Tesla owes its survival to subsidies from taxpayers, who are usually less well-heeled than its plutocratic customers; this Silicon Valley start-up has gotten $4.9 billion in state and federal support over the past decade…
Sorry folks, but I don’t know of any business that could miss making a big splash – just like Mr. Musk has – with $4.9 billion in taxpayer handouts.
If renewable energy, EV/hybrids, and other so-called green options are so competitive and so desired by consumers, they should be able to produce products that compete without receiving just south of half a billion in handouts each year.
Of course the article goes on to note that Mr. Musk’s payout is just scratching the surface as U.S., government subsidies to the EV market will be “$7.5 billion through 2019.”
This is not capitalism and the free market. This is crony-capitalism, corporate welfare, and direct handouts to preferred companies and technologies. The renewable, EV/hybrid world needs to put on its big-boy pants and quit sucking off the government (taxpayer) tit.
Stop robbing the middle class and poor to pay for green play toys for the rich.
This is the sort of story that would normally have Hollywood bigwigs slavering like an overheated dog. I somehow doubt they’ll be all that keen on making a movie that shows the government (the EPA specifically) attempting to swindle elderly members of the Navajo Nation out of their future rights to claim damages for the pollution in the Animas River.
The EPA is trying to cheat Navajo Indians by getting them to sign away their rights to future claims from the agency’s Gold King Mine disaster, tribal officials charged Wednesday, adding more to the administration’s public relations problems over the spill that threatens critical Southwest waterways.
Environmental Protection Agency officials were going door to door asking Navajos, some of whom don’t speak English as their primary language, to sign a form that offers to pay damages incurred so far from the spill, but waiving the right to come back and ask for more if their costs escalate or if they discover bigger problems, Navajo President Russell Begaye told The Washington Times.
I’m honestly gobsmacked by the EPA’s actions in this spill. They apparently blustered forward with their plans to address the slow leak of abandoned mine drainage, without local input, knowledge, or approval. They messed that plan up – big time – and caused the massive release of drainage that turned the Animas River yellow last week and has potentially poisoned thousands of water wells, among a multitude of other damages. To make things worse, they blundered their first response by claiming the spill was smaller than it actually was, and tut-tutted locals who were expressing reasonable concerns about potential long-term impacts.
They have taken responsibility now. They have admitted their response was too slow and that the spill is worse than they initially thought; that much is true. However, reports from the Navajo nation appear to show they have compounded their initial bungling by knocking on doors of elderly Navajos who live downstream – many of whom do not speak English – asking them to sign Standard Form 95 “Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death.” Even a quick read through this form shows that respondents are required to fill in an exact dollar amount of the damage claim they are seeking. “Failure to specify a sum” the form explains, “will render your claim invalid and may result in forfeiture of your rights.”
Reasonable people are asking what would happen if a mining company had spilled millions of gallons of settling pond refuse into a river and had then sent out company representatives only a few days later, expecting people impacted by the spill to sign forms limiting potential damage claims. One can be sure that environmental groups would be releasing private addresses and threatening to violently attack the homes of company executives involved with these activities.
The EPA, however, dumps millions of gallons of mining refuse into a river that (in part) supplies water to much of the American Southwest, gives a lame apology, shrugs it off by claiming there’s really no danger, AND then sticks these government claim forms in front of elderly Navajos, and the nation is expected to just look the other way?
The levels to which the EPA will stoop are really mind-boggling.
On a daily basis they do everything in (and much that is beyond) their power to shut down productive, hard-working people with a never ending string of increasingly extreme and pointless regulation. At the same time, we now see, they engage in behavior that, if it were done by any private company or individual, would have EPA storm troopers on their bully pulpits, stridently attacking, setting fines, and incarcerating anyone involved.
Arrogant, entitled, shady, unscrupulous, corrupt, hypocritical … words that only begin to describe this agency and its actions.
Paul Driesen’s articles and books are always worth checking out. Paul is an excellent writer and researcher. I would encourage readers to check out the links to his work at the bottom of this article. This article is reprinted here, with Paul’s permission. — Jason
Pope Francis’ prescriptions will perpetuate poverty, disease, premature death in Third World
By: Paul Driessen
The Laudato Si encyclical on climate, sustainability and the environment prepared by and for Pope Francis is often eloquent, always passionate but often encumbered by platitudes, many of them erroneous.
