By Rich Kozlovich
This article will seem to be somewhat disjointed because I am using two articles that are seemingly unassociated for foundation. In reality I am using them as a way of creating 'coherence through connectives'. Two things must be made clear. First, words mean things but are constantly being warped and twisted by radicals to obfuscate reality. Secondly, everything we are told is a lie. Mostly lies of omission, but the end result of both of these articles is to show that humanity is being duped by prominent people, i.e., leaders in every area of influence. We really do need to get that.
In John Hawkins article, 10 Concepts Liberals Talk About Incessantly But Don't Understand, he starts out with this quote from Ronald Reagan:
"It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so."
And this by the character Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride:
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”.
Which is a great lead in to the 10 clarifications about terms in his article that are being redefined so often that they are becoming somewhat indefinable. He covers the difference between how conservatives and liberals define the following terms:
Open Mindedness, Racism, Fairness, Greed, Hate, Investment, Charity, Patriotism, Tolerance and Diversity.
Why has this become so complicated? That's the easy part!
As long as we are incapable of defining words and terms properly we can be led in directions that we may not have been willing to go otherwise. This has been a tactic on the left since the French Revolution, refined and promoted by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Mao. And today it is being practiced by people who have become far more expert at it, the mainstream media, the green activists, statists and leftists who are insatiable in their drive for power and money.
This brings me to another article that I think is equally thought provoking and I will lead in with it by asking a question that I have asked quite often. How many government employees, bureaucrats, boards, commissions, agencies or elected officials picked Microsoft to be a winner? Of course the answer is ….None!
Government doesn’t pick winners and losers well, however government is often excellent at making winners and losers through taxes and regulations. Although, when one takes a look at all the 'green' companies that are falling over the precipice into bankruptcy....to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, one has to conclude that government can't even seem to make winners competently.
Even with all the artificial mandates they have installed to make ‘green’ companies successful they have failed. The fact that government doesn’t govern well should automatically force us to ask why we would expect it to administer anything involving business with any lesser degree of incompetence. (Interesting wording there don’t you think?)
This brings me to an article by Jim Powell dealing with the real history and reality of what has been touted as a ‘jewel’ of success of the New Deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority! The truth is somewhat different. Jim Powell is “a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of FDR's Folly, Bully Boy, and Greatest Emancipations” originally wrote this article in March of 2009 appearing in Reason, entitled How Big Government Infrastructure Projects Go Wrong. It is no less profound today (perhaps more so) than it was then.
[The Tennessee Valley Authority] was heralded as a program to build dams that would control floods, facilitate navigation, lift people out of poverty, and help America recover from the Great Depression. Yet the reality is that the TVA probably flooded more land than it protected; much of the navigation it has facilitated involves barges of coal for coal-fired power plants; people receiving TVA-subsidized electricity have increasingly lagged behind neighbors who did not; and the TVA's impact on the Great Depression was negligible. The TVA morphed into America's biggest monopoly, dominating an 80,000 square mile region with 8.8 million people—for all practical purposes, it is a bureaucratic kingdom subject to neither public nor private controls………On top of that, the TVA is exempt from federal antitrust laws and many federal environmental regulations. It's also exempt from some 165 laws and regulations in Alabama and hundreds more laws and regulations in other states in which it operates……..TVA "has the poorest safety record with [nuclear] reactors." …Tennessee coal-fired plant, the dike of a 40-acre holding pond broke, spilling as much as a billion gallons of coal sludge with elevated levels of arsenic. The sludge covered some 300 acres up to six feet deep, damaging homes and wrecking a train. This spill reportedly was much bigger than the oil spill from the Exxon Valdez tanker that went aground in Alaska...Did you know any of that? If not; do we think that we should be asking why? The TVA has always been touted as an example of how government can do wonderful things for society, yet that is abundantly false.
