Celebrate Earth Day: Destroy capitalism
April 22 is Earth Day. Get ready for an orgy of eco-sanctimony. I’ve often joked that the real agenda of the Greenies is to send us back into the Dark Ages–literally and figuratively. In contrast to the Gulfstream Liberal jet set who preach environmental socialism while enjoying the fruits of the free market, however, there are many left-wing world leaders who are open about their true aims. Take Bolivian thug president Evo Morales.
Please:
Bolivian President Evo Morales has told a UN forum that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.
“If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system,” he said.
Opening an UN meeting in New York on the rights of indigenous people, he also said the development of biofuels harmed the world’s poorest people.
The forum’s theme is the global impact of climate change on native people. Mr Morales gave the keynote address at the opening of the seventh session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. As a descendent of the Aymara people, he is Bolivia’s first indigenous president.
Bolivia’s left-wing president said unbridled industrial development was responsible for the pillaging of natural resources. Speaking through an interpreter at the UN headquarters in New York, he had this uncompromising message: “If we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system.”
He also lambasted other South American leaders for producing biofuels, which he blamed for creating hunger.
This Earth Day, conservatives ought to be defending free market principles and property rights–instead of capitulating to Green Fever.
The Heartland Institute put it well two years ago:
Contrary to the slogans of demonstrators throughout the world, the nations that have the best track records on environmental protection and improvement are those with the highest amount of free-market capitalism.
Make no mistake, the anti-capitalism demonstrators often add environmentalism to their claimed objectives solely because it attracts many gullible young persons and appears to legitimize their activities, which often have little or nothing to do with the environment.
Nations with the freest economic systems are the ones whose citizens can afford the luxury of protecting their environments. Conversely, persons living in command-and-control economies barely surviving on life’s necessities of food, clothing, and shelter use their natural resources to the absolute limit. They have no other choice in providing for themselves and their families…
…Beware the individual, group, or organization that relentlessly attacks the free enterprise system, bashes big business, and bashes corporations. Too often their real agenda is power–power to remake the economic and social systems to suit their own command-and-control goals, not to serve the public good as they so loudly proclaim.
Free enterprise capitalism provides the economic lifeblood for many of the world’s poor. The late senator Paul Tsongas said in his speech at the 1992 Democratic Convention, “You cannot redistribute wealth you never created. You can’t be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employment and hate employers.”
The extremes of big government socialism and communism have been tried and found wanting in many nations, but their principles still dominate the thinking in world environmental conferences and are widely taught in many major U.S. universities.
For three-quarters of a century the Soviet Union was touted as the model of what a planned economy could do for its people. To the embarrassment of many economics professors, it imploded. It could never afford environmental protection or improvement.
Environmentalists who sincerely desire to advance their cause must disassociate themselves from anti-capitalists and destroyers of the social orders of communities, nations, and the world.
Nothing highlights this problem more than the Heidelberg Statement, which was signed in the spring of 199[2] by 250 prominent scientists, including 27 Nobel Prize winners. It noted, “We are worried at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development. The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, not science, technology, and industry. We do forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.”
Since it was first released, some 4,000 scientists have signed on to this appeal for reason. I’m reprinting the Heidelberg Appeal in full and you can learn more here. Do you think any one of the presidential candidates in either political party would put their names on a rational statement like this? Sadly, based on what we have heard and not heard from the entire lot of them, I doubt it.
Background
The Heidelberg Appeal was publicly released at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. Since then, word of mouth has prompted hundreds more scientists to lend their support. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. In spite of this spontaneous and growing support from the world’s scientific community, the Heidelberg Appeal has received little media attention.
Neither a statement of corporate interests nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal is a quiet call for reason and a recognition of scientific progress as the solution to, not the cause of, the health and environmental problems that we face. The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears.
The Heidelberg Appeal
We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.
We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man’s first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse. We full subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved.
But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions.
We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind.
We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of future generations.
We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.
We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data.
We draw everybody’s attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their independence and their dignity.
The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Dymersion » Blog Archive » Save the Earth and Capitalism
- PAXALLES
- EARTH DAY–GOOD TIME TO MAKE A STATEMENT « The Catskill Commentator
- Save The Planet - Say No To Capitalism
- Moonbattery
- OBLIGATORY EARTH DAY FLAME | DequalsS.com
- Mind Scalpel
- Michelle Malkin » Lunch-losing video: Gingrich and Pelosi tag-team for Al Gore
- Newt Gingrich abandons America | The TIW Blog
- The Loudest Cricket
- What folks smarter than me are saying today - [Rufus]
- Citizens Against Government Waste Ratings for McCain and Obama | conservativeintelligencer.com
- Hyscience
- Earth Day 2009
- Arrrgggghhhh Earth Day | TAMPA PIRATE
- Cygnus' Sphere
- House of Eratosthenes
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Lib Hypocrisy: Source for Some of the World’s Most Obvious Quotes
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
TigerHawk
» Negative equityAmerican Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....
