Exploiting Children in the Name of Climate Change

I have always felt that “the sky is falling” Left has been absolutely shameless in their exploitation of children as they have sought to impose their environmentalist agenda on society, culture and the economy. The scare tactics of the increasingly radical environmentalist movement are blatantly part of the attempted indoctrination of an entire generation.

The goal is to frighten the next generation into following the green flag of revolution without question or debate as the assault on the Industrial Revolution picks up tempo and demands it debut on center stage.

Here are a few examples of exploited youth in the service of the Green movement.

QUICK! Get this kid some prozac!

Upon watching this video advertisement from Greenpeace the first words that sprang to The Beast’s mind were “Wicked creepy”. Why waste ten bucks at the local cineplex to watch the origins of Hannibal Lechter when you can see it here for free?...What shall we call this new environmental youth-thug army this kid hints is coming? The Greenshirts?

Such efforts are creepy to say the least. Mimicking the spirit of fascism past while sounding like the most brainwashed of Mao’s foot soldiers in the Cultural Revolution should persuade only the most gullible and impressionable among us. Perhaps the next generation of 'brownshirts' will be cloaked in green. And while androgynous, brainwashed children may appeal to some, the vast majority of us are caught between viewing the following as something between cute and downright sad.

Takoma Park's Green Young Artists

Sasha Schneer, 6, is an environmentalist. At a Takoma Park event on Saturday, he painted a poster that said "No Cars." Above the phrase, he painted a purple car with a slash through it. "I'm trying to convince people to stop using the products that are polluting," he said.

Like what?

"Cars, lawnmowers, factories," he shot back.


Ah, yes, how blessed we are to watch the rise of a modern day Luddite.

The best response I have seen to this was from Lucianne.com:

Reply 6 - Posted by: raphaela

Great, give him a push-mower and let him mow the lawn. Make him walk a couple of miles to and from school each day. Serve him warm drinks and turn off the a/c in the summer. Let him live like a 3rd worlder for a few years and then go back and talk 'politics' with the squirt. I'm certain that his parents (who no doubt drive a minivan) are oh-so-proud of the little socialist in the making.

Little Miss Apocalypse

Mr. Suzuki's favorite candidate so far is little Gillian. She delivers the message that if she were living on Sussex Drive, she would make some big changes "so that we don't destroy the planet with fossil fuels and carbon dioxide." She castigates SUVs, wants to stop the tar sands, and tells the camera that "Kyoto is not enough." This Littlest Pigovian wants to "institute a carbon tax right away." Gillian is very obviously reading from a cue card.

The video that accompanies this little brainwashing scheme can be viewed here.

The next generation is being taught that the methods used to produce electricity is evil, the internal combustion engine is evil, the gas you put in your car and the oil used to make it are evil, plastic is evil, styrofoam is evil, cutting down trees to manufacture paper or lumber is evil, industry and manufacturing is evil, corporations are evil, flying in an airplane is evil, mowing your yard is evil, and that producing another generation of consumers and polluters is evil. The list goes on and on. And it is not just these few examples that should concern us, but the fact that the same ideological teachings that seem so extreme in the above examples are being parroted in hundreds of television programs, magazines, classrooms and in nearly aspect of popular culture.

At some point you have to ask yourself what is the ultimate goal of such reckless indoctrination. We can’t all go back to squatting in caves by candle light, washing our loincloths in the river or following great herds of bison across the plains as subsistence nomads.

It increasingly appears that the ultimate objective is the hamstringing of Western Civilization. Behind the clamoring for the reversal of the Industrial Revolution there is the effort to enact far greater governmental control over every aspect of your daily life in the name of ‘saving the planet’, and a socialistic economic model that takes from the ‘haves’ to give to the ‘have nots’ in the name of societal equality and environmental necessity. All this overseen, of course, by the limousine liberal elite who are far too important to be impeded in their own lives with the sacrifices they are asking, and increasingly requiring, of the average person. The opportunities, lifestyle and standard of living that will suffer tremendously in the long run will be yours, not theirs.

The Watermelon Warriors may or may not have convinced you that the sky is falling and that a complete overhaul of civilization is in order, but they are brainwashing your children to think that any and every method necessary to ‘save the planet’ is justified.

