The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1176874
B-6 Wednesday, October 16, 2019 The Press-Dispatch OPINION Submit Letters to the Editor: Letters must be signed and received by noon on Mondays. Email: editor@pressdispatch.net or bring in a hard copy: 820 E. Poplar Street, Petersburg Points to Ponder by Rev. Ford Bond The pull of the Swamp My Point of View by Dr. H. K. Fenol, Jr., M.D. Intelligent devices? Minority View by Walter E. Williams Idiotic environmental predictions Continued on page 7 Continued on page 7 Continued on page 7 Continued on page 7 The Competitive Enterprise In- stitute has published a new paper, "Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions." Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predic- tions were made by respected sci- entists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many gov- ernment restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity? As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford Uni- versity biologist Dr. Paul Erhlich warned: "The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evi- dence to convince people, you're dead. We must realize that unless we're extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years." In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a se- nior research scientist at Univer- sity of East Anglia's climate re- search unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren't going to know what snow is." In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major Euro- pean cities would be beneath ris- ing seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predict- ed the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016. In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Lau- rent Fabius declared during a joint appear- ance with Secretary of State John Kerry that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Liv- ing Wilderness: "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, Chi- na and the Near East, A frica. By the year 2000, or conceivably soon- er, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. ... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the ex- ception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." Ecologist Kenneth Watt's 1970 prediction was, "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the glob- al mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000." He added, "This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." Mark J. Perry, schol- ar at the American En- terprise Institute and professor of econom- ics and finance at the University of Michi- gan's Flint campus, cites 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970. This time it's not about weather. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Scienc- es, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal re- serves and estimated that human- ity would run out of copper short- ly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would be gone before 1990. Kenneth Watt said, "By the year 2000, if present trends contin- ue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate ... that there won't be any more crude oil." There were grossly wild predic- tions well before the first Earth Day, too. In 1939, the U.S. De- partment of the Interior predicted that American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interi- Pursuit of the Cure by Star Parker What Democrats today really want A major threat to our economy: Excessive regulation The pros and cons continue to float around about the value of so- cial media, the good use and mis- use and sometimes abuse of our electronic devices, i(Intelligent) phones, iPads, laptops, personal computers, etc etc. The bottom line is I think if we all use good sense and common sense and pru- dent and wise use of these devic- es and instruments, we'll be fine. In my own experience, the use of my own iPhone has helped me save time, it has helped me quickly get in touch with family and friends, it has kept me on track for sched- ules, appointments, reminders, it has helped me research things I needed to know or that which I'm, curious about. It has entertained me when I am just on downtime and needed to listen to good mu- sic or view old time favorite videos. Well, of course, it does cost money to main- tain the subscription but I think it's worth the price. Will we ever reverse the course of history and make these giz- mos disappear? I have very serious doubts. It's like asking the question, will we ev- er get rid of electricity and radio waves for what good things they have brought us? No senor, no way. We've come a long way from the era of limited communications and limited access to information to now we're on superfast access to everything. Most times they're good, sometimes they can be bad. Depends on how we use them. Moderation in everything I think a good rule to follow. • • • One good example about computers—I researched on the lat- est technology avail- able for cars. We have to give credit to the advancement in com- puter sciences. We now have cars that burn less gasoline through the hybrid technology. Used to we would achieve a good 15 -27 miles to a gallon of fuel consumption. Cars now can stretch one tankful The Trump administration's regulatory agenda includes much-needed reform of the rule- making process and the repeal of several major rules. But the pres- ident alone cannot tame the reg- ulatory state (especially while threatening to regulate internet platforms). Congress and the judiciary must also pursue reform and re- frain from further expanding reg- ulators' powers. While incremen- tal progress is possible, powerful forces favor the status quo, which makes substantive reform diffi- cult to achieve. The nation's current regulato- ry burden belies Francis Scott Key's characterization of Amer- ica as the "land of the free." The United States ranked only "most- ly free" in the 2019 Heritage In- dex of Economic Freedom, trail- ing 11 other nations. (They are Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zea- land, Switzerland, Australia, Ire- land, United Kingdom, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan and Iceland.) But at least the U.S.'s econom- ic freedom score this year is the highest since 2011—a result, in part, of President Donald Trump's reform efforts. The Trump administration has curtailed the unparalleled regu- latory expansion of the Obama years, during which the regula- tory burden increased by $122 bil- lion annually, according to analy- ses by the Heritage Foundation. That increase was nearly double the $ 68 billion in annual regu- latory costs imposed on the pri- vate-sector during the George W. Bush administration. To date, the Trump administra- tion has issued 55% fewer regula- tions than his two predecessors had prescribed at the same point in their administrations. During Trump's first 32 months in office, only 121 "major" regulations (i.e., rules that are anticipated to im- pose costs in excess of $100 mil- lion annually) have been issued, compared to 223 under Obama and 133 under Bush. Slowing the output of new rules is essential, to be sure, but the federal stockpile of regula- tions—exceeding 185,000 pag- es of the U.S. Code—continues to impede investment, innovation and job creation. According to the Office of Information and Regula- tory A ffairs, the private-sector pa- perwork burden now totals 11.2 billion hours annually at a cost of $139.5 billion. Regulatory proponents exploit every means available to stymie efforts to repeal even the most egregious rules, including the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan ($7.2 billion annual- ly); the Obamacare personal man- date; and excessive automotive fuel efficiency standards. Regulatory repeal by a pres- ident is a cumbersome process involving years of administrative wrangling, including a statement of rationale, analyses of rule-mak- ing alternatives and solicitation of public comment. There are also constitution- al limits on the president's pow- ers to reform the regulatory pro- cess. For example, the White House cannot countermand reg- ulatory directives from Congress, nor can it restrain Congress from delegating legislative authority to federal agencies. And while the president does influence the ju- diciary through his nominations to the federal bench, he cannot stop the courts from continuing to grant inordinate discretion to regulators. Ultimately, however, the feder- al regulatory system is so difficult to reform because it is a political spoils system — one by which various special interests impose their will on the public and profit from government favor. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was an American public servant with characteristics all too rare today — integrity, intelligence, wisdom. Moynihan was a Democrat who would find a hard time being at home in today's Democratic Party. He was a policy adviser in Dem- ocratic — Kennedy — and Repub- lican — Nixon — administrations and went on to serve four terms as a Democratic senator of New York. Here are two of Moynihan's ma- ny famous observations that are particularly relevant in today's chaotic times: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a soci- ety. The central liberal truth is that politics can change culture and save it from itself." "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts." As a policy adviser in the early '60s, he opposed and prophetical- ly warned about the mistake made in the welfare law that required no working man present at home in order for the household to receive welfare. His concerns proved well found- ed. Black families were devastat- ed. But the thinking that went in- to welfare touched the whole coun- try. Marriage and family in Amer- ica since the 1960s has collapsed. One-third less American adults are married today than were in the 1960s. The percentage of babies born to unwed mothers has gone from less than 10 % to over 40 % . A critical moment in the slippery slope of cultural collapse was the legalization of abortion on demand in 1973, opening the door to 60 million-plus unborn children de- stroyed in the womb. It is the cultural war that frac- tures our country today: whether we are a nation of culture, facts and a Constitution that draws the line where government stops and indi- vidual freedom begins; or wheth- er America is just about politics, where political power brokers write the script of our lives. It is now one year since the con- firmation hearings of Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Ka- vanaugh. We saw what it means when a country detaches from re- ality and any sense that there is something called a fact. In such a world, any individu- al with an unsubstantiated charge who appeals to someone with po- litical power can wind up sitting as a witness in a Senate hearing and hurl charges that can destroy the reputation of a fine man. In such a world, little boys and girls can arrive at school and claim their sexual identity is different from the biological reality that de- fined them at birth. And the idea that there is law that precedes politics is out the window. Ambitious politicians can claim they know what is just and use their power to expropriate wealth and property from whom they choose and redistribute to whom they choose. This is what divides America to- day, not what happened in a conver- sation between President Trump and the president of Ukraine. It is not President Trump whom Dem- ocrats want to impeach but 63 mil- lion Americans who voted for him. President Trump managed to do what two previous Republican candidates failed to do: win back the White House for the GOP and for Americans who want a na- tion where culture and the Judeo- Christian ethos matters, where facts and law and a constitution exist. It is all this that enables our freedom. And it is our freedom that is threatened by the left-wing power brokers and fiction writers. Even some in the president's own party are missing the point — like Sen. Romney, whose bruised ego from his own political failures is more important to him than the great issues at stake in the culture war. Romney has violated Presi- dent Reagan's 11th commandment — thou shalt not speak ill of a fel- Over the last several decades, many political candidates have stressed their connection to Chris- tianity, but often their confessed allegiance to the faith does not square with Church teaching. The most obvious disconnect before Mayor Pete Buttigieg pre- sented his theological take on sex- uality and the Church, were the many elected politicians who did not uphold the Church's teaching against abortion on demand. These people compartmental- ize their faith and their political values, which is a disengagement from the traditional faith having influence upon political life. Ma- ny would claim it is a necessity due to Church/State separation, which is nonsense, but that is an- other column. Looking across the many sec- tarian variations of Christianity, one almost feels as if the faith has embraced René Descartes's Cogi- to, ergo sum ["I think, therefore, I am."], which in the 21st Century would read Cogito ergo Deus quod ["I think, therefore, God is! "] The progressive wing of Chris- tianity, regardless of sectarian or- igin, has embraced the post-en- lightenment ideal that the Church as a change agent has failed; there- fore, we must merge science, tech- nology, and mod- ern democracy in- to the Christian ten- ants, which will bring about justice, equali- ty, peace, and egali- tarianism. The issue with this belief system is that it discards the Chris- tian ethnos that has guided the Western mind for centuries that humani- ty is sinful; therefore, imperfect. As the prophet Jeremiah lament- ed, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wick- ed; who can know it? " Nothing in which any of us en- gages our mind, time, or effort is valueless, and these values wheth- er they be foreign to the faith or re- inforces it, has a direct impact on how we view the world, and how we impart our values to others. One politician who claims Meth- odist roots has referred to people who do not agree with his/her po- litical views as "deplorables." How do you think his/her political val- ues will play out in policy or laws? Within our Churches reside peo- ple who align themselves as "Blue" or "Red," and allow political and social values to recre- ate a Christianity that has little connection to the faith as practiced by the apostles. One can- not but wonder if these people recognize these divisions are destroy- ing Western traditions and replacing it with nothing of substance, likened to jumping into a swamp and expecting to stand upon firm ground. The church has the power and voice to hold the world to account, but it cannot call the world to re- pentance if it has thrown off its moral mandate of peace, love, and discipleship. As one writer has observed, "The church has to learn the les- son about supporting without col- lusion and critiquing without du- alism." Individual Church ideology and beliefs have become similar to supporting a politician or party regardless of the historical teach- ings of the Church as a whole. It is common to find Christians be- Continued on page 7 Heritage Viewpoint By Diane Katz