The Blindness of the Anointed

Biden has chosen John Kerry as his climate czar. Kerry has 6 houses, 12 luxury cars and SUV’s, 2 yachts and a private Jet. His job will be to tell us to forgo air conditioning and ride the bus to save the planet.

This does not surprise me in the least, but what is truly shocking is that Biden and his supporters do not even see the hypocrisy there.

Democrat politicians, when in power, do not see themselves as part of the people, but as anointed rulers, like Henry the 8th, sent by God to rule the people, not to live among them. It is that hubris that inevitably cuts short their time in power.

He should have chosen Ed Begley Jr. His climate views are wrong, but he at least lives as he advocates others do.

53 thoughts on “The Blindness of the Anointed

        1. First, one trip in his private jet will use more fuel than I will in years.

          But I have not told anyone not to use fuel to travel. I disagree that it has a measurable impact.

          Like

          1. So, I guess I missed it, when did John Kerry tell anyone not to use fuel to travel? Or to give up air conditioning and private vehicles? Your original post is a hypocritical personal attack combined with straw men. Not exactly the highest form of contribution in the “marketplace of ideas” you are always blathering about.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “Kerry has advocated carbon tax proposals that would price most auto and truck use out of the reach of the average person.”

            Total nonsense. I wonder, did you learn to rely on “alternative facts” from Trump or did you gravitate towards Trump because you rely on “alternative facts?”

            Liked by 2 people

  1. Pretty silly comment and unless you are making up facts about John Kerry’s possessions you are obviously parroting some “conservative” slime site. People like you immediately go into this very silly personal attack mode and yet still expect others to respect your views and try to accommodate your preferences. Here is some advice, don’t hold your breath waiting for either. Enough is enough.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Uh, no. You see hypocrisy where there is none. You do not have to wear a hair shirt and live in a cave to advocate for better environmental policies. Duh!

        As for your reference to my “masters,” you can take your childish insults and shove ’em back up your ass.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. LOL, the insulter in chief chastises someone else over an observation calling it an insult. Extremist liberals kill me. When they lay with pigs, they must be one.

          Like

        2. I’m guessing this must be one of your “valid or cogent thoughts”? Those not in the extremist left wing recognize it as insulting psycho babble. And you have audacity to tell someone else making a valid observation to shove it up their ass? Is it drugs, alcohol or poor self esteem that is causing your phsychosis? Seek help, seriously!!!

          Like

          1. Bobr, unlike you pitiful Trumpkins, I do not have a “master” whose word is holy writ. Tabor’s insulting “valid observation” WAS pulled out of his ass since it has no basis in reality and it needs to go back where he got it from. IMHO.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. It appears the civility police are only called when those perceived to be on the “other” side cross the imaginary line.

        I guess I should be sympathetic given the gut punch to the false reality some on the forum have been clinging to and had shattered. Unsolicited advice: free your mind and your ass will follow (but only if you let it..)..

        Liked by 3 people

          1. I said “threats of censorship”, not that someone has been censored.

            One of your moderators consistently threatens censorship or post removal from anyone that disagrees with him. While Bobr receives no such threats. and YOU allow that regularly. EIther do something about JTR’s threats or remove him as moderator. I have never seen Len threaten anyone.

            Like

          2. Well, Mr. Roberts has seen fit to remove several of my posts. I asked several times that they be unblocked so that it could be seen how far removed they were from the kind of insulting and ignorant ad hominem slanders which seems to be about all that Mr. Smith has to offer. He would not do so.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I am unaware of any removed posts.
            I am. And so is Mr. Roberts. Len is as well. We went round and round on this subject a few months back.

            It is water over the damn but – as always – it is best to get the facts straight. I have received numerous admonitions and deletions – mainly from Mr. Roberts, some from you – while people who share the Trump world view who have “sinned” far more egregiously get a pass. Them’s the facts.

            Meanwhile, you yourself throw out personal attacks that are not even remotely related to the content of a post. Most recently your reference to my having “masters.” If you want civility, practice it. And enforce the standards, whatever they are, objectively.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I was using the term “posts” as a synonym for posting a comment. It is correct that I have not had any posts censored. Only comments. And there was a lot more than one in that exchange with Mr. Roberts referred to.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Really? This is what you got – too many houses, yachts, luxury vehicles and a private jet? Who gives a flying-farkle? The man came from a family with money, even though nowhere the size of his wife’s wealth. Very wealthy people have many perks. I’m surprised you don’t know that. So what if his ‘carbon footprint’ is not like mine and yours? Wealthy people have cool ‘stuff’.

