Panicked Conservative Alleges Panic Over Climate: What A Panic!
The Journal Sentinel's in-house conservative columnist, Patrick McIlheran, says people supporting the adoption of climate change legislation now, including Gov. Jim Doyle and Pres. Barack Obama, are driving an "equation of panic."
He says this after alleging that the legislation would cause power prices "to leap," cost every Wisconsinite $1,000 in disposable annual income and bring about "harsher privations," while running up the cost of a car $1,000, and...and...would lead to "the undoing of the industrial revolution."
Jeepers: That sounds pretty panicky to me.
I only had ten credits of psychology as an undergrad, but if all that isn't a classic case of projection, will someone please weigh in on the comment section and set me straight?
5 comments:
Boo!
You scare too easy. You need to be more objective.
Grow up chicken little.
Maybe instead of psychology credits, if you had taken Economics; you would understand that businesses are nothing more (or less) than tax collectors for the government. Every single tax increase foisted onto business is ultimately passed to the consumer in for form of higher prices. If people are not keeping what they earn, they will not be spending as much thus the economy will shrink or at the least growth will stagnate which will in turn lead to reduced tax revenues for the same government that raised taxes to begin with.
So, remind me again, how telling the truth about tax implications is being panicky?
Today, newspapers around the world published an unprecedented common editorial addressing the grave climate crises. We in Milwaukee, on the other hand, get the pitiful bleating of Mr. McIlheran. Doesn't the MJS owe us more than this when it comes to opinion on one of the most serious subjects facing the world? Here is the world-wide editorial:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial
The MJS parrots owes us more about the Climate Hoax emails that got hacked! That is what they owe us, instead we get Tiger Woods.
How can take these scientists seriously when they flaunt the FOIA legislation of the UK and blatantly exclaim they will never release raw data for independent review. These "best and brightest" scientist even go as far as eviscerating peer reviews with a differing opinion. Where is the outrage over this conspiracy?
Where is the outrage over the missing raw data which is suppose to be the foundation of all their research?
Where is media when it comes to delving into the fact versus fiction surrounding the emails? Instead we get news of Tiger Woods.
There is a serious failure of modern journalism to look beyond the surface of a press release.
What ever happened to real investigative journalism when it comes to environmental topics? We see plenty about how much harm we are doing, but nothing about the sweeping changes and those effects over the last generation.
When was the last time we had a river on fire in this country? We have and are making great strides in our environmental stewardship.
If you listen most of the parrots who call themselves journalist, we have not changed one iota since Iron Eyes Cody made his famous "Crying Indian" TV commercial in 1971.
This is exactly why I've dropped my subscription to the MJS. People like Paddy Mack can run around flapping their wings (and their gums) however they like and it is not only printed as is, but nowhere on the opinion page or in the news section are his opinions challenged or refuted. It appears that Meister Mac IS entitled to his own facts, after all.
Of course Paddy is entitled to his own opinion, as well as the exercise of his free speech, but is he entitled to a weekly column of his opinions in the state's largest newspaper? We all have the same right to our opinion and exercise of free speech, but that doesn't obligate the newspaper to print them or the electronic media to broadcast them.
Other than being conservative and vocal about it, PM has no technical or professional expertise in a particular subject area, nor a journalism degree (that I'm aware of, OK) that would at least superficially bind him to some standards, nor any reporting experience that is the usual career path to an opinion column of one's own. (He was a graphic artist at the MJS until being catapulted to the editorial board . . . Not too much controversial in the graphic arts department except the old debate of serif vs non-serif fonts. . . . )
So why should anyone accept his opinion with anything other than the usual grain of salt? Even the MJS, in its current low-and-sinking-lower status, should be giving this guy the hook.
Post a Comment