Posted by David M. Huntwork at December 27, 2007 1:00 AM
Comments
Comment #241523

Wow. Do you feel better now?

Posted by: womanmarine at December 27, 2007 2:08 AM
Comment #241526

This post represents a particularly low and nasty form of the straw man argument. First, we see the education of young children described as brainwashing. That is fine, I suppose, in the sense that anything a child learns could be described as brainwashing. But notice how the content of the imparted information is never addressed on an adult level. Instead, the straw man takes the form of children ages 6 to 11. Their understanding of the imparted information becomes the standard for judging its validity.

From here, David successfully crushes the reasoning of a six year old child. Way to go, David! Props! The argument presented by an 11 year old, such as it is, similarly goes down in flames. But just barely. Let’s keep our fingers crossed, and hope a precocious 13 year old doesn’t appear on the scene! Once people reach that age, and start reasoning independently & abstractly, they can be really, really scary!

Once the six year old straw man is set up and knocked down, here is the conclusions:

The Industrial Revolution is good. Oil is good. Keeping everything just the way it is, is good.

Change is evil. The environmentalist agenda is evil. Alternatives to oil are evil. Perceiving the world as a globe inhabited by human beings is unspeakably evil.

David, if you would like to address the factual evidence behind Global Warming on an adult level, I’d be happy to comment on it or discuss it.

Posted by: phx8 at December 27, 2007 2:47 AM
Comment #241529

Yep, time to open up those re-education camps and help these poor brainwashed “greenies”.

You can use the “snowflakes” as roll models.

Posted by: KansasDem at December 27, 2007 4:33 AM
Comment #241533

phx8
David’s article was about brainwashing, not about global warming. He didn’t ask to debate anyone about global warming, but about what he perceives to be the exploitation of children. Is he wrong? Is it proper to teach children that the stuff of their everyday life is evil? Are cars evil? Are factories evil?
Is water evil? Too little water and you die. Too much water and you die! Water is not evil, it is simply water. And, so it is with cars and factories. Too many of them may be killing us, but too few may kill us, too.
The problem David grapples with in his post is that children are not old enough to reason through the complexities of how many cars, driving how many miles, are too many cars and too many miles. David is worried, I suspect, that by the time the children are old enough to reason through those complexities, they will be unable to see the complexities, having been preconditioned to see only evil cars.
I am kind of with David on this. I think it is proper to teach children to be environmental stewards. I don’t think it is proper to train them to spout slogans.

Posted by: Steve at December 27, 2007 7:05 AM
Comment #241535

David

The results of ignoring the effects of pollution on our planet will in the long run be much worse than teaching a generation that change is needed. Environmental responsibility should be taught at an early age just the same as we teach the importance of good behavior at an early age.

There are fanatics out there that take environmental issues to an extreme. Just the same as there are those in extreme denial who foolishly ignore the facts. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and is a very real issue that will have a great effect on their lives as adults. It is the responsibility of the parents to find the proper balance and explain to their children the nuances of these issues. To teach them to ignore what you believe to be fantasy would be irresponsible. The science is solid and indicates that there are issues to be dealt with. I think we should give our children all the information available and let them do what they will with it as they grow. After all it is their world that will be most affected by action or inaction.

Posted by: RickIL at December 27, 2007 8:27 AM
Comment #241538

David,

At some point you have to ask yourself what is the ultimate goal of such reckless indoctrination.

At some point you have to ask yourself why do you think it’s indoctrination, too.

We can’t all go back to squatting in caves by candle light, washing our loincloths in the river or following great herds of bison across the plains as subsistence nomads.

Of course we can. The fact we don’t want to is another story, though.

Whatever. Like any generation, our will be judged one day by the children of today, when they will take over our world.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 27, 2007 9:38 AM
Comment #241543

David,

So are we to believe that you think everything is just ducky, and anyone that disagrees with your position is a Luddite?


Philippe,

Actually we cannot nomadically follow “great herds of Bison” as there are no “great herds” left. We killed most of them off in the 19th century.