    However, the fact that his wife has been a huge, decades long well-known philanthropist is what has always got my attention. She’s continued to make a difference for years and her husband has never held back on his opinions on climate control.

    Her ” . . . foundation for decades has been a philanthropic force in the Pittsburgh region by providing billions of dollars to fund arts institutions, environmental programs, early childhood education, services for veterans and community redevelopment.” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2016.) She’s known worldwide for her environmental programs and the huge contributions her foundation has continued.

    So, your nonsense about the houses, yachts, etc. is silly. John Kerry has worked in this area for years with his voice and his own $$$s.

    For you to call these people ‘anointed’ is stupid. At the very, very least Kerry is not a climate denier, as Trump and his ‘czars’ have been.

    You say: “Democrat politicians, when in power, do not see themselves as part of the people, but as anointed rulers, like Henry the 8th, sent by God to rule the people, not to live among them. It is that hubris that inevitably cuts short their time in power.”

    What a hoot; that made me snicker, BIGLY. You might want to take a peek at the hubris from the current WH-squatter that is going to severely ‘cut his time in power SHORT.’ As for Democratic leaders being God-sent; I think we really must wonder FROM WHERE Trump was sent.

    Just sayin’.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Kind of reminds me of Al Gore and his extreme hypocrisy. His carbon footprint is must larger than some cities yet lefties defend them. You know, but, but, but, that’s different, like Golf just did above.

    Like

  4. “… but as anointed rulers, like Henry the 8th, sent by God to rule the people, not to live among them. It is that hubris that inevitably cuts short their time in power.”

    I know this may have seemed to you apropos for labeling Democrats, but the phrase so fits our current president. Particularly since a decent segment of the evangelical supporters think that Trump was chosen by God.

    I don’t where it is written that environmental folks have to live austere lives.

    Kerry’s wealth is from family and inheritances, particularly the Heinz fortune from his wife who is a billionaire.

    The same as Trump, DeVos, Bush and a slew of other elected officials and appointees in the present and many previous administrations.

    The real question is not about money, but about leadership and, yes, experience in government. I think that should not be overlooked. Rick Perry was surprised to find out that the Energy Secretary’s primary job was overseeing our nuclear energy and weapons. Not encouraging from the start. Knowledge about one’s job is kind of important.

    If you want to be captain of the “ship of state”, it helps to know which end is forward, how the “engine” works and responds and where you want to go. Details are for the appointees to handle and report back to the top.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, Trump is rich, but he doesn’t tell us to live poor.

      But you guys prove my point.

      You cannot fly in a private jet and claim to be concerned greenhouse gas emissions. He doesn’t have to fly economy, he is welcome to fly first class, but his time is not so valuable that he can’t wait on the next commercial flight. I even provided you with an exemplar of a loony climate change alarmist who IS NOT a hypocrite. Ed Begley commutes by bicycle, weather permitting, and flies commercial when he has to fly.

      To be blind to that fact proves my point. You will defend a member of your tribe no matter how deep the hypocrisy.

      Like

      1. Don, you need to be realistic. High level appointees in controversial posts are security risks. The same with very rich people. Kerry and the Heinz fortune would be a huge target flying commercially, first class or cargo.

        Setting an example is important when the actions affect millions daily. Like wearing a mask. Not whether you travel commercial or private jet.

        And face it, Trump has cost us hundreds of millions to fly around to golf courses, rallies and clubs. More than any other president in 8 years, not just 4. Not to mention the impact of a 747 v. a Gulfstream.

        I suggest we see how the job is done, rather than who does it and how he gets around.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Trump doesn’t tell us not to drive what we want.

          Lot’s of wealthy people fly commercial, and Kerry has not been in government for a while.

          But that doesn’t matter, he’s your tribe so he can’t be a hypocrite no matter how much he tells us what to do and does the opposite himself.

          But then that’s what this post was about, not Kerry’s hypocrisy, but Democrat’s inability to see it no matter how blatant.

          Like

          1. Your whole childish rant about Kerry, which as noted above, started by you playing the role of the parrot for the Republican slime machine, is absolutely nothing but argumentum ad hominem. Even if Kerry is the biggest hypocrite in the world, that “fact” says absolutely nothing about what he says about anything. The planet is in peril and all you people can do is throw mud and whine about imaginary dictates.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The planet is not in peril, but that is another subject.

