The South Gibson Star-Times serves the towns of Haubstadt, Owensville and Fort Branch.
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1477591
B-6 Tuesday, August 30, 2022 South Gibson Star-Times OPINION Are we headed for a civil war? I wrote a column in 2011, as the presidential politics of the coming year were starting to unfold, with the headline "Why 2012 looks a lot like 1860." The deep fracturing of the Amer- ican electorate - - remember the Tea Party? - - leading up to the 2012 pres- idential election was starting to look like what happened in the presiden- tial election in 1860, which occurred amid another massive splintering of the American electorate. The issue of slavery in the 1850s - - whether or the extent to which it should or could be tolerated in America - - tore apart the fabric of common values in the nation, and the result was collapse. There were presidential candidates in 1860 run- ning on four different party tickets - - the newly formed Republican Party, the Constitutional Union Party, and Northern and Southern parts of a split Democratic Party. Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate, emerged victorious with just 39.82 % of the popular vote. Im- mediately upon Lincoln's declared victory, seven Southern states se- ceded from the Union. Soon there would be a bloody civil war. A vi- brant, free and democratic nation thrives with differences of opinion. But there is a difference between differences of opinion on specific issues of policy and fracturing of discourse because of absence of common ground of values and prin- ciples. For a nation to function, there must be some common denomina- tor of shared values and principles. This common denominator of shared values and principles is dan- gerously eroding today, and animos- ities are sharpening and deepening. Am I predicting another civil war? God forbid. But the depth of ani- mosities now is looking less like the healthy discourse of a free country and looking more like unraveling of our social fabric. It's dangerous, and we should be aware of what is going on. A new survey released by Pew Research Center bears out this trend, showing animosities between those identifying with the two par- ties getting increasingly sharp and increasing numbers of Americans, particularly younger Americans, not happy with either party. Per the Pew report, in 1994, 21% of Republicans had a "very unfavor- able" view of the Democratic Par- ty. Today it is 62 % . In 1994, 17% of Democrats had a "very unfavorable" view of the Republican Party. Today it is 54% . Seventy-two percent of Republi- cans now, compared to 45% in 2016, say Democrats are more dishonest than other Americans. Sixty-three percent of Democrats, compared to 42 % in 2016, say Republicans are more dishonest than other Amer- icans. According to the survey, in 2022, 27% of Americans now have unfavorable opinions of both parties compared to 6 % in 1994 who held unfavorable views of both parties. This is all consistent with a new survey from Gallup showing that more than half, 52 % , of young Amer- icans born between 1981 and 1996 identify as independents. Forty-four percent of those born between 1960 and 1980, 33% of those born between 1946 and 1964, and 26 % of those born between 1928 and 1945 identify as independents. Just as the presence of slavery challenged the core values and be- liefs on which the nation was found- ed, so today issues such as abortion, sexual identity, and the nature and existence of marriage and family are dividing the common ground on which we stand. Related to this is the core question of government and its role in the lives of private Americans. When our divisions become so deep that civil discourse can no lon- ger mend what has unraveled, we need to tread carefully. Another re- cent Gallup poll shows 53% of Amer- icans saying they worry "a great deal" about crime and violence. How can a nation remain intact when large parts of the population have absolutely nothing in common with each other regarding how they see the world? Limited government and individu- al freedom are the classic American answers. Unfortunately, we seem to be going in the opposite direction. Race for the Cure By Star Parker Heritage Viewpoint By Anthony B. Kim The tragic betrayal of Afghan women a year after Biden's botched troop withdrawal Give Me a Break By John Stossel The great Rush Limbaugh used to say that "the modern environ- mentalists worship the created, not the creator." I was reminded of that after listening to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once President Joe Biden signed the fiscally unconscio- nable $750 billion tax-and-spend In- flation Reduction Act, which gives another $ 369 billion to the climate change-industrial complex. Pelosi (D-CA) claimed the wind, solar and electric subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act would pla- cate an "angry" planet. "Mother Earth gets angry from time to time, and this legislation will help us ad- dress all of that," the speaker said. This is a highly revealing state- ment. Do Pelosi and her Demo- cratic colleagues really believe that spending $ 369 billion on Tesla sub- sidies (with batteries made in Chi- na), windmills (made in China) and solar panels (made in China) is go- ing to save the planet, stop the rise of the oceans and lower the global temperature? This is the same gang in Con- gress that can't stop the daily drive- by shootings in our cities, can't se- cure the U.S.