Monday, August 22, 2011


"Why is it you only have to be a scientific expert to question human caused climate change, and not to promote it?"

Chris Matthews used to be a pretty objective, reasonable guy but over the last five years or so has slouched more and more to the left until he's practically a raving loon. Matthews is the one who claimed President Obama gave him a "tingle up his leg" whatever that's supposed to mean, and recently he said something very odd to me.

Matthews asked the oddly-named Reince Priebus, chairman of the GOP, this question about Governor Perry:
Wouldn’t that be kind of scary to have somebody who is so anti-intellectual as president?”
The question was in the context of global warming hysteria and it was all about the prospect of having a president who dared question this dogma. Matthews presented the question as if there was absolutely no possibility anyone could question climate alarmist doom unless they were hostile to science and basically stupid. Further, he used the old canard that if anyone questions evolution, they're a moron.

Essentially, he asked Priebus if it wouldn't be scary to have a creationist president who was skeptical of human-caused global warming (AGW). To which I would have responded "Why would that be scary, Mr Matthews?"

Putting aside the scientific ignorance that presumes Evolution necessarily opposes theistic creation (it doesn't, evolutionary theory doesn't even deal with origins of the universe and many Intelligent Design advocates are otherwise evolutionists), and putting aside the growing mass of evidence destroying AGW hysteria, consider his point a moment.

Chris Matthews seems to believe that if the president disagrees with him on the origins of the universe, he's a scary president. He tries to make this work by starting the question with "Aren’t you worried, though, that in a world where we have to compete with science, in science and technology with Chinese and Indian young geniuses" but that's a red herring.

Whether the president adheres to the latest fads in scientific reporting or not does not have anything to do with his ability to do his job. Chris Matthews would have absolutely no problem with a Buddhist president who believes that matter is a fiction and we need to be enlightened until we do not care about the real world - a far more terrifying prospect for president, in my opinion. He would not even care if the president was a full blow Muslim who believed the universe was created by Allah then left to its own devices.

His concern is boutique leftist in its origin, the worry that a Christian who actually believes what his faith tells him would be president. Because creationism doesn't worry him so much as Christian creationism. A Hindu president would charm his leg into tingling fits again. A Muslim president would fill him with leftist pride at being so enlightened and wise as to vote for the "hated other." Voting for someone like that would demonstrate what a great person he is and how very unracist he is (as if 'Hindu' or 'Muslim' is a race).

And in any case, someone's beliefs about the origins of the universe are utterly irrelevant to their job as president. Harry S Truman believed that the universe was created by God, and he was the one who got NASA started and the space race roaring along. In fact, until around 1990, every President was blatantly Christian and openly believed in theistic creation with the possible exception of Eisenhower. That was simply the presumed and common, shared belief of Americans.

And the United States dominated in scientific and technological advancement and achievement under these presidents. It was not until very recently that people started to openly doubt this and embrace Evolutionism, and the American dominance in these fields began to wane. Whether those two things are connected or not is irrelevant to my point: Matthews' concern is not rational or historical, its just leftist cant.

And when it comes down to it, Christians like Perry tend to view hard core evolutionists and global warming hysterics as idiots and cretins just like Matthews apparently does Christians like Governor Perry. See, the faith-in-evolution test of intelligence is a religious test for the left and atheists, its a method of choosing the heretic and unbeliever, then labeling them idiotic because after all they are so very smart and learned. That's the worst insult they can come up with, its less about their real beliefs in someone's intellect than a need to damn and excommunicate the infidel (one without faith).

To be sure, they think someone who dares question what they've been indoctrinated in since youth is stupid, but that's not the primary reason for their response. The stupidity is used as a method of identifying the evil heretic who must be burned, of shunning someone outside their religious community.

For most of America, what you think about the origins of the universe is pretty irrelevant to the job of president, and most people are at least somewhat skeptical of AGW, if polls are to be believed. This isn't about convincing anyone, it is a knee-jerk religious response to the unbeliever, a result of being surrounded by and insulated from difference of opinion in the left, and a need to shore up energy and zeal in the left for the election than anything else. I'd hazard that for everyone who decided to vote against Governor Perry (for instance) based on this kind of thing, there's at least one person who'd vote for him based on it.

But I expect the "stupid religious zealot anti-science moron" beat to continue, because it seems like that's the only song the left knows about their opponents. And lets be honest, President Obama has no record to run on, he can't point to his performance and say "vote for me so I can keep this up." So his only choice is to demonize his opponents and appeal to his halfrican American status.

In other words, its going to get really ugly this time - more so than in my memory, even more so than 2004.

No comments: