National Review

In my frequent perusals of National Review, I came across three brilliant articles.

The first, entitled, “The Myth of ‘Settled Science'”  by Charles Krauthammer, is about the recent uproar of declarations regarding climate change as being a “settled science”. This seems beyond egregious to me in multiple ways. The first, and most obvious, is in the name itself. “SETTLED” science? To any “real” scientist, whether he works on climate change or not, this should be ridiculous. Science is never settled, always adapting. I was reading a fascinating article a while back (and, ironically, someone commented on Krauthammer’s article with this same information) about a scientist who believed fire was caused by a specific element, which was accepted in Galileo’s day as, essentially, a settled science. Do we still believe phlogiston (the aforementioned element) is the source of fire? No, because “Settled Science” doesn’t exist. If you read Mr. Krauthammer’s article (which I HIGHLY recommend you do), you will find numerous debunking of the global warming ideas.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371639/myth-settled-science-charles-krauthammer

The second article, by Jonah Goldberg, is on one of my favorite topics: diversity as liberals see it. When a liberal uses the word diversity, in 99 cases out of 100 (and that is giving liberals the benefit of the doubt in not saying every time), they mean people who agree with me. Mr. Goldberg cites several students who believed that hosting conservative opinions in their totally liberal environments is harmful to diversity.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371625/attacking-diversity-thought-jonah-goldberg

The last, by Kevin D. Williamson, writes an article about another one of my favorite topics: liberals and discrimination. The background for this is Arizona passed a law protecting bakers from turning away homosexual clients if they request a wedding cake. Now, this “should” be an extremely simple concept: if I own a business I should have the right to decline you service because I don’t like what shoes you are wearing and nothing more. It only hurts my business that I am turning away a customer. What Mr. Williams discusses, however, is the other side of the coin. Liberals love to throw discrimination lawsuits at people for “hate crimes”, but what if one of Mr. Williams hypotheticals happens? This quote, from the article, sums it up expertly, “a Ku Klux Klan Wedding — should the management of Harlem’s famous Sylvia’s Restaurant be prosecuted under civil-rights law if the establishment should decline to cater such a wedding?”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371633/until-whole-leavened-kevin-d-williamson

Just some food for thought (more like a buffet).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s