Posted by: Rocky at December 27, 2007 10:41 AM
Comment #241544

Does this mean that it’s okay to brainwash children for other “causes”? If not, why only address climate change? Perhaps because that’s what you disagree with.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 27, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #241547

Clearly, this brainwashing is proof of intelligent design.

Jesus is coming and will be here any minute, right after the mushroom cloud from Iraq Iran Pakistan?

Posted by: googlumpus at December 27, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #241553

Steve,
You write: “David’s article was about brainwashing, not about global warming. He didn’t ask to debate anyone about global warming, but about what he perceives to be the exploitation of children. Is he wrong? Is it proper to teach children that the stuff of their everyday life is evil? Are cars evil?”

Fair enough. But David never really addresses the issue of brainwashing, whether brainwashing differs from education, the rights & limitations of parents & schools during the rearing process, development of a human’s ability to learn, and so on. The issue of child exploitation opens even more questions and concerns.

Personally, I’m not comfortable seeing children used in the public realm for propaganda purposes. But I’m pretty sure David has not intention whatsoever of ruling out the general “exploitation” of children in the public realm for the purposes of propaganda. He only intends to bash one issue, Global Warming, by attacking the reasoning of six year olds. But if he wants to extend his stance to other issues, such as religion or commercial advertising, well, that might be worth pursuing.

Posted by: phx8 at December 27, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #241560

David, witnessing brainwashing of young children for any reason leaves one with a sick feeling and general disgust with those attempting to indoctrinate youngsters into their cause. Its funny you pick upon the environmentalist while saying nothing of those Christian extremist that have been doing this same thing for years. A mention of those on the right that do this same thing in the name of God would have at least given your article some sembalance of credibility. As it is it seems you are just whining about the left and trying to argue politics with a 6 year old child.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #241562

The simple thing to do is anytime you hear a kid with a sophisticated adult argument, just assume his teacher or partent put him up to it.

PC is common in schools. I love history and have taught my kids a lot about it. I have also taught them how to obfiscate in front of a PC teacher. Unfortunatly, we have to beat them at this game and after we cross the river, we can feel free to insult the alligators.

So teach your children well and they will know how to sweet talk the PC clowns until they can take them down.

Don’t worry too much about the kids. Real life is a teacher. That is why they say that if you are not a socialist when you are 20, you have no heart, but if you are still one at 40, you have no brain.

If this brainwashing really worked, we would all be left wing democrats. We aren’t.

Posted by: Jack at December 27, 2007 1:27 PM
Comment #241567

You want brainwashing, start with Falwell and Robertson…

Posted by: Rachel at December 27, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #241570

j2j2, I don’t think you are arguing that since one group does it (Christians)the other group (Environmentalists) should get the chance to do it. I hope you are not. By the way, why Christians and not all relgion? Are other religions less apt to indoctrinate children?

I also think we are comparing Religious teaching, which is mostly value based against a very thin piece of what should be public policy. Religions focus more on teaching children how to participate and behave as a meaninful part of society. Or perhaps I missed “Global Warming, How To Play Your God Hand When Arguing With An Environmentalist”. as a class in college.

I would like to see a indoctrination classes for kids on extreme sports and TV shows like DumbAss. The injuries my wife sees as a nurse from kids that they should try and jump a skate board off a wall while blind folded … that would truly put children ahead.

Posted by: Edge at December 27, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #241575

That’s what is so funny about the liberal responses to this blog, comparing the religion of the right with the environmentalism of the left.

#1 - as though fanatical idealism regarding the environment is productive, and all conservatives just want parking lots, factories, and little ichemans running around.

#2 - environmentalism is the new evangelical religion of the left. Try and have a conversation with a liberal about the mountain of disputing evidence against “MAN-MADE” global warming and you will ALWAYS be hit with the same kind of ridiculous frustration and intolerance an I-believe-button pushing or non-thinking Christian will level on you if you tell them Jesus wasn’t the savior, he was just a good guy.

But the whole point of this post was about shoving global warming down the throats of our kids when they don’t have the capacity (or safety nowadays) to arrive at, and be okay with, their own assertions. They are just transformed by the rhetoric of Al Gorebbels into environmentalist parrots.