When I bought my house a few years ago, I put in a new programmable furnace because it saves me MONEY. I bought Energy Star appliances because it saves me MONEY. I use only the lights I need and don’t waste electricity because it saves me MONEY. When I retire in a couple of years and move, I will put solar panels on my roof because it saves me MONEY.
This is what the Enviros never understand. We will respond to rational conservation to save MONEY, not so “save the world”.
Since the Left has no concept of MONEY except to steal it from productive people, they will never understand this.
This is how I have decided to recognize Earth Day.
Paint a sign on a peice of plywood ” CELEBRATING EARTH DAY”, then procede to cut down two sugar maples in my front yard, I will then plant a crimson maple and a golden weeping willow in their place next week.
(I live on a snow route, plenty of traffic)
Would anyone like to buy some carbon credits.
Earth day. Gotta love it.
I have a tree all picked out to show my special attention today.
Lead cuts them down as well as an axe, but it’s much more fun.
The powerful banking elite that run this country, and the economies of our foreign brothers and sisters, don’t want to destroy capitalism, they just want to hobble it enough that everyone can be managed more efficiently. Income disparities will be brought into line so that they can preside over their Socialist Utopia while control the financial purse-strings of every puppet-headed politico everywhere.
For all you idiot, misanthropic, dirt worshipping, leftists I only have to take out the pictures of what East Germany looked like when West Germany took over during the great rejoining of the country. The economic and environmental disasters nearly bankrupted the new Germany. A prime example of central planning anti-capitalism. Need more? Then get out the pictures and articles about the USSR’s collapse and the environmental disasters in the oil fields (and mines, etc., etc.). They are still dealing with the terrible messes that socialism run amok created.
The highly free and capitalist countries may have environmental sore spots from time to time but are the cleanest ‘Earth friendly’ countries on the planet. And, they clean up those bad spots as soon as they are revealed because they have the wherewithall to do it.
#85
emjem-
I am not a fan of Evo Morales because he is standing behind the very bodies he expects to take bullets bringing down the capitalist system.
Having said that, it is an historical fact that European royal interests came to North and South America, Africa too, and paid ZERO for land and labor to build the basis of today’s wealth creating system.
Millions of human beings were murdered outright in the “settling” process. (Yes, some of the colonialists were murdered too.) Many thousands continue to die today from corporate interests that expose us to uranium mine tailings, bad water, foul air, and law enforcement misconduct.
Adapt?
To what?
What does that look like?
My Great GrandFather left the 4 corners area of the SW USA before the reservations were instituted there.
My Great Great Grandmother died in Arizona after 5 months of eating raw coffee beans and uncooked rice…while living exposed with thousands of others in the elements.
Navajo.
A proud people that have adapted so well as to become one of the largest Nations within this Nation.
And we are still “stuck” in the “past”.
We paid for our “future” in blood of our ancestors— whom we know are still here walking with us, among us today.
We still practice the ways of our “past” in the midst of this current “capitalist” system. It is the only thing that keeps us sane— the medication rate within the USA general population is a simple testimonial to that cultural reality for many Americans.
Further, I think any rational critique of a system of enterprise that is fouling its natural base of resources- hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, the loss of 1/3 of the Nation’s topsoil that was present at the time of Lewis and Clark, continuous waste of energy (57 per average loss on every product made), and the mythical belief that waste can be made and sent to the awesome fairy land called “Away” (thanks, Gary Hirshberg)— i think a rational critique of these flaws is time well spent.
Evo is Devo and many of his thought processes are retrograde. But there are many corporate interests worldwide now who are looking at how to “Green” their supply chains for simple economic reasons of “sustainability”….which really means “survivability” in 2008.
Sustainability is a concept right out of the past, a past as old as Earth herself. And it is the very essence of adaptability.
But dont believe me. See for yourself.
http://tinyurl.com/3dgbwg
I love the way my school handles this contrived “holiday.” While the primary block (K-3) decorates the hall with leafy tress and flowers – just as a means of giving these students a kinetic association with apolitical, common sense conservation – the upper grades are free to do absolutely nothing in “celebration”
Earth DayAl Gore Day.sdillard#97-
You nailed it.
Virtue is indeed an insufficient incentive for doing ANYTHING with most 2 leggeds.
The total investment by corporations and businesses in “green” activities and asset creation and renewal is staggering.
They have made the business case for green and it is GREEN, baby.
In honor of “Earth” Day: I will admire the big tree in my front yard. I will appreciate whoever invented my SUV. I will look for a picture on the internet of a whale and/or dolphin and admire it and I will appreciate whoever invented the internet. I will go and buy something to support our wonderful capitalistic society. I will IGNORE any and all association with any environmental wacko. I love “Earth” Day!
