terrorists - - neither teen age boys hijacking a ship, nor adults plotting to blow-up an American city - - to bully the United States. President Obama had made the tough decision, the right decision, just as President Bush had. Yet today, President Obama has so much to gain, personally, by “hyping” his indignation over a previous President’s decisions.
I understand people’s skepticism about “the media.” But we should all be a bit more skeptical about the intentions of politicians.
Dennis Prager makes mention that global warming has become more of a religion to the secular left in search for something bigger than them. Vic Boccard concurs when he said, “Now, global warming has not only become the mantra of the left, it has become almost a religion of this ilk — a large, end-of-the-world cult.” One author makes passing mention of this comparing it to the eschatologies found in Judaism and Christianity.
We all know of “end-time stories in religion... in fact I have a pet theory herein that is based in classic religious eschatology. Famines, weather, wars, pestilence all are found in the Bible. Not only in the Bible though, but also in secular ideology in regards to Global Warming. For instance, some “end-time statements by secularists.
Doom and Gloom! Scare mongering... “shock and awe” in print form. I will some generally accepted models in regards to mankind’s future if anthropogenic global warming true:
- Regional Catastrophe moderate-case global warming
Global civilization not eliminated, but regional civilizations effectively destroyed; millions to hundreds of millions dead, but large parts of humankind retain current social and technological conditions. Chance of humankind recovery: excellent. Species local to the catastrophe likely die off, and post-catastrophe effects (refugees, fallout, etc.) may kill more. Chance of biosphere recovery: excellent.
- Human Die-Back extreme-case global warming
Global civilization set back to pre- or low-industrial conditions; several billion or more dead, but human species as a whole survives, in pockets of varying technological and social conditions. Chance of humankind recovery: moderate. Most non-human species on brink of extinction die off, but most other plant and animal species remain and, eventually, flourish. Chance of biosphere recovery: excellent.
- Civilization Extinction worst-case global warming
Global civilization destroyed; millions (at most) remain alive, in isolated locations, with ongoing death rate likely exceeding birth rate. Chance of humankind recovery: slim. Many non-human species die off, but some remain and, over time, begin to expand and diverge. Chance of biosphere recovery: good.
This theory about anthropogenic global warming is nothing more than humanity reaching out to their own pet theories in a false belief that they are [the pet theories] actually bigger than they are [themselves]. Pascal once said that people try to fill that God shaped vacuum. I agree.