Comparing that to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell is ridiculous because Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not (and in Jerry’s case did not) send their cloaked henchmen into my daughters classroom to preach their message whether I liked it or not. The Christian religion is “indoctrinated” with the consent of the parents (99.9% of the time) Environmentalism is indoctrinated “AT ALL COSTS - EVEN THE TRUTH” and parents be damned.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at December 27, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #241576

Edge,”I don’t think you are arguing that since one group does it (Christians)the other group (Environmentalists) should get the chance to do it. “
Edge, No Im saying that neither is good nor acceptable. Nor am I trying to limit this method to just these two groups. I am saying Davids article is attacking one group and using the children as the method to attack the environmentalist. Which I find tacky even if it is a typical conservative approach to indoctrinating me into their cult:).

“I also think we are comparing Religious teaching, which is mostly value based against a very thin piece of what should be public policy. Religions focus more on teaching children how to participate and behave as a meaninful part of society.”
I would agree that for the most part religious teaching is as you say. But notice I didnt say nor try to imply all Christians at all times and all subjects. I was referring to the more extremist far right religious groups that would fall under the dominionists and ultra conservative groups that use religion as their tool to brainwash their followers for political gain and power.

“By the way, why Christians and not all relgion? Are other religions less apt to indoctrinate children?” Because I fecently saw an HBO documentary showing students being subjected to a relgious group indoctrinating them into beleiving the earth is 6k years old etc.. I would beleive that not only other religions but other groups and such do or try to dso the same thing.

Yukon JAke “The Christian religion is “indoctrinated” with the consent of the parents (99.9% of the time)”
Yukon wasnt Hilters Youth indoctrinated with the consent of the parents? Does that make it right?

“Environmentalism is indoctrinated “AT ALL COSTS - EVEN THE TRUTH” and parents be damned.”
Yukon Assuming you beleive this is fact where did you get this from? Do you have examples of cloaked henchmem forcing their way into classrooms and perpetrating these acts or is this just talk radio fodder?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #241591

Rocky,

Actually we cannot nomadically follow “great herds of Bison” as there are no “great herds” left. We killed most of them off in the 19th century.

No way, man footprint on its environment is far too small to have any impact on any species, bison included. Bison disappeared because Indians disappeared, that’s well known!

Wait. Don’t tell me I was conditioned, brainwashed and educated to believe we didn’t killed most of them - both?!?

;-)
:-|
:-\
:-(

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 27, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #241592

Yukon,

But the whole point of this post was about shoving global warming down the throats of our kids when they don’t have the capacity (or safety nowadays) to arrive at, and be okay with, their own assertions. They are just transformed by the rhetoric of Al Gorebbels into environmentalist parrots.

First, if it’s actually the case, that’s means teachers - adults, not children - are more and more environmentalists. By your own saying, adults, not children, have the capacity to arrive at their own assertions.
Teachers are adults. Why can’t they themselves arrive at the assertion that environment is an important issue that needs being teached?

If they can’t, then a) who brainwashed them to condition them toward environmental issue and b) who brainwashed you to think you’re the only ones still able to set your own assertions?

Second, I believe whatever will happen everybody will eventually swallow global warming “down the throat”, indeed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 27, 2007 8:05 PM
Comment #241593

Jack,

The simple thing to do is anytime you hear a kid with a sophisticated adult argument, just assume his teacher or partent put him up to it.

[…]

So teach your children well and they will know how to sweet talk the PC clowns until they can take them down.

Sorry, I will assume you put him up to it.
;-)

Don’t worry too much about the kids. Real life is a teacher. That is why they say that if you are not a socialist when you are 20, you have no heart, but if you are still one at 40, you have no brain.

If this brainwashing really worked, we would all be left wing democrats. We aren’t.

Nice. I just learn I’m brainwash-proof.
I guess I’m not alone in such case, which explain why not all us are right wing republicans…

:-p

(Sorry, can’t resist).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 27, 2007 8:14 PM
Comment #241595

Yeah.Next thing you know they will be making all the kids stand up every morning and take a pledge of alliegence.

Posted by: BillS at December 27, 2007 8:39 PM
Comment #241599

“I also think we are comparing Religious teaching, which is mostly value based against a very thin piece of what should be public policy.”

