Posted on 11/26/2005 4:38:18 PM PST by grey_whiskers
INTRODUCTION: This article is written in response to the knee-jerk reactions of many liberals, and what might be considered a “stealth” hypocrisy. On the other hand, it might not be hypocrisy at all—it might be that the liberals really do like to have different standards in different areas of their lives. Read on and maybe things will make more sense…
It is interesting to watch the behaviour of liberals when they are considering the impact of human activity on the environment. Words and catch-phrases such as “sustainable development,” “eco-friendly,” or “environmentally sound” come to one’s mind without even having to pause to think. What do all of these sound bites have in common? Antipathy to industrial, Western, development, for one thing; as well as a measure of self-hatred and guilt. Consider the following episodes: The British “boy band” Blue was participating in a group web interview with the British tabloid The Sun shortly after 9-11; the band had been in New York at the time and had witnessed the second plane that hit the World Trade Center. After the other band members had spoken of the horror of the attacks, Lee Ryan spouts off:
Lee Ryan - What about whales? They are ignoring animals that are more important. Animals need saving and that's more important. This New York thing is being blown out of proportion.
Simon- Shut up Lee.
Lee - Who gives a f... about New York when elephants are being killed.
Duncan- Shut up.
Lee - I'm not afraid to say this, it has to be said. I’m not afraid to say it and that's why I'm the outspoken one from the band.
Or you have the following quote from Stewart Brand in the Whole Earth Catalog:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion – guilt-free at last!
With this point of view comes the idea that even the inconvenience of animals is more important than the actual welfare of humans. (Anyone remember PETA’s stunt in rescuing lobsters from the seafood restaurants and putting them back in the water?) But more importantly, it is not only the actual damage to animals or the ecosystem which is so important, but even the mere possibility of risk. And the time to act is now. NOW! Because tomorrow may be too late TM:
”An increase by only a factor of four in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees Kelvin…sufficient to trigger an ice age. “
-- Dr. S.I. Rasool and Dr. S.H. Schneider, Science, July 9, 1971.
(Never mind that this seems like the perfect antidote to that “global warming” we’ve been hearing so much about.)
So it is quite clear that the environmentalists, liberals, and other Birkenstock-afflicted fellow travelers are concerned with the fate of the planet, regardless of the cost to humans. But in other areas, they are not only unconcerned with risks; not only do they seem to take reckless chances; but they seem to be completely in favor of wholesale changes, with complete disregard for the consequences. What might I be referring to?
Why, cultural pollution, of course. Think of the 1940’s film The Outlaw, which was condemned as “indecent” because Jane Russell was wearing a – brace yourself, now! -- specially designed bra. And your snickering at that line is in fact the point. It used to be that even a risqué bra was enough to earn censure. Now we have come to the point where Janet Jackson has a “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl spectacular—without warning, and on prime time. And after the “outrage” had died down, we were treated to Britney Spears and Madonna, kissing open-mouthed on prime-time TV. (If that were a male musician or producer kissing Britney, they would have been hit with a sexual harassment suit so fast your head would spin.) But since these episodes were concocted for ratings, it must be OK.
And that is nothing, compared to the barrage of indiscriminate hypersexuality from all sides, from beer commercials, to deodorant, to tabloids, to automobiles, to condoms. (It is odd, isn’t it, that cigarettes, which can take years to give you cancer, cannot advertise on TV; but condoms, which only need fail once, are allowed?)
Of course, it’s only Hollywood. Of course, it’s only because sex sells – especially to the young. They are fatuous, and impressionable, and lack the critical facilities to realize how much of the strutting is staged and packaged—or what the emotional, financial, and physical consequences may be, far away from the cameras. Just compare the divorce, single parenting, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia, HIV – and rape -- rates between the time of Jane Russell and today. Where are the Meryl Streeps, crying out in an impassioned voice, “WHAT are we doing to our children?!!”
Full Disclosure: I deliberately left former Vice President Al Gore out of this, because at least his wife seemed to use what bully pulpit she had to warn of these issues. About his fellow denizen of the White House nothing need be added.
Cheers!
Worth a bump!
Milorganite?
2. I wrote this three years ago. Surfing through old stuff out of extreme boredom (as I do sometimes?)
Cheers!
The city of Milwaukee takes their sewage and makes fertilizer. I remember my dad buying it back in the early 50s. Here are some links.
http://www.retrocom.com/retromilw/milorg.htm
http://www.milorganite.com/about/
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.