“Man has slapped nature in the face,” and “nature never forgives,” the pontiff declares. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as in the last 200 years.” It isn’t possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society. “Each year thousands of species are being lost,” and “if we destroy creation, it will destroy us.”
The pope believes climate change is largely manmade and driven by a capitalist economic system that exploits the poor. Therefore, he says, we must radically reform the global economy, promote sustainable development and wealth redistribution, and ensure “intergenerational solidarity” with the poor, who must be given their “sacred rights” to labor, lodging and land (the Three L’s).
All of this suggests that, for the most part, Pope Francis probably welcomes statements by his new friends in the United Nations and its climate and sustainability alliance.
One top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official bluntly says climate policy is no longer about environmental protection; instead, the next climate summit will negotiate “the distribution of the world’s resources.” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres goes even further. UN bureaucrats, she says, are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the global economic development model.” [emphasis added]
However, statements by other prominent prophets of planetary demise hopefully give the pope pause.
Obama science advisor John Holdren and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, in their Human Ecology book: “We need to de-develop the United States” and other developed countries, “to bring our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” We will then address the “ecologically feasible development of the underdeveloped countries.” [emphasis added]
Ehrlich again: “Giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” And most outrageous: The “instant death control” provided by DDT was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in poor countries; so they need to have a “death rate solution” imposed on them.
Radical environmentalism’s death campaigns do not stop with opposing DDT even as a powerful insect repellant to prevent malaria. They view humans (other than themselves) as consumers, polluters and “a plague upon the Earth” – never as creators, innovators or protectors. They oppose modern fertilizers and biotech foods that feed more people from less land, using less water. And of course they are viscerally against all forms and uses of hydrocarbon energy, which yields far more energy per acre than alternatives.
Reflect on all of this a moment. Unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats have given themselves the authority to upend the world economic order and redistribute its wealth and resources – with no evidence that any alternative they might have in mind will bring anything but worse poverty, inequality and death.
Moreover, beyond the dishonest, arrogant and callous attitudes reflected in these outrageous statements, there are countless basic realities that the encyclical and alarmist allies sweep under the rug.
We are trying today to feed, clothe, and provide electricity, jobs, homes, and better health and living standards to six billion more people than lived on our planet 200 years ago. Back then, reliance on human and animal muscle, wood and dung fires, windmills and water wheels, and primitive, backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk farming methods made life nasty, brutish and short for the vast majority of humans.
As a fascinating short video by Swedish physician and statistician Hans Rosling illustrates, human life expectancy and societal wealth has surged dramatically over these past 200 years. None of this would have been possible without the capitalism, scientific method and hydrocarbon energy that radical, shortsighted activists in the UN, EPA, Big Green, Inc. and Vatican now want to put in history’s dustbin.
Over the past three decades, fossil fuels – mostly coal – helped 1.3 billion people get electricity and escape debilitating, often lethal energy and economic poverty. However, 1.3 billion still do not have electricity. In India alone, more people than live in the USA still lack electricity; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 730 million (equal to Europe) still cook and heat with wood, charcoal and animal dung.
Hundreds of millions get horribly sick and 4-6 million die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having clean water, refrigeration and unspoiled food.
Providing energy, food, homes and the Three L’s to middle class and impoverished families cannot happen without nuclear and hydrocarbon energy and numerous raw materials. Thankfully, we still have these resources in abundance, because “our ultimate resource” (our creative intellect) has enabled us to use “fracking” and other technologies to put Earth’s resources to productive use serving humanity.
Little solar panels on huts, subsistence and organic farming, and bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines have serious cost, reliability and sustainability problems of their own. If Pope Francis truly wants to help the poor, he cannot rely on these “alternatives” or on UN and Big Green ruling elite wannabes. Who are they to decide what is “ecologically feasible,” what living standards people will be “permitted” to enjoy, or how the world should “more fairly” share greater scarcity, poverty and energy deprivation?