Interesting:

Just last year I had a 7th grade student tell me “I didn’t care what the evidence is (for continental drift). I dont believe it.”
I bet he didn’t come up with that on his own.

I have this crazy idea. How about we teach children how the scientific method works and we let them come to their own conclusions?

Oh wait, they might find out creationism is a load of crap.

Yukon Jake:

Care to share this mountain of evidence against man made global warming??

Posted by: 037 at December 27, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #241600

Jack

Don’t worry too much about the kids. Real life is a teacher. That is why they say that if you are not a socialist when you are 20, you have no heart, but if you are still one at 40, you have no brain.

I guess this all depends on which side you look at the issue from. From my side it reads ” if you are still one at 40 you have a conscience”

Posted by: RickIL at December 27, 2007 9:31 PM
Comment #241604

j2t2

Thanks for the response and clarification. I did not want to put words in your mouth (I tried a bit ;) ) But I agree with your response.

Would you be willing to argue that the educational system is more left in its agenda? Would you be willing to argue that educators are over emphsizing religion in school to the point of eliminating it? Religion has, and does, play a huge role in the world.

037, my 11 year, fifth grade son came home last year and sat me down to tell me watching Bill O’Reily was stupid and that I should make more of an effort to watch other programs. How is it he has developed that and other similar statements? His teachers.

Posted by: Edge at December 27, 2007 10:17 PM
Comment #241605

Edge:

Bill O’Reily is stupid. You should make more of an effort to watch other programs.

I submit that the role of a teacher is to teach a child how to think, not what to think.

Jerry Springer sucks too.

Posted by: 037 at December 27, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #241608

Edge, you asked
“Would you be willing to argue that educators are over emphsizing religion in school to the point of eliminating it? Religion has, and does, play a huge role in the world.

You know what plays a bigger role than religion?? SEX. What should we teach about that?

Posted by: 037 at December 27, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #241609

Edge I would be willing to discuss why all the links in this lopsided article show events yet nowhere can I find public school involvement. So far its been the righties throwing public school into the discussion without any merit as far as I can tell. So lets start with where is the public school link here that I appear to be missing.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 27, 2007 10:57 PM
Comment #241612

037, yup we should teach about sex. We should teach about extreme games (skate boarding, bmx bikes, etc) too. Drugs is also important … these seem to be where I children are far more prone to pregnancy, injury, and problems than with religion. Why not take a priority approach, what kills our kids the most and teach based on that list? Religion will most certainly drop off the list.

I recall talking with my fellow parents recently … “That kid is too religious!” … actually most conversations revolve around … “That kid has more raspberries on his arms from skate boarding, it is a wonder he does not kill himself”

But to your point, I’d teach sex education well before religion. But you and I both know that an education should encompass what will make a child effective in today’s world. Understanding religious history should be a part of that. In that way a child can have the chance to appreciate or reject religion in the same way they can any other subject. And with rejection comes additional lessons.

Posted by: Edge at December 28, 2007 12:27 AM
Comment #241613

j2t2

I’ll have to punt. Why?

I am first pointing to a university level issue I believe exists. To many liberals in the higher education system. I think former liberal David Horowitz (The Professors) book makes a good case for how liberal higher education is.

To your point, my exprience first hand with both my children in the Chicago school system is my slant. As I pointed out above, I have to listen to “Bill O’Reilly is bad” on a regular basis. Tonight my 11 year old son and I were watching CNN and making dinner, they talked about Pakistan. My son responded with “we should never have invaded Iraq”. So at 11 his is already resolved that Iraq and Pakistan are linked?

I will try and post a reputable arguement per your fair comment.

My personal experience is still pretty wild. I’m not looking for a fight on politics, yet my 11 year old and 16 year old come home and pick fights with me. Now who might be driving that?

Posted by: Edge at December 28, 2007 12:37 AM
Comment #241614

Edge,
On the College level are professors forced to have liberal leanings as a requirement to teach? If not why are more educated conservatives not competing for the open professor positions? Seems to me that they have every opportunity to do so yet they would rather complain about ” liberals” than to take action. Is it because conservatives choose more lucrative fields and teaching is below them?

You do know your son is right about the Oreily thing dont you?