Where is all of this going? I am laying intellectual foundation to justify a future article that demonstrates that there is a huge difference between businesses and businesses, and their needs and desires. Big business isn't necessarily on the side of businesses in general…. or as we say…. on our side. And the more I involve myself in defending our industry against unwarranted legislation, foolish policies, stifling regulations and completely idiot philosophies such as 'green pest control' I realize that as allies, the ‘big business’ in pest control, i.e., the large chemical manufacturers are at best leaky vessels.
An example of such foolishness can be realized by the American Chemistry Council’s initial support of Sen. Lautenberg’s assault on chemicals known as the Safe Chemicals Act, which if passed, would replace the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. First introduced in 2005 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the Safe Chemicals Act (SCA) would require that manufacturers must first prove a chemical is safe before it’s approved for use. As the law currently stands, the EPA must demonstrate that a chemical already in use poses substantial health risks before it can be phased out. This would be the American equivalent of Europe’s legislative insanity called REACH, which was the inspiration for the SCA, both of which are nothing more than a back door approach to imposing The Precautionary Principle on humanity, which requires “that if the evidence about a product, technology, or activity is any way incomplete, it should be prohibited or at least stringently regulated”, which of course creates an unending open door for the activists to find areas of criticism.
Both the Precautionary Principle and the SCA require that you must prove a product safe or it cannot be approved and if it has been approved under old standards must be removed? In order to do any of the things this bill requires will mean massive amounts of animal testing. Testing that other activists will be outraged over, then in turn demanding the government pass legislation that stops the slaughter of these ‘innocent’ animals. Do you see the dilemma?
SCA will be an unending attack on industry at every level at some point. Just because it doesn’t directly deal with pesticides we can be assured, based on past history, if passed, the activists will find some federal judge that will expand the interpretation of SCA to include far more than Congress’ original intention. Let’s face it. Most of the legislative authority of the EPA was not given to them by the legislature. It was imposed by the judiciary.
The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act are being used in ways that the Congress never intended when they voted on it, and Members of Congress openly say so.
Let’s go back to the “you can’t use it unless you can prove it’s safe” idea. You cannot in any way prove something is safe. You can only prove something is unsafe. It is called proving a negative, a scientific impossibility! Why would any chemical company support such nonsense? Worse yet, why would an association that represents chemical companies do so? Although they later rescinded their support, one has to wonder what was wrong with their minds in the first place! Unless of course they believed there was something to be gained. Is it possible that large companies would thrive if their smaller cousins suffered? I will address this in the next article. But remember….there is no such thing as a conspiracy, however, having read a history book or two I have found examples of ….welllll….let’s say behavior that could be construed as conspiratorial.
Previous to the U.S. involvement in WWII the largest manufacturers and lending institutions were directly involved in the buildup of Nazi Germany. Actually, I don’t have a problem with that. There was no reason any of them shouldn't have taken advantage of the financial opportunities of Germany’s new economy. There was a worldwide economy long before today and even before WWII. Although it was as false economy as Hitler’s economic manipulations were going to come crashing down around his head if Hitler didn’t get his war started according to the book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”. However, many of these ‘big businesses’ would have been more than happy to keep doing business with both Germany and Japan (and did so throughout the war) along with the Allies, with the knowledge of the Roosevelt Administration. I have a problem with that1
We see pesticide manufacturers doing things that seem incomprehensible. We see government agencies piling on regulations with absolutely no clue as to the end result. We see the negative consequences of these actions, like the current bed bug plague, and we find them continuing on in these obviously failed policies. We see what appears as the chemical manufacturers actively working with the EPA to make fewer products. Why? Is it possible they seem to think there is a way they will gain against their competitors?
That is where this is going and I am merely laying the ground work for a future article. First I wanted to establish two things. Everything must be properly defined to get the correct understanding, and everything we are told are lies of omission, if not outright lies of commission. There is a reason I have chosen, “De Omnibus Dubitandum, question everything”, as my personal motto. Mostly because I have read a history book or two.
As my last thought; I have been absolutely assured by close friends, for whom I have great personal affection, many of whom have never read a history book, there is absolutely no such thing as a conspiracy.
I have been working on them though and I begin to think they may be having doubts.
More to come!
###
No comments:
Post a Comment