Yikes! In #103, make kinetic = kinesthetic
In honor of earth day the students of “Students for Peace and Justice” sent this e-mail out to all students:
In honor of Earth Day, I will not recycle or turn off lights (which I do the other 364 days of the year)
Yeah, and I’ve often said that the enviro-extremists among us won’t be satisfied until what’s left of humanity is swinging from tree branches again (can’t have the caves, because the bears were there first).
The difference is, I’m not joking.
Wow, thanks Armigerous. I wasn’t aware of that one. A truly large stake through the heart of ‘America bad, communism good’. I’ve heard for years about us emitting 25% of all the CO2/global warming gases, but this is new to me.
damn right. and don’t mess with mah hunny neither.
I’m visiting Bisbee, AZ this weekend during their “Earth Day” celebration. Does anyone know where I can buy an appropriate t-shirt, like one with a picture of Rachel Carson with the caption “Wanted: Responsible for the malaria deaths of millions of Africans”?
That is precisely why the envirowhackos and their king, Algore, should be in China protesting!
There is much more to gain for the planet by getting China up to the standards of the U.S. or most of the rest of the world than to harp on the U.S. to go from 90% clean to 92% clean.
It would cost less and net an improvement that would be orders of magnitude greater. I just think the enviroweenies are afraid to go over there and do it.
If the Tibetan monks can do it, they can!
bear, roger your posts 102 and 104…you nailed it.
I wish the Lefties would buy some lakefront property on the Aral Sea. Talk about Earth destroyers. We’ve got the cleanest land this side of Andromeda.
These are mutually exclusive?
I think they make themselves feel guilty, hide their sorrows under a haze from smoking “green”.
Whoa boy. “Libertarian,” eh? In what way does forcible restriction of population expound liberty? There are ways to solve whatever problems may exist in the climate without destroying our rights and freedoms.
/think about it for a minute; the solutions aren’t that hard — ’specially if you really are a libertarian
No, no… China’s an example of what happens when there’s no incentive to protect or conserve anything because there’s no private ownership of land or resources. Private ownership is the best environmental protection. Nobody wants to sully their own back yard.
Bear always nails it!
You are magnificent.
In all fairness to the enviromentalists they will allow some commercial activity in their utopia. Hand-made jewlery will be encouraged as well as paintings of wolves and indians, basket weaving, and knitting alpalca sweaters. Also labor-intensive organic farming will be the primary activity of 90% of the population. Who wouldn’t want to live in such a perfect world?
I’m so sick of this eco-propaganda crap. I thought it was dead after the 80s; now it’s back and just as strong. Just another way for people to feel morally superior to others; “I went green; how about YOU?” Just another ego stroker.
Boy Howdy! I have landed at my satellite office….the Berkeley Huge Footprint Starbucks on Shattuck and Cedar. I’ve given my public coordinates trusting no one will call in an airstrike.
Soap-Feebz-et al. Good morning to you. Well, Ma and Boy went on a field trip to the Petaluma Adobe, leaving lil ol me on his wayward own to finish a project that will put us over the top. That url I shared in #102 is the heart of it all.
I think the MoonLoon Green propaganda is foolish pablum. They are assuaging, in general, guilt and their latent fear of being envied. “Offsetting” their consumption by buying trees planted somewhere else by little people they dont know is one of the popular ways of not solving the problems. Thanks for the trees, but that is not going to offset the carbon produced naturally by all the water on the earth’s surface. Next.
I have said the following before on this blog. And I will say it again. It is worth saying.
Here is why this “offset” malarkey is doing nothing but making speculators like Aldo Goreleone rich.
For sake of argument- let’s say the issue is not “Global Warming” (smarming?). Let’s say it’s “Global Fatties”. The world is too fat and we are choking on our own fat. (Try to get that image outta yo mind by dinner time.)
So….. Aldo Goreleone figures out that “Hey! I am a total pork fritter. But who wants to exercise and eat right?”
So Aldo creates a “Fat Credits” market for buying and selling “Fat Offsets.”
Everything is all set to go and he calls up the lovely Giselle who is 65 pounds underweight (and no one is complaining!)
“Giselle- Aldo Goreleone here. Yes, baby how about U2’s new carbon neutral album? I wrote all the music. Did you know I invented U2? Anyway…that’s neither here nor there. I am about 300 pounds overweight. Was wondering if you and your fellow models would sell me some fat credits so I can be Fat Neutral and do my part for the Fattie Crisis? Great! Thanks.” click!
Aldo hangs up and dials in his order to the exchange and buys 300 pounds of Fat credits. Bingo! He is now fat neutral….at a svelt 140 pounds (what he weighed when he was six)….300 pounds of choking FAT gone with 2 phone calls.
