Under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, only a natural-born citizen of the United States is qualified to be President. There are good, sound reasons for this restriction, but sometimes, it makes me sigh. Consider the quality material we are deprived of, for instance, in Vaclav Klaus, current President of the Czeck Republic, who recently gave an interview on the subject of "global warming." The good President delivers one haymaker after another: President Klaus on why "global warming" is a myth:
Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.
President Klaus on why other European bigwigs don't express similar opinions about "global warming":
Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.
President Klaus responding to the notion that mankind is demolishing the planet:
It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.
President Klaus on whether he believes we are ruining the planet:
I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr. Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you....[W]e know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago. That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
When are we going to get politicians that lay it on the line like this?
No comments:
Post a Comment