Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 18, 2019

Sept 16

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that uses quotes from the UN’s new chief of the World Meteorological Organization to downplay the threat that climate change poses to us. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Besides some misquoting and quoting from questionable sources, a selective focus was employed by the writer of the article. One UN Climate Chief, that is the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework on Climate Change, seems to be passing a different message than the one above, and she is not alone . She states that the world's way of life as it is now will lead to 'catastrophe' (see https://apnews.com/a0baaad17de744ca875711d92e173442 and https://phys.org/news/2019-04-climate-chief-current-path-catastrophe.html ). Though not joined by all top scientists, she believes that we have 12-year period of opportunity to avoid a climate change of no return. The disagreement among experts should at least raise red flags about climate change to those who are truly objective. We should note that there are others, especially some religiously conservative Christians, who see conspiracy theories of a new call to socialism behind the warnings.
We should note that current effects of climate includes the displacement of millions of people from severe weather to the risks that come with an increased number of heatwaves. Heatwaves not only pose multiple health risks from stress to diseases especially to the vulnerable, but they can also cause increases in the disruption of basic services like electric power and thus water infrastructure. Heatwaves can also increase the number wildfires. In addition, we have already seen a dramatic spike in Category-5 hurricanes during the early part of the 21st century--13 to be precise. No other 20-year span has seen even close to as many such storms as have occurred during this part of the 21st century.
Other environmental factors include the destruction of coral reefs from coral bleaching, a reduction in oxygen in the oceans, a threat to peatlands and a rise in sea level. Climate change is seen as playing a role in the recent increase in global hunger as it affects food supplies. Climate change is seen as playing a role in increases in ocean acidification which threatens marine life and increases in sea and atmospheric temperatures (see https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789 ). The increases in those temperatures is seen as main factors in the decrease of ice in both polar regions. We should note that continual increases in sea levels threaten the health and even safety of those who live near the oceans especially those who live in large urban areas located near the oceans. Changes in temperatures causes a loss of permafrost which, in turn, causes increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

It isn't that we can see precisely into the future, but we can accurately see the present and we have more than adequate understanding of the dynamics involved with what affects the climate and the oceans. And none of the signs we see are promising. But perhaps the biggest obstacle we have is the perspective we gain from the financial world. For the financial world under the control of our present day neoliberal capitalism has taught us to only look at short-term returns. The problem emphasizing short-term returns when it comes to climate change is that by the time those returns overwhelmingly convince us that there is a problem, the trap has sprung and it is too late. The Scriptures are right in saying: ' For the love of money is a root of all [g]sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs>' (see I Timothy 6:10, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+timothy+6%3A10&version=NASB )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 17

To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost on the purpose of The Constitution. Frohnen projects a conservative idealism in both the document and its framers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Besides the small contradiction that exists in the article, Frohnen kind of projects conservative idealism when describing the purpose of and the context in which The Constitution was written.
The small contradiction can be seen in his statements that The Constitution was written because Americans were seeking less government and that it was written because the American people blamed a weak federal government.for trade and tax wars. To be specific, it was those with wealth who blamed a weak government for the widespread dissent and weak response to Shays Rebellion. One only needs to compare the demographics of the rebels in that rebellion with the participants at the convention that produced The Constitution to understand the true context of the document.

One could also look at Madison's fear of opening the electorate to all classes of people in England. He was afraid that this would lead to agrarian reform. Thus he said that the purpose of government was to:

protect the minority of the opulent against the majority

Remember that initially senators were not elected by the people. That and their length of term in office was immunize the Senators from the opinions of the voters according to Madison. And there we should remember that only a very small percentage of the people could vote then.

Conservative idealism paints a similar picture of the framers of The Constitution as the Scriptures do of the Apostles. In reality, many of the framers of The Constitution were driven more by self-interest than idealism--that is many, not all. The tax revolts didn't cause one state to threaten another. Again, those revolts threatened the place that the wealthy had in society. Federalist Paper #10 shows the disregard that people like Madison had for democracy as well as those who disagreed with policies established to favor the wealthy.

 The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States...A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it

and following shows the preference for the Union over the states:

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.

Finally, we should note that Frohnen only recognizes power in the government. What he doesn't seem to understand is that power can centered in the elites from the private sector. And that is what can occur when the government is under the control of the wealthy regardless of its size.