Posted on 05/04/2005 4:52:19 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail!
Good morning!!
Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of the Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!
Yesterday, we had quite the debate over global warming and whether it was real or not. At least in this forum, it can be said the antagonists of the theory won the day over the protagonist that tried to press his or her position.
Which brings us to a bigger question, what of environmentalism, and are conservatives inherently against it?
Well, that's sort of asking: "Do you like to breathe dirty air, drink dirty water, and walk through dirty landscapes?" Of course not, that's silly on its face.
Yet, that is the argument that is consistenty and vehemently postulated by the leftists in America--only THEY can protect the environment. Only THEY have the responsibility to protect the non-human species that wander the planet. If it were not for THEM, species other than humans would cease to exist.
Well, like yesterday's debater, it helps to come to the table with some facts.
Here's some dealing with the radical environmental movement.
Today, there is a story where windmills are being opposed in Wisconsin. Clean energy, right? Taking it from the wind, not burning fossil fuels? Taking a premium off of what nature sends around anyway? What can be wrong with that? Birds--the windmills will kill birds.
Global warming. That debate is less about science than about control, how to run everyone's lives. This becomes evident when you review some of the meetings. New science keeps emerging, and this is probably real science, that forces changes in the "theory" of global warming. But these people don't go "wait a minute, we need to study more to find out what's the best course of action," no, that's already been decided--control of the masses. The theory is revised, but in such a way that still requires draconian people control.
Recycling. A nice hot button here. But, guess what? There's been some information coming out lately that recycling is acutally more harmful than creating the product new in the first place. Seems the radical environmentalists forgot to factor in the transportation of the waste material to recycling places, the chemicals used in recycling, disposal of those chemicals, and so on and so on.
Car pooling, and mass transit in general. Sounds good, move large masses of people with trains and busses. One problem: what happens when that capacity fills up? THEIR answer: build more. All right, where? The problem is, mass transit allowed suburban areas to explode, and in the process pushed land values up like a rocket. Statistics have not been researched for this piece, but it would not be surprising if mass transit was the number one contributor to both suburban growth and property value increases generally. And those people have to be supplied. They are supplied by trucks. Trucks that now fill our Interstates, for which we have no more room to build for them because of the lack of foresight. Traffic is gridlocked with no solution--because the mass transit capacity is choked. Net result? Massive increases in air polution.
Enter the Clean Air Act. Now if there was ever a case in mass hypocracy, this is it. The left creates the urban smog soup from their failed efforts with car pools and mass transit, forgetting about the need to provide pavement (busses have to go somewhere you know) and rail (prohibitively expensive, you should know) in advance, and then they say "clean it up"! HOW? Our cars cannot move, the trucks are stalled on the highways belching soot, and we are told it is our fault.
Baloney. This country is straining under two decades of failed policy efforts on the part of the "green" movement. Our cities were, for a while, becoming "green", but are now, once again, moving to brown. Yet governments persist in the failed policies. The Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, has (finally!) authorized two more lanes for Highway 495. Sadly, they are to be "High Occupancy Toll" lanes. Have three or more souls, free, otherwise you get socked.
Having witnessed these lanes in both New York City and Georgia (although you don't have to pay a toll there), they are abject failures. No one is using critical concrete, and the allowable lanes are clogged with cars and trucks, continuing to contribute to the smog overhang. Georgia is more liberal than the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway--you only need two people. And yet, during my trip to Alanta I could observe they were essentially EMPTY during rush hour.
High Occupancy Vehicle programs have been pursued for almost three decades. Isn't it time to say "ENOUGH" and accept THEY ARE NOT WORKING!?
We need to find ways to get cars and trucks moving, and that means concrete. Will the areas around the new pavement grow, certainly. But isn't that how we manage to prosperity? Isn't staying stagnant a recipe for ultimate demise: "a man who stands still is bound to be run over."
Indeed, the procurment and placement of asphalt would lead to the environmentalist's mantra: the solution to polution is dilution. Spread it out. Move the cars and trucks, then the exhaust won't turn to brown soup.
But that leaves the question, is the right "right" on environmentalism? Well, we don't hate the environment. Indeed, we honor a quaint old idea: husbandry. Use what God provides, and make sure we leave it in a state where it is usable.
This can be leveraged. It has been shown that when a company is given exclusive rights to an area, they manage it well. Tree farms are cut appropriately because the paper company wants to stay in business. The fisheries that are given regions to work in the sea strive to protect fish to the extent it allows their business to flourish. These work, they should be pursued.
The problem is, it turns the locus of control to individuals, and that the radical environmental movement cannot allow for it forces them to concede both that they were wrong and their power they wield.
But like the birds in Wiconsin, we will fly around their windmills.