Now, boys and girls, is Aldo Goreleone still a fat you-know-what? Has he really solved the Choking On Our Own Fat dilemma?
Oh the grim responsibility to poke holes in the Enviro-NutWhack-MoomLoon “soft green” model of environmental responsibility.
If there is a way to set up a cash funnel to get more, the Moon Loons will figure out a way to do it. At least the oil companies have created something of value to get our money- fuel on demand 24-7.
Now- are we willing to pay for it, pay what it is really worth and use it accordingly? Or will the party go on til the band just packs up and goes home?
My conviction is that necessity is the Madre of All Invention- while sloth is the Madre of All Convention (the way we’ve always done it.).
Looks like the shadow of necessity is raising it’s head in the food area. Not because of the rooster of overpopulation crowing…but because petroleum based fertilizer is no longer a cost-effective input for producing food. But a Moon Loon looks on the population map and says “There are too many people…that is why we are running out.”
Yes, Little Rooster. The sun came up while you were crowing. But, alas, my little cock a doodler- you did not cause it.
100 dollar per barrel oil and rising is making transportation and distribution more expensive…making it harder for grocery stores to cash flow so they have less delivered at a time…and the farmers are deciding how much debt to incur to make a profit using petro-fertilizer….and on and on….food shortages.
There is enough food. There is incentive to ship and produce less based on economic factors. End of story.
Why should the USA with it’s 2. something birth rate cut it’s birth rate to suicidal levels while Muslim populations world wide are expanding at nearly 3 times that rate. And there are how many now? Billion to billion and a half?
Let’s keep it real lest we compound the problem of 10 million Moon Loons and their roosters hammering our children in schools (public and private) that they in fact do make the sun come up!
Riiiiight, and without laws against bestiality, we’d all be screwing our pets.
I remember when the Soviet Union and the countries it controlled were the dirtiest, most polluted in the world thanks to its inability (or care less attitude) to update its factories. Now it’s interesting how no one talks about China and the mess it’s making of the environment. Good ol’ Communism still at work for the people! Yeah, let’s all scrap capitalism so we can live with dirty water and wear gas masks to breath. Ah, utopia!
I think these leaders like our friends in Venezuela and Bolivia need to have their words brought forward more often. It is leaders like this (not praising them of course) that actually speak what they really mean! How often does Obama or men like Kerry (realizing his insignificance but using as a reference) ever really say what they really mean. They skirt around issues and talk down to the public with mottos and slogans that really mean nothing. It isn’t often we get them to say they want to raise taxes. Heck, the media barely even let’s people like Kerry even have live feeds because of the fear of him saying something stupid, like saying what he really believes.
I read or heard somwhere(and I can’t recall where)that bio-fuels were more polluting than present fuels.
Bear:
Let me revise my “stuck in the past” segment, in case I confused you.
When I used “stuck in the past” in my first comment, I used it in a way to suggest staticism…. meaning, many Native Americans may feel that they’re still “victims” who can’t learn how to govern their own affairs (which most now do).
Defining oneself by historical legacy is one thing… being an active participant in one’s future is quite another.
Sorry about that…
self-edit: Seneca Lake= Onandoga Lake in second post. Oops!
I’m celebrating something a little bit more important than Earth Day: My birthday!
You didn’t confuse me. And it would appear to close readers that you are pushing your generalization even further into a ditch.
Your argument against Evo can stand on different merits than on trying to quantify (conditionally “may feel”) how many Indigenous people do not or cannot manage their affairs in a manner consistent with prevailing norms of “social responsibility”…or put in another way, in a white man’s world.
Perhaps some do. But do you really think that will be a rallying point for the tens of millions it will take for undoing “capitalist system?” Evo may strike that chord with some people to reinforce a base of support. But isnt that like Jesse HighJackson and Toothful Sharpton using Black internalized inferiority to build a “social justice movement”?
Not confusing. Merely a weak argument, IMHO.
Show me one NDN “victim” and I will show you 10 that are doing for ourselves in ways consistent with this nebulous force of past.
#44, G-d’s speed to your nephew.
Actually, I think I got pretty specific, especially regarding the Cherokee. Please specify which generalization I’m “furthering into a ditch.”
I think I tried to explain, obviously not to your liking, the various methods of how Native Americans have dealt with white society. I think I described a variety of ways that Native Americans have chosen to live in our 21st century world. However, I find your assertions, based on just your Navajo experience, to be disappointing. That’s okay… you’ve got a tribe… I don’t… and yet, I’m still okay.
I think you’re again misinterpreting what I’m saying. South/Central America are quite different from the indigenous peoples of the States. They don’t have as many options or organization as do many of our tribes here in the states. I’m only speaking from a US tribal perspective.
When you mention the following:
How do you explain the existence of AIM (American Indian Movement)? It was also built as the Native American alternative to the Black Panthers.
