No child left behind...

Yes friends, the earth will not be safe as long as there is ONE BREEDING COUPLE left alive! This is the full logical extension of the Enviro-Death-Cult belief system.

“We can’t be breeding right now,” says Les Knight.

"We can't be breeding right now," says Les Knight. "It's obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can't be justified today."

Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an informal network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth. Knight, whose convictions led him to get a vasectomy in the 1970s, when he was 25, believes that the human race is inherently dangerous to the planet and inevitably creates an unsustainable situation.

"As long as there's one breeding couple," he says cheerfully, "we're in danger of being right back here again. Wherever humans live, not much else lives. It isn't that we're evil and want to kill everything -- it's just how we live." sfgate.com

And no, this is not a joke.

This is serious Environmental thinking.

Who can deny the inevitable environmentalist logic? Certainly this article's author had some thinking to do.

Knight's position might sound extreme at first blush, but there's an undeniable logic to it: Human activities -- from development to travel, from farming to just turning on the lights at night -- are damaging the biosphere. More people means more damage. So if fewer people means less destruction, wouldn't no people at all be the best solution for the planet?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately because my wife and I have been talking about having a child. We're the kind of people who reduce, reuse and recycle. We try hard not to needlessly fritter away resources. We think globally and act locally in our day-to-day decisions. So while the biggest quandary of most couples in our shoes might be what color to paint the nursery, we have to ask ourselves, Is the impact of a new person justified?

The problem is stark: The United Nations estimates that the human population, currently at 6.5 billion, is well on its way to 9.1 billion in 2050. Many estimates place a sustainable population in which most of the people on Earth are able to enjoy their lives at between one and two billion.

By nearly every measure -- pollution, carbon emissions, forest loss, fishery depletion, soil fertility, water availability and others -- the growing population is wreaking havoc on the Earth's systems. And it's setting our civilization up for a big, hard fall.

He goes on, but I won't bore you with his vegan diet and his quoting about how much of a waste American lives really are. Suffice it to say that: Human Life is unsustainable.

Sounds like a plan

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement certainly has pegged the ideology. But they state in the article that they have no illusions about how many people are going to follow this course of action 'voluntarily'.

The one thing about this article that does my heart good is to know that it is the granola-eating-vegan-environmentalist-types who are the most likely to voluntarily stop breeding. We certainly don't need anymore of those!

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Mother Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons. Good health will be restored to the Earth's ecology... to the "life form" known by many as Gaia.

It's going to take all of us going. vhemt.org

This, of course, begs the question... if vehement (vhemt) loved the earth so much why wait? Why continue to live in cities and drive cars, etc? It's crass to ask such a question I know, but it seems as though perhaps Gaia might ask the same question, just as I would ask it of any cancer growing inside me.

Posted by Eric Simonson at May 1, 2006 3:32 AM
Comments
Comment #144459

This post embarasses Watchblog. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that either party is advocating earth-wide suicide, or wants others to believe that’s what we discuss here.

Posted by: Max at May 1, 2006 3:55 AM
Comment #144460

jeez, I thought that les knight, was riding behind the tail of that comet.?

Posted by: john at May 1, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #144462

Don’t be too hard on Eric, guys. There’s not much left he can criticize without making the GOP even more incompetent looking.

So now the Liberals favor extinction… whoppee!!! A winnung case for Conservatives!!!

Posted by: Aldous at May 1, 2006 4:24 AM
Comment #144464

Max, Aldous and John:

You are correct that this theory is nutty, but it illustrates a prevailing sentiment at the base of many, if not most, environmental movements. This sentiment, in a nut shell, is the view of mankind as separate from nature. Unlike all the other live forms, hell even the land masses, which are part of a balanced integrated whole, man is viewed as Earth’s bastard stepchild.

Man evolved to his current state in the crucible of this planet. We are as much a part of the biomass as the snail darter and the glaciers. Until environmentalists support plans that include man’s evolving role on earth, they will have limited success.

I have long been frustrated by the naiveite of greens who propose simplistic, unfeasible and economically unsustainable programs. They often propose lousy ideas that they want someone else to pay for. Until the environmentalists reflect a more human friendly approach which considers the realities of the issues, they will not broaden their support amoung mainstream Americans.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 1, 2006 5:18 AM
Comment #144465

Frankly, I’m shocked that there have been two liberal comments on this post without any defenders of the grand extinction plan. Guess I’ll have to wait a few minutes.

Posted by: Duano at May 1, 2006 5:23 AM
Comment #144468

Eric!, Eric!, Eric!
I had a good laugh - thank you!!!s

Since you went to the trouble of posting this nonsencse, I’ll bite.

It just seems a tad extreme to me!!! I remember when we were producing too many children and someone said we needed to try to only re-populate one child per adult family member. I.e.. One mother - one child, one father-one child. Zero population-growth,

Heck, I even attempted to do that…however Mother Nature decided it wasn’t to be. I had 2 pregnancies and 3 children - a set of twins. From what I’ve read, here in our country, we are hitting a 1.8 percentage of children, In other words, we are not having enough children to replace ourselves, except of course for me. I must make up that .8 percent.

As for the environment — of course the fool plan would work - killing off the entire population of the world would definitely improve our environment.

But I don’t believe it would be very enforceable - unless we start a genocide program for the US, Europe, etc. Something I would hope would not actully be available for a long time!!!!

Besides who would take care of all the baby boomers until they kick the bucket? Whether it’s money, work, illness, social security, etc. Of course, we could all commit suicide, but then there be no one left to enjoy the new environment. Of course that would make what appears to be Knight’s utlimate goal come true.

I suspect the major enviromental populations Lee Knight mentioned, are also the poorest ones, many of whom do not know where babies come from, (can’t read), the ones’ who have lost their homes (tsumies, hurricanes) Just because someone is poor and way under-educated does not mean they should be eliminated. Lee Knight is not only a jeck, but also a convining one.
Got to be a better Way!!!

Besides who would take care of all the baby boomers unti they kick the bucket? Whether it’s money, work, illness, social security, etc. Of course, we could all commit suicide, but then there be no one left to enjoy the new environment.

Besides who would take care of all the baby boomers unti they kick the bucket? Whether it’s money, work, illness, social security, etc. Of course, we could all commit suicide, but then there be no one left to enjoy the new environment.

I suspect the major enviromental populations Lee Knight mentioned, are also the poorest ones, many of whom do not know where babies come from, (can’t read), the ones’ who have lost their homes ( tsunamis,(hurricanes) Just because someone is poor and way under-educatecated does not mean they should be eliminatied.

Maybe Knight is not only a jerk, but I suspect he is also a conniving jerk.

Got to be a better Way!!!



Posted by: Linda H. at May 1, 2006 5:37 AM
Comment #144469

Linda,

Is there an echo in here? Have we found the AWM of the left?!?!

Posted by: Duano at May 1, 2006 5:49 AM
Comment #144473

I know I wake up every morning and go “Gee, what can I do to further the end of the human race today?”

Eric, you seem to caught in this rut of finding ways to further vilify the entire left on account of its nutballs. It’s a common tactic in your party, which has built it’s success on the constant sales job of the idea that liberals in general are deficient immoral human beings who don’t believe in their country.

Unfortunately, your party cast its first stone having sins of its own. It’s become so wrapped up in its own propaganda, and so deficient in its own understanding and execution of policy that people are beginning to see your party as ineffectual as well, or worse, a threat to our way of life.

So go on bashing the nutty leftist fringe. The unfortunate thing is that you’ve let the nutty right-wing fringe hijack your party, and with the attention you’ve devoted to our sins, you’ve had little time to give regard to your own.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #144474

Linda H

These guys are nuts, but we ignore them at our peril. It doesn’t take many such to create terror and they have been moving in that direction. So far earth terrorist have destroyed only property, but they have endangered people and may move in a more deadly direction.

