There are a great many true believers in “Activism”, by that I mean, that one should always bring ones politics and resolve as an “agent of social change” to the table in whatever profession one happens to be working. If something contradicts the prevailing political correctness; than one has a professional duty, as an agent of social change, to enforce the liberal view for the betterment of society without regard to the truth, because this is the educated and politically correct procedure.
When the people vote against homosexual marriage and adoption, when they vote against abortion on demand; it’s simply proof that the masses are ignorant, and the modern day liberal feels the need to correct the situation because clearly they’re right and the masses are wrong. So a liberal sues over the action the people have voted on and the matter comes in front of an “activist” liberal judge who is horrified at the decision. The people have spoken and come to an ignorant and unjust decision, in the mind of the liberal judge, but instead of allowing the people to make a decision the judge disagrees with the Judge invalidates the peoples will via “Judicial Activism”. What once would have rightly been called judicial corruption and misconduct now is given a new spiffy name like “Judicial Activism” and the judge is now magically empowered to use his “compassion” and “empathy” to rationalize defiance of the electorate. People didn’t vote to allow abortion on demand: Judges invented a “right” and changed the name from infanticide to “a woman’s constitutional right to reproductive freedom”. Judges have found “rights “to “homosexual marriage” despite the clear view of the electorate that such a “right” doesn’t exist and such a practice should not be allowed.
In the nation’s schools the idea that liberals should indoctrinate the children with a host of liberal political baggage is called multiculturalism, cultural sensitivity training, ecological instruction, and health class and so on but not corruption. Its function is to allow liberal adults to inculcate the children, from grade school through college, to become liberal neo-socialist-democrats because they’ve successfully rationalized teaching their political baggage to a defenseless, captive audience. They teach reverence for the welfare state, white guilt, elevation of minority self esteem, tolerance for homosexual “lifestyles”, condom use and birth control, and above all the idea that America is hateful intolerant and exploitive and you must embrace your “ethnicity” to have a chance at a good life. Group identity is reinforced at every turn but only with respect for which of the many possible liberal power blocks a student might be steered into: never toward a common identity as American Citizens which is evil and run exclusively by, and for, white male Christians.
All the world’s woes have been traced by today’s teachers as the exclusive fault of white male Christians and perpetrated to steal the control and power of minority groups such as blacks, women, the handicapped and yes, kids. Teachers see themselves as churning out “agents of social change” rather than as scumbags who shamelessly regurgitate they’re political crap on children who are too young to resist their idiotic political beliefs. The teachers don’t see themselves as corrupt scumbags subverting your will, and insulting your Childs intelligence, they see it as instilling a social conscience and as churning out “agents of social change”: activities they claim are “education” rather than corruption. You can see how effective they are by our dismal test scores and the fact that American education is, and has been, in free fall for many years. You can educate or you can indoctrinate; but you can’t do both because you can’t be truly educated and hide behind an intellectual fig leaf of ideological indoctrination.
If the truth doesn’t work politically the modern liberal invents a new “truth” and demands respect for “their truth” as a matter of basic fairness because: “the truth wares many faces” and “there’s no such thing as absolute truth” and “all truth is culturally created” and “fundamentally there is no truth”.
Truth is seen as an impossible dream by journalists who rationalize the fabrication of news as inevitable, and even as good, if an “agent of social change” is writing the story. The journalistic ethics of objectivity and honest reporting is old fashioned and it’s not enough for journalists to report the truth if the people don’t come to the right conclusion about the issue. It’s the journalist’s job, as “agents of social change” to use the events of the day to reinforce key liberal social and political propaganda because the masses are too ignorant to form their own. News outlets don’t report facts anymore: they market the conclusions of the neo-socialist-elite-democrats along with whatever “facts” can be made to serve a preselected conclusion. It’s become a farce and a great shame that so many once professional news organizations now have a reputation as openly liberal and as advancing the agenda of neo-socialist-democrats at every opportunity.
In this wilderness of political corruption that has reached its full powers during the baby boom generation, there was one domain that seemed safe from the intimidation of leftists and that was the realm of hard science. In science, facts are the building blocks of reproducible truths about our world and how it operates. Steely-eyed scientists produced a boom of progress and innovation by their devotion to facts and integrity of their experiments and everyone prospered from their efforts. Scientists were respected just as teachers, and judges, and journalists used to be, because their integrity kept us free and moving forward as a society.
Then came global warming; an issue that could be made to serve the Neo-Socialist-Democrat agenda. Scientists became “activists “and in so doing ceased to be scientists and became scumbags like the people of other professions who sold their ethics for political correctness. Facts that supported global warming were proclaimed “settled science” and facts that contradicted global warming became lies of the great right-wing-agenda that hates minorities and seeks only profit and the rape of the earth. Politics reared its ugly head and the only politically correct answer was that global warming was caused by our white, male, Christian society and we’re all going to die unless we become tree hugging liberals! We must give up capitalism for socialism or we’ll destroy the earth. Scientists who proclaimed this crap continued to be scientists, won awards, got funding and accolades, and full professorships to say nothing of tenure at prestigious universities. Those who didn’t were hounded out of the academy by their politically correct comrades who had a “basic social conscience” and were therefore justified in persecuting and destroying anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s been very difficult and embarrassing for pro global warming “scientists” to explain the ever growing body of facts that suggest we may be heading into a mini ice age which these politically correct “scientists” deny without really looking at the data. It’s been encouraging, lately; that our socialist masters have determined that “global warming” should be replaced, as an issue, by “climate change”. Apparently the fact that climate, changes, is the fault of white male based exploitive society too!
Here is something from World Net Daily on “Climate Change” (formerly global warming, aka ecology movement)
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
EPA’s own research expert ‘shut up’ on climate change
Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings
Posted: June 24, 2009
11:05 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of the EPA’s climate change position.
Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency’s greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA’s approach to combating CO2 emissions
. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have “a very negative impact on our office.”
His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, “His boss basically told him, ‘No, I’m not going to send your study further up. It’s going to stay within this bureau.'”
Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.
“It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature,” he wrote. “I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding.”
After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.
“Alan, I decided not to forward your comments,” he wrote. “… The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
endangerment findings nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”
CEI charges that suppression of Carlin’s study denied public access to important agency information, as court rulings have indicated that both “the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded” must be included in the rulemaking record.
“They could come up with reasons to reject it, as I’m sure they’re going to come up with reasons to reject the scientific objections that are coming in now from outside parties in the general public and from skeptical scientists,” Kazman told WND. “But I’d say the real issue here is that this critique is coming from a career EPA insider, so it can’t be dismissed as the work of someone in the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The fact that someone within the EPA was taking this approach is something that would be naturally embarrassing to the agency.”
CEI also said the incident violated the EPA’s commitment to transparency and scientific honesty.
Prior to taking office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, “As Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.”
Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of President Obama’s April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences in which he stated, “[U]nder my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, “Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin’s study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely.”
“The irony of the president and Administrator Jackson talking about EPA’s new transparency and commitment to scientific integrity, that’s really incredible,” Kazman said.
CEI is asking the agency to make Carlin’s study public, extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to his research and publicly declare that there will be no reprisals against Carlin for his research.
Kazman said the issue is “coming to a head” because the EPA’s internal commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote Friday on the House floor.
He believes Carlin’s study could have implications on how lawmakers feel about the allegedly solid research behind the climate bill – especially if objecting analysts within the agency are being silenced.
“Any right-minded administrator would have said, ‘Fine, put it in and we’ll give our reasons for why we reject his contentions,” Kazman said. “But instead, they shut the guy up.”