What are you saying here? Are you saying that some of the prevailing social ills of many tribes- alcoholism, dropout rates, poverty are great ways of “doing for ourselves?” You need to be clearer on this point.
IMHO, if you think I’m relating at all the way American tribes deal with society to the experiences of other tribes, such as those in Bolivia, then you are very much mistaken.
BTW, since you seem to have a handle on “victimhood” please tell me why it is that so many Native Americans vote Democrat? Why is that? If Native Americans (like other minority groups) are really “doing for themselves” then why do they need to be part of the cult of identity politics… or give big juicy contributions to certain Dem politicians.
One more thing: if you think I’m “generalizing” then why engage me? I have tremendous respect for Native American history, culture, and traditions but I can also see that there are problems not being dealt with.
Every tribe and Native American is different…. I wouldn’t be so quick to assert that every problem is being dealt with or that the “victim” card is still not being played.
I am truly glad that you are okay. (WTF?)
The point to bringing up factual family history in the first place was to put your “stuck in the past” *generalization* under the light of another fact: “the past” is culture specific. So if you are going to use it, define it and put it into context.
That you take on this topic in the first place without doing so is, well, disappointing. You’re new to the list. Last Thanksgiving we went round and round on here— and after about a day folks stopped talking about “victimhood” (assigning Native people who are this list that status- while we don’t as a matter of course and survival) and starting thinking.
I will serve up the rest of your post in a bit.
Sorry, I am to busy celebrating “get up and go to work day” to bother with “Earth Day”.
On the plus side, a little later in the day I will be putting about 150 gallons of fuel into my tanks. At barely over 7mpg that should last me till Thursday morning.
Hexadecimal said (#117):
Not so fast. For one thing, China now has private property. It’s economically capitalist (at least the polluted parts are) while being a political dictatorship.
For another thing, most polluters pollute someone else: cars wreck the city, dioxin wrecks the river, etc. Pollution hurts the polluter only indirectly.
Moreover, the US had air as bad as China (toxic). The Hudson was full of dioxin, tannic acid, and garbage. And that was under an economic system that was more capitalist than ours today (as this forum often regrets).
What cleaned up the US is environmentalism — the Sierra Club, earth day, Clean Air act, Environmental Protection Agency, and the rest. Americans (not all, but most) prefer this regulation to then laissez faire pollution they have in China.
Thurdsay morning maybe…
For Earth Day, I got up a bit earlier, burning more lights. I then took the long way to work and back. My contribution.
On April 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm, akornzombie said:
Happy B-day, akornzombie! It’s my mom’s birthday, too, so aside from the E-day/Make-Me-Feel-Good-Day thing, it really is a special day.
Well, emjem, let me tinker with your summary presentation here. (I looked in the thread for your commentary on the Cherokee for some more specifics but didn’t happen to see it. In another thread perhaps. Please share if you are willing. Thanks.)
“…the pan-Indian/Native American sentiment of years past….” Is this fair? Characterizing it as “sentiment” and characterizing “Capitalism” as “thought”?
What is up with that? Sentiment go hand in hand. (Unless you are one of them there Cartesian Dualist who functions soley on the basis of brain matter doing mental functions. lol)
Perhaps an illustration might help.
My great GrandFather on my Father’s side fought with Villa in the Mexican Revolution.
He organized indios and mestizos alike who fought under the clear *conviction* that the European puppet government was killing their families and taking their land. They had ample evidence: dead bodies and lands stolen and no food.
Their battle plans to defeat the Mexican government, police and soldiers was cold blooded calculating military thought. I am certain sentiments were involved….but the decision making was rational and effective.
Action- clear direct action framed by rational thought in a military and social context guided and misguided one of the bloodiest, butt-kickingest wars of “modern times”. Sure, plenty of sentiment that defied the absence of reason that typifies combat and Mexican politics (city and country)of the day. But to typify indigenismo as mere sentiment is a gross generalization.
And as far as the management of land and resources…another example may help.
My Mother’s Mother’s side of the family is predominantly Spaniard. (The other side carries the Navajo blood) The genealogical record on file for our
family in New Mexico indicates that the first “Martinez” arrived in what was to be called Nuevo Mejico in 1519, as part of Hernan Cortez’ advance guard, which headed out to the North after the main body encamped in what is now Mexico City.
They were tasked with
subduing “hostiles” and surveying, mapping, and organizing land resources to be reported back to the throne. Of course, it was all for the purpose of picking the pretty flowers. The Spanish were of the sentiment that: What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.
There is a history in New Mexico to this day which still influences access to quality housing, educational opportunity, freedom from environmental pollution and the distress that comes with it.
Stuck? Or governed by the past as it operates in our midst today?
For the poorest, it is more than just a passing or mild concern of “adapting”.
