I think Mr Douthat's analysis is spot on. It's nice to see a conservative admit this (obvious) point. The strategy laid out in Mr Douthat's book seems like a great strategy for the Republican Party. If followed it has, realistically, a 100% of increasing the size of government. Then again, the same could easily be said for all the Republican Presidential candidates, except Dr Paul.
Good summary here but I think the third quote deserves full context:
I can't resist adding one more:
Originally in First Things:
Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: "The debate is over. It's time to discuss solutions." Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general's qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made. The first question that this raises is why have so many scientists chosen to ignore this glaring failure of the global warming hypothesis to meet the standards of their own profession? The second question is what, if anything, can be done about it?
The first, and most obvious, temptation for this sort of willful blindness is financial. Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe.
Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."
A review of "The Happening"
That seems to be about the summary of the book discussed here (they could out-FDR the Democrats) (the prescription drug bill on steroids). Of course, such an agenda would do very little to further Conservative ideals. It would also actively work against libertarian ones. Other than that, I don't see any problems!
I don't like referring to them as "the rich" and "the poor" since they are not static groups, but these are interesting stats:
The author of the post goes on to discuss the desire for ever more wealth as if it were a psychological disorder. Who knows, maybe it is? I guess all psychological diseases don't have to be bad for society.
if any of the people who signed the letter that Professor Somin criticizes here realized that they were reducing the concept of diversity to absurdity? After all how can it promote diversity to prohibit naming something after someone who doesn't think in the proper way?