In Your Heart, You Know He’s Right

April 21, 2014


Barry Goldwater:

“While I am a great believer in the free competitive enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment. To this end, it is my belief that when pollution is found, it should be halted at the source, even if this requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy.”

— Leftist, tree-hugging, Big Government environmentalist whacko…and 1964 conservative Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, from 1971’s The Conscience of a Majority.

Hat tip to Bradblog and D.R. Tucker

56 Responses to “In Your Heart, You Know He’s Right”

  1. omnologos Says:

    “Rassenschande (“racial shame”, “racial defilement”, or “racial pollution“) or (“blood defilement”) was the Nazi term for sexual relations between Aryans (cf. Aryan certificate) and non-Aryans, which was punishable by law”

    from Wikipedia

    • dumboldguy Says:


      And WHYWHYWHY????!!!!!

      If anyone ever doubted that Omnobrains had a problem, here’s proof that he does.

      • jpcowdrey Says:

        Isn’t magical thinking just wonderful? It leads me to believe every human life has purpose and meaning; if only to serve as a cautionary tale.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          I’m confused. Could you explain for us what is “magical” about Omno’s alleged “thinking” here? (And cockroaches, maggots, dung beetles, and vultures have “purpose and meaning” too).

          • omnologos Says:

            Magical thinking is by people who don’t understand that where pollution is more important than freedom dictatorship is inevitable by those who can define what pollution meaans.

            the Soviet thought police worked hard to isolate the mind polluters too.

    • Glenn Martin Says:

      Dear Omnomnom,

      What are you smoking and where can I get some?

    • redskylite Says:

      Sounds a bit like half-bloods, mudbloods and muggles to me

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    An “honest” conservative-libertarian (if there can be such a thing). I remember Goldwater more for his way out “wrecking crew” conservatism, but he WAS an environmentalist and DID speak out against allowing religious fundamentalism to take over the country.

  3. MorinMoss Says:

    Just another example of how much the “Party of Lincoln” has changed – and not for the better.

    • jimbills Says:

      Unfortunately, everything has shifted dramatically to the right these days. Not even President Obama would say such a thing these days. We used to live in a world where economic growth wasn’t the primary goal of life, but now we live in a place where to even question growth is heretical.

      “The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technologies — we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.”

      Basically, you’re an old fuddy-duddy if you don’t put unlimited faith in technology and economic growth. This is from a President who is considered our most liberal President in a generation, and his comments PALE in comparison to one of the most conservative candidates in generations to run for President in the 1960s.

      Economic growth is not God. It should not be our primary goal. We should be focused on securing a clean and happy place for not only us but for the generations to come. Some policies that are required to protect the environment WILL stunt economic growth. There’s no shame in that. It’s just reality.

      BTW, regulation does not equal fascism. This sort of exaggeration is used to produce fear into blindly accepting de-regulation. Fascism rises up in periods of instability, though, often caused by financial chaos that were the result of a lack of regulation.

      • MorinMoss Says:

        “Unfortunately, everything has shifted dramatically to the right these days. Not even President Obama would say such a thing these days”

        Bill Maher said back in 2009 in his closing rant “White Men Can’t Harrumph” that in the past 30 years, “the Democrats have moved to the right and the Right into a mental hospital” and the GOP has become “a collection of religious nuts, flat earthers and Civil War re-enactors”

        • jimbills Says:

          This is exactly right, and the fact that most Americans have no idea that this is the actual state of politics in this country is a sad testament to our level of ignorance.

          Most of what Maher is saying about the Democrats is due to corruptive influences of campaign funding and lobbying. The Republicans were always the first in bed with these practices, but it’s impossible to win elections these days without major financial support, and that results in undue influence over political affairs.

          The other part of the political shift has been due to the reduced voice of the “crazy left”. There are only a few actual liberals these days – Maher mentions a few like Kucinich and Chomsky – and they get almost no airtime in the media. Again, this is due to the extreme influence of moneyed interests. Meanwhile, the “crazy right” gets as much airtime as it needs, and slowly over time the general public shifts right. A “moderate” view today is rightist view of the 1960s and a “liberal” view is the moderate position of 3-4 decades ago.