These barriers I don’t expect you to discuss with any intellectual honesty, because you can pass them off and send them to this privileged place called “Victimhood”, something you assign to anybody who isn’t white who will challenge not only your take on the world, but your intellectual position in it. (That is why I engaged you.)
And if you want to send this rejoinder to that privileged place you refer to as “Identity Politics” — all I am left with is a question for you:
What is it about people like you who must invoke these privileged places to shut down discussion which just might, if it were allowed to continue without these privileged
tools of control being played, move toward a place where ALL of us could be included in the making of a world that is sustainable and profitable for all of us?
The question is purely rhetorical, mind you.
You are under no obligation to reply. I want you to be okay.
That is my main concern here.
Defining oneself by historical legacy is one thing… being an active participant in one’s future is quite another.
Again, I think this kind of generalizing is unconvincing. What is historical legacy? How does that serve Americans of all kinds presently alive, and presently knowledgeable of something as far back as say the First World War?
A historical legacy indeed. Native people have what many of us understand as “cultural memory”. Historical legacy means very little. That is a western contrivance. For example- cultural memory is the force in our elders that teaches us about the things that make us who we are as a People. Historical legacy is something we are taught in school about the world (usually historically inaccurate, but passed off as near pure science itself.)
What does “active participant in one’s future” mean, emJem? How do you explain it to the tribal youth who is devoting his life to becoming a fancy dancer according to tradition, living on the reservation, while learning to become a language teacher? Does that qualify? Or are you referring to something else here. Define it. Speak a language we all can understand.
No one here is arguing that environmentalism is a bad thing – after all, we all breath the same air – but the politicization, dictatorial mandates, less than empirical-theoretical science and holier-than-thou attitudes many so-called “environmentalists” like Al Gore and his band of elites have brought to the movement have made it truly unbearable to most common sense Americans, and counter-productive to our economic well being.
Seattle brûle-t-il?
Thankfully no…
And one more thing, I think the whole concept of an Earth Day (which to me has sort of a religious ring to it) is indicative of the elitists’ need to release some of the guilt they feel from driving around in their V-8 gas guzzlers, flying around in their private jets, using inordinate amounts of electricity to light their 10,000+ sq ft homes, and for holding stock and ownership in some of the world’s most pollution causing companies.
What’s more, the only reason this day is even listed on the calendar is because it gives wealthy environmentalists the chance to feel as if they are doing something to “help save the plant” (imagine your favorite young starlet tearfully saying those words as you read that phrase), when in actuality they are only polluting it more!
Bear:
I discussed Native American history in the context of the environment. I made an honest attempt to engage you but it would seem either way that a)we will agree to disagree, b)I’m maligning Native Americans in some way, c)this is an untouchable subject unless I observe your rules of engagement.
I think it a load of malarkey that any one single race of people have a magical bond with the environment. Yes, Native Americans respect their environment but that also doesn’t mean no one else does. While Native American culture has some great points about the environment, they’re not the only ones to be considered.
Every tribe, every Native American has a story. Those stories aren’t the same as yours or mine. Some will say that the federal government should do more for them, others will say that it’s done enough. I couldn’t possible generalize since every tribe is different.
I have my perspective and my experiences. You have shared yours. I don’t buy some of your arguments. You don’t agree with mine.
Fine.
By the way, I went on the Navajo Reservation about 3 years ago and anyone who can live in the desert environment of Arizona is welcome to it. They’re better people than me. I couldn’t do it. They see something in that environment that I can’t.
My husband and I were visitors and were treated with kindness and respect. We didn’t alter the landscape with either littering or disrespect. The Navajos had a modest lifestyle that I also grew up with.
So, if you want to think I’m in some way “generalizing” or being disrespectful, Bear, that’s your choice. I didn’t know you’d be touchy-feely on this subject.