One throw away commment you made show a problem. You mentioned that the environment would be better w/o people. That is just false, or maybe a statement of religion.

In fact, the environment has no plan. People in it or not in it is irrelevant. Do you really think that in the billions of years of earth history, humans are the biggest disruption? Nature is all about disruption in any case. There is no steady state.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2006 7:56 AM
Comment #144475

I consider myself liberal but this is just absurd. Well at least you can look on the bright side, their children are not going to be brainwashed into their belief system…. ;) I’ve known some people from vhemt, and (I can’t believe it either) acutally believe that if we do ourselves in it’s better for the enviroment (I guess you can say I was being preached at, by her), I told her “After you.” I can understand environmentalism but this is just so stupid to say the least.

-Einghf

Posted by: Einghf at May 1, 2006 8:00 AM
Comment #144476
These guys are nuts, but we ignore them at our peril. It doesn’t take many such to create terror and they have been moving in that direction. So far earth terrorist have destroyed only property, but they have endangered people and may move in a more deadly direction.

LOL! That’s the plot of Michael Crichton’s last book, Jack. It’s absolutely amazing to me how so many Republicans can’t tell fact from fiction. Too much believing their own spin, I guess.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #144480

ERic…

Oh nevermind—what’s the point. Yes (sigh) every environmentalist the entire globe over is avidly advocating neo-malthusian suicide. It’s just easier to agree with you.

Some things are just too deep a mindless wedge to even discuss—and oh the likelihood that everyone will follow suit with these suggestions is just astronomical (sarcasm if you didn’t catch it).

What’s wrong Eric is the wedge-cycle a bit slow for the cons this week? And BTW who the hell is Les Knight?—Wasn’t he the bassist from Tull?

ERic at this point you could pretty much phone it in huh?

Why are all these liberal environmentalists advocating World Suicide?—This is what they are really all about. No Eric we are into Republican flavored Soilent Green—you have misread us once again.

Posted by: Novenge at May 1, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #144481

Jack,

Yes the hippie environmentalists are quite dangerous—you do know they are secretly planning to destroy all human life on earth and hand the earth over to genetically modified squirrels right?

Posted by: Novenge at May 1, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #144494

Jack-
Don’t worry too much about them. Just make sure that law enforcement is on the ball concerning terrorism.

Truth is, you’re both wrong. You both forget than any line between the natural and the artificial is itself artificial. The reality is, nature permeates everything we do. We can’t destroy nature. Trouble is, nature can and does destroy us.

We’re trapped in the system, now and forevermore. The laws of nature dictate the success of anything we do. The quality and continued existence of our lives depends on our harmony with them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #144495

You think Democrats are unrealistic? You think Clinton is slimy?

This economy is propped up by unsustainable trade and budget deficits you don’t even recognize. Limbaugh’s massive heroin-based drug use caused his hearing loss, Cunningham may have given escorts as bribs to legislators in the Watergate hotel, Rove is voluntarily talking to a grand jury about Plame, the ARMY has started prosecuting Rumsfeld for directly authorizing torture, more than 600 soldiers were found to be involved in the torture at Abu Ghraib, not a handful, They’re grim. In Iraq, 100,000 families have been forced to flee their homes, U.S. fatalities were sharply up in April, 8,300 civilian Iraqis were murdered, and yet we still hear from Republicans that this was is a big success.

And this is just SOME stuff that happened today. I could go on for pages without even breaking a sweat. There are so many disgusting scandals coming out of the woodwork, all about a billion times sleazier than the Monica business that no one can keep track of them.

You’re the party of bloat, pork, irresponsible spending, fantasy proposals, reality-denial, incompetence, and incredible gullibility.

Posted by: Max at May 1, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #144496

Novenge,

I think that the all of the right has mistaken the wedge-cycle, for a wedgie.

Posted by: Rocky at May 1, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #144497

Duano,

“Frankly, I’m shocked that there have been two liberal comments on this post without any defenders of the grand extinction plan. Guess I’ll have to wait a few minutes.”

Typical.

Posted by: Rocky at May 1, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #144499

One of the biggest and continuing problems with funding Social Security is that we haven’t “replaced” ourselves…that’s why there’s a lower and lower ratio of workers to retirees…remember “Zero Population”??? Well, it’s backfired on us!!

What we need to do is consume less…especially energy, especially petroleum!

Posted by: Lynne at May 1, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #144501

I don’t know that this is a left/right issue. I regard myself as a fiscal conservative and social liberal to varying degrees based on the issue, and I’m totally in favor of encouraging people to not breed.

Imagine how much better off we’d be if the breeders were only allowed to have one (hmm, that sounds familiar… China has it right?), instead of these crazy trailer-trash families who squirt out 8 or 10 future welfare recipients.

That scene in Monty Python’s “Meaning of Life” was a JOKE, not a GOAL!

Posted by: Ralph at May 1, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #144504

I’m stunned. Someone comes up with such a straight-arrow approach to solving most if not all of the current problems facing our Earth… and you dare to call it “nuts”?!

Seriously, the more you think about it - the more you ponder what we as humans do to every other living thing within our vicinity… how can you suggest any other course of action other than removing ourselves to solve the problem.

I only glad the right saw had such clarity of mind to allow us all to own firearms - so when the utter clarity of one’s own tendencies stares you in the face with such ferocity… you know the truth, and you can be at peace with it.

Just one question: I’ve loaded this damn gun, but how the hell do you pull the damn trigg

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #144506

Today is the anniversary of “Misson Accomplished”

Posted by: Max at May 1, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #144508

They want to eliminate themselves? Problem solved! Send ‘em to Iraq.

Posted by: Don at May 1, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #144509

Eric,

The one thing about this article that does my heart good is to know that it is the granola-eating-vegan-environmentalist-types who are the most likely to voluntarily stop breeding. We certainly don’t need anymore of those!

Yeah, the last thing we need are kind, clean, healthy people who don’t litter. What we really need are more overweight, polluting litterbugs indulging in a disposable society with absolutely no concern for how their actions will affect the generations to come. The world will be better if the McFatAsses would burn down the recycling centers and just throw their trash on the streets. Why can’t we have more of THOSE people?

Sorry, Eric. Les Knight is a freakin’ whacko… but to write off the entire environmental movement just because of a guy like him is the real mistake.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 1, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #144510

Come on, Rob. You know it only takes one odd/extreme example to prove to these guys that they’re right.

Just look at the Iraqi pre-war intelligence.

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #144511

tony,

Just look at the Iraqi pre-war intelligence.

I heard a lot coming out of Washington during the Iraqi pre-war timeframe, but I’m not sure I’d call any of it “intelligence”… is “stupidance” a word? :-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 1, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #144523

Eric,

I agree with Stephen in your unending and fruitless mission to bash the left by singling out nut cases with faulty wiring. I don’t see anyone on the left side of this blog reacting to Pat Robertson’s claims that women’s rights turn women into lesbians – and then faulting the entire GOP as a result.

But by all means, keep posting.The more illogical and desperate you sound, the more illogical and desperate your party becomes. Indies and Dems appreciate you showing your true GOP colors.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at May 1, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #144529

Did you guys see where Christie Whitman (whom I respect quite a bit, despite the fact that she’s a Republican — go read her book) teamed up with the founder of Greenpeace to promote nuclear power? Nuclear power is currently the most viable clean, greenhouse gas-free alternative to foreign oil.

Disclaimer: A couple years ago, I sunk a bunch of cash into Exelon. Go, baby, go! ;)

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #144535

I guess Eric has just proven that W is the consumate leftist wacko envirnomentalist. He’s not waiting for human extinction by attrition. He’s actively promoting it by armed conflict, the proposed use of nuclear weapons, and implied consent of genocide (Darfur).