For AMERICA - The Right Way, I remain yours in the Cause, the Chairman.
Good morning.
How are you doing this morning?
Good morning.
We're scheduled to have rain tomorrow so my carriage ride in the woods may be rescheduled to next week. The Mountain Laurel is breathtaking; it's like walking in a cloud. We walked up to the highest ride in the woods and looked around and were in awe.
As one who has worked in the field (environmental) for a gazillion years, I should have weighed in yesterday.
The problem is one of economics. If pollution control was free - we'd be doing it. Or if they had value - we'd be doing it (chip makers recover gold at great costs). Economics is the allocation of scarce resources. So who allocates?
The left has always contented top down is necessary and has no regard whatsoever for the effect on the economy. Cleaner is better and to heck with the cost to the point of obsession.
The right has backed away from the environment in the past since it hurts too much to argue with the left.
I am up early - watching my Chili Relleno casserole bake. It is one of our doctor's birthdays and since it is Cinco de Mayo week, we are having a Mexican food breakfast this morning at the clinic.
I still have bookmarked on my FR homepage all of the articles I wrote disecting Algore's book. (Although I do need to update it based on new information about the thermohalene cycle, which I debunked yesterday.)
The thing is, you really don't need to be a scientist to throw these crackpot statements where they belong. It requires an ounce or two of the uncommon quality called common sense and merely thinking the proposition through.
The leftist nutcases get the backing of a scientist or two or three (or maybe 1,000) who don't really care to think it through but would rather bask in the notoriety of the moment, and use the "authority" to support their position.
It's a common debating technique, and if you're "sourceless" you are supposed to bow.
Well, I'm not completely sourceless, and it has been demonstrated that no matter what source I throw out there is some marginal element wrong with it. That's another fine debating technique: if the source is disagreeable, attack the pedigree of the source, not its content.
Then, of course, there's the time old technique of suggesting "secret" sources that are assumed to be in the hand of the opponent (which, of course, cannot be produced because they don't exist or, if they are secret, really cannot be produced--great catch 22) and when they are not used, then the opponent is called a fraud. That's another fine old debating technique: it's called lying (it's actually called something else, but because I don't want to get banned and I am now pursuing a time honored bully pulpit technique--addressing one, speaking to all, but playing to a single third party, I'll be nice, but we all know what it is).
Just for the record, even if events of the next half-century prove me wrong (I don't think they will), I will admit it. But the left be warned, I WILL NOT COMMIT RITUALISTIC SUICIDE--I HAVE GOTTEN UNDER YOUR SKIN AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.
I intend to continue to be that itch that nags and will not go away as long as you, the leftist, are around. I will not submit to your clap trap, and I will not surrender my freedom.
I will die first.
Oh rats. Well, the carriage ride wouldn't be much fun if it rains, so another day would be more enjoyable for you both. I've never seen Mnt. Laurel to my knowlege. Sounds beautiful!
Peter Paul is going to be on Tony Snow's show right now talking about the Hillary fraud story. Stream live here:
http://www.foxnews.com/tonysnow/index.html
Mmmmmm, Chili Relleno... sounds good.
It is a simple recipe with an awesome flavor.
Bravo!
When I was debunking the false claims of the left that there was no relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I noticed the first thing the dolts on the left did was to attack the authors and reporters who were writing the stories. It was all they had.
And it didn't matter that in the 90's, before that issue became a political football, the MSM wrote dozens and dozens of articles about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between Saddam and Osama.
You keep being that itch that nags...we all have our key issues and know who we can turn to for resource information and I thank you for your attention to this matter.
You must be using that outcome based education style math.
The score was 112 to 30.
1 cup 1/2 and 1/2
2 eggs
1/3 cup flour
12 ozs diced or whole green chilies
1/2 pound Monterey Jack cheese
1/2 pound cheddar cheese
4 oz cream cheese
I put the 1/2 and 1/2, eggs, flour and cream cheese in the blender until smooth. Reserve 1/2 cup of the cheeses. Make layers of the cheeses and green chilies and egg mixture, then top with reserved cheese. Bake at 350 degrees for 1 1/4 hour or until cooked in the center.
This makes 4 servings but can be doubled easily. I make it the night before and refrigerate until ready to bake.
Servie with salsa and sour cream
You are good....I will give you that.
"But, what - specifically - did I say that was nonsense?"
Global Warming.
I was an enviro once myself.
And I can tell you, it is a made up 'fright'.
I asked you some questions yesterday, and you didn't answer them at all.
Never even gave them a thought.
And I know why.
Enviros do not have any answers, only more 'problems' that 'need' to be fixed, usually to the detriment of society, industry, and the environment they claim to care about.
End of recipe - SERVE not servie Bev
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.