Originally posted on mykeystrokes.com:
The part I saw had Fox Business host John Stossel, author of No They Can’t: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed, moderating a panel in which he asked students this bit of political trivia: How often is the word “democracy” used in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence for that matter?
What came next was chilling. When students were given the correct answer – none – they cheered.
Stossel later explained why. These students, like the Founding Fathers, “understood that democracy may bring mob rule – tyranny of a majority. So the Constitution focuses on restricting government – to secure individual liberty.”
Putin invokes stand-your-ground law to justify invasion of Crimea. Russian citizens of Ukraine feel threatened and that justifies his invasion where they will shoot first and ask questions later. If it’s OK in Florida, it’s certainly OK in Crimea.
Members of Congress take an oath to support the Constitution; doctors take the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, and commentators at FOX News take the hypocritical oath to harm this country for money. How can they live with their consciences, if they have any?
As defined by Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, consensus is:
“broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group.”
Recently on Meet the Press, Marsha Blackburn attempted to demonstrate that consensus on climate change does not exist by citing a few dissenters, scientists probably financed directly or indirectly by oil, gas or coal interests. However, not all scientific opinions have equal weight. Only those scientists active in the science of climate and who publish their findings in peer-reviewed publications are qualified to have valid opinions. Adding an advanced degree to one’s name has no bearing at all if the specialty studied differs from climate science.
The debate over climate change today reminds me greatly of the debate over the danger of cigarettes. The cigarette manufacturers denied the link between their product and cancer as long as they could. The difference is that cigarette manufacturers could count on new customers for their product as the old customers died off. That is not true of climate change, aided by the actions of man. We have only one earth, and if we make it uninhabitable for humanity, there will not be another to replace it.