  4. omnologos Says:

    Not sure why all this complaining …none of the environmental issues that worried Goldwater hasn’t been improved. Rivers don’t catch fire, soot has disappeared, buffalos abound, there’s a powerful EPA, greening is so mainstream it’s generated a cottage industry of fake PR aka greenwashing.Thousands work about climate change and there have been Oscars and Nobel prizes.

    Is there a way to be Green without believing the world is ending?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Omno admits to “unsureness”? Is he finally listening to us when we speak of his incoherence? Naaaah, not possible. He’s just confused about his confusion.

    • MorinMoss Says:

      So you think that things can never go back to the bad, old days?
      Think again.

      Powerful EPA?? Not in the America that real people are living in.

      Take a good hard look at what the GOP are trying to do to the EPA and what will happen if they win the Senate come November.

      • omnologos Says:

        MorinMoss…so you agree it’s senseless to pretend things have been going downhill?

        • MorinMoss Says:

          No. What’s being done has shifted. There wasn’t any significant mountaintop removal or tar sands extraction back in Nixon’s day.
          And there have been vast changes in industrial agriculture.

          A powerful EPA wouldn’t have watched Exxon wrangle the courts through a couple decades over the spill in Prince William Sound for a settlement of less than 10% of the original ruling and still owe Alaska $100 million – 25 years after the incident.

          A powerful EPA wouldn’t have had to wait 40 years after the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act for the number of US coal plants fitted with scrubbers to exceed 50%

    • Do you intentionally misunderstand the point of these blogs? Don’t complain or speak against the current state of politics because we improved the situation in the past, really?

      The POINT of this blog is that the GOP has changed so much since Barry Goldwater’s time that it’s almost unrecognizable. So much so that the GOP is now putting in danger many of the safeguards we all take for granted.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “…..the GOP is now putting in danger MANY of the safeguards we all take for granted”?

        I’ve tried to think of some “safeguards” that the GOP has not put “in danger” but can’t come up with any. Can you name any they have strengthened?

        In fact, my mind raced out beyond environmental protection to such things as campaign finance, voting rights, social security and medicare—-the GOP is working to destroy “safeguards” there as well.

      • omnologos Says:

        Lurker -in the 43 years since that quote there’s been a Republican President for 25 years. Since all the problems known at the time have been solved or almost solved since, and being green is politically equivalent to motherhood and apple pie, it’s not meaningful to pretend the Gop is enemy of the environment.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          “….all the problems known at the time have been solved or almost solved since….”

          A real “tide goes in, tide goes out” statement from Omnonutsy this AM. Does he know anything about history at all?

          • omnologos Says:

            Does anyone know of any kind of environmental issue widely known and acknowledged in 1971 that’s not been tackled successfully?

            I’ve spoken of soot for example, and lead-spouting cars. Mpg values are much better too.

            Would a person of 1971 moved via a time machine to 2014 think the environment is much better,or worse?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Amazing Omno-cluelessness demonstrated yet again. All we have done since 1971 is kick the can down the road. Small “successes” have been far outweighed by newer, bigger, and continuing failures.

            Once “a person of 1971 moved via a time machine” to 2014 AND got educated on the state of the planet today, they would undoubtedly think the environment is much worse. I got here from 1971 not by time machine but by living through every minute of the intervening 43 years, and that’s my take.

          • omnologos Says:

            You are refusing to talk details. Give it a try. One could reasonably think that if all the issues we knew about in 1971 have seen improvements by 2014, all the issues we know about in 2014 will see improvements, by the year 2057.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            DETAILS? Lord love a duck, but the cognitive dissonance displayed in Omno’s “thinking” is a wondrous thing to behold, as is what passes for logic there. This statement is one of Omno’s best:

            “One could reasonably think that if all the issues we knew about in 1971 have seen improvements by 2014, all the issues we know about in 2014 will see improvements, by the year 2057”.

            Since virtually none of the issues we knew about in 1971 have seen really significant improvements (and any small “successes” have been far outweighed by newer and bigger failures in related areas), only someone like Omno would “reasonably think that ALL the issues we know about in 2014 will see improvements by 2057”.

            It is more “reasonable” to think that the failures of the last 41 years will be repeated over the next 41. Unless, of course, Omno can show us how man is going to behave better over the next 41 years as compared to the last 41.

