When liberals aren't championing the cause of the helpless victim, they're playing the part themselves.  Such was the case with David Letterman when he proclaimed that the government must "do something" to combat global warming.  Note to David:  they already are.  That's why gas is $4 per gallon and rising.  This is the government idea of doing something.  To liberals, it's not the outcomes that matter, but the good intentions.  The government has mandated new fuel standards in cars making them even less safe.  They've mandated auto makers to make cars so small and fuel efficient that no one in their right mind would want to drive them under normal circumstances, but these definitely are not normal.  They've also mandated a certain amount of ethanol to be grown and used, taking up land that would normally be used to grow crops for food.  So, Dave, ease up.  The government is doing something - the wrong thing.

So what should the government do to combat global warming?

Well, that's a good question, but there are others we should ask first.  I'm in school, and being taught to do a lot of "critical thinking."  So let's see if I can come up with some "critical thinking" type questions.  Hmmm...O.K.  First, "Is global warming real?"  Second, "If global warming is real, how can we tell whether or not it's being caused by humans?"  Third, "Is global warming necessarily a bad thing?"

Is global warming real?  What's the evidence that global warming is really going on?  Is that evidence conclusive?  There have been numerous books written on the subject from both sides, and I'm not going to go into a dissertation on the subject.  After having read numerous books on the topic, I'm not entirely convinced that the evidence is conclusive.  That's not to say that there is nothing going on.  Certainly some parts of the globe are experiencing warming, but other parts of the globe are actually cooling down.  Some of the areas that are experiencing the biggest warming trends are large cities where concrete and steel trap the heat.  Satellite data over the same areas, however, reflect no (or minimal) atmospheric warming, yielding the conclusion that the warming is happening on the ground rather than in the atmosphere.  So - is global warming real?  Maybe; maybe not.

Well, what if it is real?  Shouldn't the governments of the world act to combat global warming just in case?  Well, the question is whether or not we can do anything.  Is global warming caused by humans, or are there natural causes for global warming?  Here we have actual data to support the idea that global warming has natural causes.  Several years ago, Discover magazine did a story about the coming "mini-ice age" caused by global warming.  The theory is that all these melting glaciers will enter the oceans, and disrupt the currents, causing lots of cool, fresh water to collect in the northern oceans.  As part of the story, they state that this sort of thing has happened in the  past, and that it is a normal earth cycle.  This time, however, is different.  This time, it's being caused by evil humans polluting the environment.  Wait - so every other time before, it was caused by nature, but this time, if it does happen, it will be caused by pollution.  Does this sound like fear-mongering to you?  What evidence have they gathered in the last thousand years that would lead them to believe we're doing something different this time?  How do they know?  There have been periods of global warming in the past, before we had cars and used oil for anything other than lighting at night.  And yet this time, unlike every other time in the past, it's being caused because we're driving gas-guzzling cars that support the evil oil tycoons.  To liberals, it's plain as day:  BP is destroying the planet!

But are they really?  OK, let's just say for the sake of argument that global warming (should that be capitalized?  Global Warming?) is real.  OK.  Fine.  Let's also say that we are doing it.  Is it necessarily a bad thing?  Is global warming destructive?  To listen to the pundits and scaremongers, global warming will destroy the planet.  It will leave this rock a desolate wasteland after massive extinctions drive the rest of us to starvation.  That is, those of us that don't get washed away by floods in some areas or starved by drought in others. 

Well, I'd like to point out here that scientists still have no good answer as to what makes clouds form the way they do.  They can't tell us with any kind of accuracy what the weather will do a week from now.  How can they proclaim what will happen to the planet in twenty or a hundred years?  The earth goes through cycles.  Everyone knows this.  And yet, when those cycles start, environmentalists claim that we are the culprits, and that those cycles wouldn't be as severe were it not for human activities.  They can't know that.  There is no way for them to determine what the weather would be were we not here.  It's only speculation, and they are pushing governments to make decisions based on that speculative science.

Again, we have evidence from the past that any global warming would actually be a good thing.  If the glaciers melt, that means more fresh water for farming and agriculture, which means more crops, which means the world can now support more life.  Yes folks, have as many kids as you want:  global warming will ensure we have enough food to support all 15!  More water on the ground means more evaporation (more water evaporates when the weather is warmer), which means more rain, which means more greenery.  Ever heard of the rain forests of central America and central Africa?  Now picture foliage like that in more places.  Is it possible we could see deserts shrink?  Well, it's at least as likely as the famine, dread, and horror forcasted by the environmentalist-socialist movement.