This back-and-forth exchange of opinions, ideas and convictions is both stimulating and fascinating. I find myself unable to stay away from these blogs, even while at work, where I am being paid quite handsomely to pursue/perform supposedly more constructive tasks. I am also quite impressed by the raw intelligence, or should I say innate wisdom of many who contribute to the various threads. It seems these days that many (especially those on the left) are very well-educated, or “book-smart”, but very few have been truly blessed with the wisdom born of grace and righteousness. This wisdom of which I speak is innate, instinctive and divinely inspired, and cannot be acquired even at our finest “institutions of higher learning”. Yet, MM’s site seems to always attract the best and the brightest, which is NOT a coincidence, at least from my perspective. Unfortunately, it saddens me that there is such a dearth of discourse regarding the real or most important question facing mankind today, a question that transcends all others, a question that is, in every respect, directly related to today’s conversation regarding the Earth Day celebration/destruction of capitalism. The question: Is there currently a war being waged here on Earth between the forces of good and the forces of evil? PLEASE please hear me out on this. If one can, at the very least, acknowledge that these forces do in fact exist, then it would not be difficult for one to ultimately recognize, especially when viewed in the context of current events, that evil is an undeniably real and destructive force here on Earth. Not only is it both real and destructive, but it is also nefarious and cunning in that it is able to manifest itself in human form. In human form, evil wears the ultimate disguise – and therein lies both its insidiousness and its potency. In human form, evil becomes virtually undetectable because it can look like just about anyone. At this point, some reading this may be questioning my sanity. Nevertheless, I ask you to ponder this: How else can we even begin to explain or rationalize the aberrant belief systems and unconscionable behavior patterns of the seemingly unhinged and hate-filled left??? How????? How can one explain it other than to conclude that evil has surely taken hold in their hearts and in their minds. I don’t suspect that anyone will offer a more plausible explanation. Unfortunately, present-day America seems ill-equipped to combat such a malevolent and stealthy force. After all, a large and very influential segment of the population of this country not only unequivocally denies the existence of evil, but vigorously repudiates the existence of God – or the mere notion of intelligent design, for that matter. Instead, this seemingly clueless lot of cultural loons worships at the altar of “Godlessness”, fanatical in their devotion to dogma which weds the immoral to the amoral (the un-holiest of alliances). Their utopia is a guilt-free, “anything goes” culture, one devoid of accountability, responsibility, consequences and most importantly, moral scrutiny. In their bizarre “no-God” zone, life is viewed through a prism of moral relativism where universal values and absolutes have no real meaning, but are applicable only within the context of certain cultural boundaries or individual preferences. In their abstract, hazy shades of gray world, moral compasses are permanently disabled so there is no one “right” or moral way of thinking or of doing things. Hence, for them, judging what is evil, or for that matter what is good, is a non-started. Their morality is driven essentially by what will best serve to further their warped social agenda, or, in many instances, simply a question of what feels “good”. For them, no universal standard exists by which to assess truth or righteousness. Their espousal of this type of personal, subjective (pseudo) morality is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. More importantly, however; it is extremely dangerous, for it causes them to draw flawed moral symmetries – and not precise moral distinctions – between the two sides of every conflict. This is why for every crime, no matter how heinous, you’ll often see them show more compassion for the criminal than the victim. They loathe Bush, but show much less (if any) rancor for the Butcher of Baghdad (R.I.P.), the Venezuelan strongman Chavez, the Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad or Al-Qaeda chief bin Laden. In fact, many presume Bush to be the “real” terrorist and – and by “logical” extension – the bigger threat to world peace. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? I mean, what motivates this type of insane thought process? I think we may now know the answer. Which begs the question, is this whole Earth Day movement just another battlefront in the war between good and evil? Please folks, help me out here. Are others seeing what I clearly see????
The only way for humans to thrive is to produce the material goods we need. To produce, we must take raw materials from the earth and, with our knowledge of them, turn them into valuable goods.
Our choice is simple: either exploit the earth and live or “preserve nature” and slowly die off.
dbc
jeanie said:
I’m not certain of your context for word ‘polluting’ but, for corn, the main US crop for bio-fuel, thanks to liberals and G W Bush, the net energy output is negative. It takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than what you get back from the ethanol. It is therefore an UN-sustainable fuel source. Put another way, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn requires more energy , than the amount from a gallon of fossil fuel or other equivalent source. In short, we could SAVE energy starting tomorrow just by allowing ethanol corn fields to lay fallow – or, as a novel idea, perhaps use them for growing food again! The amount of corn needed to produce one tank of ethanol could feed a person for a whole year. In 2007, ONE THIRD of the US corn harvest was consumed by internal combustion engines – not people. (Thanks to you, me and every other person who paid taxes to the US government who then used our money to subsidize this lunacy.)
Brazil grows sugar cane for bio-fuel. It is energy positive. However, not only are they experiencing the food price increases that we are by having farmland diverted for growing fuel for cars instead of growing food for humans, they are also cutting down rain forest for more farm land, (shhh, liberals want THAT fact to be kept quiet!)
Yes, the debate is over on ethanol. For an impact of ONLY less than 1% difference, (thus far in the USA and remember I said 1/3 the harvest), on our overall energy consumption, people are already beginning to starve to death in the poorer places of the world. But, no different really than welfare, that is actually what liberal elitists want; to keep the third world poor and dependent on them while decreasing our own living standard at the same time.
I guess that is what you did. But then you made a leap into “stuck in the past” and remarks about adapting.
That is not about the environment. So I must conclude, with all due respect, that you are switching your argument. That is your impact anyway. There is no use in me trying to second guess your motives.
I made an honest attempt to engage you but it would seem either way that a)we will agree to disagree, b)I’m maligning Native Americans in some way, c)this is an untouchable subject unless I observe your rules of engagement.
You know so do I. And there are so many people who make the myth what it is. There were “balance” issues before the “settlers” arrived. It wasn’t exactly an environmental holocaust— but there were issues where the people had built “cities”.
