US Sen. Joseph McCarthy speaks to his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, during a hearing of the Senate Investigations Subcommittee in Washington April 22, 1954.
(Byron Rollins/AP/FILE)Photos (1 of 1)
Are climate-change deniers guilty of treason?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 07.03.09
It seems as though the so-called skeptics have really gotten under Paul Krugman’s skin this time. Writing in his New York Times column Sunday, the Nobel Prize-winning liberal economist expressed outrage at the representatives who voted against the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill because they doubted the scientific basis of global warming. He writes:
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
Mr. Krugman then gives a rundown of the latest climate research, whose predictions are far worse than previously thought. He describes climate change as a “clear and present danger” – borrowing a phrase first deployed in 1919 by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to imprison a man for opposing the draft – and concludes:
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
As Krugman suggests, recent years have seen the bar set pretty low for what can get a person branded as a traitor. In a February 2003 editorial, the now-defunct New York Sun called for police to monitor protesters opposing the invasion of Iraq “with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution,” for giving “aid and comfort to the enemy,” a crime that in the United States carries the death penalty.
A few months later saw the release of a bestselling book by conservative commentator Ann Coulter (who, incidentally, holds a law degree), that insisted that all American liberals – that is, about one fifth of the US population – are guilty of treason. Those who peacefully opposed the war were similarly maligned throughout the burgeoning right-wing wilds of the blogosphere, and were, it should be noted, extensively spied on by the US government.
So now a few environmentalists have envisioned the state wielding its coercive power against those who doubt that humans activity is destabilizing the Earth’s climate.
James Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is regarded as one of the world’s leading climate scientists, last year called for CEOs of oil companies to be put on trial for crimes against humanity for their well-documented efforts to spread doubt about global warming.
In a similar vein, in 2006 British journalist and environmental activist Mark Lynas, whose book, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, plausibly details how climate change could unleash a major extinction event, imagined a future climate court putting the deniers on trial. He writes:
I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.
His equation of climate change doubters to Nazi apologists was echoed that year by Grist’s David Roberts, who called for “some sort of climate Nuremberg” to hold the deniers accountable.
According to Guardian environmental columnist Leo Hickman, climate-change deniers love this kind of rhetoric, because it portrays them as “brave, ‘truth’-wielding Galileos standing up against a wave of pseudo-scientific indoctrination.” Writing in response to Krugman’s column, Mr. Hickman says that deniers faced with accusations of treaon will inevitably “trot out the predictable comparisons to the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism.”
Of course, it’s only a small fraction of environmentalists who have openly called for jail time – or worse – for climate-change deniers. After all, the environmental movement has benefited tremendously from laws that protect freedom of expression. Far more importantly, refraining from “hanging” people for what they say – even if you believe that what they say amounts to a destructive campaign of disinformation – is a hallmark of civilized society.
<< What temperature is the Earth supposed to be? | MainComments
2. Joshua Cranmer | 07.03.09
Treason against the planet? The only sensible interpretation of such a phrase would mean actions taken that adversely affect the health of the planet. But in the grand scheme of things, there is not much that one could do to actually kill off life on Earth. There are at least five times in history where the fossil records show mass extinction, yet life is still here today. Perhaps if we shut down the magnetic dynamo and eliminate the magnetic field, or if we used nuclear weapons to sterilize the entire planet. Even those may be transient: the thing most likely to cause permanent damage would be to eliminate the atmosphere.
Anything less than those actions would permit the survival of at least some species. **** sapiens might not be included in that list of surviving species, but the environment at large would still survive in some form.
3. James A | 07.03.09
Calls for treason are certainly overreaching. It gets some attention, but may be counterproductive. What might be more effective ways to persuade this crowd? Perhaps we could focus more on inspiring others to innovate and compete, and emphasize the importance of developing economic structure and policy that will boost our potential to lead the world in science, engineering, energy efficiency, and sustainable energy production.
Being a scientist or an engineer needs to be cool once again (http://bit.ly/eng_perception). Let’s equate tackling (or preparing to tackle via education) critical grand challenges with patriotism. Let’s make solving these hard problems facing all of humanity irresistible. I suggest we inspire and challenge others into action, rather than through fear. I’m not saying we should sugarcoat or downplay climate research results, but that we should focus on solutions in a productive way.
4. Jock Shockley | 07.03.09
I suspect that Krugman and Hansen should both be more worried about “fraud”, than the skeptics should be about “treason”. Hansen and his friends have a theory, and models all based on data provided by the IPCC. The skeptics point to a lack of atmospheric temperature rises, no sea level rises, Greenland and Antarctic ice increasing more on one side and than it decreases on the other, polar bears doing fine, etc. They note the “fact” that the heating effect of CO2 decreases as concentration increases (IPCC reports avoid that bit!). The real scientists are looking for the factors responsible for climate change, while the media darlings have yet to provide any actual “proof” AGW is happening. Do your own research - it isn’t that hard.