-Mexico border, can't come anywhere near balancing the budget and can't provide the re- sources our military needs for our national security. Even if this additional $ 369 bil- lion were to work as planned, the Wall Street Journal reports that the impact on global temperatures in the coming decades would be to lower them by 0.001% . So, instead of the global temperature being an av- erage of 59 F, it will be 58.999 F. We are saved from Armageddon! But as Pelosi's quote makes clear, this is about symbol- ism. It is about ruin- ing the economy as a sacrifice to Mother Earth. Marc Morano, the journalist who runs ClimateDepot. com, asks: "Will hu- man sacrifices be next to appease the 'angry' Earth gods? Actually, this bill will create human sacrifice by im- posing even more suffering from energy deprivation, supply chain issues, good shortages, inflation, debt, and bad science." He's right. The suffering that will occur from this assault on Ameri- can energy security and reliability could be profound - - and it will be the lowest-income people who will be hurt the most. Inflation will rise as energy prices soar. The shortag- es of energy will cause hardship for many consumers, including food shortages. Europe, which got hooked on the green energy fad, is now rationing energy. In Spain, there are new re- strictions on using air conditioning to set the temperature of your store or home at less than 80 F - - during a heat spell. It's one of those sacrific- es to Mother Earth. One of the great injustices and ironies of the new law is that it pur- ports to give billions of dollars for "environmental justice" grants to low-income communities and in- ner cities when it is this group of people who will feel the brunt of the an- ti-fossil fuel policies. The poor spend much more of their incomes on energy than the rich. The warmest years in North Amer- ica are not recent years - - instead, they occurred during the 1930s amid the Dust Bowl era. This was before 80 % of the car- bon dioxide was released into the atmosphere. Back then, thousands of U.S. residents died from extreme weather. But now we have, through modern electric power and techno- logical innovation, major ways to reduce death rates from weather events. The way to save the Earth is through more growth, more inno- vation and a richer planet. That is what Mother Earth wants. That is what America wants. Only one out of 20 people rate climate change as the No. 1 prob- lem facing our country. The public wants lower inflation and more pros- perity. This law delivers neither. The God that many of us worship wants us to create peace, prosperity and light. The god of radical envi- ronmentalists will deliver darkness, despair and decline. Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at Freedom Works. He is also author of the new book: "Govzilla: How The Relentless Growth of Government Is Devouring Our Economy." Eye on the Economy By Stephen Moore Is modern environmentalism a religion? Women cover their faces when walking down a street on August 14, 2022 in Kabul, A fghanistan. Since President Joe Biden's di- sastrous withdrawal of U.S. troops from A fghanistan a year ago, A f- ghan girls and women have suffered most from a dysfunctional economy undermined by the brutal and cha- otic governing force of the Taliban. As unambiguously pointed out by the agency known as the United Na- tions High Commissioner for Ref- ugees, A fghanistan's women and girls have watched their rights dis- appear. Most secondary schools for girls remain closed and many wom- en have lost their jobs, while others lack the required male guardian to accompany them when they ven- ture out of their homes. With many women no longer able to earn a liv- ing, families have become further impoverished and young girls are being forced into marriage. Aug. 15 marked one year since the Biden administration's abrupt exit from A fghanistan without ad- equate plans in place, effectively handing the country to a terrorist organization and washing away 20 years of advances. A fghanistan has turned out to be an unmistakable humanitarian ca- tastrophe. The Taliban, which wel- comed America's humiliating and disorderly retreat, has established its brutal rule and expunged prog- ress, particularly in protecting, edu- cating, and empowering women. This betrayal and abandonment of A fghan women has been par- ticularly unacceptable and harsh, considering the fact that the Biden administration often has claimed to be the ultimate champion of human rights and women's empowerment. Successes achieved by A fghan women over the past 20 years that have evaporated include attending school, graduating with advanced degrees, holding po- litical office, pursu- ing careers, raising families, and living their lives in relative freedom. A fghan women have been forced to give up such prog- ress because the Tal- iban's ruthless drive for power, and the fecklessness of the Biden administration in running from that fight—has put the, vicious regime back in power. The lives of A fghan women and girls have been tragical- ly altered for the worse. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, Biden's A fghanistan disaster has shown that he's more of a bystander than a world leader. In a speech delivered Aug. 16, 2021, Biden remarked: We'll continue to speak out for the basic rights of the A fghan peo- ple—of women and girls—just as we speak out all over the world. I have been clear that human rights must be the center of our foreign policy, not the periphery. But the way to do it is not through endless military deployments; it's with our diplomacy, our economic tools, and rallying the world to join us. Yet Biden's words have rung hol- low and empty to countless A fghan women who have been at the mercy of the Taliban and would like to go about their lives, let alone exercise their fundamental rights. From a broader foreign policy perspective, Biden has downplayed tremendously the security risks of his retreat from A fghanistan as well as the human rights costs of rein- stalling the brutal, repressive Tali- ban as a governing force. Despite nearly $ 800 million in hu- manitarian aid from the U.S. government since Biden's disas- trous pullout of troops from A fghanistan, some 20 million A f- ghans, about half the population, remain severely deprived economically. This reflects al- most no change from a year ago, when we were also told that half of A fghanistan required emergency food and other lifesav- ing assistance to avoid a major fam- ine. More critically, there is no way of knowing whether U.S. aid is reach- ing those in need or is being divert- ed to Taliban forces and other unin- tended recipients for their own use. This is particularly so, given the ab- sence of well-functioning tracking mechanisms and worsened by the lack of transparency and account- ability. As Jim Carafano, The Heritage Foundation's vice president for for- eign policy, summed up the presi- dent's A fghanistan policy failure: "Biden evidently forgot the failures of foreign policy under Obama and immediately went back to the old playbook of walking away and see- ing what happens." Biden can't disown the heart- breaking prospects for women and girls in A fghanistan precipitated by his inept withdrawal. Anthony B. Kim researches in- ternational economic issues at The Heritage Foundation, with a focus on economic freedom and free trade. See INTEGRITY on page 7 Scientific 'integrity' "Trust the science," say the me- dia. Polls show that fewer Americans do. There's good reason for that. "They don't trust science because science is increasingly untrust- worthy," says science writer An- drew Follet in my new video. "The only group that trusts science right now is Democrats." Sixty-four percent of Democrats have "a great deal" of confidence in the scientific community, compared to 34% of Republicans. Of course, true science - - using the scientific method - - is import- ant. But that's not what much of "science" is these days. Instead, today government sci- ence is misused by progressive pol- iticians. Example 1: Environmental activ- ists want to limit commercial fish- ing. They want Congress to pass what they call the "Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act." It claims cli- mate change is the "greatest threat to America's national security" and offers a dubious solution: close more of the ocean to commercial fishing. The administration's deputy di- rector of Climate, Jane Lubchenco, told Congress that a scientific paper concludes that closing more of the ocean can actually increase catches of fish. Really? That doesn't seem logical. It isn't. The paper was retracted. One scientist called its logic "biolog- ically impossible." Also, Lubchenco didn't tell Con- gress that the paper was written by her brother-in-law! And edited by her! Did the White House punish Lub- chenco for her ethics violations? No. In fact, after her testimony, she was appointed co-head of President Joe Biden's Scientific Integrity Task Force! Last week, the National Acade- my of Sciences banned her for five years. Yet she's still on the White House's Scientific Integrity Task Force. Sadly, much of what's called sci- ence today is simply left-wing advo- cacy. "New fields like fat studies, A fri- can studies, Latinx studies, queer studies," says Follet, "are essential- ly entirely fake." Fake? Well, they must be. "Ex- perts" in those fields keep being fooled by people who submit gibber- ish. Example 2: A ridiculous paper, "Embracing Fatness as Self-Care in the Era of Trump," was accepted by Massey University's "Fat Studies" confer- ence. The conference then invited the paper's author, "Sea Matheson," to speak. Attendees gave Matheson's speech rave reviews, praising the paper's description of Donald Trump's "fatphobia" and inviting Matheson to review other work sub- mitted to their "scientific" journal, Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society. But Matheson is no scientist. "She" is actually comedian Steven Crowder, who disguised himself as an overweight woman to expose "ivory tower quackery." Crowder is just the latest person to fool today's so-called science jour- nals. James Lindsay, Peter Boghos- sian and Helen Pluckrose submitted nonsense papers to "grievance stud- ies" journals like Fat Studies, Sexu- ality & Culture and Sex Roles. Seven accepted ridiculous pa- pers. One that took a section of "Mein Kampf" but replaced refer- ences to "National Socialism" with "feminism," was accepted by A ffilia: Journal of Women and Social Work. Gender, Place and Culture accepted a paper that claimed there is rape culture at dog parks. Follett blames this perversion of science on government. Its science agencies, like much of America, have been taken over by leftists hungry to promote themselves and their agenda. In science, the way to promote yourself is to get papers published. That often gets you more funding. Government agencies like the Na- tional Science Foundation provide most of that funding. "Nobody wants to publish some- thing that goes against the pay- master," says Follett. "You don't get published unless the NSF likes your