Author: Erica Morgan

Now that we’ve dried our eyes for the late Senator Ted Kennedy, distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick, it’s time to cast them in the direction of the high-stakes Massachusetts senatorial race that will determine his replacement. By the time this editorial is printed, the results of the election will be in. At that time, I welcome you to join me in either a rampant celebration of potential salvation or mutual commiseration as we watch our nation descend further down the path of Obama-style socialism. Perhaps this assessment strikes readers as overdramatic, but I am not the only one awaiting the election results with bated breath. What, you ask, is the big deal with this particular senatorial race? The results will determine whether or not Democrats fill the sixty seats in the Senate required to overcome filibusters.

Should a Republican fill the seat, insidious initiatives such as the proposed health care reform legislation may not advance–at least, not easily. Of course, certain Democrats are clearly more concerned with passing something–in spite of the desires and needs of the American people. As Nancy Pelosi charmingly puts it: “We will have health care one way or another.” She scoffs at the idea put forth by the Massachusetts Republican candidate that Congress return to the drawing board to create a health care reform plan that might actually meet the wants of the American citizens. Pelosi might note that, according to recent polls, 51 percent of Americans oppose the proposed changes to the health care system.

Scott Brown, the Republican candidate in question, has managed to pull ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley in the polls leading up to Tuesday’s election. A political editor for The Boston Globe astutely observes, “…Scott Brown’s campaign has done a very good job, capitalizing on anger at Washington, anger over health care, anger about the deficit, the sort of throw-them-out mentality.” Brown has managed to amass vast popularity despite trailing Coakley by double digits in the polls just a week ago.

The former underdog in the quest for “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” Brown has the Democrats all in a tiff over how they will proceed to shove legislation down our unfortunate throats should they lose the 60th seat. Realizing that this may not be an easy feat, Democrats are taking desperate measures to restore support for Coakley in Massachusetts, including flying our illustrious president out to a Boston rally to woo crowds with the classic hope-and-change bombast. One must wonder, however, if Obama’s backing will be of much value to Coakley’s campaign, considering his ever-declining approval ratings. Former President Clinton weighed in with some enlightening remarks of his own: “The worst thing we can do is nothing.”

Now, there is a fascinating statement. It appears in varied forms of liberal rhetoric. Akin to the attitude that “some form of health care reform is better than no reform” and “making your voice heard is more important than knowing what you’re saying,” the sentiment might be rephrased as, “doing something reprehensible and ultimately pointless is better than admitting we don’t know what we’re doing.” The Democrats love criticizing Republicans for halting progress–for saying “no” without offering an alternative. What the Dems fail to realize is that “progress,” merely for the sake of pretending to have accomplished something, is not progress at all. I would rather there be no health care reform than have Congress pass the pointless atrocity to fulfill Obama’s agenda objectives. It may be blasphemy in the Age of Obama, but “no change” actually is an alternative. Go Brown!

Picking up the newspaper today and gleaning useful information about current affairs is a daunting process. I find this especially true for the charged subject of climate change and energy politics. With the plethora of propaganda and glut of contradictory “scientific” facts, a reader might easily be lost in the heated discussions. Fortunately for readers, I have taken it upon myself to compile a glossary of the more commonly used terms and turns of phrase, which will help the savvy student navigate the stormy seas of climate cant.

I will explain each of the terms first in the way they are most commonly employed in the context of the environmental movement, then present a more suiting definition for each.

“Green” (environmentally speaking): “Go Green,” “Buy Green,” “Be Green.” Green is beautiful and natural. It means you are not impacting your environment. Technologies, cars, investments, emissions: we must strive to make them “greener.” A “green” consumer is one who carefully considers his/her actions in light of environmental impact and chooses the course that will least damage our green planet.

The “Green” Reality: A nifty buzzword that is spewed ad nauseam by political propagandists. It can be tossed out in almost any context to fill the speaker with a sense of superiority and self-satisfaction. A consumer who purchases the “green” option is absolved of climate sin. A “green” car is a perfect example. Buy a hybrid, and you need not feel guilty about killing the planet–because you are doing it less quickly! Purchasers of hybrid vehicles may directly consume less fossil fuel than that dirty SUV driver, but they like to ignore the environmental impact of hybrid production. This impact comes in the form of mining and smelting the heavy metals for car batteries in processes that lead to air pollution and deforestation, the pollution resulting from the disposal of said batteries and, ironically, water consumption! According to one study, each mile driven with electric vehicles consumes three times more water than the average gas-guzzler. Maybe the future is not as green as it seems? Greenies: put your money where your mouth is. Your hybrid isn’t saving the planet, so climb off that pedestal and get a bike if you’re really concerned.

“University of East Anglia” (environmentally speaking): The climate research unit (CRU) of this esteemed university aims (objectively, of course) to improve scientific understanding in “past climate history and its impact on humanity, the course and causes of climate change during the present century, and prospects of the future.” A trusted source of evidence suggesting anthropomorphic climate change, the climate research unit is the recent, unfortunate victim of climate change skeptics who, in their devious ways, seek to dismantle the hard work of the CRU because of a few mildly incriminating e-mails.