Yeah Bushie! Way to go! WooHoo!
Thanks Eric, for opening my eyes to his hidden leftwing homosexual agenda.

Posted by: Dave at May 1, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #144537

American pundit:

Nuclear power is currently the most viable clean, greenhouse gas-free alternative to foreign oil.

Great! You can expect the first load of spent fuel in your own backyard next week!! No objections now, you said it was “clean”!!!

Posted by: Lynne at May 1, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #144538

All the christian fundamentalists are reproducing prolifically. The gays aren’t and the liberals and environmentalists aren’t keeping up.

Just bide your time, nirvana awaits.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 1, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #144552

Lynne,

Great! You can expect the first load of spent fuel in your own backyard next week!! No objections now, you said it was “clean”!!!

You can put all the spent nuclear fuel in the country in my backyard, if I can put all the waste from all of the coal and gas plants in YOUR backyard.

Yes, there are waste products from nuclear energy. But they are much less per kilowatt than the waste products from fossil fuels — and 95% of the nuclear “waste” isn’t waste at all… it’s just dirty fuel that needs to be refined.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 1, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #144558

“Pat Robertson’s claims that women’s rights turn women into lesbians �”

REALLY!!! I didn’t know there was a recipe!!! Cool, I’ll let ya know if it works!!

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #144560

I have to agree with most of the posts here - this was an extremely weak premise for a post. Maybe if there was something to actually discuss, it’d be OK - but this seems only to lob insults at environmentalists and liberals… not sure what you expected people to post here…. ???

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #144566
Seriously, the more you think about it - the more you ponder what we as humans do to every other living thing within our vicinity… how can you suggest any other course of action other than removing ourselves to solve the problem.

Hmmmm… Has someone watched THE MATRIX one to many times?

Agent Smith: I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

Posted by: Phil at May 1, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #144569

Phil -

(it was a joke) Notice how my last word is not finished - suggesting that I just shot myself. I was being overtly sarcastic… had no idea what else would fit the premise of this post.

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #144577

I guess we can now quote Hitler as the pentultimate right wing example of free market thinking. Thanks, Eric.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at May 1, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #144580

Phil-
It’s ironic hearing those words from Agent Smith, given the fact that he becomes an endlessly multiplying virus himself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #144583

Phil,

What you describe is less like a virus and more like a weed.

Posted by: Dave at May 1, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #144585

What gives Les Knight’s rantings currency is the half truth his comments are built on. It is factual enough to say that where millions of humans congregate, nearly all other life diminishes. Americans have an awareness of this fact, causing Congress to establish national parks, land for public management, and places like the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Glacier National Park (which soon will have no glaciers left at all).

That was a very balanced and rational approach by America in the 20th century. Regretfully, that approach has been abandoned by the Republicans now in power, as they move to exploit such reserves of America’s natural environs for greed and profit. Republican policies are what cause the Les Knight’s to generate a following in the first place.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 1, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #144589

Couple of facts to drop into this conversation:

1) Scientist believe that had humans remains in the hunter-gatherer mode, the Earth could sustain approx. 400 million people. There are more than 6 billion human beings on Earth. According to the population estimates released by the United Nations, the 6 billion mark was reached on October 12 1999.

Every second five people are born and two people die, a net gain of three people. At this rate, the world population is doubling every 40 years and would be:

12 billion in 40 years,
24 billion in 80 years,
48 billion in 120 years,

2) 80% of all goods (by weight) sold by WalMart is in landfill within 2 months.

——

I would suggest that people who ignore the impact humans have on our inter-related world are far closer to the outcome Les Knight desires that the environmentalist you suggest support his conclusions.

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #144591
You can put all the spent nuclear fuel in the country in my backyard, if I can put all the waste from all of the coal and gas plants in YOUR backyard.

No way…that’s why I moved!! We need to find a way to make “wasteless” energy…or at least waste that doesn’t kill and sicken…

Posted by: Lynne at May 1, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #144597

Lynne,

No way…that’s why I moved!! We need to find a way to make “wasteless” energy…or at least waste that doesn’t kill and sicken…

That would be great! When you find “wasteless” energy that we can harness in enough quantity to meet our needs, let me know. In the meantime, let’s consider using something that’s cleaner than what we’re using now. The cleanest option we have for mass-market energy at the moment is nuclear.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 1, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #144598

How about GeoThermal heating and cooling?

http://www.toolbase.org/techinv/techDetails.aspx?technologyID=130

I just video taped a house with this feature installed… sounds pretty amazing. It’s 100% renewable since it does rely on electricity to run… but it does look promising

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #144610

Rob, nuclear IS NOT CLEAN until you figure out how to safely, cost-effectively, and permanently deal with nuclear waste byproducts. Stop spreading this myth. Nuclear might be made Clean if solutions for waste are developed and proven. But, until then, nuclear remains one of the most potentially dangerous forms of energy to humans precisely because of its waste and our as yet, lack of a cost effective and safe way to deal with it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 1, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #144611

Nuclear waste has a 1/2 life of 50,000 years.

Anyone have a good guess as to whether anything we could make containers out of might last anywhere near this long?

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #144616

Aldous,

Don’t be too hard on Eric, guys. There’s not much left he can criticize without making the GOP even more incompetent looking.

So now the Liberals favor extinction… whoppee!!! A winnung case for Conservatives!!!

I find this interesting Aldous. This is the stark reality of many environmentalist positions on this issue. What’s more, what Les Knight is proposing is voluntary, unlike the proposed solutions of others previously mentioned…

When Prof. Pianka plainly stated the same arguments you seemed to agree. And indeed defended the Prof. of Global Death.

Kinda sad that this is the best the Red Column can come up with. A theoretical discussion of a theory by a reputed scientist from a major University of a minor State. You don’t even bother to counter his arguments scientifically. Its like Climate Change… close your eyes and tap your shoes while saying “There’s no place like home.”.

Sheesh!!!

But just what were Prof. Pianka’s arguments? They are the same as Jes Knights!

Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.

Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness rather than fear.

“This is really an exciting time,” he said Friday amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared, “Death. This is what awaits us all. Death.” Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese Curse, “May you live in interesting times,” he wore, surprisingly, a smile.

So what’s at the heart of Pianka’s claim?

6.5 billion humans is too many.

In his estimation, “We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable,” all the while leaving the planet parched.

The solution?

A 90 percent reduction.

I’m concerned. What’s the difference, Aldous? And do you disagree?

Posted by: esimonson at May 1, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #144619

Whereas, the Conservative Solution to Life On Planet Earth is to kill all of the Caribou / Dolphins / Redwoods / Spotted Owls / Whales / Wolves / Tree Frogs / Etc.

We have to get THEM before they get US!

I think I just saw a Coyote sniffin’ around my Beef-Fed Beef! I better get my shootin’-iron! Yee-haw! Kill that Redwood: it’s a-blockin’ my view of the Oil Rigs! Yee-haw!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 1, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #144624

“Nuclear waste has a 1/2 life of 50,000 years.

Anyone have a good guess as to whether anything we could make containers out of might last anywhere near this long? “

Uh…Tupperware?

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 1, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #144629

tony,

“Nuclear waste has a 1/2 life of 50,000 years.

Anyone have a good guess as to whether anything we could make containers out of might last anywhere near this long?”

Twinkies?

Posted by: Rocky at May 1, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #144636

Sorry about the echo, folks. It didn’t show up that way when I previewed it - I don’t think…

Duano: What is an “AWM of the left?!?!”?

Jack said:

One throw away commment you made show a problem. You mentioned that the environment would be better w/O people. That is just false, or maybe a statement of religion.