          • omnologos Says:

            I will give up on you and your empty rhetoric for this thread…you have provided zero counterexamples to my list. There is no river catching fire nowadays and that is not a °small improvement°. Same for the fact that terrains and people are not being bathed in lead from motor vehicles. The amount of soot has declined so spectacularly, with obvious health improvements for billions of people, it might have made global warming worse. Etc etc.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, please do “give up” with your mindless pursuit of greater fame as the king of incoherence on Crock. I have been waiting for it to warm up enough to go out and do some yardwork or I would not have been bothering with you.

            Since you have no real “list”, there is no need to present “counterexamples”.

            “There is no river catching fire nowadays”? LOL ONE freaking river caught on fire in the distant past. Let’s talk about the recent spill of chemicals into the river in WV that polluted the water supply for 100’s of thousands, or the ongoing coal ash spills into rivers in several states qas “counterexamples”.

            “People are not being bathed in lead from motor vehicles”. LOL again. No, now we’re being bathed in ever-increasing amounts of CO2, heat, and extreme weather—wind, wet and dry, including in places where there have never veen many motor vehicles

            “Soot has declined so spectacularly, with obvious health improvements for billions of people”. LOL yet again. Soot is still with us—-ever hear of dark snow?—-and you greatly exaggerate when you talk about “obvious” health improvements for “billions”.

            I’m done feeding you, troll—-farewell.

          • omnologos Says:

            Hopefully there is somebody on this thread with any amount of brains I can talk to

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Perhaps someone will pay you some attention, but no matter who it may be among the 1500+ Crockers, you can be assured that they will have more “brains” than you do. Too bad you won’t listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with your narrow and rather warped understanding of the world.

          • MorinMoss Says:

            A very large chunk of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

            A great many people who howl & scream about redistribution of wealth did not have a problem with redistributing pollution.

          • Yes. Did the omniscient one forget choking air pollution darkening the skies in China?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            A good question. Since one must know something in order to forget it, it is hard to answer with regard to Omno. Perhaps he HAS forgotten, because he is referencing some irrelevant EPA data in another comment, and I have reminded him of China. We shall see if that jogs his memory.

          • When omni refers to the amount of brains he can talk to, he means amoeba.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I have spent many hours observing amoebas under the microscope, and no self-respecting amoeba would talk to Omno. They would commit protozoan hara-kiri by rupturing their cell membranes and spilling their cytoplasm first.

          • omnologos Says:

            Stupid can’t notice we’re talking Goldwater and GOP, ie American politics. Oh well.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Let’s see. Some pudgy and demented little narcissist in the UK, whose roots are in Italy (the homeland of fascism), and whose first comment on this thread was about “Rassenschande”, has been drinking alcohol or smoking something that would interfere with the thinking of a normal person…..and now he is going to pretend he knows anything about “Goldwater, the GOP, and American politics”? And he calls ME stupid?

            Omno is really putting on a show for us today, folks. Unfortunately, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

          • Except the problem of omnolo…

        • Without an environmental movement, and the formation of the EPA, no progress at all would have been made. Yes, progress has been made on many issues (not all, obviously). That’s beside the point, though, because the real point is that the CURRENT GOP is trying to reverse all the progress that WAS made over those years. That’s the story here. And they are succeeding in reversing protections in much greater measure than they ever should have been able to.

          • omnologos Says:

            Climate Lurker- as I said progress has been made in an era when the Gop was in charge for> 50% of time. Why would it be any diff in the future? (Question not polemics)

          • I don’t believe the GOP we have today is anything like the one we had in previous decades. That’s why I think it’s different now. The ideology has changed and become more radical.

          • omnologos Says:

            That’s an interesting statement Lurker. Perhaps somebody’s analyzed the Republican slogans for the last 16 years and can point out where the scissure first appeared. Dubya’s 8 years didn’t see major retreats in the EPA powers and attitude, something I presume one would expect to happen if a new breed of anti environment Republicans reached power.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Our woefully ignorant foreigner is back, and proving to all that he has no knowledge and understanding that would qualify him to comment on American politics and the policies of American presidents. Why can’t he just shut up?

