1) The fact that you are talking in black-white terms and calling Obama a hard-line socialist is weird (article from an actual socialist giving a few reasons why Obama isn’t http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html), especially when the article you linked is explicitly talking about his global warming czar. And as the article mentions, she served as the/an administrator of the EPA under Clinton… who was as moderate as they come. The USA didn’t turn into Soviet Russia, did it?

Was Bush a hard-line fascist? They both operate(d) within a framework of a mixed economy, making it pretty darn hard to push for an extreme in either direction. If you think otherwise, I would recommend taking some poli sci courses at your local community college on the cheap.

And you completely ignored an important question when you reference the dollar eroding in value — is that necessarily a bad thing? Not everyone even agrees on that core principle for our current economy.

2) “Despite the recent exposure of the global warming movement as being a fraud”

Have you looked at the list of “scientists” who don’t agree with global warming? It’s pretty funny, hence the quotes are very intentional. Another interesting fact many people don’t know is that global cooling can be a symptom of global warming (http://www.livescience.com/environment/041217_sealevel_rise.html).

And whether or not the world is warming, is pollution a *good* thing? I don’t think you will find anyone who thinks that. Wasting finite resources (oil, coal) is definitively not sustainable. The pollution affects the health of millions, if not billions, of people across the world.

All moves towards a more green and more sustainable economy are steps in the right direction. I think that, and I’m not a socialist

I like the personal finance articles, but the dramatization of current events is kind of a turn off.

Wanted to put my two cents in!

MLR

For the record my readership numbers almost always drop a wee bit whenever I give harsh opinions like I did this week, but I refuse to let that dictate what I write here. If you decide to stop reading me, I do understand – I know its tough to read dissenting opinions at times. But I use this blog as my forum to vent. If I kept a middle-of-the-road vanilla tone I would certainly have more readers, but I would be a very frustrated blogger! LOL

Let me try to respectfully address some of your points. Again, MLR, I appreciate the dialog!

1) Remember that Clinton started down a much harder left-wing path when he was first elected. Clinton’s first major agenda item was moving America towards socialized medicine. The only reason he became a moderate was because his political life depended on it after the Republicans were convincingly swept into power with their massive wins during the elections of 1994 on the unpopularity of Clinton’s policies. For example, that welfare reform bill he signed into law – that was part of the Republican “Contract with America.” Too many other examples to cite here, but you get my point, I trust. As with the article referring to an Obama czar, I think guilt by association definitely applies here. Obama also appointed avowed communist Van Jones to be his Green Czar; I find it hard to believe that a true moderate would ever agree to such an appointment.

2) First off, let me qualify my next remarks by saying I consider myself to be a scientist. The real debate is not whether global warming can result in global cooling – of course it can – but whether or not the global warming that had occurred between 1980 and 1998 was primarily a result of human activity. The global warming activists (now calling themselves “climate change” activists because the data irrefutably shows that temps have been declining since 1998 despite an increase in CO2 levels over the same period) would like us all to believe that humans – more specifically capitalist societies – are the primary driver. In fact, climate change is primarily caused by sun spot activity and several other non-human events. I’ve stated on this page many times before that the movement is really more about destroying capitalism and pushing socialism than about “saving the planet.”

You ask , “Is pollution a good thing?” Of course it’s not. But then, we have to qualify what you consider to be pollution. It is no coincidence that, with the current administration now in office, the EPA has now declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant; the same stuff us humans exhale with our every breath and plants “inhale.” Carbon dioxide, the same stuff that is critical for life to even take root. It is absurd.

By the way, I have no problem with green technologies when they make economic sense and address a true environmental concern – and I’m a libertarian.

Thanks again for writing, MLR. I only wish more people would engage me if they disagree with my irritating opinions – maybe they will over time.