”University of East Anglia” reality: A perfect picture of the problem with the media today. The CRU scandal should have been one of the biggest stories in this arena brought to the public. While environmentalists wring their hands over the lack of “binding agreement” in Copenhagen, they completely ignore findings that call into question the need for such an agreement in the first place. Times Online reports that “Scientists at…UEA have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.” HOW DOES THIS NOT BOTHER PEOPLE??? How can a story of this magnitude be brushed under the rug? We are trapped in a paradigm of anthropomorphic warming, championed by the media, the government, leading universities and The Stanford Daily’s editorial board. At the very least, stop with the knowing claims of “scientific consensus.” Or, redefine “scientific consensus” to mean something along the lines of “random assortment of scientists who provide evidence (legitimate or not) that supports the liberal political agenda.”

Briefly, a few more:

Al Gore: The champion of the environmentalists, he is allowed to consume what energy he sees fit. His do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach is acceptable because, hey, at least he gives the global warming issue a “face.” Appropriate that it is a face of blatant hypocrisy.

The non-believers: Those who question man-made global warming are deceitful disturbers of the peace. They have no legitimate arguments, but merely seek to obstruct the greater good of all energy initiatives. It is suggested, at least by the Stanford Daily Editorial Board, that these ignoramuses have the “truth” shoved down their throats. Maybe this is a generous offer of education, but I rather think that climate change alarmists want we free thinkers to choke on their hype before we can debunk it. I shall continue to question the “facts,” however, and encourage you to do so as well.

Well, if I didn’t have a chance to offer you a “Merry Christmas” in person, I am hereby extending my very best (belated) wishes to you for a very happy Christmas. I offer my benevolence to each of you, regardless of your religious beliefs, political platforms, philosophical tendencies, ethnic origins, or gender.

I am always amazed come Christmastime that this jolly phrase manages to offend certain factions of society. “I do not celebrate Christmas,” sniff the killjoys. “Not only do I reject your Christmassy inclinations, I take umbrage at the fact that you did not find out my holiday habits (or lack thereof) and personalize your sentiments accordingly.”

Apparently the problems with a casual “Merry Christmas” range from the presumption that Christianity is the predominate American religion (…which it is, by the way) to a sort of inherent insult to all other religions/holidays by neglecting to mention them.

When I experience this negative reaction to my Christmas wishes, I am almost paralyzed by the flurry of responses that occur to me. I suppose I must start with the obvious fact that Christmas, though a holiday of religious origin, is hardly an exclusively religious holiday. As a non-Christian celebrator of Christmas, I assert that my enjoyment of Christmas trees, boisterous holiday music, stocking stuffers and fat men in red suits has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of our “savior,” baby Jesus. However, even if I were the most devout of Bible brandishers, I am thankfully guaranteed the right to celebrate my religion in any way I choose, provided it causes no harm to others nor prevents others from celebrating their own religions. I honestly cannot see how wishing you enjoyment of the holiday I celebrate causes you any harm or prevents you from getting on with your own celebrations.

Furthermore, whether you like it or not, Christmas is an American holiday. You do not have to observe it, but it is recognized by the American government, just as Memorial Day and Thanksgiving are. These days are not celebrated ubiquitously or unanimously, but they are official American holidays. In other words, my acknowledgement that Christmas is occurring and my wishing you a merry one should not be taken as attack or indoctrination.

“Merry Christmas” does not carry weighted implications that everyone must celebrate. It does not mock other holidays, or imply that Christmas is superior. It does not prevent someone from replying with “Happy Hanukkah.” In fact, I am grateful when I am wished happiness at any time of the year, regardless of the religious context. I find it pleasant that someone is wishing me well. Why does our society demand that I address each individual with the holiday wish best suited to that person’s particular beliefs? Or that, if I am unwilling to learn each individual’s particular beliefs, that I degrade my phrase to a generic hallmark “Happy Holidays?” And really, in that vein, shouldn’t “Happy Holidays” be forbidden for fear of offending those who choose not to celebrate any holiday?

In this beautiful world of political correctness that we have constructed, the only innocuous phrase we should utter is a banal “I wish you the best this winter season.” Of course, should I like to bestow good will to my friends abroad in Australia, I would have to cut out “winter” as it is not winter in that region of the globe and I might offend the Australians. And possibly the koalas.

I have a few theories on the possible development of this phenomenon. Firstly, basic jealousy may the explanation. Let’s face it: Christmas is a fantastic holiday. Whether or not you believe in baby Jesus, a holiday that emphasizes love, family, food, sales, gift-giving and candy canes is an enviable holiday indeed. I respect the right of various friends and family members to choose not to acknowledge Christmas, but I confess I do pity them. Perhaps they reject my Christmas wishes because of sheer holiday envy. I think the more likely explanation is that some people grow bored with the daily routine and, in desperation, they subsequently search out methods of creating excitement and drama in their humdrum lives. Displays of outrage and indignation serve this purpose well, but I refuse to apologize and will continue to offer a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.