            Omno seems unaware that George W. Bush was labelled by many “the worst environmental president in history” very early on during his tenure, and did nothing to improve his reputation later on. And that is not based on an analysis of SLOGANS but on analysis of deeds, actions, and policies. The Bush administration was very sneaky, actually, and, rather than spout slogans that a juvenile mind like Omno’s might respond to, was quite secretive and worked mainly behind the scenes to do its dirty work.

            Dubya’s 8 years DIDN’T see major retreats in the EPA powers and attitude, says Omno? WHAT planet do you live on, Omno? Just off the top of my head, I came up with the following—-why aren’t you aware of any of this?

            The Bush attacks on the EPA included but were not limited to the following:
            1) Attacks on the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and the EPA’s ability to enforce them.
            2) Cutting the funding of the Superfund Program.
            3) Slashing EPA staffing
            4) Almost ceasing to prosecute polluters and levy fines on them.
            5) Allowed mountaintop removal mining for coal and froze the EPA out of any regulatory authority over it.

            The Bush administration (or rather oil man Cheney) developed a SECRET energy policy that benefited the FF interests.

            The Bush administration virtually ignored AGW, and attempted to silence scientists like Hansen who spoke out about it. The Republican “war on science” can be laid at Bush’s feet.

            The Bush administration opened public lands including wilderness and national monuments to exploitation by extractive industries.

            There is no “new breed” of anti-environment Republican, Omno. Ever since Republicans became pro-special interests and pro-business, they have been “anti environment”, because there is no profit in protecting the environment. One gets rich by “drill, dig, chop, and burn, baby—-drill, dig, chop, and burn!” and let the environment pay the price. The Republicans of the last few years have continued the Bush anti-environment policies and fought Obama every inch of the way on environmental issues (and Obama himself is no great shakes on the environment, just better than Romney would have been).

          • dumboldguy Says:

            A stupid question for many reasons. First, any discussion of the GOP of the last 40 years cannot help but get into “polemics”. Once they became the party of the special interests rather than of the people it became inevitable. Second, there has not been any real “progress” made in the global sense in nearly all areas of human endeavor—-kicking the can down the road is not progress.

            Turn the telescope around, Omno—-you’re still looking through the wrong end.

  5. Below I present a few quotes tendentiously selected (by me). This is, of course, “cherry picking” but very interesting …

    James Lovelock:
    “It is far better to think about how we can protect ourselves. This is something we should be looking at carefully, not just applying guesswork and hoping for the best.”

    Lennart Bengtsson :
    He was the Director of Research at ECMWF and Director of the Max Planck Insitute for Meteorology.
    “The complex and only partially understood relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming leads to a political dilemma.”
    “… the forecasts [here] are more a matter of faith than a fact.” “… produce a false impression of reliability.”

    Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita:
    “… warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.”

    Mojib Latif: “This raises questions about the average climate sensitivity of the IPCC models.”

    Once again James Lovelock:
    “ A lot of investment in green technology has been a giant scam, if well intentioned.”

    … and once more Lennart Bengtsson:
    “… before radical and hasty changes to the current energy system are implemented, there must be robust evidence that climate change is significantly detrimental.”

    • redskylite Says:

      What’s partially understood about greenhouse gas and global warming it is very well understood in science. Let me try and explain:

      The greenhouse effect is a process in which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric gases, and re-radiated in all directions including back towards the planet, resulting in raised surface temperatures.

      A greenhouse gas must contain at least three atoms, to enable it to capture infrared radiation and prevent radiation escaping the atmosphere. Oxygen is the second most common component of the Earth’s atmosphere making up 23% of the atmospheric volume, having the chemical formula Oշ. Oxygen molecules have two symmetric atoms, of the same element that are bonded together, there is no change in the atom’s dipole moment when atoms vibrate, no electrical field is generated, and oxygen is unaffected by infrared radiation. Oxygen lets all the radiation from cloud tops and land-sea surface pass through it directly into space without any absorption or re-emission, and does not add any heat. Other common non-greenhouse gases are argon (AR) having 1 atom per molecule and nitrogen (Nշ) which has two atoms per molecule..

