The Hedonistic Left and Global Warming

HUMAN EVENTS ^ | 02/16/2007 | George Neumayr

[neverdem]

globaloney warming

[The Great RJ]

The ultimate hypocrisy is Al Gore and RFK Jr.flying around the country in private jets, riding in limos and having several large homes telling us that we need to cut back on our lifestyle to save the planet.

[Robert A Cook PE]

The Left doesn't want any part of that so they will first claim that there's some sort of vast conspiracy to prevent the development and use of alternative energy sources, and then claim that birthrates in the third world will automatically drop as it becomes wealthier...and that it is the duty of the first world to hasten such an outcome by redistributing its wealth - in other words the rich, white world must pay for its sins...and pay...and pay.



You noticed that too, didn't you?

[liberallarry]

You noticed that too, didn't you?

I left ZPG (Zero Population Growth) more than 10 years ago because of it. More recently, the Sierra Club almost split apart over the same issue in the form of illegal immigration.

[IrishBrigade]

...I'm sure he can read just fine...he just wanted to get in a free lick at Catholics...not an unpopular pastime on this forum...

[goldstategop]

Environmentalism is the new religion of the secular Left. We are all hardwired to have spiritual beliefs and liberals are no exception. They simply worship Mother Gaia, their high priests are scientists and their emissaries are political activists and politicians. In all respects its a fervent faith. And those who have faith, reasoning with them won't work because nothing can influence true believers. And of course there's the End Of The World.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[ChildOfThe60s]

and I do say that "democratic capitalism" is very far from describing American culture

True. We are closer to socialism than capitalism. And many don't realize that. So, when I hear a liberal complaining that capitalism isn't working, I point out that much of what they see as not working is not working because it is no longer capitalism.

For example, we have semi-socialized health care in this country right now. It is very far removed from having real market influence. Yet liberals complain that the problems in health care cost and delivery are the result of capitalism, when in truth, government intervention and control are primarily responsible.

Man's nature is what it is, thus some things can never be "fixed". For our society to improve it must have less micro management, not more. More individual freedom, not less.

[liberallarry]

So, when I hear a liberal complaining that capitalism isn't working

I'm sorry but you're hearing something I didn't say.

What I did say was that our system works better than any other yet devised but that it's far from perfect. You want to say that it's as perfect as can be given man's nature, that it's impossible to improve upon, that some ideal capitalist system which never existed is what we should aim for, that all our current trouble are due to socialist imperfections.

Thank you Dr. Pangloss. I don't buy it.

[liberallarry]

Further you've ignored the thrust of my comments.

I said a lot of what we fight about has little to do with democratic capitalism and a lot to do with other aspects of our culture, specifically morality as dictated by various religions. The author goes on and on about the hedonistic, decadent left and how it's ruined America. I think he's full of crap. American morality is fine.

I might mention that Dinesh D'Souza recently published an article blaming the immoral Left for Muslim rage. Hugh Hewitt (I think) correctly pointed out that Sayyid Qutb, the father of modern Muslim radicalism, was enraged by mid-Western American culture of the late '40s which can hardly be blamed on the Left...and which the author would have found to be the epitome of morality. (I think it sucked).

[ChildOfThe60s]

Sorry, I see where it looked that way, but I wasn't implying you were the liberal saying that.

No, I'm not saying it's a good as it can get. Far from it. But given man's nature, it is a never ending quest for improvement.

All of our troubles are not due to socialist imperfections. However, I stand by my statement that much of what is blamed on capitalism is in fact problems caused or exacerbated by government/socialistic meddling. That by altering a market system and then blaming resulting problems on the market system is disingenuous at best.

Yes, we should be trying to reach a capitalist system that has not existed so far. And never will, man being what he is. But a goal like this, of necessity, must exceed our reach.

[liberallarry]

But given man's nature, it is a never ending quest for improvement.

That we can agree on.

However, I stand by my statement that much of what is blamed on capitalism is in fact problems caused or exacerbated by government/socialistic meddling.

And this may also be true. We might disagree on details and degree...but I certainly think there's plenty wrong with socialist solutions and have no objection to seeing whether capitalists ones work better.

However, this is off-topic I think. The author was not talking economics but morality...and I found him to be crude and blind to faults in his own ideology.

Let's face it most of our present social problems have arisen principally from our attempt to integrate black people into mainstream culture. It may be politically incorrect to notice - and very difficult to discuss - but that's how it is. Illegal immigration is a problem but, I think, not much different than that posed by immigration from southern and eastern Europe a hundred years ago.

The culture wars over abortion, atheism, drugs, global warming, etc. are disturbing...but (with the possible exception of drugs) they don't lead to dysfunctional schools, crime in the streets, and disintegration of the social order.

The Left and Right have different approaches to the race problem and, now that I think about it, I wonder if the author is talking about that without directly doing so.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I don't agree that, in the case of America, you can entirely separate distinctions between socialism, capitalism and religion. Personally, I am not a religious person. But I see, in spite of many flaws, more positive than negative in a society with a strong Judeo-Christian underpinning. I see socialism as a mechanism which discourages religion (at the same time seeking to fill the void with statism). As well as discouraging goals of self sufficiency, independence and being productive. I have friends that are died in the wool socialists and are upstanding productive members of society, but their political philosophy is still wrong for society.

