During Obama's era there were always lots of conspiracy theories floating about, like the one that Obama was born in Africa that Trump promoted for years. But it used to be the conspiracy theories came from outside government. Since Donald Trump arrived in the White House the conspiracy theories seem to often begin in the White House.
I ask myself - why are Republicans currently so prone to conspiracy theories. Perhaps some of it is just calculated political expediency - such as the theory Michael Flynn was somehow set up by the Obama administration working in collusion with the FBI.
But then I started wondering if it could be because a some Republicans think that in ideological battles the ends justify means. So they cut corners and cheat to win. And since they do it they suspect other people must also be doing it - hence they always look for hidden conspiracies.
That led me to a really interesting wikipedia website that lists all the federal officers convicted of crimes back through history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
I did some computations starting from 2009.
Six of the folks listed on the Wikipedia list I classified as non-political crimes so did not include in the below computation - drugs or sex/relationship items. They include 1 Independant, 1 Democrat and 4 Republicans - most the Republicans were Judges.
During the Obama years members of Congress convicted of politically related crimes were pretty evenly split, 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. During the Trump years the only listed Democrat convicted is, ironically, Michael Flynn. Three Republican members of Congress have been convicted, but no Democrats. (As a passing note of interest we also now have another Republican member of Congress under investigation for insider trading for allegedly using information from Congressional hearings to decide to sell all his stock right before the crash.)
Including all the convictions on the list we have 1 Independent, 7 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
I am certainly not arguing this proves my theory, just throwing it out there because is interesting. Particularly that Michael Flynn was evidently a registered Democrat?
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Climate Change Hysterics and Deniers -Who to Support
The scientific notion burning of fossil fuels is accelerating global temperatures at an extraordinary rate that will cause massive disruption in our climate and life on this earth is, even to my unscientific mind, hugely complicated. Some are absolutely convinced the theory is true, others are equally convinced it is not. Our vote will determine which direction policy proceeds.
Who are we normal folk to believe as we decide how to vote?
Is Burning Fossil Fuels Causing Unprecedented Global Warming?
The fact that the majority of the scientific establishment supports the theory burning fossil fuels is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate that will change the climate rapidly is compelling. But history has demonstrated the scientific establishment sometimes is prone to groupthink that hinders advancing knowledge. You become a member of the establishment by building strong credentials, and often building strong credentials may be accomplished by adopting the theories of your mentors rather than challenging them. So we cannot blindly accept majority scientific views.
On the other hand the news reports of polar ice caps rapidly disintegrating, small pacific islands preparing to move their entire populations away because of rising sea levels, and New York city subways being filled with water after Hurricane Sandy, all seem consistent with the theory.
But the "Climate Deniers", folks who poo poo the theory, point out the earths climate has always been changing, getting warmer, then colder. A true fact. They argue what is happening is simply a natural process unrelated to burning fossil fuels.
So how do I make a decision if choosing for vote for one position or the other?
This problem is too complex to confidently predict the outcome. It would seem the best course is to be conservative. Look at the possible outcomes and choose the least catastrophic if we pursue the wrong course.
What happens if the climate deniers who poo poo the notion burning fossil fuels is overheating the planet, win the political argument so we continue relying on fossil fuels for energy? If down the road it becomes obvious the climate deniers were wrong the planet will be much hotter, the sea levels will have risen more rapidly, the climate in different parts of the planet will have changed to a degree it causes massive population dislocation and could undermine food production but the process will be so accelerated we will not be able to turn it around and change direction.
What happens if the folks who believe we need to stop overheating the planet win the argument and in the end are wrong? We will end up with a climate much more similar to what currently exist. We will pay more for energy in the meantime, and will need to be pretty clever about finding energy sources to replace fossil fuels. It will be an economic inconvenience, but it will reduce air pollution worldwide. It may slow development in the poorest countries for some period of time, but it may not as the poorest countries are finding ways to bypass old technology with new technology. It will probably not be a planet wide disaster.
Climate change is a vastly complex topic, but politics has turned it into a binary choice The world is not binary - both sides are making educated guesses. The consequences of being wrong seem much more dire if we chose the climate denier approach. We should be conservative and avoid the possibility of a more catastrophic outcome.
Who are we normal folk to believe as we decide how to vote?
Is Burning Fossil Fuels Causing Unprecedented Global Warming?
The fact that the majority of the scientific establishment supports the theory burning fossil fuels is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate that will change the climate rapidly is compelling. But history has demonstrated the scientific establishment sometimes is prone to groupthink that hinders advancing knowledge. You become a member of the establishment by building strong credentials, and often building strong credentials may be accomplished by adopting the theories of your mentors rather than challenging them. So we cannot blindly accept majority scientific views.
On the other hand the news reports of polar ice caps rapidly disintegrating, small pacific islands preparing to move their entire populations away because of rising sea levels, and New York city subways being filled with water after Hurricane Sandy, all seem consistent with the theory.
But the "Climate Deniers", folks who poo poo the theory, point out the earths climate has always been changing, getting warmer, then colder. A true fact. They argue what is happening is simply a natural process unrelated to burning fossil fuels.
So how do I make a decision if choosing for vote for one position or the other?
This problem is too complex to confidently predict the outcome. It would seem the best course is to be conservative. Look at the possible outcomes and choose the least catastrophic if we pursue the wrong course.
What happens if the climate deniers who poo poo the notion burning fossil fuels is overheating the planet, win the political argument so we continue relying on fossil fuels for energy? If down the road it becomes obvious the climate deniers were wrong the planet will be much hotter, the sea levels will have risen more rapidly, the climate in different parts of the planet will have changed to a degree it causes massive population dislocation and could undermine food production but the process will be so accelerated we will not be able to turn it around and change direction.
What happens if the folks who believe we need to stop overheating the planet win the argument and in the end are wrong? We will end up with a climate much more similar to what currently exist. We will pay more for energy in the meantime, and will need to be pretty clever about finding energy sources to replace fossil fuels. It will be an economic inconvenience, but it will reduce air pollution worldwide. It may slow development in the poorest countries for some period of time, but it may not as the poorest countries are finding ways to bypass old technology with new technology. It will probably not be a planet wide disaster.
Climate change is a vastly complex topic, but politics has turned it into a binary choice The world is not binary - both sides are making educated guesses. The consequences of being wrong seem much more dire if we chose the climate denier approach. We should be conservative and avoid the possibility of a more catastrophic outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)