A recent poll released by the London-based partnership, Economist/YouGov, found that 71% of Obama-voters don't know what the word regret means. The poll asked a very simple question of Obama-voters: "Do you regret voting for Barrack Obama?" An incredible 71% answered yes, and a mere 26% answered no; but, astonishingly, 79% said that they would do the exact same thing---the thing that they just openly admitted to regretting---if given the exact same choice, and would vote for Obama once again. Only 10% said they would switch and vote for Romney, and the other 11% presumably chose to abstain. 

As someone who didn't vote in the last election, I can sympathize with those Obama-voters who chose to abstain from voting in this hypothetical rematch. If I could've cast a ballot for a serious candidate who opposed the DC Establishment I would have, but I had no interest in placing my personal stamp of "democracy" on a choice between whether I wanted my fascism straight-up or watered-down and on the rocks---I'm a fan of Mitt Romney, but he's a CEO/manager, and we need a revolutionary. Those Obama-voters have my hypothetical sympathy for their hypothetical choice---for the others, I have only deep-seated disdain for their choice, and will feel only indifference---perhaps mixed with a regrettable degree of satisfaction---when reality teaches them the true meaning of the word regret---the type of regret felt by every member of every society in the history of the world that gave-up whatever measure of freedom they had in exchange for the promises of socialist-dictatorship---the type of regret felt by every enviousness mediocrity who traded-in their freedom in exchange for the promise of a "greater-share" of the material possessions of the productive, successful members of their society. What these people are claiming to "regret" is not their choice to vote for Obama, but rather the fact that his promises were as hallow as the space between their ears that led them to that choice. 

Someone needs to tell Paul Krugman that angels do not fly down from heaven to hand-deliver paychecks to the omniscient men of unimpeachable virtue that he calls “scientists.” Leftists like Krugman dismiss the findings of any “corporate-sponsored” research, but hail the interpretations of data by any other “scientists” as if it were divine revelation----to the extent that the simple act of questioning it is a sinful admission of one’s own moral faults. How do these people think that scientists make money? Do they think that bags of money drop down from the sky when a scientist conducts a study and writes a report? Or do they think that there is some form of “prize money” floating around for the first person who can figure out what the temperature and sea-level will be in 2100?

Most likely, they view it in much the same way as they view government spending---they disregard the source of the wealth and focus solely on the “merits” of the recepient, and then shout-down anyone attempting to discuss the actual merits with accusations of racism, and various other snarling accusations designed to end the debate by forcing the submission of the debater through moral threats---the anti-science accusation is but one arrow in their quiver. These threats prevent people from asking questions like: What does the left mean when they say they are pro-science?

This claim of being “pro-science” is offered most often and most obnoxiously by people who are in fact not “scientists”---by people who have not reached the conclusions that they so confidently and arrogantly assert through any thought or effort of their own---they have neither conducted nor seen an actual study in its complete context---they have set no standards for how numerical data can be translated into government policy and objective laws---they scoff at questions regarding the leap from a set of numbers revealed by a study designed by a man---not a god---and interpreted by that man, and seemingly some of his colleagues, to the conclusion that those with political power should be given ever-more power to control and regulate the actions and lives of everyone else---where in the data does it show that freedom is a servant of science?

Next time you are in the presence of a proselytizing “pro-science” leftist, ask it: Why do you point to the percentage of scientists that are in agreement in regard to global warming, but not to the percentage of their studies? Why do you follow sentences in which you make the claim that the science on global warming is “settled,” with sentences in which you point to “the most recent studies” showing that the effects of global warming may actually be worse than previously predicted? Is the “scientific-community” gated?---does it have a pool?---do I need a guest-pass, or can I sneak-in if I throw-on a labcoat and some thick-glasses?