AGW will not stand up in a court of law - it can only survive in a trial by unquestioning media.
7. Jeff Foster | 07.04.09
Krugman was speaking conceptually, trying to make a strong point in his argument for action to prevent climate change. Ultimately the wise course to take in the climate change debate is to improve and increase the science, because scientists are our best hope for an objective assessment of the danger as well as finding a solution if any is needed. Skepticism and multiple working hypotheses are fundamental to good science, but most climate change deniers are not scientists.
8. Bill Memmoli | 07.04.09
In the 1970’s we were all concerned with global cooling and the nuclear freeze. Scientists were scampering to get government grants to study this impending disaster. Well, no freeze and the scientists now have to generate more scares to get government grants and earn a living. Now its global warming! The Government fell into bed with these scientists because it saw a way to tax people for their carbon usage. If you can make people believe it’s their fault for global warming, then you can tax them. Yes the Earth is warming….and….cooling. This cycle is caused by the Sun’s increased or decreased activity. Did you know that Mars is also experiencing “global warming”? Our oceans are warming-caused by the deep ocean-floor fissures through which the Earth’s mantle leaks out. The Sun is now entering a period of reduced activity so government must act immediately to get its energy taxes instituted before their trumped up public panic dissipates into a period of global cooling.
Wake up people, the government want more money and is looking for any perceived issues to generate more taxes. You will always have scientists who depend upon government grants for their livelihood siding with government when government needs to tax, tax, tax.
9. Charvak Karpe | 07.04.09
Why does the human impact on climate change even matter, especially to people who believe in doing the right thing based on faith and not on scientific facts? Can’t we treat the planet as God’s creation and not spew pollutants willy nilly?
scientific proof of the existence of God : treating others kindly
human activity directly causing climate change : not polluting the air
10. Adelbert S | 07.04.09
I don’t think ‘treason’ is the right word.
The ordinary people who don’t have a clue about science but are sure they know global warming isn’t happening, ‘arrogant ignoramuses’ is about right.
But there are those who propagate pseudo-science that they know isn’t true. They do it for money or fame or perhaps for mischief. Their criticisms are too cute, too far from real data and real science to have any possibility that they are innocent cranks. I call them ’sociopathic liars’. Since there is no crime called ‘murdering the planet’, I’m hoping that there really is ****.
I’d name names but I don’t want to get sued. And if you don’t believe that there are sociopathic liars in this country, may I sell you a fund that pays 10% every year?
11. Adelbert S | 07.04.09
Oh yeah, and some people would call Joe McCarthy a sociopathic liar. Calling a liar a liar is not McCarthyism.
12. Boogy D. Boogy | 07.05.09
“There are at least five times in history where the fossil records show mass extinction, yet life is still here today.”
-Joshua C.
But the life here today looks nothing like the life back then. Climate Change alarmists aren’t here to save the Earth… they all know it will be fine in the long run… they are trying to save themselves… they want people to be around to see that Earth.
Now, I’m not saying Global Warming is real or fake, but I will say that taking a step towards a cleaner Earth isn’t a bad thing. And neither side can point to the science and say… “HA! See? You’re Wrong!” Because both sides have the science. Technically whether it is real or imagined is still “theory”. Yet to be proven.
Just like the existence of God. But some would say… well, better safe than sorry.
13. Dorothy Cutting | 07.05.09
We already have 300 billion metric tonnes too much carbon in our atmosphere. Unless the US government aims for zero emissions and starts right now to get to this point as fast as possible, no words can describe how terrible life will be for the children and grandchildren on earth. By mid-century, Latin America and Mexico will be nearly uninhabitable, and many millions of “illegal immigrants,” or climate refugees, will be fleeing to the far north for survival. They will be competing with Canadians for their own dwindling resources, with tragic consequences. Water wars will be fought all over our world, and many innocent, impoverished people will die. In truth, they are dying already.
It is unconscionable for our leaders not to recognize the enormity of the problem we face and fail to do all they can to save us. To call their deliberate inaction a “crime against humanity” understates the immorality of their actions. They are perpetrating a crime against all living things on our planet.