In fact, the environment has no plan. People in it or not in it is irrelevant. Do you really think that in the billions of years of earth history, humans are the biggest disruption? Nature is all about disruption in any case. There is no steady state.

I have no idea whether the environment has a plan. It does however seem to be talking to us loudly and clearly - hurricanes, mudslides, fires, temperature changes, earthquakes and tsunamis all seem to be shouting STOP! (all in just over a year…)

As for whether the environment would be better without us - I wouldn’t honestly know. And I sincerely doubt you know either. Yes, it would appear that many disruptive changes have occurred in the past, but since humans weren’t around then, whose to say what has been more disruptive - ice ages or human ages?

In other words Jack, it follows the old philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?”

Besides, I certainly will not be the first in line to find out. I rather like my life.

Posted by: Linda H. at May 1, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #144642

or does a bear shi# in the woods?

Posted by: FA STEPHENS at May 1, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #144647

“or does a bear shi# in the woods?”

It’s more fun if you mix them up!

Is a bear Catholic?

Does the Pope shi# in the woods?

Posted by: tony at May 1, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #144652

Eric,

It appears that these things are taken a bit out of context as these statements are not part of any set agenda of any kind. In other words—people shootin’ the sh*t and this stuff probably will not be part of any reallistic agenda or platform—so dance around, get sand out of vagina. People kid, Eric and these appear to be such off the cuff statements.

If you take them seriously that would be hyper-reactive.The Right Wing in America has Klansmen and other racist and racist religious groups within its constituency—HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ANY DEM CLAIM THAT ALL REPUBLICANS ARE KLANSMEN? Ofcourse not.

My point: The “D” column on this site ishighly unlikely to convert so it’s okay to move more intellectually highbrow as opposed to broad brushstroke and demonization. You can’t honestly think that someone on the left is going to read your article and have a rightwing epiphany at your grandiose accusations and behest.

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVERT ERIC? That’s the obvious gorilla.

Posted by: Novenge at May 1, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #144666

Novenge,

In case you have not recognized it…No one has convinced or converted anyone of anything here or on the other side…

Posted by: cliff at May 1, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #144688

I don’t know about conversion, but I’ve seen people (including myself) shift based on good arguments. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a good argument in this column for a while.

How about GeoThermal heating and cooling?

Heh. I used to live in Pennsylvania on top of a mine fire that’d been burning for years… But I guess that’s not a clean solution, is it. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #144698

Eric-
Your argument is “this is the ultimate end to which your view leads” or something tot that effect. What you fail to realize is that people like me moderate our opinions, instead of letting them run away with themselves like some more radical fanatics do. I keep myself grounded, so I don’t feel like I’m floating in na-na land like this fellow does.

Because I do not identify with his views, and consider them far too radical, your criticism of them has little bit as far as my views go. It’s like walking into a U.S. Army Camp and helpfully reminding them that not fighting the insurgents is a bad thing. The only thing that is annoying to me here is that you think so damn little of our intelligence, our proximity to the mainstream, and our moral fiber that you actually think that this is normal liberal ideology.

People like that don’t scare me. I pity them. I pity the person who doesn’t see that our traits as human beings are the product of natural forces, that in fact all we do relates to them. Because of that, two conclusions must be drawn. First, because we are integrated parts of nature, all that we do has an impact. It can be a sustainable, healthy impact, or it can be pathological, destructive (to self and environment) impact. Second, because we are of the natural world, there is no crime in existing. We are not nature’s rejects, we are not aberrations in its order.

In fact, if you read Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart’s Figments of Reality, their argument is that we and our intelligence are the inevitable result of a trend in ever-increasing complexity within evolution.

So what does that mean? We got to play it smart. You Republicans are too damn complacent about these issues. If you don’t watch out, you will make Pianka’s day by granting his wish. We can find new ways to make the system work better, to use our biological privilege of intelligence to our advantage, or we can push the system to the point of collapse, after which it will all become a blood sorry mess.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #144717

cliff, you couldn’t be more wrong. Check out the Third Party/Independents column comments. Almost everyone there was once a Democrat or Republican and changed their mind due to others arguments along the way.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 2, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #144733

And folks want to legalize the stuff Les Knight has been smoking. This guy is so full of shit the Christmas goose aint got nothing on him.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 2, 2006 2:32 AM
Comment #144742

Ron, didn’t your momma tell you not to stuff the bird with that? Bread Crumbs,Ron,bread crumbs.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at May 2, 2006 4:33 AM
Comment #144774

David R. Remer,

Rob, nuclear IS NOT CLEAN until you figure out how to safely, cost-effectively, and permanently deal with nuclear waste byproducts. Stop spreading this myth.

It’s not a myth, David. The “myth” is that fossil fuels are safe. Can you honestly tell me that we have a method to “safely, cost-effectively, and permanently deal with” the waste from THOSE energy sources? Do you really think that auto emissions are “clean” and “safe”? Do you really think that coal plants and oil refineries are “clean” and “safe”?

Nuclear might be made Clean if solutions for waste are developed and proven. But, until then, nuclear remains one of the most potentially dangerous forms of energy to humans precisely because of its waste and our as yet, lack of a cost effective and safe way to deal with it.

Yes, Nuclear energy is “potentially dangerous”. But Coal and Gas are ACTUALLY dangerous! People have been getting killed by waste from these energy sources since before electricity was discovered. Have you ever heard about what the skies of London looked like when everyone was using coal to heat their homes? And if you think we’ve solved those problems, look at the skies of L.A. today.

Meanwhile (as one person on this ‘blog once put it), more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than in the U.S. civilian nuclear program.

You can’t just look at nuclear energy in a vacuum — you have to compare it to the alternatives. You know that, David.

So what are you recommending as a safer, cleaner, more cost-effective alternative to nuclear energy?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 2, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #144816

See, this guy has it all wrong.

The real way to take care of the environmental impact of humanity is universal mandatory abortion.

There are those of you who will say this is immoral, but whats really wrong with killing every baby possible, its equal opportunity! We’ll all be equally doomed, and we can finally stop worrying about later generations and just have lots of sex and do drugs, becaues we wont have any legacy any more. Think of the glory!

Posted by: iandanger at May 2, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #144822

Rightwing definitions:

Alternative energy sources - (n.) New locations to drill for gas and oil.
Climate change - (n.) The blessed day when all the evil blue states are swallowed by the oceans.
Energy independence - (n.) Wildlife relocation program.
Healthy forest - (n.) No tree left behind.
Pro-life - (adj.) Valuing human life up until birth.
Water - (n.) Arsenic, lead and mercury storage device.
Woman - (n.) 1. Person who can be trusted to bear a child but can’t be trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have the child. 2. Person who must have all decisions regarding her reproductive functions made by men with whom she wouldn’t want to have sex in the first place.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 2, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #144825

Adrienne,

Thanks for the afternoon humor. Any more defn’s?

Posted by: Dave at May 2, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #144840

Dave:
“Thanks for the afternoon humor.”

You’re very welcome, Dave!
I think a joke of an article automatically deserves a joke for a reply.

“Any more defn’s?”

Plenty, but I intend to save them for future use!

Posted by: Adrienne at May 2, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #144894

Adrienne gave us some:

Rightwing definitions:

Healthy forest - (n.) No tree left behind.

Woman - (n.) 1. Person who can be trusted to bear a child but can’t be trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have the child. 2. Person who must have all decisions regarding her reproductive functions made by men with whom she wouldn’t want to have sex in the first place.

Oh God that’s good!
So funny - and so True…


Here are a few more:

Secular Humanist: (n.) A Conservative under indictment.