We are all obligated to help protect our planet and its people – from real problems, not imaginary ones. Outside the computer modelers’ windows, in The Real World, we are not running out of energy and raw materials. (We’re just not allowed to develop and use them.) The only species going extinct have been birds on islands where humans introduced new predators – and raptors that have been wiped out by giant wind turbines across habitats in California and other locations. Nor are we encountering climate chaos.
No category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record 9-3/4 years. (Is that blessing due to CO2 and capitalism?) There has been no warming in 19 years, because the sun has gone quiet again. We have not been battered by droughts more frequent or extreme than what humanity experienced many times over the millennia, including those that afflicted biblical Egypt, the Mayas and Anasazi, and Dust Bowl America.
The scientific method brought centuries of planetary and human progress. It requires that we propose and test hypotheses that explain how nature works. If experimental evidence supports a hypothesis, we have a new rule that can guide further health and scientific advances. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, we must devise a new premise – or give up on further progress.
But with climate change, a politicized method has gained supremacy. Based on ideology, it ignores real-world evidence and fiercely defends its assumptions and proclamations. Laudato Si places the Catholic Church at risk of surrendering its role as a champion of science and human progress, and returning to the ignominious persecution of Galileo.
Nor does resort to sustainable development provide guidance. Sustainability is largely interchangeable with “dangerous manmade climate change” as a rallying cry for anti-hydrocarbon, wealth redistribution and economic transformation policies. It means whatever particular interests want it to mean and has become yet one more intolerant ideology in college and government circles.
Climate change and sustainability are critical moral issues. Denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy is not just wrong. It is immoral – and lethal.
It is an unconscionable crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate and other dangers decades from now – by perpetuating poverty, malnutrition and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.
The NCPA’s Energy and Environment blog has an encouraging post on honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). While most of us will have heard about the pending eco-pocalypse that (we are told) will shut down world food production and plant pollination, this blog post has a more positive outlook.
What has been ignored, however, is recent good news about CCD. A recent study by Bee Informed, a nationwide survey of beekeepers, the percentage of hives that died over winter fell from 30.5 percent in 2012-13 to 23.2 percent last winter, a 25 percent reduction in hive mortality.
The post goes on to note that better management practices by beekeepers appears to have actually caused overall bee populations to increase.
Total honeybee populations in the United States are actually increasing. A reduction in hive mortality will help this trend. Beekeepers are responding to CCD by increasing breeding. For example, one of my two hives died over the winter, but I will have four hives this year because I am buying newly bred bees and splitting one of my hives into two. Others are doing the same, which is actually increasing the number of pollinators.
So a brighter day may still be on our horizon and beekeepers and farmers (who use pesticides) may not have to fight each other to the death. Of course, given this news, I’ll expect to see a new burst of scary headlines describing how burgeoning world bee populations are combining with climate change and threatening to overwhelm various and sundry ecosystems. Of course we can expect to learn that “experts” predict this new terror will also cause a massive collapse of food production capabilities, etc. etc. etc.
I’m not sure why the “you can lower your electricity rates by stealing tax dollars from your neighbors” crowd are coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden, but I had another call from a helpful sales person today.
This fellow was a bit more pugnacious and better prepared than the girl yesterday to defend his role in this scheme. He started off with the same schpeel about how he could help me to qualify for a government-funded program that would help me to lower my electricity rates.
I did not need to ask if this was a government-funded program; he had already clearly stated that it was. So I stopped him mid-sentence and said that I did not support stealing from my neighbors to fund upgrades to my house just to lower my electricity prices.
He only paused for half a second before coming back with,
Whoa, whoa, whoa … STEALING from your neighbors?!?!? What do you mean stealing from your neighbors?
I explained that any government program was funded by tax dollars that were taken from all taxpayers (i.e., my neighbors and me) to pay for this type of handout. I told him that this is exactly what President Obama meant when he said that we should just “spread the wealth around” and I can’t support taking my neighbors money to upgrade my home.
He must have been in the job longer than the previous helpful caller because he didn’t miss a beat. He ignored my primary concern and started to explain that the money was already there and available for people to use.
But the money is already there. You already pay your taxes and every month, when you pay your electricity bill, the environmental fee of $3-$4 is what pays for this program.
