May 20, 2020 By Ray McCoy
One of the progressive fronts on which the Progressive movement within America's left has attempted to make headway to power is on climate change legislation. Thanks to generous liberal donors, an education system that bows to consensus rather than debate, and gullible media organizations desperate for that hot new youth movement to attract viewers, these new environmentalists have had endless coverage despite their agenda largely being a loser at the ballot box.
However, after a whole primary campaign of flexing about their influence on the youth vote, their leaders have officially bowed and kissed the ring of the Democratic Party. The Sunrise Movement, led by Varshini Prakash and their congressional standard-bearer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), have officially yielded and joined in with the corporate Democratic establishment to take part in a "climate change task force" of Bernie Sanders– and Joe Biden–supporters ahead of the Democratic National Convention.
Busting Down Nancy's Doors
Those who can think back to those heady days of late 2018 after the midterm election might remember scenes of yellow- and green-clad children and adolescents crowding hallways and offices on Capitol Hill. These activists, affiliated with the Sunrise Movement, were trying to force the Democratic caucuses in the House and Senate to adopt the Green New Deal (GND). This development was duly reported on November 13 by Ryan Grim and Briahna Joy Gray of The Intercept and echoed elsewhere. Gray would later become the national spokeswoman for the Bernie 2020 campaign. In Sunrise's tweets, Prakash and Ocasio-Cortez took turns before entering Capitol Hill standing on a folding table as the latter said, "I'm gonna take the table because we are busting down the doors."........... To Read More..
Showing posts with label greenies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greenies. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2020
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Greens intimidating big business
By Peter Murphy January 9th, 2020 Climate, Environment 63 Comments
@CFACT
“Big Business” has been portrayed in history as intimidating and domineering in society over small business competitors, workers and politicians. In some ways that remains true. However, the larger truth is that big business is a paper tiger, easily intimidated. No segment of society knows this better than the Green climate alarmists, and they are intimidating corporate America gradually and to growing effect. Ultimately, such intimidation campaigns are misplaced and harmful.
Under pressure from groups like the Rainforest Action Network, the Hartford Insurance Company recently announced it is curtailing its investments in coal companies, which followed a similar divestment pledge from Liberty Mutual Insurance and AXIS Capital. Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment firm, also announced recently it would no longer make new coal investments nor invest in companies drilling for oil in the Arctic.
Hartford Insurance, for example, has completely bought into climate alarmism, even repeating the supposed connection between warming and greater frequency of storms and floods. There is no such connection, as CFACT explains.
Goldman Sachs’ divestment announcement, fortunately, did not go unanswered. The state of Alaska, with an economy heavily dependent on oil production, can also take its business elsewhere by excluding Goldman from other state business. This is something that Gov. Mike Dunleavy hinted would come.
The governor also pointed out that other investment firms could replace Goldman Sachs and that any loss in Alaskan oil production would hurt American workers and consumers. Such divestment schemes also serve to help other oil producing nations that lack the environmental safeguards mandated in the U.S. In fact, there are plenty of other takers for Arctic energy resources.
For climate alarmists, science, history and the facts on global temperature have not fit their computer models and thirty-year predictions of the earth’s demise. Accordingly, the public remains unconvinced of their claims of urgency which is one reason the Green New Deal will not be passed by Congress any time soon. In fact, the only vote that occurred was when the U.S. Senate voted against it without a single vote in support (Democrats, including the chief sponsor of the GND, voted “present”).
While it’s true that some localized Green New Deals have been adopted in New York City, Los Angeles and other places, the negative cost impact to the public, including from energy rationing, is postponed for several years. That way, few politicians of today will face any backlash. Carbon neutral climate goals, for example, will take effect in a dozen years or decades from now, long after most present-day politicians are retired or dead.
The point here is that without real public buy-in, climate extremist groups have resorted to threats, boycotts and intimidation of high profile companies. This as another means to force transformation away from fossil fuels toward a carbon-free nirvana that is wholly unrealistic and unwarranted. Still, big business is always about the bottom line, and bad publicity from a social media campaign can reap a devastating financial effect – something few corporate CEOs would risk, whether or not they agree with climate alarmism.
The corporate campaigns by alarmist groups for divestment of fossil fuels, if successful, would be harmful to workers and the U.S. economy as a whole – without the concomitant environmental benefits. If the alarmist camp were serious, they would campaign for divestment in countries that care nothing for the environment or carbon emissions, starting with China and Russia.
Many mega U.S.-based corporations such as Amazon and Apple, whose websites tout their environmentalism, are huge investors in China because they profit handsomely. They are not seriously pressuring China to care about the climate, nor are they divesting from that dictatorial country. China releases more carbon than the U.S. and Europe combined, but don’t count on green groups or multi-national corporations to attempt any redress. This not-so-mild inconsistency is less about caring for the environment and global temperature and more about a Green group agenda of anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism.
Demands for corporate divestment are an attack on freedom of choice and the economic prosperity we enjoy as Americans thanks to affordable energy. If companies are convinced it is in their interest (financial or PR-wise) to have climate goals and more renewable energy sources, that’s their choice. Intimidation and boycotts from climate alarmist groups are otherwise hypocritical, counterproductive and ultimately an assault on the liberties we enjoy as Americans.
“Big Business” has been portrayed in history as intimidating and domineering in society over small business competitors, workers and politicians. In some ways that remains true. However, the larger truth is that big business is a paper tiger, easily intimidated. No segment of society knows this better than the Green climate alarmists, and they are intimidating corporate America gradually and to growing effect. Ultimately, such intimidation campaigns are misplaced and harmful.
Under pressure from groups like the Rainforest Action Network, the Hartford Insurance Company recently announced it is curtailing its investments in coal companies, which followed a similar divestment pledge from Liberty Mutual Insurance and AXIS Capital. Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment firm, also announced recently it would no longer make new coal investments nor invest in companies drilling for oil in the Arctic.
Hartford Insurance, for example, has completely bought into climate alarmism, even repeating the supposed connection between warming and greater frequency of storms and floods. There is no such connection, as CFACT explains.
Goldman Sachs’ divestment announcement, fortunately, did not go unanswered. The state of Alaska, with an economy heavily dependent on oil production, can also take its business elsewhere by excluding Goldman from other state business. This is something that Gov. Mike Dunleavy hinted would come.
The governor also pointed out that other investment firms could replace Goldman Sachs and that any loss in Alaskan oil production would hurt American workers and consumers. Such divestment schemes also serve to help other oil producing nations that lack the environmental safeguards mandated in the U.S. In fact, there are plenty of other takers for Arctic energy resources.
For climate alarmists, science, history and the facts on global temperature have not fit their computer models and thirty-year predictions of the earth’s demise. Accordingly, the public remains unconvinced of their claims of urgency which is one reason the Green New Deal will not be passed by Congress any time soon. In fact, the only vote that occurred was when the U.S. Senate voted against it without a single vote in support (Democrats, including the chief sponsor of the GND, voted “present”).
While it’s true that some localized Green New Deals have been adopted in New York City, Los Angeles and other places, the negative cost impact to the public, including from energy rationing, is postponed for several years. That way, few politicians of today will face any backlash. Carbon neutral climate goals, for example, will take effect in a dozen years or decades from now, long after most present-day politicians are retired or dead.
The point here is that without real public buy-in, climate extremist groups have resorted to threats, boycotts and intimidation of high profile companies. This as another means to force transformation away from fossil fuels toward a carbon-free nirvana that is wholly unrealistic and unwarranted. Still, big business is always about the bottom line, and bad publicity from a social media campaign can reap a devastating financial effect – something few corporate CEOs would risk, whether or not they agree with climate alarmism.
The corporate campaigns by alarmist groups for divestment of fossil fuels, if successful, would be harmful to workers and the U.S. economy as a whole – without the concomitant environmental benefits. If the alarmist camp were serious, they would campaign for divestment in countries that care nothing for the environment or carbon emissions, starting with China and Russia.
Many mega U.S.-based corporations such as Amazon and Apple, whose websites tout their environmentalism, are huge investors in China because they profit handsomely. They are not seriously pressuring China to care about the climate, nor are they divesting from that dictatorial country. China releases more carbon than the U.S. and Europe combined, but don’t count on green groups or multi-national corporations to attempt any redress. This not-so-mild inconsistency is less about caring for the environment and global temperature and more about a Green group agenda of anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism.
Demands for corporate divestment are an attack on freedom of choice and the economic prosperity we enjoy as Americans thanks to affordable energy. If companies are convinced it is in their interest (financial or PR-wise) to have climate goals and more renewable energy sources, that’s their choice. Intimidation and boycotts from climate alarmist groups are otherwise hypocritical, counterproductive and ultimately an assault on the liberties we enjoy as Americans.
Author
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Inslee, Steyer, now Markey...funny how the greeniest pols are the ones flaming out
September 24, 2019 By Monica Showalter
To hear activists such as Greta Thunberg tell it, the world will end in just a few years from climate change — so action is "urgent." Urgent! And among the lefty voters who supposedly believe this stuff, climate change is a big priority as the election heats up. Once again, more urgency. According to this CBS News report on Sept. 16:
Seventy-two percent of Democrats call climate change very important — ranking it just below health care on a list of issue[s.]
Now for a reality check.