Nookewlur: (adj.) Relating to the Nookewlis of an Atom; of or relating to Atomic Nookewlie.

Global Warming: (n.) A good way to offset the upcoming Nookewlur Winter.

Uranium: (n.) A rare metal useful for replacing Lead, Steel, and Coal.

Nigerian Yellow-Cake Uranium: (n.) A nonexistent metal ore useful for replacing Truth.

Clear Skies: (n.) Skies which have been successfully Cleared of all breathable air.

Wetlands: (n.) Any Golf Course Water Hazard.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 2, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #144900

Freedom of Religion: (n.) The freedom to worship Jesus Christ in the manner of your choosing.

Fiscal Responsibility: (n.) Spending the next generation’s money instead of our own.

Communist: (n.) Anyone who didn’t vote Republican.

Patriot: (n.) Someone who supports the 2nd Amendment while ignoring the rest of the Constitution.

Bipartisan Agreement: (n.) Any bill the Democrats can’t manage to filibuster.

Freedom of Speech: (n.) The right to criticise Democratic politicians.

Intelligence: (n.) Any rumor, confirmed or not, that supports our position.

Faulty Intelligence: (n.) Any rumor, confirmed or not, that opposes our position.

Terrorist: (n.) See Communist.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 2, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #144914

I think it’s so ironic how many folks left of center make fun of this post and say, “that’s not us.” Sure, maybe there is only one or two knuckleheads that actually believe in this nonesense but I don’t see anyone doing anything to stop these “nut” jobs.

I could probably come up with at least 100 groups that fall in line with the Democratic Party but the Democratic faithful would say, “that’s not us.” Well, unfortunately there appears to be a large number of these crazy folks that the Democratic Party doesn’t want to claim but you will sure take those votes when they come around.

It seems the Democratic faithful don’t mind sacrificing their souls (or anything else) for those votes. Oh, that’s right, the Democratic Party are the ones pushing for voting rights for convicted folks serving prison terms.

Posted by: CFT at May 2, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #144917

CFT,

Sure, maybe there is only one or two knuckleheads that actually believe in this nonesense but I don’t see anyone doing anything to stop these “nut” jobs.

What exactly do you want the Left to stop them from doing? Should we stop them from expressing their opinions? Stop them from refusing to breed? What action do you think the Left should be taking against these “nuts”?

And, for the record, I don’t see the Republicans refusing people’s votes either. And, believe me, they have their share of nut-jobs, too.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 2, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #144927

I agree Eric and his ilk should not procreate. That would not only cut down the population but it would also clean up the gene pool. I cant believe this crap.

Posted by: JC at May 2, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #144938

All you guys with your conservative definitions really don’t understand what we are saying to you. You have your stereotype and nothing anyone says or does changes it.

It is fun to do, but you have to recognize that it is not really true. Most conservatives think liberals are stupid and naive. Most liberals think conservatives are heartless and mean. Like most stereotypes, there is some truth to them among some people, but generally it is not the case. I know lots of liberals who are not stupid and lots of conservatives who are not heartless.

We all should also look to what people do and not what they say. Some people talk better than they really are and some people are better than they say they are.

The environment is a good example. I know lots of people quietly making the environment better. I also know lots of people loudly talking about doing something. Probably as much as one degree of global warming is caused by the mostly liberal talk about how much they care.

It is has been very interesting to me to watch on this blog the real lack of commitment to the environment on the part of many big talkers. We hear that Bush should do something about energy. What could he do? He could pass laws to encourage alternatives and conservations. How would this work? The price of gas would rise. Yet when the price of gas goes up, they erstwhile environmentalists complain about the high cost.

Linda H

We can dirty up the environment so that it is difficult for us (humans) to live in it, but we cannot destroy the environment. It is just arrogance to think otherwise. I don’t think you disagree with this, so I am not attacking you, just pointing it out.

There is no stability in nature. In the last 10,000 years, the earth has been significantly warmer than it is today and much colder. Were the mile high covering our northern states the “real” environment or was it the tundra, or the grassland or the forest or whatever comes next.

I think anyone feels he is too much a burden to earth should just shuffle off. Anyone who says he wishes he was dead is a liar, since the solution is in his hands. But we should not tolerate such stupidity. Eric is right to point it out.


Posted by: Jack at May 2, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #144952

Jack,

“I think anyone feels he is too much a burden to earth should just shuffle off. Anyone who says he wishes he was dead is a liar, since the solution is in his hands. But we should not tolerate such stupidity. Eric is right to point it out.”

The more ink you give folks like Knight, the more people of his ilk will crawl out of the woodwork to claim some of the attention he has garnered.

There have been crackpots through out time that have said the sky is going to fall. But when questioned on the soundness of their science it all falls apart.
Conversely, there are those like Eric that wouldn’t believe the sky was falling until he was crushed beneath it’s weight.
Somewhere in the middle are the rest of us.

Those that laugh at zero-population growth will point to a picture of earth taken from outer space and claim that there is plenty of room centuries to come.
I would ask those folks, how much of that land you see is arable, and how soon should we begin to mine the fresh water from the glaciers in Greenland and the South pole to plant that land.

Jack, only the most gullible truely belive that we are going to totally destroy all life on this planet.

On the other hand, at the rate we are going, how long before we make it uninhabitable for us to live here?

Posted by: Rocky at May 2, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #144957

Rob Cottrell,

“What exactly do you want the Left to stop them from doing? Should we stop them from expressing their opinions? Stop them from refusing to breed? What action do you think the Left should be taking against these “nuts”?”

First thing everyone can do is speak out against these folks. Those on the Left spend so much time attacking those on the right, you don’t spend any time cleaning up your own. And I’m not saying we don’t have “nut” jobs on the right, but I have no problem speaking out against them too. At the same time, I don’t have a problem with saying I disagree with some of the policies the Republican party is pushing or the policies of our President.

Too often I see folks following lock-step with specific candidates because of their race or because their Democrat. Case in point is the Mayor race in New Orleans. How can a city re-elect a Mayor who was as much as a disaster as the hurricane itself. A man who thinks it’s okay to say he wants a “Chocolate City.” But did I see any notable Democrats disagree or speak out against that comment, no I did not. The Democrats downplay the comments and make it look like it’s okay to be racist. But if a Republican had the same thing but in reverse (a “Vanilla City”), that candidate would not have survived the election because of the outrage from the media and the public. Total double standard.

Posted by: CFT at May 2, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #144958

CFT,

“But if a Republican had the same thing but in reverse (a “Vanilla City”), that candidate would not have survived the election because of the outrage from the media and the public. Total double standard.”

Colbert, at the Correspondence Dinner, suggested that Washington DC was also a chocolate city, only with a marshmallow center, and a crust of coruption all around it.

Whew, talk about a metaphor.

Posted by: Rocky at May 2, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #144960

Jack:
“All you guys with your conservative definitions really don’t understand what we are saying to you. You have your stereotype and nothing anyone says or does changes it.”

Oh, well this calls for “The 20 Rules of Conservatives”!

Let’s see here… I believe the above statement is covered by #’s 1., 2., 8., 10., 13. and 15.