I’ll divert my thoughts to address his mindset and characterize it as something that more of us need to stomp out at every opportunity. He is thinking that the government already has this money. It theirs to do with as they see fit. These people don’t realize that the money came from you and me. In his eyes, this is “government money,” so it is only right that he, you, or I should be willing to grab on to it and enrich ourselves.
Instead, what we should all be thinking is that we must stop making use of programs like this and that the government should stop taking this fee from us each month. Instead, we should keep this $3-$4 dollar fee (and countless other fees like it) in our wallets.
We should also stand up and demand that the government cease its over-regulation of electricity generation and its incessant demands for the use of technologies that have not even been sufficiently tested. As a country, we should push to continue the use of our most abundant domestic energy resources to produce affordable, reliable, and (yes I’ll say it) clean electricity. By doing that, we would effectively remove the “need” for this type of program, which provides corporate welfare for unreliable and overly expensive generation options like solar.
Back to my previous thoughts. After hearing that the government already had the money, so it was OK to grab it for myself, I stopped him again. I said that if I accept his mindset; if I view the money as part of a big government pot, accept the notion that I deserve some portion of that largess, and take part in the program, I am actually perpetuating the “need” for welfare programs like this one.
He was nonplussed. I’m sure that people have said “no” to him for a variety of reasons. They think it’s a scam, they don’t believe him, they don’t have the time, etc. I honestly don’t think that he had ever had anyone tell him that they didn’t want the “free” government money he was dolling out. He kept trying to move forward, reading his canned responses to refusals, but I ended the call by telling him firmly, but politely, that I was not interested in taking part in this program.
So the government already has our money, but just because the money has already been taken from productive people, doesn’t make it “government money.” Just because a thief has already robbed a bank and now has the money in his possession, doesn’t make the money any less stolen. Whether a theft occurs to address the “needs” of a single person, or a “need” is sanctioned by a larger group of voters, doesn’t make it any less of a theft. And now, if I choose to join in with the thief and justify spending his windfall with arguments that it lowers my monthly utility expenses, I am still every bit as much a party to his original theft.
If I rely on the government to pay my way and expect them to carry me when I could (and should walk on my own) I weaken myself and make those around me my slave. Von Mises put it quite succinctly,
The greatest threat to the future of our nation — to our freedom — is not foreign military aggression … but the growing dependence of the people on a paternalistic government. A nation is no stronger than its people and the best measure of their strength is how they accept responsibility. There will never be a great society unless the materialism of the welfare state is replaced by individual initiative and responsibility.
– Ludwig von Mises, Human Action 
I get that this is a small example. I could take part in these programs and still claim to be an advocate for limited government. Most people would never blink an eye at this contradiction. However, I believe that “Whoever is faithful in very little is also faithful in much, and whoever is unrighteous in very little is also unrighteous in much.” (Luke 16:10)
My hope is that more and more people will begin to refuse these paternalistic “share-the-wealth-around” programs and the ongoing “fundamental transformation of America.” I pray that people will begin to see this sort of program for what it is; a creeping expansion of the welfare state and government control over our lives. I pray that this country will begin to wake up from the fog it is currently in and return to its roots of independence and self reliance.
Again, it is a small thing, but it has never been more important to clearly state that you do not support this type of program and explain why. Doing so helps people to understand how we are being dragged down as a nation. I pray that Americans will once again choose to stand up and take responsibility for their own lives.
I posted yesterday about the gross miscarriages of justice by the “Justice” Department, the IRS, and the State Department. (Of course, I forgot to include the even more overt criminal acts carried out by the Justice Department as part of their Fast and Furious scandal where the federal government effectively supplied thousands of firearms to drug cartels. Those firearms were then directly involved in the death of US Border Guard, Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens.)
Today we are learning that the EPA routinely played politics in their handling of fee waivers for environmental groups and politically conservative groups. The Competitive Enterprise Institute noted today that,
It’s not just the IRS that treats groups on the right differently from the rest. According to documents obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency is in on it too.
