The unreality of the 'Reality Based Community'

The insufferable arrogance of those on the left who smugly refer to themselves as the "Reality Based Community" - thus implying that those who oppose them are inferior dolts guided by religion or ideology - has just about run its course.

The notion of "reality based" anything from the left is a laugher. The only "reality" they recognize keeps shifting according to whatever political point they wish to make at any given time. Creating your own "reality" has its advantages, of course, and when you have the help of a willing media to promote today's version of reality while conveniently leaving out yesterday's construct, you needn't worry about being called on it.

Unless, that is, you elect ideological nincompoops who blow your whole scheme to hell:

In the course of the Obama administration we have seen examples of Democrats in the White House, Congress and across the government pursuing ideological goals that are not only not based on facts and science and argument but actually fly in the face of facts and science and argument. Some examples:» Offshore oil drilling. Recently the inspector general of the Interior Department discovered that White House officials altered a report to claim that the administration's six-month moratorium on offshore oil drilling had the approval of the nation's foremost engineering experts. "The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering," the administration declared. In fact, the experts had not reviewed, nor did they approve, the proposed drilling moratorium. The administration insists it was all a mistake.

» The "clean energy economy." President Obama speaks frequently about "accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy." Neither Obama's promises of breakthroughs in solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources -- which can supply only a tiny fraction of the nation's energy needs -- nor his claims that his policies will create hundreds of thousands of "green jobs" in a new clean energy world, are supported by solid economic analysis. Numerous studies found that the president's favored cap-and-trade program would not have led to economic growth, and the concept of "green jobs" is so fuzzy as to be almost useless.

"They are ignoring the fact that subsidized green jobs destroy jobs elsewhere and direct capital and resources away from their most efficient use," says Nick Loris, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "If these technologies were economically competitive and profitable, they wouldn't need the subsidies and mandates the administration is supporting."

You don't even have to include global warming even though rather than ideological, support for the absolute, 100% certain notion that we are all going to die unless we turn the economy over to liberals, it is much more a religious belief. There is no better example of unscientific, blatantly anti-intellectual mind set than climate change advocates rejecting counter arguments out of hand. It bespeaks a drastic failure of the first rule in discovering objective truth; accepting the legitimacy of debate.






The insufferable arrogance of those on the left who smugly refer to themselves as the "Reality Based Community" - thus implying that those who oppose them are inferior dolts guided by religion or ideology - has just about run its course.

The notion of "reality based" anything from the left is a laugher. The only "reality" they recognize keeps shifting according to whatever political point they wish to make at any given time. Creating your own "reality" has its advantages, of course, and when you have the help of a willing media to promote today's version of reality while conveniently leaving out yesterday's construct, you needn't worry about being called on it.

Unless, that is, you elect ideological nincompoops who blow your whole scheme to hell:

In the course of the Obama administration we have seen examples of Democrats in the White House, Congress and across the government pursuing ideological goals that are not only not based on facts and science and argument but actually fly in the face of facts and science and argument. Some examples:

» Offshore oil drilling. Recently the inspector general of the Interior Department discovered that White House officials altered a report to claim that the administration's six-month moratorium on offshore oil drilling had the approval of the nation's foremost engineering experts. "The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering," the administration declared. In fact, the experts had not reviewed, nor did they approve, the proposed drilling moratorium. The administration insists it was all a mistake.

» The "clean energy economy." President Obama speaks frequently about "accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy." Neither Obama's promises of breakthroughs in solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources -- which can supply only a tiny fraction of the nation's energy needs -- nor his claims that his policies will create hundreds of thousands of "green jobs" in a new clean energy world, are supported by solid economic analysis. Numerous studies found that the president's favored cap-and-trade program would not have led to economic growth, and the concept of "green jobs" is so fuzzy as to be almost useless.

"They are ignoring the fact that subsidized green jobs destroy jobs elsewhere and direct capital and resources away from their most efficient use," says Nick Loris, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "If these technologies were economically competitive and profitable, they wouldn't need the subsidies and mandates the administration is supporting."

You don't even have to include global warming even though rather than ideological, support for the absolute, 100% certain notion that we are all going to die unless we turn the economy over to liberals, it is much more a religious belief. There is no better example of unscientific, blatantly anti-intellectual mind set than climate change advocates rejecting counter arguments out of hand. It bespeaks a drastic failure of the first rule in discovering objective truth; accepting the legitimacy of debate.






RECENT VIDEOS