1.) Conservatives are good, Liberals are bad.
2.) Conservatives are right, Liberals are wrong.
3.) Conservatives are sane, Liberals are not.
4.) Conservatives know humor. Liberals do not.
5) Conservatives are humble. Liberals are arrogant.
6) Conservatives are interesting. Liberals are boring.
7) Conservatives tell the truth. Liberals can’t handle the truth.
8) Conservatives know all about you. Liberals know nothing of conservatives.
9) Conservatives are the ultimate arbiter of politeness. Liberals are rude.
10) The comments of conservatives are pointed. Liberals are pointless.
11) The sayings of conservatives are full and sufficient. Liberals sayings require details and citations.
12) Conservatives unsubstantiated statements must be accepted as gospel. Liberals must be immediately retracted.
13) Conservatives coin witty nicknames to use on the opposition. Liberals doing so only shows their desperation.
14) Conservatives are defined by their inconsistencies. Liberal inconsistency automatically defeats their arguments.
15) Conservatives are allowed to use dirty tactics with no compunction. Liberals tactics are always out of line.
16) Conservatives are secure in their omniscience. Liberals are merely out to impress.
17) What therefore God hath joined together, let Conservatives put asunder that they may smiteth their Liberal enemies.
18) Unless cornered, conservatives always must have last word.
19) Conservatives may hold grudges forever. Liberals must get over everything immediately.
20) Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

“Most conservatives think liberals are stupid and naive.”

Do tell.

“Most liberals think conservatives are heartless and mean.”

I don’t think most conservatives are either, but I do think Eric’s posts reflect his continual ability to be both. Hence, I will forever make jokes in reply to his articles and posts — if only to counteract what I perceive as a vicious and virulent negativity being directed toward people like myself.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 2, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #144961

Jack Erred:

Most liberals think conservatives are heartless and mean.

Not me!!!


I think they are Evil and/or Ignorant!

:o)


We hear that Bush should do something about energy. What could he do?

Well, for one thing, he could stop defining Golf-Course Water-Hazards asWetlandsin order to make his environmental record look better!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 2, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #144963

And once again we see: Great Minds Think Alike!

(Hello, Adrienne.)

I’m glad you took time off from being Stupid and Naive (you’re just a Gurl, after all) to post that list.

But I don’t believe it’s actually a List that Conservatives would use…

`Too many 3-and-4 syllable words in it.

:oD

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 2, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #144967

poster at 11.39pm. and poster at 11.42 and 11.46 pm. Et tu, Ms. trolls?

Posted by: mb at May 3, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #144972

“Et tu, Ms. trolls?”

Nope. Betty and I are not the same person posting here. I don’t even agree with her all the time. (Sorry Betty, but I’m afraid I could never be as violent as you seem to be.)

Posted by: Adrienne at May 3, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #144973

Simply pathetic posts. You can always rely on those good ole hate messages from the left.

Posted by: CFT at May 3, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #144974

“You can always rely on those good ole hate messages from the left.”

There is #15 again!

Posted by: Adrienne at May 3, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #144981

OR # 19 in the reverse of course.

Posted by: mb at May 3, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #144984

mb,

If you actually have anything to add to the discussion, now would be the time to offer it.

Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #144985

It’s very comforting that these are the types of people who choose not to breed. Natural selection shows us that the WEAK and INFERIOR species tend to go extinct, so it looks like we can count on conservative expansion for the next million years or so ;0>

Posted by: Duano at May 3, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #144993
Simply pathetic posts. You can always rely on those good ole hate messages from the left.

Good one, CFT! To post this under Eric’s article is sheer comedic genius. Who says conservatives have no appreciation of irony, satire or sarcasm. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at May 3, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #145008

Come on liberals, you are applying a double standard when you belittle this post for unnecessary partisanship unless, you recognize the tremendous slant in some blue column articles, Pauls come to mind immediately.

Rob argues that there is nothing democrats could do to discredit or dissassociate these nuts from the party without suppressing their civil liberties. Perhaps so, and if you visit the site, they seem rather clueless and I do not think they represent a threat to anyone, even themselves unless they die of dietary deficiencies from a botched vegan diet. What I do not understand if why libs rose up in arms at this bait.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 3, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #145025

Duano-
The selective pressures of society have judged Democrats to be a rather strong and robust party. Your party still has at least fifty years to go before you can say you’re our equal in terms of survival.

goodkingned-
It isn’t that he’s any more partisan than some of ours. It’s that he’s got this annoying habit of posting these entries whose sole topic is how we support one evil, heartless philosophy or another.

We’ve had to put up with such cockamamie B.S. for years now, and many of us have little patience with such smearing. the liberals are simply standing up for themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 3, 2006 8:09 AM
Comment #145034
We can dirty up the environment so that it is difficult for us (humans) to live in it, but we cannot destroy the environment.

Posted by: Jack at May 2, 2006 10:02 PM

Are you serious? Perhaps you’re just aiming for some soundbite but that comes across as totally inane.

environment

en·vi·ron·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vrn-mnt, -vrn-)
n.
The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings.
The totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or group of organisms, especially:
The combination of external physical conditions that affect and influence the growth, development, and survival of organisms: “We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism” (Paul Brooks).
The complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the nature of an individual or community.
You can’t destroy a “circumstance” or “condition”. You can only change them. If we can’t live in an envirnoment then we’re dead and can’t change it anymore.

So what’s your point?


(Sorry Betty, but I’m afraid I could never be as violent as you seem to be.)
Posted by Adrienne at May 3, 2006 12:16 AM

I used to feel your way, although I still don’t advocate physical violence. But to paraquote Superman the movie (LOL)
“In order to keep the peace, at some time you have to be willing to kick some ass” BTW: Today’s Doonesbury’s flashbacks to ‘71 and ‘91 are astounding.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/flashbacks.html

Posted by: Dave at May 3, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #145047

Eric,

You say in your profile that your hippie parents would have aborted you if they could. Do you think maybe this is a bit of a personal thing for you and you’re just projecting?

Posted by: Max at May 3, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #145075

Stephen,

You seem to indicate that liberals have not been standing up for themselves lately and your sick of the B.S. Well, the liberal movement has been around for a long time and hasn’t had much problem with standing up for themselves. Sometimes it’s been for a good cause and others, well let’s just say they’ve been lost causes.

The point being, the only B.S. I see being thrown around here is by some in this blog. Your not going to win anyone over by pushing your ‘hate policies.’ Those of you that believe in making fun of and hating those you disagree with are so far from being American that it should be criminal. Why do you even bother to continue living this country when you don’t care less about it or its inhabitants.

Frankly, I don’t know what the extreme left’s cause would be if you actually got your ways. If you didn’t have conservatives, I guess you would just turn on yourselves.

Posted by: CFT at May 3, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #145077

CFT,

“Those of you that believe in making fun of and hating those you disagree with are so far from being American that it should be criminal. Why do you even bother to continue living this country when you don’t care less about it or its inhabitants.”

Please, feel free to point out exactly what the liberals hate.
The right continually makes general, sweeping, statements like this and then refuses to be specific.

So, please, make my day.

Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #145079

Rocky,

It’s simple, read the posts in this blog. There are post here that state conservatives are evil, liars, don’t care about women, don’t care about the environment or our planet and I could go on and on.

By the way, I didn’t say all liberals. I said those of you that follow this philosophy. Not all liberals who write on this blog are making those accusations, just some of them. They were the ones I was targeting.

Do you hate it when the Left makes sweeping general statements too or just the Right?

Posted by: CFT at May 3, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #145085

CFT,

“It’s simple, read the posts in this blog. There are post here that state conservatives are evil, liars, don’t care about women, don’t care about the environment or our planet and I could go on and on.”

Let’s face it humans are going to be humans, there is a lot of slinging from both sides.

“Do you hate it when the Left makes sweeping general statements too or just the Right?”

I find the retoric from both sides equally annoying. Though sometimes it can be amusing as well.
The polorization of this country is making America the laughing stock of the world, and does nothing to further our collective goals.

To paraphrase Franklin;

We need to hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #145107

Rocky,

“The polorization of this country is making America the laughing stock of the world, and does nothing to further our collective goals.”

Yes, I could not agree more. This is it, this is where I was going. I cannot stand the slinging and the attacks back and forth. And I’m not saying I never attack myself but I try to control it.