14. Peter Converse | 07.05.09
I think it’s pointless and less than useful to accuse anyone of “treason against the planet” for holding an opinion, however wrong and dangerous it may be. It simply inflames the argument, making each side’s position even more intractible. Let’s not forget where we live (I’m in the USA), and here we have something called the 1st Amendment. As a certified tree hugger and someone who is almost insanely committed to restoring our ocean’s to health, I can’t disagree more vociferously with those who deny there’s a problem — a really big problem. It’s been proven to my satisfaction by scientists who know far more than I do about the damage that’s been done and continues today. It’s getting worse by the year. But…BUT…deniers have a right to deny. The way to counter that is to be louder than they are. To be more eloquent than they are. To be smarter in our PR than they are. To give more money to environmental organizations than they give to the chambers of commerce and coal and oil and and timber and agribusiness interests.
I agree with MikeHawaii above, and I suspect Krugman was speaking somewhat metaphorically — he said “a form of treason.” He didn’t say treason. That would be…silly, and he knows it.
16. Chris Temple | 07.05.09
Shallow article. It’s easy to portray a viewpoint “extreme” and dismiss it. The treason is in the stifling of debate.
Paul Krugman’s views can be taken to task on the merits, but by reading this article you wouldn’t even know that there are many hundreds of scientists who disagree with his views on world climate. Comparing the war on terror with climate change is absurd on the surface. Climate change didn’t deliberately fly planes into American buildings and kill more than three thousand, and then threaten to wipe out American. Existential, please!
Then comparing Krugman to Ann Coulter is equally insulting. Compare one extreme with another for the point of simply dismissing both. We don’t need to silence speech with threats of prosecution, we convince everybody to stop listening by labeling the authors “extreme”.
“The world is round” was an extreme view once. Consensus is not science. How about we tear down that falsehood first.
17. James Raider | 07.05.09
The earth’s temperature may in fact be cooling, but only slightly.
While Al Gore’s efforts to clean up the air and water should be applauded, his and other arguments on Global Warming seem rooted in information that appears to be incorrect.
If we are to set serious guidelines to clean up our mess in the air and water, we should base decisions on sound data and not emotional hype. For example, …
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/03/argo-4900781s-letter-to-bickering.html
……
18. TGood | 07.05.09
How many crackpots does it take for people to realize the “go green” group isn’t playing with a full deck ? When they get their cap and trade and raise the costs of electricity that prevents people from being able to use air conditioning in extreme heat waves, will they then be tried for murder ?
Part of Texas has been under a “death ridge” of high pressure that has the temps hovering around 108 with the humidity factored in. Turn off the air conditioners, and you would see the hospitals and morgues full of victims. Other states greatly impacted by summer heat –and always have been–are being lectured by those who will merely buy their way into comfort and safety. The rest of us ? Well, we can just do without and die. The world is full of people so the doors will just open up wider and replace those of us who apparently are nothing more than taxpayers whose death would merely be collateral damage.
At the present, it’s costing me $470.00 and upwards to keep a small two bedroom apartment at a sticky 82 degrees. Obama tells us the electric rates will average rising by 80 to 140%. Do the math. Can the average worker afford what could easily mean the equivalent of an expensive house note to just have lights and enough cool air to survive ?
And one final thing. Pray tell how one country, the U.S., standing alone will do anything to combat the world pollution when China, India, Mexico and the other major polluters have adamantly stated they will not participate unless we reimburse their governments and people for every penny it costs them. We’re supposed to find a way to pay skyrocketing utilities here, then pay for theirs ? Obama in his fantasy world our example will pave the way. What a delusional idea that is. The world will thank us for our stupidity in becoming a third world nation that ships the majority of their jobs to them and destroys our country in a way the terrorists could never manage.
19. Ruthie Gordon | 07.05.09
Those who will practice conservation will always practice conservation as a matter of respect and love of their home. While the debate rages on, the planet is going about the business of keeping herself healthy, in spite of the “best” efforts of our experts to defeat her. Remember the Army Engineers who have screwed up the environment in the Keys, around New Orleans and many other well meaning projects meant to give man power over the innate wisdom of Mother Earth. Well look out, the GREENIES will be backing up and undoing all their best efforts eventually. Still have a low flow toilet that has to be flushed 2 or 3 times?
In the meantime, who gets rich? AL GORE!! and others who can’t wait to sell the snake oil called carbon credits! There is no solid proof… just opinions rammed down our throats! There is no considered action… just crisis mentality meant to scare us into not paying attention to the man behind the curtain.
You cannot legislate respect, common sense, integrity, morals, healthy life style or conservation. If care of our planet is not done by individual choise, then we lose.
20. Abby Hillman | 07.05.09
I like the idea of the cleaner efficient energy. I am totally against non-bio fuels because fertilizing and the increased deforestation associated to bio fuels far out weigh their benefits. The problem with deforestation is well know, fertilizing causing the destruction of coral is much less known but equally destructive.