I haven't read D'Souza's article to which you refer, but if that is what he says, then I also think he is incorrect. As far as "Muslim rage" is concerned, we don't have to do much of anything other than be non-believers to warrant their rage. And our economic successes haven't helped their attitude.

You paint the "morality" of the 40's with a wide and heavy brush. I can pick any number of things out that I have little regard for. At the same time, there is a lot to be said for a number that are considered passe our current society. And I say that in spite of hypocrisy that did exist regarding those mores.

Frankly, and not at all referring to religion, contemporary American morality is a great deal less than fine.

[liberallarry]

Nah...can that.

He doesn't have a thing to say about race. He just doesn't like modern American secular culture. Well, there's a lot to dislike about it...and a lot to like. I don't much like his culture either, I suspect. But, as long as he lets me choose my friends and doesn't try to dictate my morality or limit my actions too much he can believe what he likes.

[liberallarry]

But I see, in spite of many flaws, more positive than negative in a society with a strong Judeo-Christian underpinning.

Oh, most definitely. I'm just pissed at the self-righteousness of the author.

I don't agree that, in the case of America, you can entirely separate distinctions between socialism, capitalism and religion.

Certainly not. All aspects of a culture play their parts in making it what it is. Nonetheless, in present day America secularists can be democratic capitalists just as easily as believers.

You paint the "morality" of the 40's with a wide and heavy brush.

I do...and there are many things I liked about it (Bogarts movies for example) but I did so in response to the author's use of the same brush. Pre-marital sex does not herald the end of civilization. Nor does contraception. Or casual but reasonable drug use. Environmentalism is not a religion (although many on the Left treat it that way). It represents a legitimate and reasonable response to unchecked growth, to greed too often legitimized by the market system. Perhaps that system, if allowed to function freely, would eventually put a stop to it...but many believe (quite rationally) that eventually is too late.

[ChildOfThe60s]

But, as long as he lets me choose my friends and doesn't try to dictate my morality or limit my actions too much he can believe what he likes.

There is some irony in that remark. I see the left as considerably more interested limiting behaviour than the right. This government that we have (at all levels) wants to regulate nearly everything I do. And I don't consider a Big Brother with an (R) after his name to be any more palatable than the one with a (D), but do I believe the Ds are worse than the Rs.

See, if I want to dislike illegals breaking into this country and the left and/or government tells me I am a racist, then they are trying to dictate my morality. Personally I have no truck with gays in principle, but I do have a problem with being told I am not allowed to if I were to so choose. Recently in Canada, a man was charged, convicted and fined for saying he didn't like homosexuality. As he was not threatening anyone, the govenment was dictating his morality by prosecuting him for his beliefs. I don't see the US being too far behind that sort of persecution. It is a difference only in degree when compared to mandatory "sensitivity" training for college students that don't toe the PC line. You see anything Orwellian about "sensitivity training"? Something like maybe a re-education camp?

At one point, when the Republicans had the congress and the WH, my buddy (the socialist) was sincerely surprised when I very seriously criticized the government and our elected leaders in particular. When I explained that I don't want rights abridged by anyone, including Republicans, he didn't really see my point.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Environmentalism is not a religion (although many on the Left treat it that way)

And that, my friend, is the key. By treating it like one, the results are the same, it may as well be one.

You're killing me, I should be in bed now. Later...

[liberallarry]

You see anything Orwellian about "sensitivity training"?

You bet...and about making Holocaust denial a crime. But...

WWII did happen, the Holocaust did happen, slavery did happen, the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century did happen. So I have very mixed feelings about people who deny them...even though I'm well aware that many on the Left see no limits and no problems with self-righteously claiming that they know ABSOLUTELY what's right.

As to whether the Left or Right is worse in these matters...it's a toss-up. The saying is not "Power corrupts the Left" or "Power corrupts the Right" but "Power corrupts". :)

[liberallarry]

By treating it like one, the results are the same, it may as well be one.

Only to those who treat it that way. Too many on the Right see only those on the Left who do...because they don't wish to deal with the legitimate issues; Should we try to limit growth? How? If we are stressing our environment too much with our endless development of virgin lands and our endless population growth, won't we have to seriously change our economic and social systems and our religious beliefs?

[TruthConquers]

Can a decadent elite which ushered in decades of self-indulgent, drugs-and-promiscuity-laden ( and pro-abortion, pro-homo, pro-government is the solution) lifestyles credibly warn of "death and destruction," civilizational collapse and the need for abstemiousness ( when they lack any character or virtues of their own)?

====================================

The answer: NO!!

(italics are mine)

[ChildOfThe60s]

Only to those who treat it that way.

Ah, but there's the rub. Those are the ones that have the most influence. People that have a normal, balanced perspective are at best ignored, more likely, shouted down. And at worst threatened and intimidated. The earth worshippers are the ones publishing fabricated "science" and it is this disinformation that is given the most credence by the left in congress and regulatory agencies.

Anyone that wants to deal with environment, energy or growth in a reasoned manner is pilloried. For example, there are practical realities regarding coal and oil that are not going to change much for a long time. Every attempt to face up to these realities is met with howls of panic & hyperbole. Everything is life and world threatening. Oil wells in the gulf are a disaster exceeding the magnitude of Krakatoa. Everything will destroy the earth [within 10 years] so we should build windmills and wait for our houses to go dark and our factories to stop.

Overall the air and water in this country is considerably cleaner than it was 35-40 years ago. And it is getting cleaner. When is the last time you saw or heard that acknowledged by noted environmental agitators?