Honest discussion and disagreement is fine, actually it’s wonderful and that is indicative of what our country is about. Our country is not about having the right to sling bombs at each other. Sure, you may have the right but its not the reason we fought and died in past wars.

We are a democracy (or really a republic) and that is what makes us great. We allow for success and failure and we don’t control what everyone does. I’m not an advocate of controlling people.

However, I am an advocate of banning certain actions and behaviors, some obvious and others not so obvious. I am not an adovcate of actions or behaviors that destroy the human race or serve no purpose in bettering the human race. I could go on and on explaining this but not right now.

Posted by: CFT at May 3, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #145124

CFT,

“Our country is not about having the right to sling bombs at each other. Sure, you may have the right but its not the reason we fought and died in past wars.”

Fought and died for asside, we as humans are cheapened because of it.

In order to be a leader of the world we must have the respect of the world.

That said we have to stop listening to the loonies amoung us because it only gives creadence to what they say (do you hear that Eric?).
Just because some wacko from the right OR the left says something, doesn’t make it true, and it certainly doesn’t help to paint everybody, either Democrat or Republican with one huge brush.
General statements are useless because you are just trying to make a whole group of people look bad, and that is just wrong.

The rest of the world IS watching to see how we treat each other.

Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #145127

Dave:

I used to feel your way, although I still don’t advocate physical violence. But to paraquote Superman the movie (LOL) “In order to keep the peace, at some time you have to be willing to kick some ass”

I also firmly believe in the idea of “kicking ass”, Dave. I just think the tool one chooses for that purpose needn’t usually be a weapon. To quote the old maxim: The Pen (or Computer, Paintbrush, Camera, Joke, etc.) is often far mightier than the sword.

CFT,
#’s 9., 10., and once again, 15. ;^)
Lighten up, eh? My replies to Eric are always meant as a sharply pointed joke in response to his obvious blind hatred against all us Liberals. Other conservatives here would do well not to take them as personal insults.

Stephen, good reply.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 3, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #145138
That would be great! When you find “wasteless” energy that we can harness in enough quantity to meet our needs

Solar energy in southern Arizona…

Posted by: Lynne at May 3, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #145143

Dave

Re environment

I am just against the human arrogance that thinks it is in control of such a big thing.

Humans give the environment - this environment we live in - meaning. We have been around maybe a million years. The earth is 4-6 billion years old. In that time, lots of things have changed. For most of that time there was no life at all and most of the species ever to exist are extinct.

What I perceive in some environmentalists is a quasi-religious idea. They talk about nature like a god. You hear them say things like nature chooses or it is nature’s way. Anybody who believes humans should voluntarily go extinct is certainly speaking from this religion, because there is no logical reasoning there. The same goes for anyone who believes that humans can never “improve” on nature. I improved on nature yesterday working on reaforestation and I will improve on nature next week by stabilizing a stream bank with rip-rap. BTW - those rocks will cost $468 and my sons and I will spend the whole day moving them so I figure that is my weekly contribution to nature. Sure enough, in the metaphysical sense we cannot improve (or detract). We can make it better or worse from our point of view, but that’s it.

I think the religious view of nature actually detracts from the practical one. It allows people to take a magisterial view the environment and lets the people who are doing nothing feel good about themselves.

I wrote above re the people who like to talk, but don’t want any of the available solutions. They want conservation and low energy prices, abundant clean energy, but no nukes.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #145153

Adrienne,

Thanks for the response, I need to lighten up. Politics sometimes just get all my juices going!

Posted by: CFT at May 3, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #145219

“We hear that Bush should do something about energy. What could he do?”

That, of course, is the question for the ages.

The fact remains that the technology is out there to get us off oil, we just aren’t taking the necessary steps. Roosevelt built an atomic weapon, Kennedy took the necessary steps to send us to the moon, Regan managed to spend billions on protecting us from enemy missles (despite the fact that that technology didn’t exist at the time and still doesn’t now, probably never will). Why can’t president Bush mobilize a concerted effort to solve what is ostensibly the greatest threat to the American economy and American security?

The answer is that he and Dick Chenney are from oil money and are supported by the oil lobby. They can’t sepparate themselves from their previous careers, even if they don’t have to worry about reelection. All we have to do is have a strong leader, and the solution to our problems will be forthcomming, but instead, we have “The Decider,” who can’t keep a stable possition on anything. “Addicted to oil” is being used to build more refineries and drill in ANWR, but it isnt actually deminishing our usage of oil, which is the ONLY way to address the problem.

There is a lot the president can do, and part of the problem is all the partisanship, but he is not innocent in the area of partisan bickering either. I’m personally tired of well to do ner do wells taking our money and misspending it, failing to do what they promise, then blaming the other losers for their own incompetence. If your average business owner ran his company the way our government runs, theyd be out of business in a month. These people are not our best and brightest, and they don’t truly care about doing good, or so few of them do anymore that they can’t even address the big issues. This problem is systemic in both parties and its sickening, and without a change of power and leadership, it will be business as usual, straight into the ground, straight into unfathomable debts, and straight to an economic mess worse than today’s russia.

Posted by: iandanger at May 3, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #145230

lm or mb or bm or whateveryouwanttocallyourself:

poster at 11.39pm. and poster at 11.42 and 11.46 pm. Et tu, Ms. trolls?

Hey, Genius: what did you think the “Great Minds Think Alike” comment was about? I posted, and was surprised (and pleased) to see Adrienne’s where it hadn’t been before, and containing a reaction to the Same Quote by Jack. So I commented on it. I might have said: “breadandbutter!” But thanks anyway: your interpretation serves as yet another example that supports my point about the dimmest bulbs being the Red Ones…


Adrienne: I’m not really all that Violent; I just believe that, if all of our Elections are going to be Rigged, as they were in 2000 and in 2004, then we can only use the Tools and Initiatives suggested by the Founders:

Governments, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. … When a long train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government.

That was written by Thomas Jefferson, who - for years after the United States was formed and operating as a Sovereign Nation - continued to write that he believed Bloody Revolution would likely be necessary to keep one Person or Party from seizing control of the Government and keeping it through unfair practises or Oppression.

Given the events of 2000 and 2004, and the nature of the ongoing destruction of Civil Rights and Liberties by BushCo., I would say that Jefferson was - as usual - absolutely correct: “The Tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants; it is its Natural Manure.”

Tell me, sister: what will be your position on “violence” be if the elections of 2006 and/or 2008 are Rigged as well? I am eager to hear how you would react - hypothetically, of course…

;o)


Wikipedia Dave: Yes, it’s true: when some Americans are pushed to their limits - by a long train of Abuses and Usurpations - they will stand up and Fight for Liberty! (Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Edward R. Murrow, Etc.)

Others prefer the Larry King method:

Larry King: Well, callers, tonight we have with us Mr. Adolph Hitler, Fuhrer of Germany. Mr. Hitler - oh, I guess I should call you “Herr Hitler,” is that right? Which do you prefer -

Adolph Hitler: It doesn’t matter Larry: I don’t care…

Larry King: Okay then, Mr. Hitler, let me begin by asking you this: that whole Swastika thing - where did you get that?

Adolph Hitler: Well, Larry, I’m glad you asked: it’s an ancient symbol of our strong Aryan culture; it was adapted from an Indian symbol, at the recommendation of the Thule Society…

Larry King: And what about the whole thing with the Jews? And the Ovens… Don’t you think you’d have - that your Message would have - resonated better, with the people of the world, if it weren’t for that whole “Final Solution” thing?

