The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1477658
The Press-Dispatch Wednesday, August 31, 2022 C-3 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 Race for the Cure By Star Parker Give Me a Break John Stossel See INTEGRITY on page 4 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 slaver y 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 victor y, seven Southern states seced- ed from the Union. Soon there would be a bloody civil war. A vibrant, 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 principles. For a nation to function, there must be some com- mon denominator 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 countr y and looking more like unraveling of our social fabric. It's dangerous, and we should be aware of what is going on. A new sur vey 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 "ver y unfavor- able" view of the Democratic Party. Today it is 62%. In 1994, 17% of Dem- ocrats had a "ver y 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 sur vey, in 2022, 27% of Americans now have unfavorable opinions of both parties compared to 6% in 1994 who held un- favorable views of both parties. This is all consistent with a new sur vey 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 slaver y 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 Ameri- cans saying they worr y "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. Scientific 'integrity' "Trust the science," say the media. 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 Andrew 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 important. 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 direc- tor of Climate, Jane Lubchenco, told Congress that a scientific paper con- cludes 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 "biologi- cally 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 Academy 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, Afri- can studies, Latinx studies, queer studies," says Follet, "are essentially 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 pa- per's description of Donald Trump's "fatphobia" and inviting Matheson to review other work submitted to their "scientific" journal, Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinar y Journal of Body Weight and Society. But Matheson is no scientist. "She" is actually comedian Steven Crowder, who disguised himself as an over weight woman to expose "ivo- r y tower quacker y." 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, Sexual- ity & 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 Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work. Gender, Place and Culture accepted a paper that claimed there is rape cul- ture at dog parks. Follett blames this per version of science on government. Its science agencies, like much of America, have been taken over by leftists hungr y to promote themselves and their agen- da. 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 paymas- ter," says Follett. "You don't get published unless the NSF likes your results." Example 3: The NSF gave nearly half a million dollars to a team that Women cover their faces when walking down a street on August 14, 2022 in Kabul, Afghanistan. Since President Joe Biden's di- sastrous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan a year ago, Afghan girls and women have suffered most from a dysfunctional economy un- dermined by the brutal and chaotic governing force of the Taliban. As unambiguously pointed out by the agency known as the United Na- tions High Commissioner for Refu- gees, Afghanistan's women and girls have watched their rights disappear. Most secondar y schools for girls re- main closed and many women have lost their jobs, while others lack the required male guardian to accompa- ny them when they venture out of their homes. With many women no longer able to earn a living, 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 Afghanistan without adequate plans in place, effectively handing the countr y to a terrorist organiza- tion and washing away 20 years of advances. Afghanistan 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 Afghan women has been particularly unacceptable and harsh, considering the fact that the Biden administra- tion often has claimed to be the ulti- mate champion of human rights and women's empowerment. Successes achieved by Afghan women over the past 20 years that have evaporated include attending school, graduating with advanced de- grees, holding politi- cal office, pursuing ca- reers, raising families, and living their lives in relative freedom. Afghan 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 Afghan women and girls have been tragically altered for the worse. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, Biden's Afghanistan di- saster 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 Afghan 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 peripher y. But the way to do it is not through endless militar y de- ployments; 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 Afghan 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 Afghanistan as well as the human rights costs of rein- stalling the brutal, re- pressive Taliban as a governing force. Despite nearly $800 million in humanitar- ian aid from the U.S. government since Biden's disastrous pullout of troops from Afghanistan, some 20 million Afghans, about half the population, remain severely de- prived economically. This reflects almost no change from a year ago, when we were also told that half of Afghani- stan required emergency food and other lifesaving assistance to avoid a major famine. More critically, there is no way of knowing whether U.S. aid is reach- ing those in need or is being diverted to Taliban forces and other unintend- ed recipients for their own use. This is particularly so, given the absence of well-functioning tracking mecha- nisms and worsened by the lack of transparency and accountability. As Jim Carafano, The Heritage Foundation's vice president for for- eign policy, summed up the pres- ident's Afghanistan policy failure: "Biden evidently forgot the failures of foreign policy under Obama and immediately went back to the old playbook of walking away and seeing what happens." Biden can't disown the heart- breaking prospects for women and girls in Afghanistan precipitated by his inept withdrawal. Anthony B. Kim researches inter- national economic issues at The Heri- tage Foundation, with a focus on eco- nomic freedom and free trade. The great Rush Limbaugh used to say that "the modern environmen- talists worship the created, not the creator." I was reminded of that af- ter listening to House Speaker Nan- cy Pelosi once President Joe Biden signed the fiscally unconscionable $750 billion tax-and-spend Inflation Reduction Act, which gives another $369 billion to the climate change-in- dustrial complex. Pelosi (D-CA) claimed the wind, solar and electric subsidies in the In- flation Reduction Act would placate an "angr y" planet. "Mother Earth gets angr y from time to time, and this legislation will help us address all of that," the speaker said. This is a highly revealing state- ment. Do Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues really believe that spend- ing $369 billion on Tesla subsidies (with batteries made in China), wind- mills (made in China) and solar pan- els (made in China) is going to save the planet, stop the rise of the oceans and lower the global temperature? This is the same gang in Congress that can't stop the daily drive-by shootings in our cities, can't secure the U.S.-Mexico border, can't come anywhere near balancing the budget and can't provide the resources our militar y needs for our national secu- rity. Even if this additional $369 billion were to work as planned, the Wall Street Journal reports that the impact on global temperatures in the com- ing decades would be to lower them by 0.001%. So, instead of the global temperature being an average of 59 F, it will be 58.999 F. We are saved from Armaged- don! 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 human sacrifices be next to appease the 'angr y' Earth gods? Actually, this bill will create human sacrifice by imposing 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 American energy security and reliability could be profound -- and it will be the low- est-income people who will be hurt the most. Inflation will rise as energy prices soar. The shortages of energy will cause hardship for many con- sumers, 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 sacrifices to Mother Earth. One of the great injustices and ironies of the new law is that it purports to give bil- lions of dollars for "en- vironmental justice" grants to low-income communities and in- ner cities when it is this group of people who will feel the brunt of the anti-fossil fuel pol- icies. The poor spend much more of their in- comes on energy than the rich. The warmest years in North America are not recent years -- instead, they occurred during the 1930s amid the Dust Bowl era. This was before 80% of the carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere. Back then, thou- sands of U.S. residents died from extreme weather. But now we have, through modern electric power and technological innovation, major ways to reduce death rates from weather events. The way to save the Earth is through more growth, more innova- tion and a richer planet. That is what Mother Earth wants. That is what America wants. Only one out of 20 people rate cli- mate change as the No. 1 problem facing our countr y. The public wants lower inflation and more prosperity. Heritage Viewpoint By Anthony B. Kim The tragic betrayal of Afghan women a year after botched troop withdrawal Eye on the Economy By Stephen Moore Is modern environmentalism a religion? See RELIGION on page 4