Many scientists that study the atmosphere, believe the current trend falls into a natural cycle. Likewise other feel it is totally human caused. The third group seem to combine the two by saying it is a natural cycle exasperated by human activity. Like most of us I am not a scientist, but from reading bits and pieces I guess I would side with the third group.
Treason, no.
Inconclusive data, probably.
Transitioning to clean fuel , good
21. Rich Paul | 07.05.09
It’s nice to see that Krugman is still careening wildly from Marxist to Fascist and back, destroying any fact that gets in the way of his wild ride.
22. Devin Evers | 07.05.09
That fact that Climate change has become a political issue further erodes my confidence in human beings. When you have proof of scientific fraud being perpetrated by large corporations that have interests in global warming being fake, eyebrows should be raised. While I don’t agree with Krugman’s extreme stance of trails for this, I believe we as voting members of the electorate need to respond. If your congressmen/congresswomen says there is no evidence to support global warming you vote them out of office. When it comes out that a company is paying to disseminate false information regarding global warming, boycott them. The burden falls on us to be responsible, as those in power will always abuse it.
23. sailhardy | 07.05.09
Krugman himself is a Grand Denier. He still insists Al Gore won the 2000 election. He didn’t.
24. RichardL | 07.05.09
If there’s treason, it would be from those trying to give control of pieces of individual countries to the greedy dictators who are trying to benefit from the warmists’ exaggerations and lies.
25. Chris G | 07.05.09
Tired old arguments. Sigh.
Joshua on 7/3 seems to saying everything will be fine in a few million years anyway; nevermind the millions (billions?) who might die in the coming century or the mass extinction underway.
Jock on 7/3 has too many points wrong to answer them all, but just the basis of this statement is just backwards, “Hansen and his friends have a theory, and models all based on data provided by the IPCC. ” The IPCC did not do any original research or create any models; they synthesized the research of thousands of others. Models are not created to show what is happening now, or in the past, models are created to test theories about how the observed changes interact with each other and to make reasonable estimates of what may happen next. Observed data is fed into the model to test it; data is not the product of a model.
Oh, and yes, the thermodynamic effect of CO2 is logarithmic; its rate of increase decreases with increases in concentration, but it still increases. It’s like saying the car is not speeding up because it doesn’t get from 50-100 as quickly as it got from 0-50.
If you look for cooling trends in the temp record, you will find about 5 between around 1950 and now. But, the minimum of each is hotter than the previous one. Solar cycle waves (and others) imposed on top of a larger wave anyone?
Ruthie, Al Gore getting rich, aye?
Three points: There was concern of global warming prior to Al Gore being born; who has more money - Al Gore or the coal and oil companies?; do CO2 molecules going about their business, absorbing and randomly re-emitting IR radiation, care who has more money?
Also, do you think, for instance, that CFCs would have been eliminated through personal choice?
TGood might as well be saying, “Everyone else is defecating in the river; no point in me stopping.”
Treason, by some who, yes, but willful ignorance is more appropriate for most. The science is beyond them; so, they choose not believe that anything bad will happen. If 99 of 100 electricians tell you that the wiring may cause your house to burn down, do you believe the 1 who says it is fine or do you fix the wiring? Or wait, can’t do that this month; have to buy the new boat/widescreen/car/whatever.
26. Drew | 07.06.09
Wake up Bill Memmoli. Global cooling and global warming are not mutually exclusive — large soot particles in the atmosphere can reflect sunlight and cool the earth but the inexorable increase in greenhouse gases has now overcome the effects of the increased reflectivity of the atmosphere. We are living in very scary times indeed as most of the rest of the world is realizing. It is simply a stupid argument to say that thousands of scientists create false data in order to get funding so that they can propose deeply unpopular advise. Governments don’t want to be told to change and spend more and you have to have extraordinarily persuasive information to sway the bureaucrats of 120+ governments(the IPCC)– representing every political stripe — and get them to agree over and over again that the world is facing a calamity of our own making.
27. Woody Porter | 07.06.09
It is exhilarating — and, in some cases, saddening — to read the comments of my fellow citizens on this topic.
It is scary, however, to read what some people have written — e.g., “thousands of scientists say there’s nothing to worry about, so relax.” Hm. Twenty-five years ago you could find “thousands of doctors” swearing there’s no health danger in cigarettes. These days you can find “thousands of doctors” announcing that second-hand smoke is “not really a problem.”
Truth to tell, you can usually find “thousands of” whatever to “say” whatever to “prove” whatever notion you happen to believe in. Time for a reality check. Time to look around and see who’s really saying what.
