On This Day, 48 Years Ago...

. . . The One chose to reveal his latest incarnation. He escaped the womb on August 4th, 1961, but His Oneness was made known even before the moment of birth. The exact point where He went from lump of cells to The Hope of Mankind Incarnate is still in dispute, and is an issue best left for theologians. Given The One's stance on reproductive rights, we have to assume He would have been comfortable with the notion that His Earthly Vessel of Birthing might have chosen a different path, and delayed his birth, but He could not afford the delay, so He made sure that His parents were prepared for His coming.

He chose a Kenyan father and Kansan mother so that He may be The One, for The One must be of The Many, and The Many can Worship The One. He chose to be a He, not because He-ness is better than She-ness, but because, unfortunately (as The Primary Opponent proved), the electorate isn't quite ready for She-ness in the House of White. He chose straightness, not because gayness would be a bad thing, but because of the Electorate again, and while The One must contain The Many, some of The Many must be contained only in His Compassion, and not in His orientation or gender.

The One chose a humble existence for His formative years, and He chose to be a traveler at His mother's side, eventually settling on The Island of The Chosen (and the Island of the Birthing, Despite what some naysayers say) to grow into a man. As all spiritual leaders must, He sinned, He struggled, He suffered, so that He may understand all that it means to be One with The Many. But to lead The Many, The One must be the best of us, so no state school would do for his education, Harvard Law beckoned, and The One answered the call.

The One also met The Wife, she would be the perfect balance to his Oneness, she would be the only one to have the audacity to not adore The One, and her lack of adoration makes The One love her all the more. The One had to work in evil law firms after graduation, but His Higher Calling lead him to that most noble of all enterprises, Community Organizing. Once The One solved all the problems faced by the citizens of His small section of Chicago (cursed are the naysayers who claim that problems remain, He gave them perfect love, and they have prospered), He embarked on his true calling, a life in politics.

His rise has been meteoric, and His rise is not at an end. He will reverse the rise of the oceans, and cool the fevered earth, He will heal Mother Gaia herself, and Mother Gaia will bless the earth for its people had the wisdom to follow The One. He understands that our prosperity is dooming Gaia, so he has worked feverishly to reverse decades of American (and yeah, even global) prosperity, and he has succeeded in that reversal beyond even the wildest imaginings of The One (and as you could imagine, the imaginings of such a blessed being could be quite wild).

The One knows that perfection frightens the masses, so The One makes sure to have bad weeks, and even months, he stumbles and mumbles, and hires incompetent cronies, not because he is imperfect, but because these flaws are necessary to prevent His Awesomeness from scaring the populous. He is wise in his compassion, and His willingness to seem so fallible, feeble, and forelorn during his first half year in office is all part of a larger plan to Be the Change That You Believe In.

So on this day, Day One, of Year 48 (the calendar does not yet reflect today as Day One, or this year as Year 48, but give it time, give it time), The One celebrated, and The Many celebrated with Him.

And as the future is not yet written, there are still forces that work against The One, and The Oneness He Will Bring. If our electorate is not wise, and rejects The One for his second term, Mother Gaia will punish the planet, for her wrath is great, but she will single out The United States for the greatest wrath, for they will have deserved it, and she will inflict her worst on The Flyover States, for those shall be the people that thwarted The Great Healing that The One was put on this planet to accomplish.

Do not let this darkness happen, do not fail The One, do not doom the planet, and celebrate The One who shall Unite The Many, for today is His Birthday.



[largely a repost of last year's birthday ode to The One, with a few lines added to reflect events that have passed since then, didn't see that whole destruction of the economy thing coming back in last August, or that the 'birther' nonsense would continue, that's for sure...]

Your Daily Photo (The Future of GM Found Sitting In Front of Rand Corp HQ Edition)

Vehicle found parked in front of Rand Corp's Santa Monica headquarters. It's got the imprimatur of The One (or at least a bumpersticker placed on the 'windshield' suggestive of such), and no doubt the approval of The Goracle, so gaze upon the future of personal conveyance.

The vehicle pictured has the web address of ElectricCustomCars.com on the back, I guess they're the ones who created this thing. It's more interesting than a stock GEM, but probably less useful.

Me, I'll stick with filthy, explosive, carbon-spewing gas powered vehicles for the foreseeable future, unless the Obama Administration gets itchy and forces a quick transition to electrics and the like.

“It’s a bit more exciting than a milk float”

Slogan (as described in this Times of London article) for the EV-0 R prototype electric racing bike to be entered in the upcoming TTXGP, the first zero carbon, clean emission grand prix. Seems like it's a bit early in the life cycle of electric technology to be staging a major motorcycle grand prix with all electric bikes, but fortune favors the bold, I suppose. They're pushing the 'green'-ness of the move, but I think the engineering and performance challenges the change presents are of far more interest and long term benefit. Gaiaism is a fad, but electrifying vehicles of all kinds goes beyond the usual Al Gore nonsense.

The Mission Motors entry looks interesting. They're taking the production electric bike they're developing, and racifying it. Seems like bikes will be easier to electrify than passenger vehicles, and the potential performance benefits of electric propulsion over combustion engines will be staggering as the technology matures. Can't wait till boats start adopting this tech, would be nice to be at a boat launch that doesn't reek of diesel fumes (all the 'zero carbon' crap is just crap, but nearly instantaneous acceleration and no fumes are exciting prospects).

A Modest Proposal on Achieving a Greener More Sustainable Great Britain

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Mr. Porritt is right, there are too many people in the United Kingdom, and the only way to create a sustainable future for the United Kingdom will be to halve the population. There are many possible methods for halving the population, one might be to prohibit all and any medical treatments to persons over the age of 55. That would have two benefits, one it would quickly shrink the number of pensioners, and two, would greatly reduce the costs of the NHS. But, that would only be a partial solution as even without medical care many people over that age might linger on for decades, plus that part of the population are, for the most part, not breeding and creating the next crop of Brits. Another might be duomation a la the old Roman tradition (decimation was a form of military punishment, where 1 in 10 were killed by their cohorts, duo-mation would be slightly more drastic, but given the grave peril our planet is in, a necessary sacrifice), folks chosen at random lot, with even the royal family subject to the whims of a random number generator. But again, even after culling the population down from 60 million to 30 million, people would begin breeding away, and before long the population would grow and grow.

No, those processes might solve the problem in the short run, but they don't offer a long term fix. Here's my modest proposal on both immediately halving the population of Britain in the short term, and at the same time solving the problem of continued population growth in the long term. It's a simple solution, expel all males from the island. Anyone caught with a tallywhacker will be summarily vacated from Albion. Obviously, Northern Ireland poses some problem, given that it shares a border with Ireland, and men knowing that an entire population of women were bereft of male companionship might be tempted to sneak in if only for the sport of it. So possibly sell Northern Ireland to the highest bidder, and leave them to their own devices, then the task of patrolling the waters of Scotland, England and Wales and keeping walking tadpole factories off the shores of pristine virginal Albion would be far easier. With all the men gone from Albion, henceforth renamed Boudica in honor of one of its earliest known warrior queens, your two main problems with sustaining a green and good island would be solved.

As Boudicans adjusted to not having any men in their society, there might be minor upheavals, but the greater good would prevail and within a surprisingly short amount of time, their society would normalize. Men would be allowed to visit, but only if they were to submit to exams to prove that they have had a vasectomy, or were otherwise infertile, and never for more than a month at a time, or for more than two months in a calendar year. The citizens of Boudica would still create families, but instead of the willy nilly and capricious nature of biological reproduction that plagues our planet, Boudicans would instead have the serene and orderly process of matching prospective mothers with just the right sperm donor from special reserves of genetic material culled from only the finest men the globe has to offer. Births would be allowed in numbers just sufficient to account for the anticipated number of deaths that year, and of the women desiring to be parents, and physically capable of breeding, a lottery would be held to pick which women for that year would be allowed to attempt to breed. Special care would be given to only have female babies born, as any male children would have to be evicted from the island before they reach sexual maturity. While the particulars of how to best express sexuality in a nation without opposite sexes would be up to each individual Boudican, there would be certain accommodations made for those women who miss physical intimacies with males of the species. Boudicans would be allowed to go on holiday, just as before, with the one minor change that any pre-menopausal woman wishing to travel would be required to take oral contraceptive while travelling abroad, and be subject to a medical exam upon return, and should they be found full with child, submit to an immediate termination of their previously unapproved pregnancy. For women not interested in travelling (but still wanting for temporary male companionship), special clubs would be set up where male prostitutes, all of whom must have had a vasectomy, as well as use condoms during each sex act, would be made available for use by Boudicans at a nominal fee generously subsidized by the government. These men would only be allowed temporary terms within these 'workhouses', and would be rotated in and out on a regular basis so that clients wouldn't become too attached to any of the workers. In Boudica forming emotional attachments to a member of the opposite sex would soon be seen as a perversion of the grossest and most dangerous kind.

While this future Boudica might sound like the notion of someone writing a bit of Speculative Fiction, it's all well within the reach of modern science, and with the future of the very planet hanging in the balance, these sort of drastic measures will be required by citizens around the globe if we are to forestall the deleterious effects of our modern market economy on the fragile ecosystem Mother Gaia provides. Island nations serve as the perfect laboratories for incubating the sort of social change that would transform our planet and our relationship to it as a species. If not Boudica, then Japan, or even Australia might make excellent testing grounds for the sort of changes required to save this planet. People in the 'first world' are the worst for the planet, something must be done to keep them from living the sort of comfortable and productive lives modern technology provides. Maybe the example Boudica sets, and the success it is sure to have once all the men are removed, might start a wave of changes that will create sustainable systems throughout the globe, but somebody has to be first, and some sort of sacrifice must be made, might as well be the elimination of all the men in a particular society, in the name of Gaia, the most bountiful, it must be done.

Leave My Childhood Alone, You BASTARDS!!!

First, Star Wars was rogered, then Indy was diddled, but this time they've gone too far, they've molested Schoolhouse Rock!.

(at least Spielberg and Lucas had nothing to do with this, but I smell the grubby fingers of a certain former Vice President all over this one)

(and I ain't talkin' 'bout Dick)

(though, the VP I'm talking about is a major league DICK, just his name isn't Richard)

Why Stop with Flat Screen TVs?

So, our California Legislature is proposing tight regulations on the kinds of TVs that can be sold in the state. I doubt this will get through committee. Here's a really dishonest little chart that accompanies the LAT article linked



LCD TVs are more efficient, but this chart makes it seem as if the old school CRTs are better. If they want to compare these four kinds of TVs fairly, then they should compare them on a watt per square inch basis. The real complaint from the regulators and the enviro-scolds isn't that the new TVs are less efficient, instead, it's that they're too big, and too cheap. If it was only a few really rich people buying a 52" Plasma display, then no need for regulation, but when everyone and their mother has more than one LCD TV over the size of 40" in their house, you'll see an uptick in energy consumption even as these sets get more efficient. Manufacturers aren't guilty of making an energy inefficient product, they're guilty of making that product too attractive to too many consumers.

Why just blame TVs, though? Why not limit computer power supplies to 500 watts? It's not like anyone really needs a PC that requires a power supply bigger than 500 watts. If you want to be a good citizen in Ecofornia, then you shouldn't even be thinking about having a computer with an energy hungry multiple graphics card set-up so you can run Crysis. Nobody needs to play Crysis, it's not like it's any fun, anyway. Blow dryers and curling irons suck down an enormous amount of electricity, ban both those products completely, make their use, or even possession illegal. If women don't like the way their hair looks without the use of these environment-raping devices, then get a different more manageable haircut, good citizens shouldn't be given the right to contribute to the destruction of the planet just for personal vanity's sake. All Microwaves should be limited in size and power rating as well, what's the hurry? Take your time, or do something radical and use the stove instead. Electric space heaters? ban them, it's not like it's ever that cold in any part of California (any readers in Truckee at this moment (current temp a balmy 25 degrees F), please ignore that comment). Christmas lights? Ban them, all lighting must be functional only, no decorative lighting of any kind, Gaia won't allow it.

Or we could do something really radical and pass the cost of energy consumption on to the consumers and they can decide for themselves whether or not having a 52" display that sucks down around 300 watts compared to a 40" display that consumes 200 watts. (Got to remember that a 40" TV has only 60% of the area of a 52" set (688 square inches compared to 1163 square inches, so it's unsurprising that the energy consumption is also about 65% of the bigger set).

Also, build more nuclear power plants, we don't need to limit our consumption, we need to expand our clean energy supply. Modern economies thrive on the availability of cheap energy. Nuclear energy is the only proven tech that is scalable, carbon-free, and readily available, just strip away the regulatory hurdles, speed the building process, and let the energy taps flow wide open, and then we can stop worrying about idiocy like whether or not folks use the right kind of light bulbs or watch the 'environmentally correct' sized TVs at home.