I want to clarify that I did not, nor will I ever spout the malarkey that many environmental Moon Loons make about Indigenous utopias before the “settlers” came.
And I certainly did not set that argument in motion in any of my previous comments.
Are we clear?
China – Here is the real answer about China.. at least 15 million people murdered in order to create Mao’s utopia. Well, really to give him the unopposed power to control China’s wealth. You see, all Communist dictatorships thrive on the idea that only the few that run the place get all the money. The few are a few more now but never forget that China is still an oppressive dictatorship. That is why they pollute – because they can. Oppose them in China and you and your family are sent to “patriotism” camps. Or they just kill you. My personal favorite was the journalist who in 2006 admitted that his wounds were self inflicted after he threw himself down a flight of stairs and broke his own arms and legs. Perfectly logical.
China has power because it is a dictatorship where the many who have no rights are forced to work for the few who sell the products of slavery to the west for a fraction of the cost of US goods. Unions do not exist in China. They get no “vacation” time or sick leave. No such thing as a 40 hour work week. This doesn’t seem to stop the west from whoring themselves out for cheap products. I wonder if the petroleum based plastics in Al Gore’s plane was molded in China? Bet they were.
Making excuses for Communists, no matter how much they lean toward Capitalism, is support for murderous slavers. Regan was the last US politician to have it right – Apply pressure from every angle until your enemy withers.
While I’m on it, we should ask “Greenies” how much internet time they spend and then ask how they can utilize all that petroleum based plastic in the computers.. tell them to search for an organic alternative and stop being hypocrites.
Ethanol- is a disastrous strategy for energy independence.
Simple inventory helps to clarify why:
Plow 1 acre- fuel cost per acre (diesel);
wear and tear on machinery (tractor and plow)– replacement parts to ready tractor for field ops (cost per acre); lubricants (implements and tractors need to be greased often- cost per acre);
Fertility and Pest cost per acre: petroleum based fertilizers; weed spraying (petrochemical) cost per acre; mechanical weed cultivation (diesel fuel, lubrication); pest control (petrochemical insecticides)
Harvesting: Threshing cost per acre (diesel fuel)– Combines, tractors, trucks; grain handling on farm: mechanical augers run by tractors (diesel fuel); Heaters for drying: Electrical costs.
Transport to Market: trucks- hauling to commercial elevators for sale/storage.
And all of the corn involved in making ethanol is taken off the market for sale as feedstock for animal protein production including pigs, cattle, chickens, turkeys, dairy, etc etc.
Prices go up; supplies go down; creates instability as farmers try to follow price changes for profit guarantees….costs to move in and out of production are charged against future profits…markets change….farmers get whipsawed.
Reactionary trends follow reactionary policies like ethanol fuel production as part of energy policy. It has been a loser for over 35 years since that Dim Bulb President from Georgia decided it was a good deal for the USA.
Nuts.
No sun spots. Time to pull out the sweaters you packed away in storage.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html
I’m not concerned. There isn’t any power, legacy or money in global cooling yet, so we’ll continue with warming for awhile.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html
Well that doesn’t count comrade, it’s on Fox! It’s just propaganda from the vast right-wing conspiracy paid by big oil companies.
LGM,
didn’t AlGore triumph China’s environmental policies at the end of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’?
I thoroughly agree!
Absolutely! But how do we confront it without the left smearing us as anti-environment?
Translation: The common, unenlightend, non-progressive masses of humanity are chopping down trees for houses and using water. This must stop. The earth must be reserved for only a select group of humans who are worthy to inhabit it.
Translation: : All private property is to be confiscated so the official state scientists can better monitor land resources, especially land around Lake Tahoe, Aspen, and Myrtle Beach. Especial loyal party members shall be given personal dachas to live in so as to achieve the best monitoring results.
Translation: You have been warned: we are in charge of this planet’s destiny. The gulags are in place and anyone who disagrees with us shall be murdered. Only our scientists and data are relevant. Our experts are the only ones qualified to interpret data. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin are tater tots compared to what we will do to those who present incorrect arguments against our data!
Translation: We must ensure equal outcomes for everybody. It isn’t fair someone has more than someone else; therefore, everyone will be made poor except us, of course, because we are enlightened and worthy of having more than everyone else.
Translation: The greatest evils are ignorance of our way of thinking, and the oppression of unequal outcomes caused by capitalism. Science, Tech, and Industry, when placed under state control and managed by such enlightened people as ourselves can overcome all problems. Overpopulation? Why, we’ll just kill off the surplus people. Starvation? Ditto. Diseases? By our faith in the Theory of Evolution we will invoke Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” and cull the diseased, sick, and unhealthy. We shall breed a master race of humans. Sieg HEIL. Sieg HEIL. SIEG HEIL.