Here is a list of the scientific organizations who have publicly affirmed the reality of global warming and the reality of human influence on climate change:
(…the point is best made by taking a few moments, and simply reading it out loud…)
American Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), World Meteorological Organization, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Statistical Association, Engineers Australia, American Association for the Advancement of Science, European Science Foundation, National Research Council, American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Society of Microbiology, American Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Foresters, International Wildlife Society, America Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, International Union of Geoscience and Geophysics, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Australian Medical Association, European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, World Federation of Public Heath, World Heath Organization, European Academy of Arts and Sciences, International Academy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Science — and, finally, the National Science Academies of the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia.
Here is a list of the scientific organizations who publicly deny the reality of global warming and/or deny human influence on climate change:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Actually, that list is out-of-date. In 2007, the American Petroleum Geologists withdrew their denial and joined the folks on the first list.
There is now NO scientific body of national or international stature who denies the existence of global warming, or who rejects the idea that mankind is influencing this change.
Folks can think whatever they want to think — and everybody’s entitled to an opinion, no matter how misinformed. But gee whiz — facts are facts, science is science…and not everything in the world is a vast conspiracy to increase our taxes.
28. David G | 07.06.09
I believe Mr. Krugman should be appointed the “Grand Pooh-Bah” in charge of
the “American Inquisition of Global Warming Deniers.” This would be an ecclesiastical tribunal with the intend to maintain “Global Warming” orthodoxy in United States. It would be used to replace the 1st amendment of the US constitution and authorized by congress under the “Hate Speech Act of 2010″ (but we will name it the “Civil Rights Act of 2010″ so no one will object to its passage). This authority would included those punishment and reeducation for all who practice forms of speech abhorrent to “Global Warming” orthodoxy and ensure the orthodoxy of converts. Perhaps we can use the prison at Guantánamo Bay to house the most hard core and unrepentant deniers.
29. 330treehugger | 07.07.09
we know that the environmentalists are already indirectly responsible for 10s of millions of African children dying of malaria because of the U.S. ban on DDT and the Sierra Club and other groups lobbying efforts. NY Times magazine ran a long detailed article on that history.
Paul Krugman is responsible for helping collapse the U.S. economy with his Keynesian economic policies and Cap and Trade/Tax and his aversion to truthfully commenting on anything.
There is real debate about Climate Change and it’s not one-sided. Cato Institute has hundreds of climatologists who disagree with Hansen.
30. Woody Porter | 07.08.09
I am puzzled by (#29) 330treehugger’s comment that “Cato Institute has hundreds of climatologists who disagree with Hansen…”
Cato Institute is a political, not a scientific, organization. It consists of a group of 28 “Policy Scholars,” aided by 64 part-time “Adjunct Scholars” and 23 “Fellows.” Of these 115 people, four of them are devoted to “Energy and the Environment.”
Putting it simply, Cato Institute doesn’t have “hundreds of” anything, let alone “hundreds of climatologists.”
330treehugger is concerned about Paul Krugman’s “aversion to truthfully commenting on anything.” Perhaps he can convince us of his commitment to truthful comment by giving us a source for his observation — and, most importantly, of course — the names and scientific affiliation of those “hundreds of climatologists.”
Absent that kind of specificity, 330treehugger’s comments are not worth the time it takes to type them.
31. Dr. Goldstein | 07.11.09
Put Krugman on trial for trampling the 1st Amendment and my Freedom of Expression.
Click my name above and you will learn that us “deniers” are now the majority. That is why Gore and his co-conspirators are desperately pushing for their self-enriching Cap-and-Trade before everybody learns that climate change is natural, and beyond human control.
Most of us “global warming deniers” are actually pointing to Earth’s many previous “global warmings” and “global coolings.”
Did you know the NOAA reported record COLD temperatures in 46 states last month? No - I didn’t think so.
Peace
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. MikeHawaii | 07.03.09
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi
“First they try to convince you with untruths. When that fails, they personally attack you. When that fails, they accuse you of treason. When that fails, they pass laws to silence your speech, which in the end, silences their own, ushering in dictatorship and the destruction of all individual freedom.”
“The wise person tries her best to determine the facts from the mass of information. To do so, she must be open and willing to listen to opposing points of view. Otherwise, she can never discern truth from propaganda. Truth will set you free. Propaganda will enslave you.”
“When trying to discern truth, one should always consider who or what will benefit the most from a proposed action. This is particularly important when considering actions promoted by government, which has historically always been interested in increasing its size and control over mankind.”
“The argument for expanded government control has almost always served the expansion of tyranny over freedom. Choose wisely, you may not get a second chance. Ask the Germans of the 1930’s.”