CMC Student Compares 9/11 Truthers to Global Warming Deniers

Sahil Kapur CMC '09 just put this up on The Huffington Post. Ironically enough, he's being attacked in the comment section of the Huffington Post for a weak analogy. Yes, you read that right. He's comparing the 9/11 Truther movement to those of us who remain skeptical about man-made global warming.

Take a look at just a snippet of this piece. It's one of the greatest examples of eco-alarmism I've ever encountered.

The analytical approach of modern global warming dissenters shares remarkable common ground with that of 9/11 Truthers, who still believe George W. Bush brought down the twin towers. Both groups have a soft spot for conspiracy theories, and are convinced that they possess a special gift that affords them a uniquely superior grasp of reality. Facts and evidence are muffled by their messianic quest to inform society of its delusions and intellectual inadequacies.

Wow. Just wow. Never you mind that serious, respectable scientists have questioned global warming, Sahil's lumped them all in the category of right-wing ideologues.

Look at the conclusion. Note how people on the Left attack those who have serious differences of opinion on anthropogenic climate change.

Global warming deniers continue to make waves, just as 9/11 Truthers do. The latter have been written off as crazies and are irrelevant to the political debate. The former will soon join the club. They'll go down in the history books alongside the many who doubted that the earth was round until well after the science had been made obvious. They'll be mentioned in the same chapter as those who continue to doubt evolution to this day.

Or maybe there won't be a chapter because humanity never made it that far.

Even if global warming were occurring, the likelihood that it would wipe out the planet is remote. To suggest otherwise is the essence of alarmism.

Here's to a Healthy Debate

Since I’m a new contributor to the blog, Charles and I thought it would be warranted to discuss why I’ve decided to write for it. First, as Charles himself has said in the past, each post reflects the views of the individual contributor, not those of the blog or any other contributor on the blog. In that vein, though conservatism has always had serious internal debate – ask ten self-identified conservatives what it means to be conservative, and you’ll probably get ten different answers – it is going through a period of particularly critical debate after Obama’s election. What should the Republican Party, and what should conservatism, stand for?

If you read my final editorial as editor of the Claremont Independent (you can read it here), you’ll guess that a number of conservatives probably disagree with me. My editorial was in fact inspired by a talk I heard by the famed talk-radio host Dennis Prager. He insisted that the difference between conservatives and liberals was not over the means of achieving the same ends, but rather over different ends. I did not agree: I think conservatives and liberals have a lot more in common than either party’s faithful would care to admit.

And that brings me back to why I’m writing here and now. It is important to demonstrate the vitality of conservatism through its vigorous internal debates. Not all conservatives will agree on all matters of opinion, and it is important to have this diversity of views to attract readers into the conservative camp. As one prominent Democrat on campus told me after he read my editorial, “I only hope people don't read your column – because you’re correct.”

It is also important because conservatives must debate each other in order to ensure that they support the best policies not only nationally, but also at the five colleges. Our hope is to encourage intellectual diversity on this blog that is too often lacking at some of the 5Cs.

Conservatives suffered a stinging defeat this November. The only way to recover, I believe, is to help shape the debate about conservatism’s future, and that starts right here on campus.

Pomona College Alma Mater Fiasco in Chronicle

From today's InsideHigherEd.com, 

Pomona College is lifting a ban on singing its alma mater,Hail, Pomona, Hail, at college events, but will hold off on returning the song to commencement ceremonies. The college suspended all public singing of the alma mater in the spring, following reports that it was originally written for a blackface minstrel show. In a letter released Monday, President David Oxtoby, noted that there has never been a suggestion that the song’s words themselves were offensive. He wrote that “traditions — like people — should be judged on their merits, not on the basis of historical associations unconnected to their actual character.” Oxtoby also noted that the evidence linking the alma mater to a minstrel show is “contradictory and open to interpretation.” And further, he said that “there is the troubling idea that all things associated with an imperfect past should be considered tainted even if there is nothing inherently objectionable about them.” Because some current students object to the alma mater, it will not be part of commencement “for the present,” he wrote, but alumni and others may sing it at other official events. Oxtoby was more critical of another Pomona song, The Torchbearers, which he said should undergo “a thoughtful revision of some of the words” because they “make reference to Native American traditions in ways that are, at best, stereotypical and, at worst, offensive.” Detailed reports of a Pomona committee that studied the college’s songs may be found here.

Judged on their merits? How did Oxtoby judge "Hail, Pomona, Hail" on its merits? Does he even know what the word "merit" means? 

It's a fair charge. After all, Pomona doesn't offer merit scholarships and it seems that if Oxtoby concedes that there is "nothing inherently objectionable them" and that the history is debateable, that we should err on the side of caution and not ban them. 

If You Think My Hate Mail is Bad.... You Should See His!

I missed this when it first went through the blogosphere, but it's always been in the back of my mind since I read it several weeks back again. 

Marlo Lewis, CMC alum and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, received this threat from Michael T. Eckart, according to The Washington Times. 

"Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

Yikes! You stay classy, green movement!