Sunday, August 30, 2015
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Monday, June 29, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Monday, April 27, 2015
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Thomas Sowell, from Natonal Review
Obama’s Iran ‘Agreement’ Is a Charade
No such agreement exists, and even if it did, we couldn’t trust the mullahs to submit to inspections.
By abandoning virtually all its demands for serious restrictions on Iran’s nuclear-bomb program , the Obama administration has apparently achieved the semblance of a preliminary introduction to the beginning of a tentative framework for a possible hope of an eventual agreement with Iran.
But even this hazy “achievement” may vanish like a mirage. It takes two to agree — and Iran has already publicly disputed and even mocked what President Obama says is the nature of that framework.Had Iran wholeheartedly agreed with everything the Obama administration said, that agreement would still have been worthless, since Iran has already blocked international inspectors from its nuclear facilities at unpredictable times. The appearance of international control is more dangerous than a frank admission that we don’t really know what they are doing.
RELATED: Surrender to Tehran
Why then all these negotiations? Because these charades
If you look back through
Kevin Williamson: Campus Rape And The ‘Emergency’: It’s Always An Excuse For Authoritarianism
Victor Davis Hanson: The Burden Of Thought Policing
Eliana Johnson: Rand Paul Is Running For The Republican Nomination, So Now The Party Is Ready To Attack Him
Thomas Sowell: Obama’s Iran ‘Agreement’ Is A Charade
Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It
Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country — Israel this time — to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
RELATED: The Shadow of Munich Haunts the Iran Negotiations
Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: “The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion.”
After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.” Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time” lasted just under a year.
Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair — to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a “citizen of the world,” or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country’s military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
Secretary of State John Kerry and other members of the Obama administration are saying that the alternative to an agreement with Iran is war. But when Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactors, back in 1981, Iraq did not declare war on Israel. It would have been suicidal to do so, since Israel already had nuclear bombs.
RELATED: There’s No Deterring an Apocalyptic Nuclear Iran
There was a time when either Israel or the United States could have destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities, with far less risk of war than there will be after Iran already has its own stockpile of nuclear bombs. Indeed, the choice then will no longer be between a nuclear Iran and war. The choice may be between surrender to Iran and nuclear devastation.
Barack Obama dismissed the thought of America being vulnerable to “a small country” like Iran. Iran is in fact larger than Japan was when it attacked Pearl Harbor, and Iran has a larger population. If Japan had nuclear bombs, World War II could have turned out very differently.
If anyone examines the hard, cold facts about the Obama administration’s
This latest “agreement” with Iran — with which Iran has publicly and loudly disagreed — is only the latest episode in that political charade.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is www.tsowell.com. © 2015 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Friday, March 6, 2015
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
Alex Epstein’s “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”
“I hold human life as the standard of value . . . I think that our fossil fuel use so far has been a moral choice because it has enabled billions of people to live longer and more fulfilling lives.” — Alex Epstein, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” 2014
Fossil fuels, we have been repeatedly warned for decades, are dirty, environmentally destructive and harmful to human life. Indeed, that thesis is now such an unchallenged assumption in our culture that to contest it is to invite disbelief and derision.
Yet, in the real world, it is the exact opposite which is true—as a new book, Alex Epstein’s magnificently researched “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” makes perfectly clear.
This book, a wealth of ideas and information, qualifies as the most profoundly penned work in the energy field since Petr Beckmann made hash out of the hysterical claims of the so-called “environmentalists” and “soft technology” advocates in “The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear” back in 1977.
Here’s a small taste of what you’ll find, as Mr. Epstein proves, not just blindly asserts, that:
► By every human standard of value you care to name—increased life expectancy , decreased infant mortality, dropping climate-related deaths, rising per-capita income or better crops, water sources and sanitation—the use of fossil fuels has greatly improved the lives of millions of human beings.
► That fossil fuels are able to provide these incredible benefits by virtue of the fact that—now and for the foreseeable future—they are the only energy sources capable of providing cheap, reliable and consistent energy when and where it is needed.
► That, far from “running out,” coal, oil and natural gas resources on planet Earth are more than adequate to drive not only our current energy usage, but a greatly increased usage as well, for hundreds—thousands—of years to come.
► That so-called “renewable” energy sources, such as wind and
solar power
, not only fail the acid tests of dependability and scalability but also involve high levels of hidden costs in their production cycles, making them inherently unfit for providing the cheap, reliable energy an industrial human civilization requires.
► That, to the extent that any other form of energy production besides fossil fuels has any capability of sustaining those industrial requirements on the largest of scales, that virtue falls to nuclear power, not wind or solar—as demonstrated by the percentages of production those three technologies can actually provide.
► That the actual, not made-up, hazards of fossil fuels—and every form of energy production involves hazards to one degree or another—have, historically, best been handled by more technology and more innovation, not by “throwing out the baby with the bath water” and thereby losing the benefits those fuels offer us.
► That the often-contended ecological and climatological catastrophes we’re constantly being threatened with (always “five years from now”) are completely devoid of scientific proof and totally lacking in predictive truth.
That’s an awful lot of information to pack into a mere 248 pages, but—as an extremely interested layman who has studied this field for fun for decades—I can categorically state that Mr. Epstein pulls it off.
And yet . . . In the real world, we have “experts” galore who deny these facts, blather aboutimpending doom and state, with straight faces, that fossil fuels are going to destroy us all.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The “environmentalists” seek to occupy a high moral plane, but—through their efforts to restrict and even ban fossil fuels—are actually condemning millions of people to increased disease, shorter lives, less income per capita and the horrifyingly unnecessary deaths of their children. And that’s championed as a moral value? By what standard?
And that, in my opinion, is Mr. Epstein’s greatest accomplishment, reflected by the use of the word “moral” in the book’s title: That he doesn’t just wipe out all the bogus arguments against fossil fuel usage, but challenges the “non-impact” standard of value the alleged “environmentalists” employ as well. It is a critical challenge that has been far too lacking in our cultural debates and its importance cannot be over-emphasized. After all, in a state of “pristine nature,” man’s average life expectancy is about 30 years.
Mr. Epstein’s message especially needs to be grasped and understood in America’s top energy-producing states including my home state of Wyoming—for the use of those resources is the key to better benefits and lives for all of us.
But don’t take my word for it, as anyone who truly knows me knows I hold reasoned, independent, thinking as my primary absolute. Pick up Mr. Epstein’s book and read it for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)