Which candidates are washing out the hardest these days? It's the idiot pols who believe the claptrap about climate change and put it forward as their signature issues. If reports from Greta and the pollsters were true, you'd think greenie politicians would be in the most popular politicians out there, their power amassing and rising.
Not happening..........To Read More.....
To hear activists such as Greta Thunberg tell it, the world will end in just a few years from climate change — so action is "urgent." Urgent! And among the lefty voters who supposedly believe this stuff, climate change is a big priority as the election heats up. Once again, more urgency. According to this CBS News report on Sept. 16:
Seventy-two percent of Democrats call climate change very important — ranking it just below health care on a list of issue[s.]
Now for a reality check.
Which candidates are washing out the hardest these days? It's the idiot pols who believe the claptrap about climate change and put it forward as their signature issues. If reports from Greta and the pollsters were true, you'd think greenie politicians would be in the most popular politicians out there, their power amassing and rising.
Not happening..........To Read More.....
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Stop killing wasps, say scientists, they’re just as important as bees
Sarah Knapton,19 September 2018
Wasps have long been reviled by the public and even Charles Darwin questioned his faith because he could not see why a ‘beneficent’ God would have created such nefarious creatures. But now scientists at University College London are trying to rehabilitate their image to prevent them from dying out.
Far from being the picnic-sullying, sting-happy nuisances which have ruined many a summer gathering, conservationists argue that the insects are crucial for pollination and should be given the same respect as bees. The team are calling on people to live with wasp nests rather than calling in the exterminators and plant ‘wasp friendly’ gardens with plenty of shelter and long grass..........To Read More....
Wasps have long been reviled by the public and even Charles Darwin questioned his faith because he could not see why a ‘beneficent’ God would have created such nefarious creatures. But now scientists at University College London are trying to rehabilitate their image to prevent them from dying out.
Far from being the picnic-sullying, sting-happy nuisances which have ruined many a summer gathering, conservationists argue that the insects are crucial for pollination and should be given the same respect as bees. The team are calling on people to live with wasp nests rather than calling in the exterminators and plant ‘wasp friendly’ gardens with plenty of shelter and long grass..........To Read More....
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
White Eagle
by Craig Rucker, August 26, 2018 1 Comment @ CFACT
White Eagle is from the Cree tribe of Northern Alberta. He is also a Hollywood actor who starred in the Netflix series Hell on Wheels.
Like many other indigenous peoples from his part of Canada, he has been pushed front and center, smack into the middle of a heated debate between “industry and Greens” over energy development.
I had a chance to meet up with him this week while speaking in Calgary. We discussed both the dynamics of the energy debate as well as the challenges facing his people.
It was an eye-opener, to say the least.
For decades, Canada has been supplying much of the world with bountiful supplies of oil and gas from an energy-rich region known as the “Tar Sands.” Located near Ft. McMurray in Northern Alberta, this area contains 164 billion barrels or 96 percent of all of Canada’s oil reserves. It also provides some 228,00 direct and indirect jobs to Canadians, many from the “First Nations.”
While most people from the “Great White North” rejoice over this blessing, radical environmentalists don’t. Why? Because the fight against the Tar Sands, they say, is “ground zero” in their battle to save the world from global warming.
As part of their dishonest campaign to stifle Tar Sands development, the Greens have sought to erect barriers to block access to it. Americans know a little about one of their biggest campaigns centered on stopping the Keystone Pipeline. But there are other smaller ones as well – such as killing the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline running west from Alberta to uber-liberal British Columbia.
This is where White Eagle’s people come in. While the Greens have been effective at convincing certain local and provincial leaders to oppose pipelines, they have only had mixed results with indigenous peoples. The reason: Because many of these tribes are poor and in desperate need of economic development.
I enjoyed my time getting to know White Eagle and learning the story of his people. We have become friends. I gave him a free copy of our groundbreaking movie Climate Hustle to help him educate his people about the lies of global warming and urged him to take advantage of the energy boom that could greatly profit the Cree. He, in turn, has invited me to spend time with him on his reservation near Slave Lake – an offer I can hardly pass up!
I am also grateful to our allies from the Friends of Science, Modern Miracle Network and others, who invited me to give a talk and are fighting the good fight up north. God bless you in your efforts!
Till next we meet!
White Eagle is from the Cree tribe of Northern Alberta. He is also a Hollywood actor who starred in the Netflix series Hell on Wheels.Like many other indigenous peoples from his part of Canada, he has been pushed front and center, smack into the middle of a heated debate between “industry and Greens” over energy development.
I had a chance to meet up with him this week while speaking in Calgary. We discussed both the dynamics of the energy debate as well as the challenges facing his people.
It was an eye-opener, to say the least.
For decades, Canada has been supplying much of the world with bountiful supplies of oil and gas from an energy-rich region known as the “Tar Sands.” Located near Ft. McMurray in Northern Alberta, this area contains 164 billion barrels or 96 percent of all of Canada’s oil reserves. It also provides some 228,00 direct and indirect jobs to Canadians, many from the “First Nations.”
While most people from the “Great White North” rejoice over this blessing, radical environmentalists don’t. Why? Because the fight against the Tar Sands, they say, is “ground zero” in their battle to save the world from global warming.
This is where White Eagle’s people come in. While the Greens have been effective at convincing certain local and provincial leaders to oppose pipelines, they have only had mixed results with indigenous peoples. The reason: Because many of these tribes are poor and in desperate need of economic development.I enjoyed my time getting to know White Eagle and learning the story of his people. We have become friends. I gave him a free copy of our groundbreaking movie Climate Hustle to help him educate his people about the lies of global warming and urged him to take advantage of the energy boom that could greatly profit the Cree. He, in turn, has invited me to spend time with him on his reservation near Slave Lake – an offer I can hardly pass up!
I am also grateful to our allies from the Friends of Science, Modern Miracle Network and others, who invited me to give a talk and are fighting the good fight up north. God bless you in your efforts!
Till next we meet!
Monday, February 12, 2018
Could 2018 mark the end of the anti-GMO movement?
Marc Brazeau | Genetic Literacy Project | February 5, 2018
For people in the middle of the debates around biotech in agriculture (which tellingly don’t extend into debates around biotech in medicine), the discussion tends to have a Groundhog’s Day character to it, as the same zombie talking points continue to require a bullet to the head on nearly any given day. Zoom out a bit however and you can see that the shape of the battlefield has shifted dramatically. It’s worth reviewing what has changed over the last few years.
That is a Twitter exchange from 2013 in a piece where I tried to take stock of what had changed in the discussion between 2009 when the editorial board of Scientific American had called industry control over biotech research “chilling” and 2013 when the editorial board came out against mandatory GMO food labels..........To Read More.....
My Take - Then end of the GMO crusade was inevitable from the start. The same was true of every other greenie irrational, misanthropic and morally defective agenda they've pushed in the past, andy they're currently pushing, and any they'll push in the future. Truth very patiently waits on the horizon, and that's the one thing they can't overcome - Reality!
Few of any of these green loons aren't farmers, and they're not starving. A great deal of the rest of the world worries about tomorrow's meal and a great many people of the world are farmers. Many of them subsistence farmers, and GMO technology is the number one answer to the world's hungry mouths.
You can't have a free society if they're starving. But that's what the green movement is all about: Less people, and what they're doing is no less criminal than what Stalin and Mao did to the people of their nations. Starved them to death for idological purposes.
This exposure of these irrational movements can be directly linked to the internet and the pajamahadeen, who deserve a vote of thanks. If the internet had been in existence during the cry for the ban on DDT or the demand for passage of the Montreal Protocol - both would have gone the way of the Kyoto Accords. Into the ash heap of history.
You're welcome.
For people in the middle of the debates around biotech in agriculture (which tellingly don’t extend into debates around biotech in medicine), the discussion tends to have a Groundhog’s Day character to it, as the same zombie talking points continue to require a bullet to the head on nearly any given day. Zoom out a bit however and you can see that the shape of the battlefield has shifted dramatically. It’s worth reviewing what has changed over the last few years.
Past is prologue
“What has changed?” food policy writer Beth Hoffman asked Stacey Malkin, who had run the campaign in California for a mandatory GMO label.That is a Twitter exchange from 2013 in a piece where I tried to take stock of what had changed in the discussion between 2009 when the editorial board of Scientific American had called industry control over biotech research “chilling” and 2013 when the editorial board came out against mandatory GMO food labels..........To Read More.....
My Take - Then end of the GMO crusade was inevitable from the start. The same was true of every other greenie irrational, misanthropic and morally defective agenda they've pushed in the past, andy they're currently pushing, and any they'll push in the future. Truth very patiently waits on the horizon, and that's the one thing they can't overcome - Reality!
Few of any of these green loons aren't farmers, and they're not starving. A great deal of the rest of the world worries about tomorrow's meal and a great many people of the world are farmers. Many of them subsistence farmers, and GMO technology is the number one answer to the world's hungry mouths.
You can't have a free society if they're starving. But that's what the green movement is all about: Less people, and what they're doing is no less criminal than what Stalin and Mao did to the people of their nations. Starved them to death for idological purposes.
This exposure of these irrational movements can be directly linked to the internet and the pajamahadeen, who deserve a vote of thanks. If the internet had been in existence during the cry for the ban on DDT or the demand for passage of the Montreal Protocol - both would have gone the way of the Kyoto Accords. Into the ash heap of history.
You're welcome.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Because Protecting the Environment Is Important, Capitalism Should Play a Bigger Role
August 16, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
That being said, protecting the environment is a worthy and important goal.
And that’s why some of us want to give the private sector a bigger role.
John Stossel, for instance, has a must-watch video on how capitalism can save endangered rhinos.
Professor Philip Booth expands on the lesson in the video and urges broad application of market forces to preserve the environment.
Especially well-enforced property rights.
So what’s the bottom line on capitalism and the environment?
Let’s close by noting one other reason to give the market a bigger role. Simply stated, environmentalists seem to have no sense of cost-benefit analysis. Instead, we get bizarre policies that seem motivated primarily by virtue signalling.
No wonder many of us don’t trust the left on global warming, even if we recognize it may be a real issue.
P.S. There is at least one employee at the Environmental Protection Agency who deserves serious consideration for the Bureaucrat Hall of Fame.
Over the years, I’ve had fun mocking the silly extremism of the environmental movement.
 |
| All you really need to know is that it’s supposedly bad to be a red country. |
- Some environmentalists don’t believe in bathing,
- How about the environmentalists who sterilize themselves to avoid carbon-producing children,
- Or consider the environmentalists who produce/use hand-cranked vibrators to reduce their carbon footprint.
- There are also environmentalist who claim that climate change causes AIDS.
- Environmentalists assert that you’re racist if you oppose their agenda.
- And environmentalists put together a ranking implying that Cuba is better than the United States.
- The environmentalists who choose death to lower their carbon footprints.
And that’s why some of us want to give the private sector a bigger role.
John Stossel, for instance, has a must-watch video on how capitalism can save endangered rhinos.
Professor Philip Booth expands on the lesson in the video and urges broad application of market forces to preserve the environment.
Especially well-enforced property rights.
…what is needed for better husbandry of ecological resources is more widespread and deeper establishment of property rights together with their enforcement. The cause of environmentalism is often associated with the Left. This is despite the fact that some of the worst environmental outcomes in the history of our planet have been associated with Communist governments. …a great deal of serious work has been produced by those who believe in market or community-based solutions to environmental problems, and a relatively small role for government. For example, Ronald Coase and Elinor Ostrom are two Nobel Prize winners in economics who have made profound contributions to our understanding of how markets and communities can promote environmental conservation. Indeed, the intellectual and moral high ground when it comes to environmentalism ought to be taken by those who believe in private property, strong community institutions and a free economy.Philip explains why private ownership produces conservation.
If things are owned, they will tend to be looked after. The owner of a lake will not fish it to near extinction (or even over-fish the lake to a small degree) because the breeding potential of the fish would be reduced.He then explains the downside of public ownership.
On the other hand, if the lake is not owned by anybody, or if it is owned by the government and fishing is unregulated, the lake will be fished to extinction because nobody has any benefit from holding back. Local businesses may well also pollute the lake if there are no well-defined ownership rights. The much-cited work here is Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons (1968), though, in fact, Hardin was simply referring back to a pamphlet by William Forster Lloyd which was written in 1833. In that pamphlet, a situation was described whereby common land was open to grazing by all. The land would then be over-grazed because a person would get the benefit of putting additional cattle on the land without the cost that arises from over-grazing which would be shared by all users.He points out that one advantage of Brexit is that the U.K. can implement a fisheries system based on property rights.
Now that fishing policy has been repatriated, the UK should establish property rights in sea fisheries. Few would seriously question private property when it comes to the land. For example, it is rare these days to find people who would suggest that farms should be nationalised or collectivised or returned to an unregulated commons where anybody can graze their animals without restriction. It would be understood that this would lead to chaos, inefficiency and environmental catastrophe.And since we have real-world evidence that fisheries based on property rights are very successful, hopefully the U.K. government will implement this reform.
So what’s the bottom line on capitalism and the environment?
If we want sustainable environmental outcomes, the answer almost never lies with government control, but with the establishment and enforcement of property rights over environmental resources. This provides the incentive to nurture and conserve. Where the government does intervene it should try to mimic markets. When it comes to the environment, misguided government intervention can lead to conflict and poor environmental outcomes. The best thing the government can do is put its own house in order and ensure that property rights are enforced through proper policing and courts systems. That is certainly the experience of forested areas in South America.
Let’s close by noting one other reason to give the market a bigger role. Simply stated, environmentalists seem to have no sense of cost-benefit analysis. Instead, we get bizarre policies that seem motivated primarily by virtue signalling.
- The environmentalist-driven war on high-quality light bulbs.
- The environmentalist-driven rule against working toilets.
- The environmentalist-driven prohibition against washing machines that actually clean.
- The environmentalist-driven campaign to eliminate effective showerheads.
- The environmentalist-driven pointless recycling mandates.
No wonder many of us don’t trust the left on global warming, even if we recognize it may be a real issue.
P.S. There is at least one employee at the Environmental Protection Agency who deserves serious consideration for the Bureaucrat Hall of Fame.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Red-Green Alliance Funded by Billionaire Democrats
Don’t expect our media to look behind the curtain of the Peoples Climate March, since reporters share the ideology of climate change. We will probably be told that the march is comprised of moms and kids. Yet, the old Moscow-funded Communist Party is listed as one of the official “partners” of the group sponsoring the April 29th demonstration in Washington, DC.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that backed Obama from the start of his political career, is a partner, as is the Socialist Party. Academia is represented through such organizations as the American Association of University Professors. But there’s more: the Global Muslim Climate Network, the Islamic Society of North America, and a group called Green Muslims have signed on as partners. Trump’s electoral success has split apart the Democratic Party coalition that depended on unions and workers to help liberals win on Election Day.
By Cliff Kincade
“System Change, Not Climate Change” is the demand being made by the Party for Socialism and Liberation in regard to Saturday’s Peoples Climate March. “Only socialism can solve the climate crisis,” they say. It appears that the organizers of the march agree, since the old Moscow-funded Communist Party is listed as one of the official “partners” of the group sponsoring the April 29th demonstration in the nation’s capital.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than to see the U.S. close down its oil and gas industry and try to run a modern industrial economy on solar panels and windmills....... Read More........
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that backed Obama from the start of his political career, is a partner, as is the Socialist Party. Academia is represented through such organizations as the American Association of University Professors. But there’s more: the Global Muslim Climate Network, the Islamic Society of North America, and a group called Green Muslims have signed on as partners. Trump’s electoral success has split apart the Democratic Party coalition that depended on unions and workers to help liberals win on Election Day.
By Cliff Kincade
“System Change, Not Climate Change” is the demand being made by the Party for Socialism and Liberation in regard to Saturday’s Peoples Climate March. “Only socialism can solve the climate crisis,” they say. It appears that the organizers of the march agree, since the old Moscow-funded Communist Party is listed as one of the official “partners” of the group sponsoring the April 29th demonstration in the nation’s capital.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than to see the U.S. close down its oil and gas industry and try to run a modern industrial economy on solar panels and windmills....... Read More........
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Crimes Against Humanity Are Only For Losers!
By Rich Kozlovich
I originally published this on 9/30/13, but felt Daniel Greenfield's article, "The Dirty Red Secrets of May" inspired me to republish this today to help establish the left has no solid moral foundation. And anyone they condemn is a condemnation of convenience because there's three things the left hates more than anything. Consistency of thought, history and truth when it conflicts with their latest narrative, which may or may not last as long as the current ladies fashion. All parties of the left - including environmental activists - are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.
We now know that by not using DDT millions have died unnecessarily and yet the greenies, the EU, United Nations authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency continue to stand against its use. It would appear to me that someone is guilty of crimes against humanity. The world court is hot to try people for all sorts of things, but why is it that no one with the authority to charge greenies with these crimes has noticed that a crime against humanity has been committed? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media political-paradigm of the day!
Depending on who you read, the number that have died from malaria alone runs between fifty and one hundred million since 1972. That doesn’t count the many other mosquito borne diseases that are transmitted to an unprotected population. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
They stand against a genetically modified food called Golden Rice, which would prevent five hundred thousand children from going blind each year in Southeast Asia. In Africa they convinced leaders not to let their starving people eat genetically modified corn because it would cause cancer in their people. Untold numbers died. Thousands died and tens of thousands were sickened in South America when they convinced leaders there to eliminate chlorine in the water supplies because they claimed it caused cancer. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
There are those who arrogantly and smugly scoff at the very idea that anything the green movement does can be considered a crime; and if this was sixty, fifty, forty or even thirty years ago society would have agreed with them. Very few actually knew what was really going on and no one listened. We simply didn't know any better because the media kept the truth from society. But we now have the Internet, and that has allowed the evidence of time and science to be made known. We now know that the positions they had taken were not only wrong but evil. Evil because the environmental stands that they have taken have been tested by time; and people are still dying and suffering needlessly because of them, and they know it. Why has no one been charged with crimes against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
They know it! At the heart of the environmental movement they believe that humanity is the planet's greatest disease and must be eliminated. Prince Phillip once said that he would like to be reincarnated as a virus for that purpose. Apparently being detached from reality is a requirement to be a Royal and a greenie. For someone to be aware that they are taking a position that they know will kill untold numbers has to be criminal. Yet they continue to insist on standing their ground on all of their misanthropic positions. How can this not be crimes against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media -political paradigm of the day!
If you don’t want to call these events crimes against humanity, could we at least agree that this certainly represents depraved indifference? That is a crime also, and yet these are the people deciding what pesticides (if any) should be allowed, if genetically modified foods can be grown and sold, if chlorine and fluoride should be allowed in our water supplies, whether we can use fertilizers and herbicides on our fields, what foods we should eat, whether hydroelectric dams can be built and whether oil should be or will be drilled and where.
Does anyone feel any more confident now? Perhaps we can just get a copy of the New York Times to find out how we should feel.
I originally published this on 9/30/13, but felt Daniel Greenfield's article, "The Dirty Red Secrets of May" inspired me to republish this today to help establish the left has no solid moral foundation. And anyone they condemn is a condemnation of convenience because there's three things the left hates more than anything. Consistency of thought, history and truth when it conflicts with their latest narrative, which may or may not last as long as the current ladies fashion. All parties of the left - including environmental activists - are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.
An article titled; "Universal jurisdiction raises as many problems as it solves", was published by Hussein Ibish on September 28, 2013. He points out;
“Universal jurisdiction arises out of the post-Second World War environment, the first real applications of it being trials by the victors against Nazi and Japanese officials, among others. They created, in effect, a set of ex post facto crimes that were morally unimpeachable but raised significant legal problems. The magnitude of the evil, however, properly offset such qualms and new international legal norms were established.”
However, he states just before this;
“It must also contend with even more knotty moral realities – which are usually ignored in the academic and theoretical conversation on the subject – and multiple examples wherein the greater good may well be served by not pursuing even heinous war criminals for various ethically persuasive reasons.”
In short; war crimes are for losers! Stalin butchered tens of millions of his own people. Why wasn't he tried at Nuremburg? Castro killed as many or more per ratio than even Stalin. Why didn't Britain and Spain attempt to try him at the ICC as hard as they attempted to try Pinochet? Some time back I wrote an article titled; "What Constitutes A Crime Against Humanity?" I think it’s worth republishing now.
__________
Recently I had an interesting conversation with one of my customers who turned out to be an atheist. The conversation started out about how Islam is not a religion of peace (and I don’t care what these idiots in politics say) since their religion requires them not to be moderate. They can kill, rape, steal, lie and do whatever else they like in the name of Islam and its perfectly acceptable. That led to a discussion on the Crusades and the Inquisition. Eventually we came to atheists.
Being an atheist she proclaimed that at least they don’t go around killing people. I looked at her with a smile of incredulity and said…I’m sorry…except for the environmentalists atheists have killed more people than anyone in modern history.
Although under no circumstances should it be construed that I am justifying the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisition; but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao were atheists and killed far more than all of those combined, and with the exception of Hitler, those they killed were all their own people. Mao deliberately starved thirty six million to death because he needed cash to buy armament. How did he get it? He sold the food these people needed to survive. He said that this may only be the beginning and far more may have to die for him to attain his goals. So much for the “people’s revolution”!
These people committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity every recorded in history, yet Hitler is mostly singled out for that distinction. Why? Not that he didn’t deserve it mind you; but that is the rub isn’t it? Who decides what constitutes a crime against humanity?
Hitler proved that killing 6 million Jews is a crime against humanity because his henchmen were charged, found guilty, and many were executed for carrying out his orders. Joseph Stalin killed fifty million of his own people with the help of (among a host of others) Leonid Brezhnev, who became the leader of the USSR from 1964 till 1982. Neither of which were smeared with the epithet of ‘mass murderer’ or charged with crimes against humanity by any sitting official of any kind anywhere. In point of fact, neither Nixon, Ford or Jimmy Carter seemed to have any problem at all dealing with this mass murderer.
Then we have the modern Stalin apologists who claim that no one killed all those millions of people in Russia, and if millions did die; it wasn't Stalin's fault. But if millions did die, and Stalin did order those deaths; it was because he was trying to save millions more from the maniacs within his government. Accordingly, Stalin and Baria, his chief of the secret police, were in reality the heroes, not the villains, and that all the evidence to the contrary constitutes a conspiracy of lies.
Walter Duranty even received a Pulitzer Prize for writing articles that claimed that Stalin wasn't killing anyone; and everyone in journalism working in Russia knew his work was nothing but lies. A Pulitzer Prize that the New York Times refuses to return ; a Pulitzer Prize the Pulitzer Prize committee, in spite of the fact that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Duranty was a fraud, refuses to revoke.
Mao Tse Tung killed even more people yet Richard Nixon along with Henry Kissinger sat around like old buddies with Mao and his partner in mass murder Chou En-lai. Apparently you have to lose a war to be a mass murderer; perhaps that explains why no one in the environmental movement has ever been charged with any crime against humanity. The media and the political element will only stand up for what is right when the agenda fits their needs or view of reality - facts notwithstanding. Thomas Sowell made a worthwhile observation regarding the media and this mass murderer saying; "The mainstream media never expressed half the outrage about Mao Zedong as they did about Ronald Reagan. Yet, when it came to killing millions of innocent civilians, even Hitler was an amateur compared to Mao."
Then let's not forget Hollywood's favorite atheist and mass murderer, Fidel Castro. "According to the Cuba Archive Project, the Castro regime – with firing squads, forced-labor camps and drownings at sea – has caused an estimated 102,000 Cuban deaths. Cuba was a nation of 6.5 million people in 1960. Put your calculator to it and you’ll see that—per-capita wise--Castro and Che were close on the heels of their heroes and mentors Stain and Mao." These men slaughter men, children and even pregnant women; and yet prominent people today, who should know better, have this to say;
Being an atheist she proclaimed that at least they don’t go around killing people. I looked at her with a smile of incredulity and said…I’m sorry…except for the environmentalists atheists have killed more people than anyone in modern history.
Although under no circumstances should it be construed that I am justifying the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisition; but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao were atheists and killed far more than all of those combined, and with the exception of Hitler, those they killed were all their own people. Mao deliberately starved thirty six million to death because he needed cash to buy armament. How did he get it? He sold the food these people needed to survive. He said that this may only be the beginning and far more may have to die for him to attain his goals. So much for the “people’s revolution”!
These people committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity every recorded in history, yet Hitler is mostly singled out for that distinction. Why? Not that he didn’t deserve it mind you; but that is the rub isn’t it? Who decides what constitutes a crime against humanity?
Hitler proved that killing 6 million Jews is a crime against humanity because his henchmen were charged, found guilty, and many were executed for carrying out his orders. Joseph Stalin killed fifty million of his own people with the help of (among a host of others) Leonid Brezhnev, who became the leader of the USSR from 1964 till 1982. Neither of which were smeared with the epithet of ‘mass murderer’ or charged with crimes against humanity by any sitting official of any kind anywhere. In point of fact, neither Nixon, Ford or Jimmy Carter seemed to have any problem at all dealing with this mass murderer.
Then we have the modern Stalin apologists who claim that no one killed all those millions of people in Russia, and if millions did die; it wasn't Stalin's fault. But if millions did die, and Stalin did order those deaths; it was because he was trying to save millions more from the maniacs within his government. Accordingly, Stalin and Baria, his chief of the secret police, were in reality the heroes, not the villains, and that all the evidence to the contrary constitutes a conspiracy of lies.
Walter Duranty even received a Pulitzer Prize for writing articles that claimed that Stalin wasn't killing anyone; and everyone in journalism working in Russia knew his work was nothing but lies. A Pulitzer Prize that the New York Times refuses to return ; a Pulitzer Prize the Pulitzer Prize committee, in spite of the fact that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Duranty was a fraud, refuses to revoke.
Mao Tse Tung killed even more people yet Richard Nixon along with Henry Kissinger sat around like old buddies with Mao and his partner in mass murder Chou En-lai. Apparently you have to lose a war to be a mass murderer; perhaps that explains why no one in the environmental movement has ever been charged with any crime against humanity. The media and the political element will only stand up for what is right when the agenda fits their needs or view of reality - facts notwithstanding. Thomas Sowell made a worthwhile observation regarding the media and this mass murderer saying; "The mainstream media never expressed half the outrage about Mao Zedong as they did about Ronald Reagan. Yet, when it came to killing millions of innocent civilians, even Hitler was an amateur compared to Mao."
Then let's not forget Hollywood's favorite atheist and mass murderer, Fidel Castro. "According to the Cuba Archive Project, the Castro regime – with firing squads, forced-labor camps and drownings at sea – has caused an estimated 102,000 Cuban deaths. Cuba was a nation of 6.5 million people in 1960. Put your calculator to it and you’ll see that—per-capita wise--Castro and Che were close on the heels of their heroes and mentors Stain and Mao." These men slaughter men, children and even pregnant women; and yet prominent people today, who should know better, have this to say;
1. Viva Fidel! Viva Che! Castro is the most honest and courageous politician I've ever met." Jesse Jackson
2. Meeting Fidel Castro were the eight most important hours of my life." Steven Spielberg.
3. "Very selfless and moral. One of the world's wisest men." Oliver Stone
4. Cuba's Elvis." Dan Rather
5. “A Dream come true." Supermodel Naomi Campbell
6. "Socialism works. I think Cuba can prove that." Chevy Chase”.
7. "Castro is an extraordinary man. He is warm and understanding and seems extremely humane." Gina Lollobrigida
In 1996 when Castro visited NYC he was called the “The Toast of Manhattan” by Time magazine. Newsweek called him “The Hottest Ticket in Manhattan” discussing the social swirl he had caused. Humberto Fontova wrote an article about this called, Happy Thanksgiving! (From Fidel and Che) about how Fidel is embraced by people that should know better. We are aghast of the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers, yet Fidel Castro and Che had planned something just as heinous, if not more so, in 1962.
“Cuban agents had targeted Macy’s, Gimbel’s, Bloomingdales, and Manhattan’s Grand Central Station with a dozen incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT. The holocaust was set for detonation the following week, on the day after Thanksgiving…. the year’s biggest shopping day, for good measure. Thousands of New Yorkers, probably mostly women and children, were to be incinerated and entombed.”
Was he treated as a murderous maniac?
First there was “a luncheon at the Council on Foreign Relations. After holding court there for a rapt David Rockefeller, along with Robert McNamara, Dwayne Andreas, and Random House’s Harold Evans, Castro flashed over to Mort Zuckerman’s Fifth Avenue pad, where a throng of Beltway glitterati, including Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Bernard Shaw, and Barbara Walters, all jostled for a photo op, and stood in line for Castro’s autograph. Diane Sawyer was so overcome in the mass-murderer’s presence that she rushed up, broke into a toothy smile, wrapped her arms around Castro, and smooched him warmly on the cheek.”“God Bless you, Fidel,” boomed Pastor Calvin Butts of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church while introducing Castro on another New York visit four years later. The People’s Weekly World described Castro’s visit as such: “The audience which included New York Democratic representatives Charles Rangel enthusiastically greeted the Communist leader with a ten minute standing ovation. Chants of ‘FIDEL!-FIDEL! VIVA-FIDEL!’ resounded from the rafters.”
“Then with Congressperson Maxine Waters looking on in rapture, a beaming Charlie Rangel waddled up to the podium beside the terrorist (and racist) Castro and engulfed him in a mighty bear hug. Castro had to catch his breath, but he smiled and returned the rotund senator’s passionate abrazo.”
“Then with Congressperson Maxine Waters looking on in rapture, a beaming Charlie Rangel waddled up to the podium beside the terrorist (and racist) Castro and engulfed him in a mighty bear hug. Castro had to catch his breath, but he smiled and returned the rotund senator’s passionate abrazo.”
In March of 2011 Humberto Fontova wrote and article entitled, "Women’s History Month and Castro’s Female Victims" wherein he outlines the media's complete contempt for truth, reality and the poor innocents who suffered at his hands. He states; "When Barbara Walters sat quivering alongside Fidel Castro in 1977 cooing: “Fidel Castro has brought very high literacy and great health-care to his country. His personal magnetism is powerful.” dozens of Cuban suffragettes suffered in torture chambers within walking distance of the hyperventilating Ms. Walters." He went on to say; "I also apologize for singling out Barbara Walters. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell also had praise for the tryant: “Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly–even paternal, a thoroughly fascinating figure!”
And what was Casto's reaction to all of this adoration?
“You people are the cream of the crop!” beamed the Stalinist/terrorist to the smiling throng he’d come within a hair of nuking in 1962. “Hear, hear!” chirped the delighted guests, while tinkling their wine glasses in honor of the smirking agent of their near vaporization."
There really isn't any cure for stupid! Then again, perhaps it is just that this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day? Either way.....there really isn't any cure for stupid.
What if one person is deliberately murdered for philosophical reasons, is that a crime against humanity? We know for sure that it takes somewhere between one death and six million deaths to constitute a crime against humanity and it must fit the media-political paradigm of the day. What if tens of millions have been killed as a result of policies pursued by the environmental movement and implemented by governmental authorities? Surely that must be considered a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day?
For those who continue to say there are provisions which allows for DDT use in emergency situations and that DDT wasn’t banned in many areas of Africa; baloney, it is all wall paper.
And what was Casto's reaction to all of this adoration?
“You people are the cream of the crop!” beamed the Stalinist/terrorist to the smiling throng he’d come within a hair of nuking in 1962. “Hear, hear!” chirped the delighted guests, while tinkling their wine glasses in honor of the smirking agent of their near vaporization."
There really isn't any cure for stupid! Then again, perhaps it is just that this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day? Either way.....there really isn't any cure for stupid.
What if one person is deliberately murdered for philosophical reasons, is that a crime against humanity? We know for sure that it takes somewhere between one death and six million deaths to constitute a crime against humanity and it must fit the media-political paradigm of the day. What if tens of millions have been killed as a result of policies pursued by the environmental movement and implemented by governmental authorities? Surely that must be considered a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day?
For those who continue to say there are provisions which allows for DDT use in emergency situations and that DDT wasn’t banned in many areas of Africa; baloney, it is all wall paper.
“Yet African states are still put under pressure to avoid using DDT. This year the EU warned of possible agricultural sanctions against Uganda, Kenya and other countries that defiantly use DDT and vow to continue doing so. An EU official warned the Ugandan authorities that if indoor spraying of DDT meant there was ‘a risk of contamination of the food chain’, then while ‘[it] would not automatically lead to a ban of food products…it will mean that that particular consignment cannot be sent to Europe’ (5). ‘The EU should be saying that DDT is safe and poses no threat to EU consumers’, says Innis. ‘Instead they make either direct or oblique threats about possible trade sanctions. What they’re really saying is, “We’ve benefited from DDT and gotten rid of malaria but you people in Africa cannot do the same”.’
As for those countries that did ban DDT;
“Almost two decades after the country banned the use of DDT, the Government is under pressure to lift the ban as one of the effective ways of controlling the spread of malaria. At the same time, there is pressure on the Government not to lift the ban on the insecticide, which remains banned in many countries in the world. The pressure comes in the wake of the heads of state conference in Abuja, which passed a resolution to put emphasis on and promote the use of indoor residual spraying to help fight the malaria vector.”
The outside pressure is tremendous on these leaders from the green movement.We now know that by not using DDT millions have died unnecessarily and yet the greenies, the EU, United Nations authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency continue to stand against its use. It would appear to me that someone is guilty of crimes against humanity. The world court is hot to try people for all sorts of things, but why is it that no one with the authority to charge greenies with these crimes has noticed that a crime against humanity has been committed? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media political-paradigm of the day!
Depending on who you read, the number that have died from malaria alone runs between fifty and one hundred million since 1972. That doesn’t count the many other mosquito borne diseases that are transmitted to an unprotected population. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
They stand against a genetically modified food called Golden Rice, which would prevent five hundred thousand children from going blind each year in Southeast Asia. In Africa they convinced leaders not to let their starving people eat genetically modified corn because it would cause cancer in their people. Untold numbers died. Thousands died and tens of thousands were sickened in South America when they convinced leaders there to eliminate chlorine in the water supplies because they claimed it caused cancer. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
There are those who arrogantly and smugly scoff at the very idea that anything the green movement does can be considered a crime; and if this was sixty, fifty, forty or even thirty years ago society would have agreed with them. Very few actually knew what was really going on and no one listened. We simply didn't know any better because the media kept the truth from society. But we now have the Internet, and that has allowed the evidence of time and science to be made known. We now know that the positions they had taken were not only wrong but evil. Evil because the environmental stands that they have taken have been tested by time; and people are still dying and suffering needlessly because of them, and they know it. Why has no one been charged with crimes against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
They know it! At the heart of the environmental movement they believe that humanity is the planet's greatest disease and must be eliminated. Prince Phillip once said that he would like to be reincarnated as a virus for that purpose. Apparently being detached from reality is a requirement to be a Royal and a greenie. For someone to be aware that they are taking a position that they know will kill untold numbers has to be criminal. Yet they continue to insist on standing their ground on all of their misanthropic positions. How can this not be crimes against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media -political paradigm of the day!
If you don’t want to call these events crimes against humanity, could we at least agree that this certainly represents depraved indifference? That is a crime also, and yet these are the people deciding what pesticides (if any) should be allowed, if genetically modified foods can be grown and sold, if chlorine and fluoride should be allowed in our water supplies, whether we can use fertilizers and herbicides on our fields, what foods we should eat, whether hydroelectric dams can be built and whether oil should be or will be drilled and where.
Does anyone feel any more confident now? Perhaps we can just get a copy of the New York Times to find out how we should feel.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Earth Day has become polluted by ideology and ignorance
By Jeff Stier and Henry I. Miller April 20, 2017 @ Learn Liberty, A Project of IHS
The first Earth Day celebration was conceived by then-US senator Gaylord Nelson and held in 1970 as a "symbol of environmental responsibility and stewardship." In the spirit of the time, it was a touchy-feely, consciousness-raising, New Age experience, and most activities were organized at the grassroots level.
The first Earth Day celebration was conceived by then-US senator Gaylord Nelson and held in 1970 as a "symbol of environmental responsibility and stewardship." In the spirit of the time, it was a touchy-feely, consciousness-raising, New Age experience, and most activities were organized at the grassroots level.
In recent years, Earth Day has evolved into an occasion for environmental Cassandras to prophesy apocalypse, dish antitechnology dirt, and proselytize. Passion and zeal routinely trump science, and provability takes a back seat to plausibility.
nstead of a genuine concern for nature, many of those stumping for Earth Day this April 22 will share opposition to environment-friendly advances in science and technology, such as agricultural biotechnology, fracking, and nuclear power. Another pervasive sentiment will be disdain for the capitalist system that provides the resources to expend on environmental protection and conservation. (It's no coincidence that poor countries tend to be the most polluted.)
Distortion of Science The Earth Day Network, which organizes Earth Day events and advocacy, regularly distorts science to advance its cynical agenda. This year's event, ironically enough, is dedicated to "Environmental and Climate Literacy," which is indeed sorely needed, given Earth Day's manipulation and misappropriation of our commitment to protecting the environment.
Consider, for example, the network's disingenuousness about fracking: "Fracking causes a lot of environmental harm and poses a threat to the health of a population near a fracking site due to contaminated water and the increased risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses." In 2011, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson conceded that she was "not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water."
In 2013, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said he had "not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater." And just last year, the Obama EPA released the findings of its major report on fracking, which relied on 950 sources and was expected by activists to make the case against the technology.
The report was unable to cite any confirmed cases of water contamination. Under pressure from left-liberal members of Congress in the waning days of the Obama administration, the EPA changed the scientific conclusion of the draft report, which originally stated that there was "no systemic effect" on drinking water as a result of fracking.
Without any additional science or cases of contamination, EPA officials who sought to paint fracking in the worst possible light but who were confronted by the paucity of documented contamination wrote that, in "limited cases," such as in a rare fracking fluid spill, contamination could take place. In other words, not unlike riding your bike through New York's Central Park, fracking is not a zero-risk proposition.
Earth Day organizers and others pushing for across-the-board fracking bans rather than reasonable safeguards wish to "educate" us about the environment by suggesting that we should get our energy without any risk whatsoever.
Environmental Indoctrination of Children Even those who can forgive these activists for pressuring regulators and members of Congress to cook the books on scientific reports may be troubled by their campaign to indoctrinate students.
A few years ago, seventh graders at a tony private school near San Francisco were given an unusual Earth Day assignment: make a list of environmental projects that could be accomplished with Bill Gates's fortune. This approach to environmental awareness fits in well with the "progressive" worldview that the right to private property is subsidiary to undertakings that others think are worthwhile — the redistributive theory of society.
And how interesting that the resources made "available" for the students' thought experiment were not, say, the aggregate net worth of the members of Congress but the wealth of one of the nation's most successful, most innovative entrepreneurs.
Rachel Carson's Egregious Lies Another Earth Day assignment for those same students was to read Rachel Carson's best-selling 1962 book Silent Spring, an emotionally charged but deeply flawed excoriation of the widespread spraying of chemical pesticides for the control of insects. As described by Roger Meiners and Andy Morriss in their scholarly yet eminently readable 2012 analysis, "Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental Classic," Carson exploited her reputation as a well-known nature writer to advocate and legitimatize "positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental thinking: neo-Malthusian population control and anti-technology efforts."
Carson's proselytizing and advocacy led to the virtual banning of DDT and to restrictions on other chemical pesticides even though Silent Spring was replete with gross misrepresentations and scholarship so atrocious that if Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious misconduct. Carson's observations about DDT were meticulously rebutted point by point by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, a professor of entomology at San Jose State University, a longtime member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society, and a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences.
If Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious misconduct.
In his stunning 1992 essay, "The Lies of Rachel Carson," Edwards demolished her arguments and assertions and called attention to critical omissions, faulty assumptions, and outright fabrications. Consider this from Edwards:
This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse effects. Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that "in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable." The World Health Organization stated that DDT had "killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance."
Meiners and Morriss conclude correctly that the influence of Silent Spring "encourages some of the most destructive strains within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human well-being around the world." Sounds like the doctrine of the organizers of this year's Earth Day.
Ecofundamentalism One of the United Kingdom's great contemporary thinkers, Dick Taverne, aka Lord Taverne of Pimlico, discusses the shortcomings of New Age philosophy in his perspicacious book, The March of Unreason. Taverne deplores the "new kind of fundamentalism" that has infiltrated many environmentalist campaigns — an undiscriminating back-to-nature movement that views science and technology as the enemy and as a manifestation of an exploitative, rapacious, and reductionist attitude toward nature. It is no coincidence, he believes, that ecofundamentalists are strongly represented in antiglobalization and anticapitalism demonstrations worldwide.
In this, Taverne echoes the late physician and novelist Michael Crichton, who argued in his much-acclaimed novel State of Fear that ecofundamentalists have reinterpreted traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths and made a religion of environmentalism. This religion has its own Eden and paradise, where mankind lived in a state of grace and unity with nature until mankind's fall, which came not after eating a forbidden fruit, but after partaking of the forbidden tree of knowledge — that is, science. This religion also has a judgment day to come for us in this polluted world — all of us, that is, except for true environmentalists, who will be saved by achieving "sustainability."
Environmental Alarmism One of Crichton's characters argues that since the end of the Cold War, environmental alarmism in Western nations has filled the void left by the disappearance of the terror of communism and nuclear holocaust, and that social control is now maintained by highly exaggerated fears about pollution, global warming, chemicals, genetic engineering, and the like. With the military-industrial complex no longer the primary driver of society, the politico-legal-media complex has replaced it.
This politico-legal-media complex peddles fear in the guise of promoting safety. French writer and philosopher Pascal Bruckner captured its tone nicely: "You'll get what you've got coming! That is the death wish that our misanthropes address to us. These are not great souls who alert us to troubles but tiny minds who wish us suffering if we have the presumption to refuse to listen to them. Catastrophe is not their fear but their joy."
The tiny-minded misanthropes have enjoyed some dubious "successes." They have effectively banished agricultural biotechnology from Europe, put the chemical industry on the run, and placed the pharmaceutical industry in their crosshairs.
Lord Taverne believes these are ominous trends that are contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment, returning us to an era in which inherited dogma and superstition took precedence over experimental data. Not only do the practices of ecofundamentalism retard technologies and the availability of products which, used responsibly, could dramatically improve and extend many lives and protect the environment, but they strangle scientific creativity and technological innovation.
A Defense of Science, Reason, and Democracy With Congress, the administration, and many Americans now firmly on the side of more sensible, more limited regulation, it would behoove the Earth Day activists to collaborate in good faith and to support advances in environment-friendly technologies and business models. Among these, we would include ridesharing services, Airbnb, modern genetic engineering applied to agriculture, and state-of-the art agricultural chemicals, all of which enable us to do more with less but have been vilified by activists.
We are not sufficiently naïve to expect that to happen. Rather, we suspect that activists' ecofundamentalism will continue to undermine the health of civilized society and of democracy.
Lord Taverne observed that when you defend science and reason, you defend democracy itself. Well said, Milord, and happy Earth Day to you.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, DC, and heads its Risk Analysis Division.
nstead of a genuine concern for nature, many of those stumping for Earth Day this April 22 will share opposition to environment-friendly advances in science and technology, such as agricultural biotechnology, fracking, and nuclear power. Another pervasive sentiment will be disdain for the capitalist system that provides the resources to expend on environmental protection and conservation. (It's no coincidence that poor countries tend to be the most polluted.)
Distortion of Science The Earth Day Network, which organizes Earth Day events and advocacy, regularly distorts science to advance its cynical agenda. This year's event, ironically enough, is dedicated to "Environmental and Climate Literacy," which is indeed sorely needed, given Earth Day's manipulation and misappropriation of our commitment to protecting the environment.
Consider, for example, the network's disingenuousness about fracking: "Fracking causes a lot of environmental harm and poses a threat to the health of a population near a fracking site due to contaminated water and the increased risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses." In 2011, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson conceded that she was "not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water."
In 2013, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said he had "not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater." And just last year, the Obama EPA released the findings of its major report on fracking, which relied on 950 sources and was expected by activists to make the case against the technology.
The report was unable to cite any confirmed cases of water contamination. Under pressure from left-liberal members of Congress in the waning days of the Obama administration, the EPA changed the scientific conclusion of the draft report, which originally stated that there was "no systemic effect" on drinking water as a result of fracking.
Without any additional science or cases of contamination, EPA officials who sought to paint fracking in the worst possible light but who were confronted by the paucity of documented contamination wrote that, in "limited cases," such as in a rare fracking fluid spill, contamination could take place. In other words, not unlike riding your bike through New York's Central Park, fracking is not a zero-risk proposition.
Earth Day organizers and others pushing for across-the-board fracking bans rather than reasonable safeguards wish to "educate" us about the environment by suggesting that we should get our energy without any risk whatsoever.
Environmental Indoctrination of Children Even those who can forgive these activists for pressuring regulators and members of Congress to cook the books on scientific reports may be troubled by their campaign to indoctrinate students.
A few years ago, seventh graders at a tony private school near San Francisco were given an unusual Earth Day assignment: make a list of environmental projects that could be accomplished with Bill Gates's fortune. This approach to environmental awareness fits in well with the "progressive" worldview that the right to private property is subsidiary to undertakings that others think are worthwhile — the redistributive theory of society.
And how interesting that the resources made "available" for the students' thought experiment were not, say, the aggregate net worth of the members of Congress but the wealth of one of the nation's most successful, most innovative entrepreneurs.
Rachel Carson's Egregious Lies Another Earth Day assignment for those same students was to read Rachel Carson's best-selling 1962 book Silent Spring, an emotionally charged but deeply flawed excoriation of the widespread spraying of chemical pesticides for the control of insects. As described by Roger Meiners and Andy Morriss in their scholarly yet eminently readable 2012 analysis, "Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental Classic," Carson exploited her reputation as a well-known nature writer to advocate and legitimatize "positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental thinking: neo-Malthusian population control and anti-technology efforts."
Carson's proselytizing and advocacy led to the virtual banning of DDT and to restrictions on other chemical pesticides even though Silent Spring was replete with gross misrepresentations and scholarship so atrocious that if Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious misconduct. Carson's observations about DDT were meticulously rebutted point by point by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, a professor of entomology at San Jose State University, a longtime member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society, and a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences.
If Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious misconduct.
In his stunning 1992 essay, "The Lies of Rachel Carson," Edwards demolished her arguments and assertions and called attention to critical omissions, faulty assumptions, and outright fabrications. Consider this from Edwards:
This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse effects. Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that "in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable." The World Health Organization stated that DDT had "killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance."
Meiners and Morriss conclude correctly that the influence of Silent Spring "encourages some of the most destructive strains within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human well-being around the world." Sounds like the doctrine of the organizers of this year's Earth Day.
Ecofundamentalism One of the United Kingdom's great contemporary thinkers, Dick Taverne, aka Lord Taverne of Pimlico, discusses the shortcomings of New Age philosophy in his perspicacious book, The March of Unreason. Taverne deplores the "new kind of fundamentalism" that has infiltrated many environmentalist campaigns — an undiscriminating back-to-nature movement that views science and technology as the enemy and as a manifestation of an exploitative, rapacious, and reductionist attitude toward nature. It is no coincidence, he believes, that ecofundamentalists are strongly represented in antiglobalization and anticapitalism demonstrations worldwide.
In this, Taverne echoes the late physician and novelist Michael Crichton, who argued in his much-acclaimed novel State of Fear that ecofundamentalists have reinterpreted traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths and made a religion of environmentalism. This religion has its own Eden and paradise, where mankind lived in a state of grace and unity with nature until mankind's fall, which came not after eating a forbidden fruit, but after partaking of the forbidden tree of knowledge — that is, science. This religion also has a judgment day to come for us in this polluted world — all of us, that is, except for true environmentalists, who will be saved by achieving "sustainability."
Environmental Alarmism One of Crichton's characters argues that since the end of the Cold War, environmental alarmism in Western nations has filled the void left by the disappearance of the terror of communism and nuclear holocaust, and that social control is now maintained by highly exaggerated fears about pollution, global warming, chemicals, genetic engineering, and the like. With the military-industrial complex no longer the primary driver of society, the politico-legal-media complex has replaced it.
This politico-legal-media complex peddles fear in the guise of promoting safety. French writer and philosopher Pascal Bruckner captured its tone nicely: "You'll get what you've got coming! That is the death wish that our misanthropes address to us. These are not great souls who alert us to troubles but tiny minds who wish us suffering if we have the presumption to refuse to listen to them. Catastrophe is not their fear but their joy."
The tiny-minded misanthropes have enjoyed some dubious "successes." They have effectively banished agricultural biotechnology from Europe, put the chemical industry on the run, and placed the pharmaceutical industry in their crosshairs.
Lord Taverne believes these are ominous trends that are contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment, returning us to an era in which inherited dogma and superstition took precedence over experimental data. Not only do the practices of ecofundamentalism retard technologies and the availability of products which, used responsibly, could dramatically improve and extend many lives and protect the environment, but they strangle scientific creativity and technological innovation.
A Defense of Science, Reason, and Democracy With Congress, the administration, and many Americans now firmly on the side of more sensible, more limited regulation, it would behoove the Earth Day activists to collaborate in good faith and to support advances in environment-friendly technologies and business models. Among these, we would include ridesharing services, Airbnb, modern genetic engineering applied to agriculture, and state-of-the art agricultural chemicals, all of which enable us to do more with less but have been vilified by activists.
We are not sufficiently naïve to expect that to happen. Rather, we suspect that activists' ecofundamentalism will continue to undermine the health of civilized society and of democracy.
Lord Taverne observed that when you defend science and reason, you defend democracy itself. Well said, Milord, and happy Earth Day to you.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, DC, and heads its Risk Analysis Division.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
U.S. Green Party goes all in for Islam
Leo Hohmann
The U.S. Green Party has put out a briefing paper for party activists instructing them to work with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Islamists in fighting “Islamophobia” and “oppression in all its forms.” According to the document, “Islamophobia” is a “contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure” and should be treated as a type of racism.
The U.S. Green Party has put out a briefing paper for party activists instructing them to work with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Islamists in fighting “Islamophobia” and “oppression in all its forms.” According to the document, “Islamophobia” is a “contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure” and should be treated as a type of racism.
The fact that Islam is a religion/political ideology and not a race seems not to stand in the way of the Green Party’s burgeoning alliance with Islam, says Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog and several best-selling books about Islam. The Green Party, like other left-of-center parties and movements, is willing to put aside its more secular worldview and adopt Islamic groups because their shared interests trump their differences, Spencer said.
“The left has been reaching out to Islamic supremacist groups and individuals for a long time. They both share a hatred for America and a contempt for the Judeo-Christian tradition,” he told WND...........Read more at
“The left has been reaching out to Islamic supremacist groups and individuals for a long time. They both share a hatred for America and a contempt for the Judeo-Christian tradition,” he told WND...........Read more at
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Observations From the Back Row: What's Wrong With Our Minds?
By Rich Kozlovich, Originally posted Friday, July 9, 2010 updated March 31, 2017
Let’s not kid ourselves - what they really want is Ford, and the rest of the automobile industry, to be out of business. What do they want from pesticide users? Well, I am sure that if we would offer to kill ourselves that they would agree that this would be a nice start, and we've been working hard to accommodate them.
If you look at who has affected people’s health positively and negatively you will find that it's the pesticide application industries that's saved and extended lives and it is the environmental movement who has taken lives. So why do we listen to them? Why does anyone?
I am the last one to decry their desire for a simple life without all the modern conveniences. If that is what someone wants, then I say…enjoy! However, if all of these people think their ideas are so great, why are all these green activists and their supporters living in the developed world and not in the third world?
If they really believe all of the stuff they spew out they need to take a personal stand and move there. They could really make an impact on everyone’s mind by taking their children with them also. Certainly that must make sense to everyone! After all, why would a green activist want to expose themselves and their children to all of these terrible chemicals?
They need to move to one of the many areas of the world where there are no roads, few cars and no running water contaminated with any chlorine or fluoride. No electricity, no vaccinations, no genetically modified foods, no fungicides, no anti-bacterial cleaners, no air conditioning, and all organic food with no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
Will there be many takers? Few if any!
You can be sure green activists will be as close to the modern conveniences and the society they claim to despise as surely as bank robbers will rob banks and pedophiles will hang around children.
To paraphrase the earlier question asked by Burt Prelutsky - “For what reason would any sane society ever believe anything these people say? The notion that society would be safe if these creeps ideas and philosophies were followed is perfectly loony.”
Yes …we really have lost our minds!
Some year back Burt Prelutsky wrote an article entitled “Those poor, poor perverts”. The basis of the article was a discussion as to how ridiculous are the arguments surrounding pedophiles and how they are to be treated by society.
He uses the old story of how “intellectuals” (he used the word “nuts”, but they were the intellectuals of the day…..nothing has changed!) would sit around for hours and discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. See… television did cure one thing. The only problem is that so many of those who are in decision making positions apparently don’t waste their time on television, mores’ the pity, because they now sit around and decide how many feet away from a school a convicted pedophile may live who has been released from prison.
Prelutsky makes a point that should be obvious to the most casual observer - “For what reason would any sane society ever release such a person from jail? The notion that kids are safe if the creep lives 2,000 feet away from where they play is perfectly loony. What about the kids walking to and from those parks and playgrounds? “
He points out that it is like releasing all the bank robbers from the prisons and telling them they can’t live any closer that two blocks away from a bank and expecting this to be the solution to their wanting to rob banks.
He goes on to say, “judges and lawmakers seem happy to ignore the rates of recidivism among rapists and pedophiles. Is there anyone else, aside from defense attorneys, who would argue that a man who’s raped a six year old child deserves a second chance?”
We have ceded our own common sense to the “experts”!
Are they really all that credible - so credible we willingly abandon common sense, moral balance and traditional values instilled in society over the ages?
Where is our moral compass?
As unpleasant an issue as this is, I use it to show a peculiar nutty mindset that permeates society. Concern about pedophiles, bank robbers and other assorted villains of society is the common concern that we all must share. But we also have the added concern of those who are destructive to society in a much larger and more insidious way. The green movement!
A group that industry must have the most concerns over, and they aren't only on the outside of industry, they've become ensconced within industry. They are the fifth columnists we need to fear. They share the culture moving among us openly, speaking the same language, but all the while rotting the very foundation of industry with their works.
They promote junk and fraudulent science as fact and while they should be the ones at the fore front defending who and what we are - standing against this nonsense - they instead turn into cheerleaders - and everyone eats it up with an arrogant air of self-righteousness.
Society and industry willing accepts this nonsense because the media is on their side, keeping everyone misinformed or ill informed. The EPA is clearly complicit as they continue spewing out a lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations. They support junk science through grant money - IPM and Green Pest Control being these kinds of endeavors.
The green movement even has legislators held hostage to huge amounts of their monetary support. Some years back a California congressman wanted to make changes to the Endangered Species Act…not repeal it as is really needed…..just add some sanity to it, and the Sierra Club spent a ton of money to defeat him - and they did. They stated “this was a lesson” to other legislators. This makes them more deadly to more people over a broader scope of humanity than bank robbers or even pedophiles.
He uses the old story of how “intellectuals” (he used the word “nuts”, but they were the intellectuals of the day…..nothing has changed!) would sit around for hours and discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. See… television did cure one thing. The only problem is that so many of those who are in decision making positions apparently don’t waste their time on television, mores’ the pity, because they now sit around and decide how many feet away from a school a convicted pedophile may live who has been released from prison.
Prelutsky makes a point that should be obvious to the most casual observer - “For what reason would any sane society ever release such a person from jail? The notion that kids are safe if the creep lives 2,000 feet away from where they play is perfectly loony. What about the kids walking to and from those parks and playgrounds? “
He points out that it is like releasing all the bank robbers from the prisons and telling them they can’t live any closer that two blocks away from a bank and expecting this to be the solution to their wanting to rob banks.
He goes on to say, “judges and lawmakers seem happy to ignore the rates of recidivism among rapists and pedophiles. Is there anyone else, aside from defense attorneys, who would argue that a man who’s raped a six year old child deserves a second chance?”
We have ceded our own common sense to the “experts”!
Are they really all that credible - so credible we willingly abandon common sense, moral balance and traditional values instilled in society over the ages?
Where is our moral compass?
As unpleasant an issue as this is, I use it to show a peculiar nutty mindset that permeates society. Concern about pedophiles, bank robbers and other assorted villains of society is the common concern that we all must share. But we also have the added concern of those who are destructive to society in a much larger and more insidious way. The green movement!
A group that industry must have the most concerns over, and they aren't only on the outside of industry, they've become ensconced within industry. They are the fifth columnists we need to fear. They share the culture moving among us openly, speaking the same language, but all the while rotting the very foundation of industry with their works.
They promote junk and fraudulent science as fact and while they should be the ones at the fore front defending who and what we are - standing against this nonsense - they instead turn into cheerleaders - and everyone eats it up with an arrogant air of self-righteousness.
Society and industry willing accepts this nonsense because the media is on their side, keeping everyone misinformed or ill informed. The EPA is clearly complicit as they continue spewing out a lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations. They support junk science through grant money - IPM and Green Pest Control being these kinds of endeavors.
The green movement even has legislators held hostage to huge amounts of their monetary support. Some years back a California congressman wanted to make changes to the Endangered Species Act…not repeal it as is really needed…..just add some sanity to it, and the Sierra Club spent a ton of money to defeat him - and they did. They stated “this was a lesson” to other legislators. This makes them more deadly to more people over a broader scope of humanity than bank robbers or even pedophiles.
The history of the green movement - along with it's foundational parent philosophy socialism - has brought dystopia to humanity all over the world, and they would love to have America share in it. The philosophy and programs, including the Precautionary Principle, are almost identical to those imposed by the world's first green government - Nazi Germany!
Does industry really believe all the nonsense they spew out? Do we really believe we can really come to some sort of mutually acceptable final agreement with them? No matter what many of the prominent people in our industry, or for that matter industry as a whole say publicly - when I talk to them personally and off the record they all acknowledge that it is all claptrap.
A lobbyist I have known for years makes the point that in any negotiations there must be some compromise, and I agree. The problem we seem to have is being able to understand the difference between compromise and capitulation. If during these discussions we give up something, I would like to know what the other side is giving up. I am not talking about just being quiet for a while either. Or being quiet while their brethren from other green groups attack us, which is what usually happens. There is no command and control system within the green movement. They will not only continue attacking industry they will attack their green brethren as sell outs for not being green enough.
If you give up 25% of something and they go away until next year - they will be back the very next year demanding that you give up another 25% and so on and so on and so on until you no longer have anything to give up. When you dance with the Devil you don't call the tune, you can't name the dance, you don't lead, and you may not be able to leave the dance floor.
Why don't we get that?
If you think this is an extreme and unreasonable view - ask Kentucky Fried Chicken. They backed down on point after point and the animal rights people said that this was a “good start”. There will be no end to their demands because the Neville Chamberlain “Policy of Appeasement” philosophy will not work on people with an agenda?
They are the anointed!
They know best about all things. They truly believe their individual and collective intellect is far greater than all of the practical experience accumulated by mankind over the centuries. Their's is the “vision of the anointed” - and must not be ignored - no matter the consequences. As a result of the policies they've promoted they clearly earned the right to b the 20th century’s greatest mass murders (even greater than all the murderous leftist dictators combined. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, conservatively claims they murdered 100 million innocent people. Depending on who you read their unjustified ban on DDT along may have unnecessarily killed that many innocent people, and that number grows daily) and are working just as hard in thd 21st century to maintain that status.
Ford Motor Company also found out the hard way. In a Fox News article Steve Milloy points out that “After Ford caved into pressure from left-wing activist investors and issued a report stating that it “views stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and energy security as critical and related business issues that warrant precautionary, prudent and early action,” the enviros thanked Ford in return by accusing his company of putting “more heat-trapping pollution into our skies each year than the entire country of Mexico" - continuing to “produce more global warming pollution on average than any other automaker” - continuing to make SUVs - and fighting a California law that would require a 30 percent reduction in automobile carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.”
Does industry really believe all the nonsense they spew out? Do we really believe we can really come to some sort of mutually acceptable final agreement with them? No matter what many of the prominent people in our industry, or for that matter industry as a whole say publicly - when I talk to them personally and off the record they all acknowledge that it is all claptrap.
A lobbyist I have known for years makes the point that in any negotiations there must be some compromise, and I agree. The problem we seem to have is being able to understand the difference between compromise and capitulation. If during these discussions we give up something, I would like to know what the other side is giving up. I am not talking about just being quiet for a while either. Or being quiet while their brethren from other green groups attack us, which is what usually happens. There is no command and control system within the green movement. They will not only continue attacking industry they will attack their green brethren as sell outs for not being green enough.
If you give up 25% of something and they go away until next year - they will be back the very next year demanding that you give up another 25% and so on and so on and so on until you no longer have anything to give up. When you dance with the Devil you don't call the tune, you can't name the dance, you don't lead, and you may not be able to leave the dance floor.
Why don't we get that?
If you think this is an extreme and unreasonable view - ask Kentucky Fried Chicken. They backed down on point after point and the animal rights people said that this was a “good start”. There will be no end to their demands because the Neville Chamberlain “Policy of Appeasement” philosophy will not work on people with an agenda?
They are the anointed!
They know best about all things. They truly believe their individual and collective intellect is far greater than all of the practical experience accumulated by mankind over the centuries. Their's is the “vision of the anointed” - and must not be ignored - no matter the consequences. As a result of the policies they've promoted they clearly earned the right to b the 20th century’s greatest mass murders (even greater than all the murderous leftist dictators combined. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, conservatively claims they murdered 100 million innocent people. Depending on who you read their unjustified ban on DDT along may have unnecessarily killed that many innocent people, and that number grows daily) and are working just as hard in thd 21st century to maintain that status.
Ford Motor Company also found out the hard way. In a Fox News article Steve Milloy points out that “After Ford caved into pressure from left-wing activist investors and issued a report stating that it “views stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and energy security as critical and related business issues that warrant precautionary, prudent and early action,” the enviros thanked Ford in return by accusing his company of putting “more heat-trapping pollution into our skies each year than the entire country of Mexico" - continuing to “produce more global warming pollution on average than any other automaker” - continuing to make SUVs - and fighting a California law that would require a 30 percent reduction in automobile carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.”
Let’s not kid ourselves - what they really want is Ford, and the rest of the automobile industry, to be out of business. What do they want from pesticide users? Well, I am sure that if we would offer to kill ourselves that they would agree that this would be a nice start, and we've been working hard to accommodate them.
If you look at who has affected people’s health positively and negatively you will find that it's the pesticide application industries that's saved and extended lives and it is the environmental movement who has taken lives. So why do we listen to them? Why does anyone?
I am the last one to decry their desire for a simple life without all the modern conveniences. If that is what someone wants, then I say…enjoy! However, if all of these people think their ideas are so great, why are all these green activists and their supporters living in the developed world and not in the third world?
If they really believe all of the stuff they spew out they need to take a personal stand and move there. They could really make an impact on everyone’s mind by taking their children with them also. Certainly that must make sense to everyone! After all, why would a green activist want to expose themselves and their children to all of these terrible chemicals?
They need to move to one of the many areas of the world where there are no roads, few cars and no running water contaminated with any chlorine or fluoride. No electricity, no vaccinations, no genetically modified foods, no fungicides, no anti-bacterial cleaners, no air conditioning, and all organic food with no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
Will there be many takers? Few if any!
You can be sure green activists will be as close to the modern conveniences and the society they claim to despise as surely as bank robbers will rob banks and pedophiles will hang around children.
To paraphrase the earlier question asked by Burt Prelutsky - “For what reason would any sane society ever believe anything these people say? The notion that society would be safe if these creeps ideas and philosophies were followed is perfectly loony.”
Yes …we really have lost our minds!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)