“My son responded with “we should never have invaded Iraq”. So at 11 his is already resolved that Iraq and Pakistan are linked?” Sounds like public school is doing a good job of educating kids today. You may disagree with his opinion but at least he knows the issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #241621

Edge,

As I pointed out above, I have to listen to “Bill O’Reilly is bad” on a regular basis.

Are you watching O’Reilly show on a regular basis?
May the two can be connected?

My son responded with “we should never have invaded Iraq”. So at 11 his is already resolved that Iraq and Pakistan are linked?

You should be proud of him!

My personal experience is still pretty wild. I’m not looking for a fight on politics, yet my 11 year old and 16 year old come home and pick fights with me. Now who might be driving that?

Oh these teens, always opposing their parents!
;-)

On a more serious point, I rejoin j2t2 argument: nobody forbid conservatives people to become teachers themselves, so why are they less present in the education system and why do they whine instead enter teaching career!?
This “lefty” education agenda is BS. It’s just another word for the rights don’t like teaching careers…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 28, 2007 5:23 AM
Comment #241637

Edge: I can’t disagree with that. I have no trouble with the concept of teaching about religion as a social phenomenon.

As far as teachers being liberal. College professors, in my experience, tend to be liberal. Classroom teachers, not nearly so. Personally I have no problem with this because contrary to what conservative will say, liberalism is actually the center, the mainstream. As in “mainstream liberal media”.

When I learned about political classifications, radicals were on the left, liberals were in the center and conservatives were on the right.

Posted by: 037 at December 28, 2007 10:47 AM
Comment #241687

037,
I assume google is not beyond the talents of most posters on this blog, but here are just a tiny percentage of links from extremely reputable sources like the BBC.

One good one

Another good one with a whole list of great sources

Death threats if you disagree, LOL

Phillipe,
NO one deny’s global warming, it’s the “man is all powerful, and controls all things” egoic mentality of the left that believes that everything that happens is a result of man’s doing that is disputed. I live in Alaska and on Thanksgiving my yard was a lake of water. It’s happening, but this hysteria that my truck is causing it is ridiculous.

jt2t,
Yes it is different to indoctrinate your kids in what you believe and indoctrinating OTHER people’s kids in what you believe. You can’t take one maniac (hitler) and say the practice of passing on a values system is bad - that’s preposterous. I guarantee (assuming you are an honest, law abiding citizen) that your parents passed on to you what what “OK” behavior and what was “NOT OK.” The same way I will pass on to my kids, that I believe the ten commandments are the word of god and a beautiful rulebook for life.

(Sorry if that offends you and you compare it to Hitler’s teachings - I just can’t see the comparison.)

As for cloaked henchmen (it’s an expression), I am talking about liberal teachers (that didn’t exist when I was in school - they were just teachers) telling kids not how to think, but how stupid they are if they don’t think like they do (and drink the liberal koolaid.)

I will defer to thousands of reports of parental complaints (findable with a few clicks on Google) about teachers encouraging kids to “explore their sexuality” and talking about how “stupid the president is” (even if I think he is) - as compared to my education, where if teachers weren’t explaining what happened in the past, they were “asking questions” about what we thought was happening right now. I still have absolutely no idea what political affiliation ANY of my teachers had in high school.

Again, getting back to the POINT of the article, teachers shouldn’t be shoving their personal views down my daughter’s throat. I get that many of you don’t understand how that’s wrong because you believe that any adult has the right to tell your child what to think - but I don’t. And with a teaching certificate being the EASIEST thing to carry away from college, I definitely don’t want someone’s fallback plan to end up puking their radical-liberal college professor rhetoric at my kids.

Global warming is not man-made.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at December 28, 2007 9:27 PM
Comment #241688

Yukon,
“Yes it is different to indoctrinate your kids in what you believe and indoctrinating OTHER people’s kids in what you believe. You can’t take one maniac (hitler) and say the practice of passing on a values system is bad - that’s preposterous.”

We must be talking apples and oranges Yukon, To me there is a big difference between passing values to your kids and indoctrinating them into a group that beleives the earth is 6k years old.

