To Consider

There's a reason I don't read the Detroit Free Press, unless necessary.  For instance, on Sundays, it's the only game in town (other than The Oakland Press, whose editorial section is quite weak).  I often disagreed with former editorial page editor Ron Dzwonkowski.  But he was thoughtful and reasoned.  One could disagree with him, yet still understand and respect his views.

(And here's a slam at the Detroit News.  (I guess I'm an equal opportunity critic?)  Always, it is opposing unions.  It was one of the biggest supporters of right-to-work.  That's fine; the News is entitled to its opinion.  But, gee, such collaboration/organization wasn't such a bad thing a couple decades ago with the Joint Operating Agreement--a successful attempt to bypass anti-monopoly laws.  That's why the FP is the only game in town on Sunday.)

Something's changed, though.  Again, harkening (another great word!) back to the recent FP editorial supporting President Obama's opinion article on climate change, both pieces lack any credibility whatsoever.  Anyone who buys into either is, as they say, "drinking the Kool-Aid."

First, "the scientific community speaks with one voice" is a blatant dishonesty.  No, it doesn't.  In fact, some who at one time supported "global warming" fears have since rescinded their views.  There's a reason "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change."  And that's because the scientific evidence doesn't support the "warming" fears or, at least, the man-made warming.

For another thing, the FP states, "Obama's willingness to circumnavigate Congress is a regrettable necessity."  Oh, really?  So, what other parts of the Constitution can be "willingly circumnavigated" as "regrettable necessities?"  How about the First Amendment, specifically the clause dealing with freedom of the press?  When newspapers print as "facts" things that aren't true (see above), perhaps they should lose their freedom?  No, I don't believe that, but apparently the FP does when it applies to others.

"Not gonna happen?"  Hmmm......  Tell that to the groups targeted by the IRS, NSA, Justice and Homeland Security departments.  Align that with Valerie Jarrett's infamous, "We won the election and we're coming after our opponents" comments.

It's a political, more than an environmental, issue.  The administration's environmental policies are tied with the, so far, failed renewable energy sources.  Note the billions of our tax dollars that have been wasted on solar and wind energy programs.  Yet, the arrogant elitists in DC know more than we do.  Besides, it's not their money.  Their money goes for parties, trips, golfing, big mansions, etc.  BTW, I can't believe that the departing Homeland Security Secretary, as inept as she proved to be there, is getting a job that pays her about three times as much.  And what is particularly grating is that her job is in education and I've written much about how too many people in education who make decisions shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.  The beat goes on......

And how naive can Obama be?!?!?!  The US has drastically cut its carbon emissions over the past dozen or more years.  Yet, where are the most emissions/pollution now originating?  China, India, and other burgeoning industrial nations.  Gee, do you think they'll switch over to wind and sun power because Obama thinks they should?  After all, he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner.  (OK, I'm being facetious.)  Yeah, right...I'm pretty sure they mock him, laugh at him.

The folks at the FP must also be naive.  They still, after all the erroneous information and outright lies coming out of the Obama administration, take everything he says as the Gospel truth.

As I've written before, it's a very dangerous precedent to accept "the ends justify the means."  Once it has been set, where's the limit?