Selective outrage from the eco-nuts

The Logical View ^ | 10/11/02 | MARK A SITY

[logic101.net]

SELECTIVE OUTRAGE FROM THE ECO-NUTS

Remember the Exxon-Valdez? Do you remember the eco-nuts going on and on about the devastation? Don't get the wrong idea here; I was plenty ticked off about the incident, and still am - I've been on Prince William Sound. My outrage was mostly directed at the Feds for ignoring the agreement they made with the State of AK to allow only double-hulled tankers. The Exxon accident was by all accounts exactly that, an accident. It was an accident caused by incompetence certainly; yet still an accident. For years this accident was brought up by the eco-nuts every time a new oil well was proposed.

Recently a French oil tanker, laden with crude oil, was targeted by terrorists and blown up. There is a deafening silence from the eco-nuts. Yet this was a deliberate and successful attempt to create an environmental catastrophe. Where are the eco-nuts? This raw crude oil no doubt created thick plumes of black, unfiltered smoke, creating much more pollution than if it had been refined and used as intended. After refining, not all of the products are burned; some are used for tar, others for plastics, and many other products. In this intentional fire, all these materials were introduced directly into the atmosphere.

In writing this, I am reminded of the early stages of the Gulf War. I don't recall any outrage from the eco-nuts of Iraq's setting oil wells on fire before retreating. Nor do I recall any outrage from them over the former USSR's dismal environmental record.

Nor was there any outrage when a Democrat proposed exempting South Dakota from logging restrictions to prevent huge forest fires. However, when it was proposed to do this for other states, by a Republican, then there was outrage.

It seems that, to the eco-nuts, the issue isn't how much damage one does to the environment, but rather if a person is a Capitalist or a Republican.

MARK A SITY

http://www.logic101.net/

[MoGalahad]

A rose by any name is still a rose. Websters' defines it as Hypocrisy.

[Hillary'sMoralVoid]

A great point. It shows the true colors of the enviro movement, anti-U.S., anti-capitalism. The oil wells and the refineries in the Middle East and the Caspian areas pollute far more than any of our offshore or Artic drilling, yet these nuts only oppose OUR efforts to secure new sources.

These jerks seem to forget that oil is a NATURAL source of energy, that, if UNTAPPED, can also have negative environmental consequences.

This guys are hypocrits of the worst kind, and they hurt our nation while ignoring pollution everywhere else.

[Teacher317]

Well put. We'll just have to add yet another log to the hypocrisy-of-the-Left pile.

I believe that pile is now rivaling the Pyramids in volume.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

The ecofreaks understand that "the terrorists have to destroy the Earth in order to save it".©

© Copyright 1967, Vietnam Enterprises, Inc.