Adolph Hitler: Well, Larry…

:o|

Personally, I’ve never really liked Appeasers: they are in many senses worse company than the Fascists they enable.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 3, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #145238

Iandanger

All the solutions will mean higher prices and/or less availability. We use oil today because it is the cheapest and most easily available fuel we currently have. You can use any alternative you want right now. Why don’t you use more solar? Because it costs more. Why don’t you use more wind power? Because it costs more and is unreliable. Why don’t you use more nuclear? Because fear mongers have convinced you that it is dangerous. Why don’t you use more coal? Because it is dirty.

We have the mix of energy that is currently the most logical. If you want to change tht the solution to our problem is higher prices for oil. The “reward” for conservation and alternative fuels is included in the price and when the price rises, so does the reward.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #145245

Jack,

a - Humans give the environment nothing. We live in it and need to take care of it, like our own homes. But as you said, the universe (and earth) has existed for billions of years before us and will exist fro billions after. I don’t see where we “give it meaning”

b - You moved from calling environmentalists “quasi-religious” then dropped the “quasi” Loving the environment and “mother earth” does not seem to meet the definition of re·li·gion

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
That said, I do respect your local actions.

Sorry to sound like a lecturer but you need to stop bunching fringe elements with mainstream thought and lose a propensity for the rhetorical phraseology we all fall into.

Posted by: Dave at May 3, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #145250

And what I am talking about is a Manhattan Project, Jack. I’m talking about a massive change. I’m talking about being willing to make sacrifices for a long term good. We need to stop using oil altogether, because we cannot relly on the stability of oil prices. I’m talking about recycling all the waste vegetable oil we currently throw away into biodiesel, I’m talking about taking yard waste and making it into Ethanol. I’m talking about making hemp legal to grow, because it is an AMAZINGLY efficient source of the compounds which can be made into Ethanol and Biodiesel. I’m talking about forcing automakers to make ALL their vehicles capable of running on alternative fuels. I’m talking about maglev and bullet train systems, which are much more energy efficient for transporting goods transnationally. I’m talking about more metros and other efficient public transportation.

I’m talking about incremental changes in the short term, with a revolution in the making. Yes, it will cost us in the short term, but a major supply crisis with gasoline will ruin our economy. Jetblue is already posting losses due to fuel costs. When does it start hitting the shipping industry? At what point does making things in China and shipping them here become cost prohibitive. How high can oil get before we do something about it?

The time for action is now, because if we don’t have something prepared, the next oil shortage could irreparably damage our economy. Car manufacturers should be producing ALL vehicles capable of running on either biodiesel or ethanol (technically all diesel engines can run on biodiesel, but there should be more American cars capable of using these fuels). This would give consumers the option of choosing the cheaper fuel, whichever it would be at the time, but would simultaneously prepare our infrastructure for the gradual phasing out of oil, which will happen as production starts to go down and demand from India and China goes up.

This has to be done, or the future is nothing but uncertainty.

Posted by: iandanger at May 3, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #145252

Dave

I am not talking metaphysical meaning. We give the environment the meaning we put into it. We cannot look at the situation with anything but our narrow point of view.

The fringe groups, such as the guy Eric is talking about and the Earth First and ELF people I have seen have an illogical and mystical view of the environment and their part in it. I don’t know if you can call it religious, but it is certainly messianic and not reasonable. The idea that humans are separate from nature, in either the positive or negative sense, is just silly.

I think we agree that the ELF and the voluntary extinction people are weirdoes. I suspect the difference between us is that you have some respect for their goals. I believe their goals will cause us trouble as people and will actually lead to a poorer environment. If we separate people from nature, sooner or later people will do something really dumb. The person who owns a forest, walks a forest and uses a forest will probably learn to take care of it. The person who merely claims a passion for it will eventually wreck it.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #145310

iandanger’s Manhattan Project suggestion is spot on.

The Manhattan Project itself achieved, in only a few years, what both Germany and Japan failed to do.

The Apollo Project is another example of the same paradigm: if Government puts enough Resources behind a project, it will be accomplished.

And where those Resources should be allocated is as follows:

Public Education: with the European Model as a standard, we should make this a National Priority. (Of course, since the more Well Informed a person is the more likely they are to become a Liberal; this is anathema to Conservatives, who have spent the past 30-40 years trying to do away with Public Education altogether.)

National Healthcare: if a Government does not serve the Needs of the Governed, then what reason should it have for existing? And obviously, the Needs of the People include affordable Healthcare - for every American citizen.

Fusion Power: of these three things, this is the most easily attainable. Had proper funding been allocated to Fusion R/D twenty years ago, we would have clean, cheap, safe Power now - which, naturally, is why it wasn’t done. The vested interests of Corporate America (Enron, Big Oil, Big Coal, Dynegy, Reliant, etc.) don’t want to either be put out of business or have to re-tool. So they take the Short-Sighted (Conservative) tack and doom the world to Price-Gouging, Price-Fixing, Pollution, and Corporate Welfare.

Certainly, there are others. But these three alone would make such a change in the Quality Of Life - in this nation, and in the World - that it beggars the imagination to think upon it.

Of course, first, we must do away with the Roadblocks to Progress…

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #145342

Betty

Lived in Europe long? There is no European standard of education. The Fins are good at it, so are the Dutch. The Germans will probably need to reform their whole system soon. The interesting thing about some of the successful Euro systems is that they have a greater degree of choice than we allow in America. If you want to learn the lessons, make sure you take the right ones home.

Fusion power. Good if you can get it. Your confidnence in the government’s ability to do such things is touching. It is almost like something we might expect in 1962, before our experience with the Great Society and related programs.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #145357

Jack,

I see the root of the disconnect.
You say we give the environment a meaning. I say the environment has a meaning to us but we mean nothing to the environment other than being an element of it. It just “is”.

As for Earth First and ELF and the vhem nihilists, I don’t know enough about them for a detailed assesment. Beyond that, I reinforce the 3 R’s to my kids, live reasonably green (other than an excessive commute) and am confident that BushCo will always put their donors and money before the environment.

Posted by: Dave at May 4, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #145528

Dave

I don’t think we really disagree re the environment. We both evidently accept that humans are a too insignificant part of the environment to add or detract in the long run.

I figure life has the meaning we give it. So does the environment. I am only looking at it from my human point of view, since I can do nothing other.

The metaphysical thing is beyond my pay grade and beyond those of all humans.

RE Bush - this administration has largely carried on a tradition going back 30 years. The only thing that I know much about is the Healthy Forests initiative, which I think is a good move, as do most foresters I know. I would point out that none of us has anything to gain from this. In fact, if they ban logging on National Forests, our trees are worth more. But we like the trees more than the money. I also think the off road diesel rules and regulation of power plant mercury for the first time are big improvements.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #145529

Jack:

I wrote the European Model, not “Standard” or “System.” And yes, depending on what you call “Europe,” I was born there. (Maybe that’s why I appreciate Liberal American Freedoms And Rights so much, whilst you strike me as taking them for granted betimes.)

Anyway, the major difference between the European Model for Education is that, typically, Euro Governments care about providing a good Public Education to their citizens. Unlike the U.S. Model, where we have had Conservative leaders actually calling for doing away with the Department Of Education for nearly 30 Years! Shameful.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #145585

Jack,

I think humans have a tremendous impact on the characteristics of the environment. Both in local terms, such as deforestation and toxic waste, and in global terms, such as climate change. We have a choice to make those changes for the good for our progeny or for a few peoples short term profit. But if by long run you mean thousands of years, then yes, we’re a minor blip. Life will evolve to fill the holes we make.

As for Bush, some day you’ll see the light. The mercury rule was cut back from real standards that should have been implemented. As for the forests, even Adolf got it right with the autobahn. (No, I am not saying Bush is like Hitler. The Nazi’s still have a major lead in the evil, death, and destruction categories)

Posted by: Dave at May 5, 2006 8:42 AM
Post a comment