Useful Fools

Imagine you can hardly breath. There is a monster sitting on your chest. An asthmatic having an attack, you reach for your lifesaving albuterol inhaler.

But it’s not there… an environmentalist has it instead, and won’t give it to you.

You die.

Yep - environmentalists, though the EPA, have banned the generic albuterol inhalers, because they contain CFC’s.

And they don’t even need to do it! In 2010, the patents on non-CFC propellants expire, and generic inhalers will be again be available.

But in 2009, forget it. Asthmatics (or you, through your insurance premiums) will have to pay a lot more for non-generic inhalers.

And, of course, some will choose instead to take the risk.

And die.

That’s modern environmentalism for you - save the planet, but let the people die.

Americans are denounced because our automotive use adds too much CO2 to “global warming”. We are urged to buy smaller (less safe) vehicles, drive less, and invest vast sums in alternative transportation.

Did you know that accidental coal mine fires in China continuously contribute as much CO2 to the atmosphere as all of the cars and light trucks in the US?

US cars emit 333 million tons of CO2 per year (337 in 1999).

Chinese coal mine first contribute about 330 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

One brand of liberal charity involves food - urging us to donate to end hunger in America.

So, with corn ethanol usage causing huge price increases in food, one would think these groups be shouting from the rooftops “Stop Burning Food!”

But…. do we hear such pleas? Have you heard one? I haven’t.

These charities are run by the left, and ethanol is sacred to the left - even if it causes hunger or starvation. Riots among the Mexican poor over the doubling of the cost of corn tortillas are ignored by these self-acclaimed champions of the poor and oppressed.

So what does one major hunger advocacy group, America’s Second Harvest, say about corn ethanol? The only statement on its website says (emphasis added):

“On Monday, October 29, Hormel Foods Corporation and America’s Second Harvest – The Nation’s Food Bank Network issued a news release sharing the results of the Hormel Hunger Study 2007: A National Perspective.

“While the study contains useful information about public perceptions regarding the problem of hunger in America, the release issued to the media states that a certain percentage of the public believes that domestic hunger is worsening due to ethanol use. America’s Second Harvest takes no position on ethanol use, nor do we suggest any linkages between ethanol and hunger. America’s Second Harvest regrets the inclusion of what may be considered as an endorsement of this claim in the news release.

“America’s Second Harvest - The Nation’s Food Bank Network is the largest charitable domestic hunger-relief organization in the United States. Our focus lies with getting food to hungry Americans.”

Got it? No position on burning food, by a group supposedly dedicated to ending hunger.

But this is hardly unusual. The left is constantly in a state of dissonance - between the consequences of its own goals. When confronted with a contradiction between goals, they simply advocate both, and to heck with logic!

Liberalism is truly a cognitive disorder.

Obama is the sleek young candidate this year, and many love him for it.

But he isn’t really that young, he’s just inexperienced. For a man of 46 years, what has he done? Can anyone name very many achievements or significant life experiences?

He never served in the military. He has never run a business. No significant legislation bears his name. He has few personal achievements other than writing a couple of books. In other words, he really hasn’t done much, and he is three years older than John Kennedy or Bill Clinton was. As far as his life experience, He went to elite schools, lives in the Berkeley of Illinois (Hyde Park), and chose to attend a racist and divisive church 30 minutes away from his home.

In this age of extended life spans, should we select someone because they are inexperienced, naive and elitist?

(Thanks to RLN for the observation leading to this post)

The next president will likely set the course of the Supreme Court for decades to come. This is one of the most important, if little mentioned issues of the upcoming election.

There are two opposed theories of constitutional interpretation: Originalism and “The Living Constitution”. Originalism is the idea that we should interpret the constitution as it was intended by the founders and those who amended it. A living constitution means that, as the time changes, our interpretation should change to adapt to present circumstances.

The living constitution sounds like a pretty good idea. But it’s very, very dangerous. The least democratic portion of our tripartite government is the judiciary, led by the Supreme Court. They decide the meaning of the constitution. If they hold to originalism, they can only disagree about the intent of the founders.

But, with a living constitution, the judges are free to read anything they want into it - in the name of the common good. They can choose to insert modern international law into the reading of our constitution (as some non-originalists have already done). They can essentially erase “obsolete” protections in the Bill of Rights, such as the 2nd Amendment’s right to self defense, or the first amendment’s right to free speech. They can extend the reach of the federal government deeper into the lives of its citizens… whatever it takes “for the common good.” This is the road to fascism!

Defenders of the living constitution say that without it, we are stuck with 18th century rules in the twenty-first. But the founders understood this issue, and provided two different means to “modernize” the constitution through amendment. And indeed, the constitution has been modernized that way 27 times.

For example, when slavery became intolerable, the 13th amendment was enacted to abolish it, and the 14th and 15th to enable that abolition to be effective.

So this year, ask yourself: “Would I rather have a government of laws, with representatives who are elected, or a government controlled by 9 judges who rule for life?”

And if you prefer the former, don’t vote for any Democrat - because they prefer to use the 9 judges, though the living constitution, to control us, when democratic methods fail them.

Alan Colmes tonight on Fox:

But of course, Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.

Lefties love this quote. They misattribute it to Jefferson, thereby pretending he was one of them.

After all, a leftie sees himself (herself, itself?) as the little guy against this or that oppressor. The worst oppressor of all is the state - unless it is taxing or regulating according to the lefties rules in which case complaining as called “cold heartedness”.

It’s all so sixties-ish. Yuk.
…

How about a few higher forms of patriotism:

• A volunteer soldier who risks his life in combat for the nation
• A person who stands up for his country in the face of wrong-headed criticism
• Someone who provides employment for thousands of fellow citizens
• A person who lives a life of honor and civility

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).