“(Sorry if that offends you and you compare it to Hitler’s teachings - I just can’t see the comparison.)”
Again Yukon apples and oranges. I didnt compare anything to anything. What I said was “Yukon wasnt Hilters Youth indoctrinated with the consent of the parents? Does that make it right?” I substituted one group you agreed with one you probably dont agree with to see if one was ok but not the other or if both were not ok.
Teaching your children is one thing Your children being indoctinated by others is another.

“As for cloaked henchmen (it’s an expression), I am talking about liberal teachers (that didn’t exist when I was in school - they were just teachers)”
Well Yukon there is a difference between cloaked henchmen and teachers most days. That may be why its so easy to google all these comments you speak of - gross exageration by Conservatives that are blown out of proportion. If it was the reverse, ie- the teacher saying there is no such thing as sex or the prez is great would that be better? What if it was Hillary?

“teachers shouldn’t be shoving their personal views down my daughter’s throat. ” Oh I get it another gross exageration because you disagree with a statement the teacher made. Perhaps its your anger at the liberals that is the problem, because I kinda doubt that what was said was anything more than a comment about something being discussed in class that has caused you to be so upset that you have to think of it as being shoved down your daughters throat.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 28, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #241712

Yukon
I assumeposters on this blog know the diffence between A mountain of evidence and some evidence. One also assumes that a poster knows the diffence between an article in the news paper and an article in a peer reviewed professional journal.

At any rate I will put the link from the Royal Society of London up against your BBC articles any day.

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229


Then raise you a few Peer reviewed articles as well.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm#Journals

Posted by: 037 at December 29, 2007 9:18 AM
Comment #241716

David, you are absolutely right.

This reminds me a bit of the story of Oliver Twist, where the kids are sent out to collect the goods. The kids develop quite a strong bond to the adults who use them and then leave them in poverty and squalor.

But, it is not just about Global Warming. Look what Pelosi and Reid did to Graeme Frost on the SCHIP issue. Don’t worry David, Republicans were criticized for taking issue with that 12 year old as well. Why do you think they use kids in the first place? Because they can’t be questioned or discredited. Doing so leads to accusations of attacking kids, rather than their ideas and beliefs, just as has happened here on this blog.

Why would a liberal open himself up for debate when he can throw a kid up there and then attack those who criticize his kid. (Very effective political strategy!)

Hopefully, at some point the kids will realize what is going on. Perhaps when they see the private planes and mansions of those forcing them to live in squalor, maybe they will get the hint.
But don’t think this comes only from the Global Warming leadership and public figures like teachers.

If the kids are this bad, I can guarantee you that the parents are far worse. After all, they were taught that dolphins and apes were just as smart as humans way back when they were kids. They grew up with “Smoky” the bear, “Flipper”, and the “Indian who cried by the side of the highway” in commercials.

The environmentalist / Global Warming movement has been around for at least forty years. They were as “extremistly” active in schools then as they are now. We are just now getting the 2nd generation wave. The 3rd will be even worse, until they get so crazy that sane people do not listen to them anymore.

JD

Posted by: JD at December 29, 2007 10:07 AM
Comment #241721

JD says “The environmentalist / Global Warming movement has been around for at least forty years. They were as “extremistly” active in schools then as they are now. We are just now getting the 2nd generation wave. The 3rd will be even worse, until they get so crazy that sane people do not listen to them anymore.”

JD That description fits those extremist evangelicals and dominionist groups that would actually teach children that the earth is 6k years old and other assorted nonsense. The only difference is the third wave is already here with the evangelicals being marginalized as we speak.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 29, 2007 11:31 AM
Comment #241723

So, j2t2, are you saying then that Global Warming is a religion, if that definition equally applies?

Better be careful, liberals might try to ban it from schools!

JD

Posted by: JD at December 29, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #241728

JD Such wishful thinking, If you read what I actually wrote you would see that I said groups. So no Im not trying to imply anything about environmentalist and their religious beliefs. I just dont know enough environmentalist to determine if this continuing accusation by the righties has any merit whatsoever. When I consider the source I have my doubts as I have noticed gross Exxxxxageeeerrrration is the king of all things holy with conservatives.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 29, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #241734


Should the schools teach our children why we took lead out of the gasoline and paint, CFC’s out of the aerosol cans, or why we don’t allow people who opperate tugboats to dump the bilge water in our rivers?

