By: Todd Wheatley
(c) IQ-2k   02-06-16

The 2016 presidential primary has been unlike any in my lifetime with the exceptionally broad Republican field and the exceptionally narrow field of Democrats. But the biggest surprise has been the continued support for king Donald. Many, like myself, expected Donald Trump to "flame out" early given his inflammatory remarks and reality TV demeanor. Even worse, Trump's antiestablishment appeal ruined the prospects of more thoughtful conservatives like Mike Huckabee while at the same time engendering support for radicals like Ted Cruz. The ensuing media clamor allowed Trump to suck the air from civilized discourse and pragmatic solutions.

Though nothing new there, the race had been heading that direction since late October. So I am not here to weigh in on Iowa caucus held Monday. Instead an unusually off base TED Talk brought me here. One that got me to thinking about the conservative / liberal dichotomy and the current presidential primary. For those of you who don't know, TED (Technology - Entertainment -Design) conferences attract the smartest people on the planet to speak on the appointed topic or conference theme. I don�t know for sure how they come together, but there are speakers of all nationalities and all fields of study. Better yet the podcasts and videos are offered for free (ted.com). I think you will find the talks highly informative and well presented.

While the individual talks last less than twenty minutes and in some cases less than ten they can be very persuasive. As a case in point I have been firmly ANTI-NUCLEAR for more than two decades despite the positive contribution nuclear power provides in combating greenhouse gas emissions. Besides the the problem with nuclear weapon proliferation the biggest problem with nuclear energy continues to be the radioactive waste that has a half-life of fifty to 100,000 years. Consequently I believe nuclear power to be not only impractical, but immoral.

Recently, however, TED changed my opinion in a talk given by Bill Gates about a new "traveling wave" reactor that consumes 96% of the nuclear waste while the remaining waste has a radioactive threshold for only a few hundred years. Other talks on radioactive salt reactors has given me a brighter outlook for the future. But not all of the talks hit the mark and the talk that brought me here was so off base I had to respond. Though not towards TED, but towards the polarized presidential primary currently underway.

Several days ago I had been downloading information on global warming when I came across a TED talk presumably outlining the economics of climate change. At first I thought that the fast talking presenter had been mislabeled and though well meaning the talk had the flavor of a bleeding heart liberal at work. Which brings me to our current state of presidential politics.

Two days ago Senator Bernie Sanders lost the Iowa caucus by the narrowest margin in that states history. Again the antiestablishment appeal surprisingly advanced a fringe candidate far into the process. And by "fringe" I am referring to way Senator Sanders self describes as a Socialist despite running in the primary as a Democrat. Still his position on free college and healthcare for everyone places him into the bleeding heart category. Granted, free college and healthcare for everyone must be considered, but only as a far off aspiration. On the other hand tax cuts during times of war (note 2003) falls nothing short of gross negligence if not complete incompetence. Yet this is the state of 2016 politics. NO ANSWERS !!! Just more of the same empty rhetoric, false promises, and unyielding ideology.

For the record and in case you have not guessed, I am neither Democrat nor Republican ... I am INDEPENDENT ... fiscally conservative, socially liberal and only concerned with REAL ANSWERS.

Again it was a (2005) TED talk, presumably on global warming, that brought me here. I was expecting some good economic data on global warming specifically, but instead economist Bjorn Lomborg discussed setting budgetary priorities based on the economics of doing the most GLOBAL GOOD. During the talk Mr. Lomborg states that a group of economists including three Nobel laureates, in preparation for the Copenhagen consensus conference, "calculated" that battling HIV Aides should be the number one priority for doing the most good with limited funding. That was followed by malnutrition, free trade, and finally Malaria. And while he did mention climate change as a major problem he said the costs were way too high ($ 150 billion according to his estimates) and the benefits were basically nonexistent.

Bleeding heart liberal garbage - the problem of illegal immigration, for example, vastly outweighed restricted free trade in 2005. More importantly they missed the fundamental principle of: PRESENT VALUE of FUTURE COST.

Consider Hurricane Katrina that devastated New Orleans later in 2005 and then Super Storm Sandy and Super Typhoon Hyian in 2013. Obviously these storms were unknown at the time and most climate scientists agree that global warming can not to blamed for those storms, but even a 5% contribution by global warming runs into the millions of dollars. Lest we not forget the human toll and it will only become more costly as time passes. Extreme storm deaths will soon rival that of Malaria and HIV Aides while the storm damage will run into the TRILLIONS ($$$). At any rate super storms have been predicted with global warming as far back as the 1980s so a group of Nobel Prize winning economists should have been able to figure the "present" value of that future devastation and realize that $150 billion is cheap by comparison. In fact the future costs of climate change will be so enormous that ANY money spent today will provide great benefit. Moreover the money MUST be spent or the costs will be astronomical.

Now we have 2016 Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz refuting the climate science like it was the year 2004. This is just another example of tight ass conservatism that needs to be swept away. Additionally the statements made by Senator Cruz on the NPR show "All Things Considered" (Jan.2016) demonstrates his willingness to obscure the facts or his complete ignorance science as a whole. While no other candidate stands out our real choices come down to Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg (if he decides to run), and Jeb Bush. Should king Donald win the Republican nomination I will have to actively campaign for his Democratic rival even if that happens to be Bernie Sanders.


(c) 2016    DR-KNOW
IQ-2k Information Services


TOP     HOME
articles     podcasts     videos

Information eQuation (BOOK)
Information eQuation (examples)

EMAIL COMMENTS to DR-KNOW

Please support this web site: give any amount via PAYPAL ("money TRANSFER") to todd@dr-know.biz