            Even if you assume that we must radically reduce CO2 emissions, that doesn’t make the policies Kerry has advocated useful and he is still a hypocrite for living as he does while demanding austerity for everyone else in the developed world and death by starvation for the third world.

            You would also benefit greatly from Lomberg’s book.

            Like

          3. You have failed completely to accurately represent any particular policy that John Kerry has ever advanced much less why it is a bad policy. All you have offered is pointless name-calling based on possible facts about his lifestyle gleaned from some rabid web site and dutifully parroted.

            What is kind of funny is that John Kerry has not been considered any sort of environmental activist but you would not know that based on the long knives pulled out before he even starts his new role.

            And, by the way, your prognostications of mass starvation in third world countries if the United States cleans up its energy act a little bit does not get any more persuasive with repetition. It does get more laughable, though.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “Yes, Trump is rich, but he doesn’t tell us to live poor.”

        Actually, Trump doesn’t tell us anything, other than the greatness of himself and anyone else who hasn’t ticked him off – YET.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. I do believe you are sincere about climate but sincerity does not equal correctness.

      We’re still cooped up inside a lot, so here’s a reading recommendation

      False Alarm

      Lomberg is a climate change believer in that he accepts the IPCC projections which I believe overstate the effect of CO2 by a factor of 2 to 3, but even so, the left’s recommended remedies just aren’t rational. Lomberg explains that in impeccably documented detail.

      Like

      1. Get it. Making change to improve the environment is irrational. But based on your commentary over the years, no change is the only way to go.

        You believe the analysis that you want. It does not make you or it correct.

        Like

        1. You haven’t read much over the years then.

          What I have written consistently is that the effect of CO2 on the environment is real, but overstated by 2 to 3 times, thus there are some ill effects, but no existential threat.

          And in this context, no amount of carbon austerity here will make any difference at all if China, India and the developing world are not included.

          See the LTE thread below

          Like

          1. Your opinion and one shared by a minority of scientists.

            And I guess the idea of global leadership goes by the wayside when a Libertarian chimes in. Leadership by example is one of the better ways to effect change in the world.

            Like

          2. First, leadership?? Please do show me the example of the Chinese communist dictators being inspired by our good example. They will do what keeps them in power no matter what we do.

            Second,nearly every advance in science has been by a minority. But wrong is wrong no matter who supports it.

            So, does a majority matter in the face of contrary experience?

            Like

          3. Please refer to Dr Feyman again. Consensus means nothing in the face of evidence.

            Or consider Einstein, ‘100 experiments cannot prove me right, but 1 can prove me wrong.’

            Like

          4. Models are the 2nd step in Feyman’s process, ‘compute the results of the guess’ and if they do not agree with experiment, the underlying theory is wrong.

            And it is wrong no matter who says otherwise. That is the point of Feyman’s statement.

            Like

          5. Theories are overthrown by evidence. Models are refined. Models – such as climate models – that incorporate an array of theories and data are not either “right” or “wrong.” They are more or less useful.

            Like

          6. When they are used to determine policy that is expected to have results in 100 years and are off by a factor of three in only 30 years, just what are they useful for? Other than to frighten people who don’t understand risk?

            Like

          7. What are climate models useful for?
            They are not perfect but they are better than a politically motivated guess. Such guesses are not subject to change based on evidence. Models are. That is the process of applied science.

            I understand risk. I am very concerned about the risks we are taking with the natural systems that support our civilization and even our lives. The climate, the oceans, the atmosphere, the forests are all being rapidly degraded by human activity. Part of the measure of “risk” is the thing being risked. Even a small risk is very significant if the thing being risked is catastrophic. Some models project tipping points with catastrophic results should they occur. Putting our head in the sand based on guesses that it won’t be too bad is not good policy.

            Like

          8. So, you will cling to theories thoroughly disproven by experience because they align with your ideology. Got it.

            But the simple proof of the matter is that the Holocene optimum was 4 to 6 C above today, and lasted thousands of years. if the tipping points existed, they would have tipped. So, forget the existential threat. It does not exist. It then becomes a matter of comparing costs.

            Like

          9. LOL!
            IF the temperature reaches 4 to 6 C above today we will be looking at sea levels many tens of meters higher than they are today. That is a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. It is something to avoid if we can. For all practical purposes, the “tipping point” will be that point where no possible action can forestall the calamity.

            We are both influenced by political preferences. You are not immune. I prefer action over inaction in the face of the risk of calamity – even if the risk is small or not clearly known. You prefer inaction. We each tend to see the evidence accordingly. The difference is that I have a lot more evidence to choose from.

            Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s