Should we teach them how great it was in the good old days before industry was regulated and the Cuyahoga River only occasionally caught fire.

To the right, the global warming issue must seem like Custers last stand.

Posted by: jlw at December 29, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #241753

jlw,
That sums it up- Custer’s Last Stand- or The Perfect Storm. Global Warming represents everything Republicans do not want to be true.

For the Corporatists, it undermines the oil and fossil fuel industries.

For the Neocons, it gives the US compelling reasons NOT to be involved in the Middle East.

For the Libertarian strain of conservatism, Global Warming by its very nature demands cooperation on a worldwide scale. For them, that represents socialism.

I’m not clear on why the social conservatives, i.e., Christian Fundamentalists, dislike the idea of Global Warming. While science has threatened religious beliefs in the past, I really do not understand why this problem would pose a threat to religious beliefs. My best guess is that the social conservatives tend to follow authority, and in recent years authority in the form of Bush & Cheney & Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity has told them Global Warming is some kind of wacko environmentalist scam. Wh o knows? Maybe it’s some other reason. I really cannot explain it. “Carbon Dioxide” is never mentioned in the Bible.

Posted by: phx8 at December 29, 2007 9:45 PM
Comment #241755

So what? Global warming is real and poses a real threat to our world.

Posted by: Max at December 29, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #241756
I have always felt that “the sky is falling” Left has been absolutely shameless in their exploitation of children as they have sought to impose their environmentalist agenda on society, culture and the economy. The scare tactics of the increasingly radical environmentalist movement are blatantly part of the attempted indoctrination of an entire generation.

The very loaded connotations of these words make them a bit of a paradox.

“Sky is falling”. “Absolutely Shameless.” “Exploiting Children.”. “Impose”. “Scare Tactics”. “Increasingly radical”.

Oh, and of course, “Indoctrination”. You wouldn’t want to miss that hint of fascism.

The next generation is being taught that the methods used to produce electricity is evil, the internal combustion engine is evil, the gas you put in your car and the oil used to make it are evil, plastic is evil, styrofoam is evil, cutting down trees to manufacture paper or lumber is evil, industry and manufacturing is evil, corporations are evil, flying in an airplane is evil, mowing your yard is evil, and that producing another generation of consumers and polluters is evil. The list goes on and on. And it is not just these few examples that should concern us, but the fact that the same ideological teachings that seem so extreme in the above examples are being parroted in hundreds of television programs, magazines, classrooms and in nearly aspect of popular culture.

Yeah, real eco-jihadists, the lot of us. Change your light bulbs! Change to renewable energy! Break our addiction to oil and fossil fuels!

These things we have in life aren’t evil themselves. What’s wrong is screwing up, knowing you’re doing long term harm, yet not doing anything about it, because of fear of short term loss, fear of giving up the status quo.

The cariacture of high dudgeon, complete with standard talk of environmental radicalism, and vilifications of all modern technology does more than many of our stern lectures to expose the degree to which the right is scared of change.

Bush and the Republicans, and their long campaign of disrupting environmental regulation and legislation, has done more to make environmentalist out of people than any Clockwork Orange indoctrination the paranoid folks on the right could dream up.

Once more, the Right Wing is it’s own worst enemy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 29, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #241765

“I’m not clear on why the social conservatives, i.e., Christian Fundamentalists, dislike the idea of Global Warming.”

phx8 The reason might be because if they can cast doubt on global warming then they can cast doubt onther scientific consensus i.e. evolution

Posted by: 037 at December 30, 2007 2:25 AM
Comment #282828

I am in total agreement with Mr. Huntwork. I found this site while doing a search on how to deprogram my 8-year old granddaughter.

Why do conservatives dislike the idea of Global Warming? How about, because it is totally UNPROVEN. Not only is “Global Warming” unproven, but the solutions that are being put forth won’t help. The only thing that Al Gore and his ilk are going to accomplish by pushing this agenda, is to become even more wealthy than they already are at the expense of the lower-income population.

Posted by: v at June 12, 2009 1:36 AM
Post a comment