BloggeRhythms

Very little new in the news today. However, Pope Francis’ pleas on climate-change gained headline attention in the press.

 

What’s most interesting about the global-warming discussion is that proponents on both sides of the matter claim it’s a scientific issue. Yet the “science” remaining debatable between the sides, isn’t plausible whereas, by definition: science is a systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area as well as knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

 

Nonetheless, in this case, both sides claim to have irrefutable evidence supporting their positions.

 

Therefore, what’s been obvious from the start of discussion regarding climate-change is that the subject has always been purely political, having nothing to do with factual reality whatsoever. 

 

As far as today’s news is concerned, FoxNews.com reports that, “The Obama administration and congressional Democrats welcomed Pope Francis' call for sweeping action against climate change Thursday, but the pontiff's message was swiftly dismissed by GOP lawmakers.”

 

The president said, “I welcome His Holiness Pope Francis's encyclical, and deeply admire the Pope's decision to make the case - clearly, powerfully, and with the full moral authority of his position - for action on global climate change."  

 

Republican’s though, both Catholic and non-Catholic, were open in their disagreement. Such as Joe Barton, Texas Rep. and senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, who said, “I don't want to be disrespectful, but I don't consider him an expert on environmental issues.” That comment was echoed by a number of other Republicans. 

 

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, while not directly mentioning Francis, was quoted as saying he “believes the climate is always changing, but it's not clear what role humans have in it."

 

Consequently, since as far as politicians are concerned, there is no confirming science from opponents on the global-warming issue, the debate is likely to continue far into the future.

 

At the same time, a reader posted a comment illustrating the staggering costs involved to management, although he was quite pleased from an employee’s perspective. 

 

wilcoxwilber wrote: “As an indirect result of being stopped by the EPA for polluting, we got a 70% raise in our pay and added 115 new jobs.

How is that possible?--to effectively treat and handle our waste we needed to grow the size of our plant (115 new jobs)  and attract (higher wages) more employees.

Why do you simpletons FIGHT the growth of industries?”

 

In this instance, it’s quite apparent that wilcoxwilber has no understanding of the perils to businesses caused by adding non-productive overhead, which increases costs while producing no additional revenue. But far worse, unless his employer finds a way to cover the additional expenses, such as higher prices to customers, the entire entity will go out of business. So not only isn’t this situation the “growth” of an industry, the only winner is the EPA and its government coffers. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Yesterday, Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal told lawmaker’s he was paid more than $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock's media operation. FoxNews.com reports that the importance is that “the figure is far higher than initially reported.”

 

Brock responded in a statement that, “Despite the fact that the conclusions of nine congressional committee reports and the findings from an independent review board don't support his political agenda, Chairman [Trey] Gowdy keeps doubling down and expanding his taxpayer funded fishing expedition in the hopes of undermining Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign. This week's spectacle is the latest proof that he is failing."

 

Brock’s reply is certainly one that should be expected, complete denial until proven otherwise. Yet, what certainly wasn’t mentioned by him is that, up until now, information's been purposefully withheld from the committee. And therefore, there’s been no evidence to consider in the past.

 

As far as the bigger picture’s concerned, time is proving that slowly but surely the evidence mounts indicating that the original suspicion’s regarding Bill Clinton’s wife were well-founded. And consequently, the longer the investigations continue, moving toward 2016, the greater the obstacles to her presidential win become. Which leads to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios