Useful Fools

We have all read reports of some environmentalists who advocate dramatically reducing human population, even by mass killing. Fortunately, they are the exception.

Far less frequently do we read about the human misery caused by mainstream environmentalism. “Global warming will cause more disease” is what we hear. We don’t hear the more plausible “fighting global warming will cause mass starvation.”

“Naw,” you say. “It won’t happen. We would hear about such tragic possibilities.”

It has already happened. It is happening today.

Millions have died and millions are dying because of environmental madness!

The first environmentalist is often said to be Rachel Carson. Her book,”Silent Spring,” led to the international banning of DDT. While this may have preserved some birds, it also led to the deaths of about 30 million African children! Environmentalists, in that one action, unintentionally killed more people than Adolph Hitler!

How? DDT is the only effective insecticide against the mosquitoes carrying Plasmodium Falciparum, the most deadly strain of malaria. Without this protection, millions of children suffer and many die, even though the amount of DDT needed to save these children is tiny. The quantity used by one large US farm (pre-ban) would suffice for all of Africa for a year.

Why don’t you hear about the petitions signed by thousands of world health officials, petitions asking for DDT production? It isn’t environmentally correct! It is heresy. That news isn’t fit to print!

How about the restrictions on automobile mileage? In the US, the death toll from the CAFE (fuel economy) standards is estimated between 1500 and 3000 per year.

But the worst is yet to come…

The climate alarmists want us to cut way back on our fossil fuel usage.

They would have us cut our energy consumption back to 1910 levels. Since energy is the primary economic “force multiplier,” the impact of such reductions would be catastrophic.

People of the first world would survive, but how about those in the second world, the third world, the fourth world? It’s not an exaggeration to estimate death tolls upwards of 500 million people.

Already people are dying just because of US corn ethanol production. We are burning their food!

And, of course, what of the violence and political strife this would cause? The wars? The terrorism?

——

And yet, we never hear about this side of environmentalism. Scientific American, an magazine long slanted towards the views of the environmental elite, just published an article on “The Ethics of Climate Change.” Not one word about the negative consequences of CO2 emissions reductions. Nothing!

Reading it, or our mainstream media, one would come to believe environmental policy is that rarest of things - a major policy change without negative side effects.

———-

Those who oppose extreme environmental rules are held to be immoral. “You are ruining the world for future generations,” we are told.

Hey… how about those who are already alive? Those who will suffer and even die as a direct result of these policies?

Well… they don’t live here, we don’t see them, so… well…. we haven’t heard of that problem…. what problem?

Morality is not on the side of the environmental extremists.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

George Orwell

“No people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”

Dean Acheson

“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’”

Yes, Iran doesn’t pose the same kind of threat as the USSR. What does this have to do with the strategic decision to talk with them?

Iran is hardly a minor threat. In 1-3 years, it will have deliverable nuclear weapons. It’s rationality is closer to that of Adolph Hitler than the USSR dictators - its leader seeks a nuclear holocaust to bring on the coming of the 12th Imam.

Deterrence is why the USSR did not destroy us. Will deterrence work against lunatics?

Maybe its not that important to Obama if the Iranians, through terrorists, only destroy three or four of our cities, rather than the whole country. They will soon have the ability, and nuclear explosions tend to burn away the fingerprints!

But let’s give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

President Obama, go talk to Iran.

Now, what do you expect to achieve? Do you have some compelling argument or a magic personality that will deflect Ahmadinejad from his stated goals? Can you convince the Iranians not use nuclear threats against their neighbors in that critical part of the world?

President Obama, when Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, backing up its actions with nuclear threats against the world’s oil supplies, will you be able to sweet-talk them out of it?

President Obama, how about the Iranian ballistic missiles that will soon be targeting our cities? You and your political allies want to end our defense against them

With missiles awaiting a button push to wipe out our major cities, will your soothing voice stop the Iranians?

Forgive us, President Obama, for suspecting you are unprepared to defend us from, or even understand the many threats.

Professor Obama, go back to teaching and leave the real world to adults.

Obama is really amazing.

Usually he goes around preaching change and other nebulous feel-good words.

But when he gets on anything substantive, he’s, well, pathetic.

Hew Hewitt raises this latest Obamabloop:

When Kennedy Met With Khrushchev, We Were On The Brink Of Nuclear War.

Err… no, we weren’t. But as a result of that meeting, Khrushchev concluded that Kennedy was weak, and thus embarked on the Cuban Missile Crisis, which almost brought us to nuclear war.

Obama must have learned American history from our public education establishment - since he hasn’t a clue here.

Like usual.

The more we see, the less we see.

It’s gonna be a strange year (or 4).

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK

Wow. This guy wants to be our leader? People are swooning over his brilliance?

Just when his offensive pastor quieted down, Obama is quick to take up the mantle. He is saying “we’ve been sinning and now we must suffer penance!”

How DARE we eat as much as we want? How DARE we drive our SUV’s? How DARE we keep our homes comfortable. What heresy!

The God’s of Political Correctness will smite us if we continue - and Obama will approve!

….

And, of course, how DARE we disappoint other countries?

Like we should care?

….

In just one sentence, Obama reveals himself to be an elite moralist (who is going to impose his “morality” on us), a quasi-religious egomaniac, and one who believes other nations are the best judge of our lifestyle.

Well, nothing is that simple…

But look at America from a foreigner’s perspective, whose only view is through Hollywood’s television and movie productions.

Our government isn’t a Democracy, but a malevolent cabal with no respect for its own people or the rest of the world. We don’t fight wars for principles or defense, we fight them to steal natural resources or just out of meanness or prejudice. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have magical powers and use them to invade privacies, imprison people on the flimsiest excuse, and torture on a whim - the more innocent the “victim”, the more torture.

Our industries exploit people, who only imagine the jobs they voluntarily take are anything better than slavery. Our religious leaders are venal hypocrites, either thieves or child molesters. Our society is rampant with racism and downtrodden poor. People are dying for lack of health care. Our economy is pathetic.

Our protagonists are sexually promiscuous and have broken families.They worry about inconsequential things, are greedy and materialistic, obsessed with the latest fashions and toys. Many kinds of sexual deviance are accepted, even glorified. People with morals are uptight bigots with their own dirty secrets.

Is it any wonder that so many foreigners have such a negative opinion of us?

In the old days of the USSR, their propaganda machines were unable to paint as negative a portrait of America as can today’s Hollywood.

Oh, and by the way, 60% of movie revenue comes from foreign sales. Hollywood has a money incentive to make anti-American movies. They are selling us out, for profit and for their own un-American values.

I often enjoy watching police procedural and other network TV dramas. Tonight’s was NUMBER3S - an innovative show which exposes the viewer to real examples of higher mathematics - in crime fighting..

Unfortunately, Hollywood being composed of so many America-haters and other leftist wingnuts, even this show has been poisoned by their venom.

In today’s episode, the “lesson” was driven home, over and over and over and over again, that the FBI persecutes innocent Muslims in an overzealous pursuit of fictitious terrorists. We are “taught” that all Muslims in America are just ordinary folk, patriotic, etc. And sure enough, the real villain turned out to be a white male Christian posing as a Pakistani Muslim .

Got that… In this world where Islamist terrorists are killing thousands of people every year, once again Hollywood tells us the real terrorists are someone else, and there can’t possibly be Islamist bad guys in America.

Not only that, but this is a *lesson* we ordinary Americans, unlike our intellectual betters in Hollywood, need to be taught, repetitively, because it’s so important the we come to believe as our Hollywood mentors demand. The result is sort of like Soviet “art” - propaganda, not art.

The DNA of Hollywood requires that no politically incorrect outcome ever happen - even in fiction. And in Hollywood, anyone who defends or believes in defending America or its values is wrong, and evil, and this must be shown as a lesson in every piece of entertainment.

I am really glad that I have a digital video recorder. At least by skipping the advertisements, I’m not contributing to the wealth of these low-lifes.

Too many in Hollywood are AINO’s - Americans In Name Only!

Noam Chomsky and other leftist moonbats would like you to believe that corporations are inherently amoral.

On the surface, it seems correct:

The only purpose of a corporation is to make a profit for its owners. Hence, it has no moral direction.

But…

Corporations are owned by and crewed by people. A corporation is only amoral (or immoral) if its people are immoral. Otherwise, the corporation’s actions will be constrained by moral considerations beyond the profit motive.

The those asserting that corporations are inherently amoral are saying all the leaders of corporations are amoral or immoral.

What does that say about the person making the assertion? That they would throw away their own morals for profit?