I have always been impressed with the fact that results just do not seem to matter to the left. From global warming, to predictions of dead oceans, to predictions of a quagmire in Afghanistan, nothing the left predicted has come true, yet they continue to make predictions and expect people to believe them. The fact that tabloid psychics have a better track record does nto dissuade them.

Before I move on to more familiar examples, let me tell you about a local issue that amused me for some time.

A number of years ago, the state of Maryland was considering a truly massive increase in cigarette taxes. The opposition raised a number of objections, including the logical assumption that an increase in taxes would lead to smuggling. That this had been the experience fo everyplace that had imposed massive taxes, from Canada to New York state did not deter the proponents of the new tax. Instead they ran radio advertisements mocking the very thought that tax increases would lead to smuggling. (No, they didn't really offer any arguments, just kind of mocked the idea and then moved on to something else.)

This being Maryland, a state which never met a tax it didn't like, the tax passed through the Democrat-owned legislature without problem, and we were saddled with yet another massive tax.

And what was the result?

After the first year of new taxes, the state comptroller appeared on television bragging about confiscating over a million dollars in smuggled cigarettes. Later, the comptroller also claimed credit for uncovering a smuggling ring which had been sending their profits to support terrorism overseas.

What was never heard was a single word of apology for having abused those who claimed smuggling would increase. Nor an admission that, but for their insistence on increasing taxes, there would have been neither smuggling nor an untold amount of money sent to terrorists before the smugglers were caught.

Instead, the same people who insisted that cigarette taxes would not cause smuggling have proposed not only a host of new taxes, but have also pushed through a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, insisting that they know it will not cause any harm to those businesses*. Based only on their record so far, I am not placing a lot of faith in those predictions.

Of course, my local example should come as no surprise. We have only to look at the environmental movement to see how little success seems to matter. After publishing "Famine 1975!" the environmental movement did not fade away in embarrassment in 1976. Nor did Rachel Carson's prediction of robin extinctions seem to harm her reputation. People are still reading today the very books which make that rather dubious prediction, and are still believing her despite the evidence of their senses. Paul Ehrlich predicted the seas would be devoid of fish by 1980, yet people were still treating him as an environmental expert a decade after all the fish were supposed to be gone. And so on and so on.

It is bizarre once you start to examine the track record of those on the left. Environmentalists, politicians, pundits, all of them have made predictions which not only failed to materialize, but were absurd even when they were first made. Yet somehow these "experts" are never touched by their failures, they continue to make far fetched predictions and, oddly, people continue to believe them.

Yet when Bush states that Saddam failed to prove he had no WMDs, and we find much evidence to support that theory, the left still finds enough room for doubt to allow them to chant "Bush lied" while suggesting that the president should be impeached or even tried for war crimes.

Of course, I am applying the wrong standard here. The left does not work on logic or consistency. All is feelings on the left. So, those who make failed predictions of doom, or insist taxes will have no ill effects are arguing for the "right things", and so the results don't matter, while Bush is making an argument for "icky" war, and therefore must be not only wrong, but evil too.

It all depends on your motives when it comes to the left, argue for the right position and it no longer matters what the outcome is, you are correct simply by virtue of your beliefs.

-------------------------------------------------

* The bar and restaurant ban has an amusing provision. If you follow the law, and then find your business has lost 50% or more of its patrons, provided you are still in business, you can apply for a waiver. And after a hearing, provided you have not gone bankrupt waiting, they may deign to permit smoking in your establishment. I think there may also be an appeals process as well. Obviously, the whole thing is a bit of a joke, as the margins in the food service industry do not allow anyone suffering a 50% decrease in traffic to stay in business long enough to work their way through a bureaucratic process. And, of course, the process does not allow one to continue permitting smoking while waiting for the ruling, which would make sense, instead one must continue to deny patrons the right to smoke until the waiver is finally granted. (Somehow I doubt there will be many businesses which remain solvent long enough to get the waiver.)