So eat!  Drink!  Be merry!  And if you can afford it, drive that big SUV!  And pray for more global warming.  Maybe Washington D.C. will become so hot that government officials will be forced to leave and go get real jobs.

Our economy has already had one leg cut out from under it.  When the Fed decided months ago to print new money out of thin air, it had the expected effect of making the dollar weaker in world markets.  This raised domestic prices on fuel and groceries, and limited the buying power of consumers and businesses.  Couple that with an increasing demand for oil and a decreasing supply, added to the increased food prices due to the fact that more farm land is now being used to grow corn for ethanol, and we have a potential crisis in the making.  And all this after the housing "bubble" has already burst, hurting financial institutions across the country.

As if all this wasn't enough, our U.S. Congress is set today to vote on a bill that would rescind tax breaks for oil corporations.  That's right folks, they're not giving us a tax holiday at the pump; instead, they're going to force oil companies to increase prices even more.  Rather than vote to open up new sources of oil in our country (something that would have a near immediate effect on the price at the pump), they are acting to further vilify the oil companies.  Over the last year, as gas prices have continued to soar, Congress has been worse than useless.  They are acting to force us into "greener" cars, force us into hybrid cars, or force us out of cars altogether in favor of mass transportation or single-conveyance vehicles such as scooters, mopeds, etc.  Yet they have done nothing to actually reduce the price at the pump by increasing supply, or reducing regulations to make it easier for oil corporations to open new refineries.

These actions are completely unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional mandate to protect the environment.  There is, however, a primary directive to protect our right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  It should not be up to the government to decide what kind of vehicles we drive, or how good the gas mileage is in those cars, and the constitution does not leave those things within the purview of the government on any level.

There are, however, several things Congress could do.  As stated above, they could move to open new sources of domestic oil.  The United States has over 1 trillion barrels of domestic oil that remains untapped because of government over-regulation.  But opening these oil fields would have a negligible effect if we do not also move to open new refineries to handle this added influx of oil.  Another thing Congress could do is rescind, at least temporarily, the regulations mandating all the different grades of fuel that are to be sold in various parts of the country.  I think there are 13 different grades of oil that must be sold throughout the country due to varying EPA regulations.  By temporarily suspending these regulations, oil companies would be able to save money on the refining process, and those savings could then be passed on to the consumer.

However, the Democrat-controlled congress is loath to do any of those things because they would "damage the environment."  The Democrat party is controlled by the environmentalist movement, which believes it is the role of the federal government to protect the environment against "evil" corporations who will otherwise destroy it.  I would like for any of them to site from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other founding document anything that comes even remotely close to giving the government that kind of regulatory power.  They can't, because there isn't any.

Passing legislation to open new oil fields would have an immediate impact.  First, it would signal to the Saudis that we are declaring independence from foreign controls over our own policies, but that's political.  Economically, it would have an immediate impact on oil futures, because people would realize that we are serious about increasing world supply, and the price per barrel would immediately begin to decline.  Within a very short time, we would see those prices reflected at the pump, especially if Congress follows up by doing other things to ease our pain when it comes to oil.

Another thing Congress could do is put a stop to this charade called "ethanol."  Ethanol is one of the biggest frauds ever to be hoisted upon the American people.  First, it causes more pollution than old-fashioned gasoline.  Second, it destroys more of the environment than it protects, and third, it is directly linked to higher food prices which cause more poverty in more places, and poverty is also linked to destruction of the environment.  Ethanol perpetuates the cycle of destruction, and does absolutely nothing to fix any problem.  But liberals don't care about real problems, they only care about making themselves look good, and having good intentions.  Who cares about the outcomes, as long as you have good intentions. (How many crime shows have we watched where one spouse says to the other, "But honey, I did it for you/us!")  This Democrat-controlled Congress is ruining the economy because they care about the world.  But if there's no money for clean-up projects, who's going to care about the world then?  Well, I guess it won't really matter as long as we're all living in tents and riding bicycles.