Public records produced by EPA in response to a lawsuit filed by CEI under the Freedom of Information Act illustrate a pattern of making it far more difficult for limited-government groups – in particular those who argue for more freedom and less EPA – to access public records. …
EPA routinely grants … fee waivers to its favored left-wing groups who demand a more intrusive and powerful EPA, but systematically denies waivers for groups on the right, according to research compiled by CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner, author of “The Liberal War on Transparency.”
In a review of letters granting or denying fee waivers granted at the “initial determination” stage from January 2012 to this Spring, Horner found green groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and EarthJustice, had their fees waived in 75 out of 82 cases. Meanwhile, EPA effectively or expressly denied Horner’s request for fee waivers in 14 of 15 FOIA requests over this same time.
It seems that many of the federal government bureaucracies are now infested with career employees who feel quite comfortable playing political games with citizens and taxpayers. The actions of these government employees necessarily lead reasonable people to believe that government is working hand in glove with left-wing political and environmental groups to further so-called progressive world views.
When even John Stewart is saying that the partisan, corrupt, and possibly even criminal behavior of these government employees is encouraging the very anti-government mindset that so many progressives have derided as lunatic fringe, you know that it is well past time for Congress to step in and clear up this mess.
|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Barack Trek: Into Darkness|
Investigations, firings, fines/loss of pensions, and jail time need to become real possibilities for government employees and managers that refuse to follow the Constitution, legislation, and regulations.
This video brings back lots of memories of the time that I lived in Fort Nelson, BC (in the far north of British Columbia). We used to get northern lights shows like this on a regular basis. We would sit out in the field at the end of Airport Dr./Cessna Way (on the home pads) and watch them for hours.
Amusing to see the hypocrisy of the ‘elite’ climate change crowd. They preach on the coming apocalypse, threaten those who disagree, and demand that the peons eschew any form of CO2-emitting activity – like driving to work, or heating their home. However, the climate change crusaders feel quite justified in continuing with their profligate waste and extravagant lifestyles. Some of them even tweet about it to show off to their friends and followers.
Musician Will.I.Am has been criticised for arriving at a climate change debate in a private helicopter, producing the same amount of CO2 most people do in a month.
The Voice judge had been meeting climate change experts at Oxford University as part of a guest speaking role.
Despite his environmentally-conscious stance on green issues, the Black Eyed Peas rapper, 37, chose to take a private helicopter to the venue.
It is understood the journey, which is a 286 mile round-trip from London, used 71.5 gallons of fuel and released three-quarters of a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere.
He even tweeted pictures of the so-called “hip.hop.copter” for fans to admire, after landing at the Oxford’s University Parks.
So it is apparently OK to spend huge amounts of money and release huge amounts of CO2 if – and only if – you’re a climate change activist who is flying to a climate change conference. The rest of us would just be hastening the coming climate apocalypse.
Why are we spinning our wheels over issues like gay marriage when Taxmageddon is looming?
Congressional Democrats plan massive tax increases and crippling defense cuts after November. Why not now? Because the voters would realize the Obama presidency has set the stage for fiscal catastrophe. […]
Without action, the Bush tax cuts once again are set to expire at the end of the year and some $110 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts will take place automatically. House Speaker John Boehner is already wisely demanding “cuts and reforms greater than” any debt limit increase.
Heritage Foundation senior fellow and former Treasury Department tax economist J.D. Foster recently warned that on New Year’s Day, “some $494 billion in tax hikes will crash down on America’s taxpayers and economy” — not just the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that gave us a boom and cut unemployment to under 5%, but “a jump in the payroll tax rate,” “the return of the death tax,” ” a bigger, badder” Alternative Minimum Tax, and the tax hikes for ObamaCare.
The ObamaCare 3.8% surcharge goes into effect in 2013, “not just on wage and salary income, but all income, thus breaking the historical link between Medicare and labor earnings,” Foster recently noted. […]
Lockheed Martin and other defense firms last week distributing “digital countdown clocks” warning that automatic Pentagon cuts will mean the loss of over 1 million jobs — at a time the U.S. suffers an 8.1% jobless rate?
Of course this IBD editorial doesn’t even begin to touch on the damage done to our domestic energy industry by this administration. With the engine of the Obama EPA’s regulatory train wreck just now hitting the coal and gas industries, we are primed to lose millions of jobs and multiple billions in infrastructure investments and revenues.