      Carbon dioxide (chemical formula COշ) is a greenhouse gas contributing a 9% – 26% proportion of Earth’s greenhouse effect. COշ contains 3 atoms consisting of a single carbon atom that resides between two bonded oxygen atoms, which can absorb and emit thermal infrared radiation. The carbon atom is excited by certain infrared radiation frequencies and oscillates in a bending vibrational mode between the two oxygen atoms, generating an electrical field while it vibrates, absorbing and emitting infrared light. Another mode in which COշ molecules can oscillate in is called an asmmetric stretch mode, in which one bond is grows longer as the other gets shorter, back and forth, this mode does not absorb much infrared and is much less influential than the bending vibrational mode. Carbon dioxide is a well mixed long-lived trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, having an atmospheric life span of between 30 to 95 years, currently occurring at an average concentration of about 400 parts per million by volume, and steadily increasing mainly due to man’s industrial activities. Around 45% of COշ emissions end up in the atmosphere. The National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) monitors COշ concentrations and the latest readings at Mauna Loa, Hawaii are available at the following link.

      Other major greenhouse gases, having molecules containing 3 or more atoms, existing in the atmosphere are water vapour (GHG contribution 36% – 72%), Methane (4% – 9%) and Ozone (3% – 7%).

      • redskylite Says:

        And if you are not convinced by that then consult Svante Arrhenious who figured it all out in 1889, and if you are still not convinced then I despair at human nature and maybe we do not deserve to survive.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Yes, cherry-picked, but not “tendentious”, except in your attention seeking mind. Old and boring stuff, actually. Go away.

    • redskylite Says:

      This paper dated 1955 (by Gilbert N. Plass) is pretty comprehensive on the effects of greenhouse gases – what have we been daydreaming about for the last 60 years ?

  6. omnologos Says:

    EPA has an Air Quality Trends page

    All indicators have improved in every respect and from every angle.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      “All indicators have improved in every respect and from every angle”

      LOL, such a jokester, our Omno. “….from every angle”, he says?

      I guess one who looks at the world through the wrong end of a telescope might say that seriously though, and Omno surely does NOT know which end of the telescope to use.

      Hey! Omno? The EPA is talking about the United States here—what about air quality in China and the rest of the world? What about global CO2?

      • jimbills Says:

        He’s trying to suggest that pollution is better in this era than in the 1950s and 1960s. In the highly developed world, this is correct. On a global basis, it’s not.

        But the irony he doesn’t see is that in trying to make his point, he’s actually showing that regulations do work – that the thing he believes inevitably leads to racial cleansing instead just leads to lower polluted lead levels in the environment.

        • omnologos Says:

          Only irony is how complex points escape most of you people. Goldwater was luckily wrong in putting the environment against freedom of enterprise. America has become vastly richer and vastly cleaner at the same time.

          My point is that history shows it ain’t fascism that cleans things up . Any thought to the contrary leads potentially to Auschwitz because it has already.

          That’s another reason why it’s totally wrong to try to build up support for the donkey by pretending tho elephant is against the environment.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Whatever intoxicants Omno has been indulging in today have have finally driven him into a state of complete incoherence (and, unfortunately, heightened attention seeking behavior—-like the drunk mooning the pub).

            Omno does not understand irony (never has), and perhaps has missed the point on many more “complex points” than all other Crockers combined.

            Can someone translate this for me? “Goldwater was luckily wrong in putting the environment against freedom of enterprise. America has become vastly richer and vastly cleaner at the same time”. What does “luckily wrong” mean? And who has gotten “vastly richer” in this country? And define “cleaner”—-actually this is a much “dirtier” country in many ways, and not just in terms of things that the EPA measures and Omno so simplistically waves about.

            “That’s another reason why it’s totally wrong to try to build up support for the donkey by pretending tho elephant is against the environment”. More ignorance from Omno—-does he think that anyone here is concerned about “building support for the donkey”? It’s not about party, Omno, and no one in America is “pretending” that the Repugnants are “against the environment”, it’s a self evident FACT to all of us here that have open minds and can think rationally. As an ignorant foreigner, perhaps you should refrain from pontificating about things that you so clearly do NOT understand.

  7. […] 2014/04/21: PSinclair: In Your Heart, You Know He’s Right […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: