What does it mean to be politically correct? I usually know when to bite my tongue, but I also slip up pretty frequently. I'm not talking about being deragotory or mean or insensitive. I'm talking about expressing my thoughts on politics. I have this uncanny habit of bringi
ng it up at parties. Dennis LOVES it when I do that.
ng it up at parties. Dennis LOVES it when I do that. According to Wikipedia, Political correctness (PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups. If we're all adults here, is it unreasonable to think that we could have a conversation about politics without offending someone? Well, it would be possible if people weren't so dang emotional about politics. Why? Is it because people often take the same political views as their parents or their family? And people's families are never wrong? Or people never differ from their parents views on certain topics? C'mon.
Whatever the reason for the strong emotional tie to politics, we need to get over it. It's not about this party or that candidate. It's about educating ourselves on the issues at stake and discussing facts. Let me say that again: facts. Let me say it louder: FACTS. Did you get that? If someone else has more knowledge, newer facts or figures than I do, please share them with me. Make me more intelligent and please share what you know. I know a little - enough to be dangerous - but I'm the first to admit when I don't know the answer and/or when I need to do my homework on a topic. I want to learn and be able to speak intelligently about politics because like it or not, it has an enormous impact on my life. And yours. And our children.
So, it's in our best interest to talk about politics. Simply asking the questions of a friend on why he or she believes something to be true is easy. Let me give some easy examples: "Why do you think that?" "Where did you get that information?" or, to be more blunt: "Prove it to me." Or, I'm particularly fond of "Show me why/how" (it has something to do with being from Missouri).
What I'm asking is this: Let's be brave and not be PC. Instead of worrying about being politically correct, let's have some political conversations. It's possible to do both at the same time.
Let's start by learning about the "global warming" nonsense.
8 comments:
Oh, I love it. Sound, reasoned arguments, supported by logic and level-headedness - but you just had to get a big "F You" in at the very end.
Awesome.
Um...
WASHINGTON, Jul 22, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/ (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
"Global warming and energy use have been on the minds of many Americans for quite some time. Recognizing the importance of these issues, the governing body of the American Physical Society announced its position on Climate Change on November 18, 2007. The Society's position has not changed, and APS remains engaged in this issue that has considerable international consequences.
"APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed.
"Online reports erroneously implied an APS policy change. These reports did not include the disclaimer, 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum,' which was attached to the newsletter article."
ok. good information. am i correct to say that we could be in a natural cycle of global warming? one that would occur with or without the release of CO2 and other man-made products? global warming is in itself a natural phenomena.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
We're not even in a cycle of global warming anymore, actually. It's been over for about seven years.
Oh I don't doubt any of that - just wanted to point out that the APS is not endorsing the claims made on their behalf.
I guess the main take away is whether or not we're in a global warming period, there is obvious much debate on the topic. Why - and yes, I'm really asking this question - doesn't the media present information on both sides? You never hear that it might be a natural phenomenon or that it might not be as bad as the dooms-day scientists (who are probably funded by the gov) make it out to be. I guess I'm not clear why the media isn't fair to the topic and leaves the most important information out of the conversation. ?
The "other side" has done a bang-up PR job. Notice that about a year ago they started calling doubters "deniers," creating a link to the obviously crazy Holocaust deniers. Basically, if you don't agree with them completely, you're a fringe lunatic - and the media has run with that, because it's easy.
If they were more sure of themselves, though, they wouldn't go absolutely bats*** insane when you suggested they just might be wrong.
so you think that the gov has some great marketing scheme to scare the uninformed american people so that they will vote for MORE government control and less personal accountability? the more i learn, the more upset I get about this lack of responsibility and how it costs US money (taxes)!
From my favorite talk-show hosts website:
CONFESSIONS FROM A FORMER GREENHOUSE SCIENTIST
David Evans used to be a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. He spent six years with the Australian government building models about the influence of carbon emissions on our atmosphere. This was the Aussie who wrote the carbon accounting model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
Well .. guess what Dr. Evans is saying today? Since he started working in the office in 1999, "new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming." By the year 2007, the evidence is conclusive: carbon played only a minor role in recent global warming and was not the main cause.
Dr. Evans put together some basic facts for the public and government officials in regards to global warming. Here is just a taste.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
Keeping that last point in mind, Al Gore still preaches in his movie that the ice cores are the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. Dr. Evans says, "In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion."
So instead, what do we get? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990 and yet there is no evidence that carbon emissions are actually causing global warming! It's a fraud. A fraud to enrich Gore, and a fraud designed to form the basis for repeated attacks on capitalism and free market economies.
Would someone out there please wake up?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Post a Comment