Add to that the fact that the majority of individuals in the health care market will see their insurance costs rise dramatically under Obamacare.
We need to be spreading this information around liberally. This country can’t take another four years of this amateurish mismanagement.
If you ever doubted that much of what drives the extreme green movement was fundamentally anti-human, the nice people at the 10:10 campaign will make that reality absolutely clear. They tried to be cute and humourous while addressing this issue, but let their knickers peek through in advocating violent retribution against any who don’t play along.
Don’t you get it … ?? You don’t think it’s funny to murder those who disagree with you? You don’t think its amusing to spray the blood, brains, and entrails of the “climate deniers” all over the room?? Well then, perhaps the 10:10 campaign people and their ilk will have to develop a similar program for you.
You better get your hand up and agree with everyone else in the group. Be a good little soldier, shut off your mind, and get in the cue.
The greens are watching their “scientific” case for climate change fall apart with the East Anglia CRU (climategate) scandal, the NOAA database errors, the errors in the satellite monitoring being discovered, etc.
They see that they cannot win the scientific debate anymore, but they have trillions invested, entire branches of government involved, and their careers all based on the idea that we have to address climate change immediately. They have to protect their incomes and political influence, so they’re moving to the next natural step – fear and pressure. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!” & “Either you do what we say, or else!”
This sort of thing was a constant theme in environmental ethics courses throughout my university experience. Green groups came up with arbitrary maximum world human population numbers that they felt were “truly sustainable” and then they advocated carefully crafted and nuanced policies that essentially boiled down to an argument that we needed to cull several billion humans from the face of the Earth. When they had finished with their culls, only then would we have achieved their concept of sustainability.
This is just one group who either had the courage to openly admit what they believe, or who missed the memo that this kind of open admission is supposed to be keep away from the eyes of the general public.
This post is more proof that the faux concern over climate change is far more about glutting the ruling elite’s whims and controlling the behavior of the little people than it is about doing anything for the environment.
Clean, Green Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled up to the Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada last week. . . in a fleet of giant SUVs.
The Heartland Institute reports that while the Senate Majority Hypocrite “and other high-profile environmental activists blasted carbon-based fuels at the Reid-sponsored summit, Reid and other bigwigs were caught on film driving to and from the summit in several SUVs.”
If Harry Reid was actually concerned about global warming, he would have taken a few extra seconds to walk across a parking lot, rather than warming up a fleet of SUVs and bringing them around to shuttle him and his entourage a few hundred yards.
Amazing! I’m not sure if this is brave or foolhardy. Maybe a bit of both.
This article describes how Chuck Patterson, a California-based surfer, saw white sharks circling his surf board one day while he was surfing. While many would have suffered a fear-induced coronary dysfunction, fallen off the board, and become chum, Patterson paddled back to shore and went home. The next day, he got his video camera and paddled back out to the same spot to film whatever happened to come his way again.
Patterson, 41, who lives in nearby Dana Point, paddled out at the same spot the next day with a high-definition camera mounted on a 10-foot pole, and used the apparatus to probe the murky green water around his board. The result is the accompanying video, which shows what presumably are the same two sharks: an estimated nine-footer and a seven-footer, milling beneath him as he paddled.
Where does the Republican Party come up with deep thinkers like this? A “huge fan” of Van Jones. Seriously? SERIOUSLY!?!?
If she were any more in love with Van Jones in this video, she’d burst a blood vessel. “Huge fan … huge fan … huge fan … he’s so smart …”
I also saw her in a Glenn Beck interview where she actually stated that she was against offshore drilling …
Amazing what a few billion in the bank can buy you these days. One governorship, coming up.
More and more we are seeing the real face of the extreme green movement. As the “scientific” case for climate change continues to suffer losses with more and more seeing it for what it always was – a political movement first and foremost – the extremes are growing shrill and combative.
They are now openly advocating that those with whom they disagree be silenced, forcefully stopped, jailed, or killed. In this recent Green Hell Blog post, Steven Milloy quotes two ‘respected’ left wing journalists/bloggers/environmentalists who are suggesting that climate change skeptics kill themselves.
