REACTIONARIES (Letter to Independent Coast Observer)

On many issues “liberal progressives” are far more conservative than “conservatives.” In fact, the Democrat Party’s positions on preventing changes to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs are downright reactionary. 

Democrats argue that we should not change any aspects of these programs. Yet these “progressives” offer no realistic solutions to the undeniable fact that the programs are on the road to bankruptcy.   Instead, they spend their efforts and massive campaign war chests personally attacking Republicans, ridiculing viable proposals, and blaming our fiscal problems on Greece, tsunamis, the Easter Bunny, etc. The reason that Social Security and Medicare are known as the “third rail of politics" is because the Democrats will not allow any debates on better ways to restructure these programs. 

The Democrats’ campaign default tactic is to scare the hell out of older folks. It’s all about keeping control over the citizenry by having the government collect their money and then dole it out to them as a way to win votes. Democrats understand that if the government turned substantial control of entitlement monies over to citizens, the Democrat Party would have nothing of substance to offer voters. 

We are now well into the 21st century and Democrats are clinging to the failed programs of the past as their lifeline to reelection. In 2012, President Obama and his progressive followers will be judged by voters on their accomplishments (or lack thereof), not on how well they can place the blame on others. Demagogic slogans won’t sell this time around. Nor will the reactionary tactics of the progressives that eschew any chance for real solutions.

Democrats saddled us with the massive government-managed ObamaCare, but they've done nothing to address the most significant fiscal issues facing our country.

Another round of golf, anyone?

Jim Littlejohn

Concerned Coastal Voters

Gualala, CA

It Ain't Necessarily So (Letter to Independent Coast Observer)

Editor

Columnist Amy Goodman criticized Sarah Palin for her Paul Revere statement, but then continued that recent bad weather was a sign we need to stop global warming. Since Goodman used Sarah Palin as an example of conservative ignorance, I did what I always do when confronted with liberal columnist climate change assertions: I looked at the science, and at what even “warmist” scientists were saying about the link between bad weather and climate change.

Not surprising to me, since I’d already read voluminous articles about it, scientist after scientist said that there is no demonstrated link between recent bad weather and man-caused warming. The New York Times: Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “(I)n the early part of the 20th century, there was also a tendency for more extreme events followed by a quiet couple of decades.”

In New Science: “Martin Hoerling at the US NOAA. ‘A lot of these extreme conditions are natural variations of the climate. Extremes happen, heat waves happen, heavy rains happen.’

“’Drought across the southern US - and heavy rains across the north of the country - are a result of La Niña,’ says Michael Hayes, director of the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. An extended holding pattern in the jet stream, the same type of "blocking event" that caused last summer's heat wave in Russia, is responsible for this year's European droughts, says Michael Blackburn of the University of Reading, UK.”

“As for the apparent convergence of droughts worldwide, Mark Saunders of University College London says current conditions aren't that unusual. News media may simply be more tuned in to reporting extreme weather events.”

Sarah Palin erred on historical trivia, but Amy Goodman’s ignorance of science contributes to wasteful resource allocation. Goodman does harm.

Michael B. Combs

Concerned Coastal Voter

Gualala