Amid a rant on his Examiner.com blog about skeptics “carpet-bomb[ing] newspaper editorial pages with climate change disinformation…], Steven Alexander, who writes for Daily Kos under the nom-de-plume “Darksyde,” wrote that,
… if only Milloy and his buddies could check into one of the [Soylent Corporation’s] lovely medical suites for a short nature movie and a glass of wine…
The reference is to the assisted suicide scene in the 1973 movie Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston. …
Former Washington Post reporter David Weigel was recently fired from the paper for privately writing on the Journolist listserv that Matt Drudge should “… set himself on fire.”
It’s like I’ve always said, the hardcore left and extreme green movements are all over the notion of “thinking outside the box,” or being non-judgmental and open-minded so long as your outside the box thinking is the same as their outside the box thinking. Once you come up with an idea that disagrees or questions their solutions, they reveal their new age puritanism and, pretty much to a person, demand that you be silenced, stopped, or (as this example indicates) killed.
The amusing thing about their tendencies to immediately resort to censorship or violence is that they will rarely employ their ‘logic’ in their own lives or activities. Remembering back to my undergrad environmental ethics courses, we used to discuss concepts like a “truly sustainable human population” of 500 million. Using groups like the Deep Ecologists, the eco-feminist movement, and ethicists like Peter Singer as foundations for their arguments, the more radical members of the discussion actually touched on the notion of culling portions of the human population (brain dead orphans for example), or using forced abortions, and euthanasia as a means of reducing the human population.
When others in the classes protested (me among them) that their ideas would require massive infringements on basic human rights and then we pushed them to look further into the logical outcomes of their theories, they were forced to admit that they believed the long-term survival of the planet would entail the loss of many basic rights and freedoms and that some lives would need to be sacrificed to ensure the “health” of the planet.
One notable class room discussion had a class member suggest they those in the extreme camp start us off on the right foot, or “show us the way,” by committing a principled suicide. That suggestion was immediately rejected by this group of greens. They were convinced that they were the only members of society who could capably handle the intense social and political disruptions that would result from moving toward their conception of a more sustainable lifestyle. They believed that someone else would need to go first because the world couldn’t survive without their leadership and wisdom.
Our discussions regularly seemed almost like something out of a bad movie. No one in their right mind could hold those views. Even fewer still would hold those opinions AND actually state them out loud. But there they were, making the arguments and trying to defend them as good public policy.
Sadly, we see the same sort of logic employed by the Darksyde’s and David Weigel’s of the world. They just know better than you or I, and if someone has the nerve to disagree with them, that person will need to be silenced … for the good of the planet/the children/the greater good.
It’s not enough that they’ve attacked the oil & gas industry, the coal industry, mining, banking and traders, automobiles, ….
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.
The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, “If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation’s history.” It further states, “We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event.”
How many more industries will this administration have to cripple before voters stand up and say, “enough!”
Just had someone call me and say that new research is downplaying the role of CO2 in climate change. Apparently this research is suggesting that CFCs (the coolants in older A/C units and aerosol propellants) are the cause of climate change.
Should make for interesting reading. Not even going to try and predict how far this new theory will make it into the larger dialog.
While California’s economy is sinking faster than the Titanic after hitting that iceberg, the state senate sets out on the essential task of shuffling deck chairs.
The state Senate is considering a bill banning plastic carryout bags. This legislation would tax consumers, forcing them to buy paper or reusable bags, and create an expensive new bureaucracy at a time of record deficits. The bill is consuming the time of our state government, while it still hasn’t passed a budget.
Once again, a showy commitment to an ambiguous conception of environmental purity takes precedence over domestic jobs.
Excellent description of the complete failure of the modern progressive movement. Despite all their good intentions, their expended energy, their struggles, their planning, their happy thoughts, and their concern, they remain wholly incapable of accomplishing anything of substance. Take it away, Tam
In sum total, what you people did was drive someplace where there wasn’t a problem, complain about something you don’t fully understand, get in the way of people who may actually be performing a function, and then do nothing, en masse, except hope that someone else notices your little snit and makes it all better.
… if there’s a more perfect metaphor for the modern progressive movement, I’ve never seen it.