Also, since I haven't picked on Times (of London) Los Angeles correspondent, Chris Ayres, in awhile, let me point out some of his thoughts on the same issue,

But what makes monster TVs such a public nuisance? Well, the average LCD screen uses 43 per more electricity than a cathode-ray tube set (a plasma screen uses 300 per cent more) and people tend to leave them on for hours or days at a time - if they ever switch them off at all. A TV used to be something you sat down and watched: now it serves much the same function as wallpaper. All of which puts an enormous strain on California's ageing power grid.

Now much as I abhor the concept of bans, I'll concede that a few Americans have taken the concept of flat-screen TV ownership too far. A few Sundays ago, for example, I went over to my friend Dave's house, and he was watching American football on a screen so large that if the living room walls had failed, the TV would have been able to keep the ceiling propped up. At the same time, Dave was keeping track of two other games via two other (only marginally smaller) displays, while also streaming live data to a couple of laptops positioned strategically on straight-backed chairs at either side of the room. The amount of energy being sucked into Dave's flat could probably have kept the streetlights on in Baghdad for a decade.

First off, power usage from TV use is up because the TVs are bigger, but so what? That's called progress. I don't consider it a tragedy that we have "monster" TVs available at relatively cheap prices. Also, there's no evidence whatsoever that larger sets are more likely to be left on unattended or half watched when compared to older smaller sets. All stats point to less TV viewing now, rather than more, ratings have collapsed across the board for TV programming, and people in their teens and twenties seem to watch TV in historically low numbers. In this DVR/Tivo aided age, I posit that fewer folks 'watch' TV inattentively and as a sort of 'wallpaper'. People only watch the programs they want, when they want, and they skip the ads. Folks don't sit down and watch a solid block of primetime programming any more. Networks can't rely on grabbing a viewer at 8pm and having them not turn the set off until their done listening to that night's Late Night monologue some time around midnight. Are there folks like Ayres' friend "Dave" who have multiple screens on from time to time? Sure, but do they do that 24 hours a day? Hell, no. Sounds like "Dave" is a gambler or fantasy football geek, and that's why he was watching both nationally broadcast games, and had a couple of laptops in view to keep track of his bets/fantasy football players. For every "Dave" out there you can point to as anecdotal 'evidence' of rapacious energy use, I think you could come up with dozens of other characters who keep their TV watching to less than 10 hours a week and do it either on their PCs, or on modest sets.

If our "ageing power grid" is under "enormous strain" it's not cause of the likes of "Dave" so much as its because of all the NIMBY jerks who oppose the construction of new power plants. Besides if you look at the actual stats, we are some Green Ass Folks here in the Golden State. We are 48th in per capita energy consumption, and our share of US production of CO2 is 2.4%. Our 36.8M folks produce $1.8T in economic activity (with a population about 40% smaller than the UKs, our economy is only 15% smaller than theirs, so suck on that you limeys, and our CO2 production in 2006 was 59M metric tons (from the stats link) compared to the UKs Gaia destroying 587M metric tons of global warming gas(stat pulled from this wiki)).

On This Day, 47 Years Ago . . .

. . . The One chose to reveal his latest incarnation. He escaped the womb on August 4th, 1961, but His Oneness was made known even before the moment of birth. The exact point where He went from lump of cells to The Hope of Mankind Incarnate is still in dispute, and is an issue best left for theologians. Given The One's stance on reproductive rights, we have to assume He would have been comfortable with the notion that His Earthly Vessel of Birthing might have chosen a different path, and delayed his birth, but He could not afford the delay, so He made sure that His parents were prepared for His coming.

He chose a Kenyan father and Kansan mother so that He may be The One, for The One must be of The Many, and The Many can Worship The One. He chose to be a He, not because He-ness is better than She-ness, but because, unfortunately (as The Primary Opponent proved), the electorate isn't quite ready for She-ness in the House of White. He chose straightness, not because gayness would be a bad thing, but because of the Electorate again, and while The One must contain The Many, some of The Many must be contained only in His Compassion, and not in His orientation or gender.

The One chose a humble existence for His formative years, and He chose to be a traveler at His mother's side, eventually settling on The Island of The Chosen to grow into a man. As all spiritual leaders must, He sinned, He struggled, He suffered, so that He may understand all that it means to be One with The Many.

But to lead The Many, The One must be the best of us, so no state school would do for his education, Harvard Law beckoned, and The One answered the call.

The One also met The Wife, she would be the perfect balance to his Oneness, she would be the only one to have the audacity to not adore The One, and her lack of adoration makes The One love her all the more.

The One had to work in evil law firms after graduation, but His Higher Calling lead him to that most noble of all enterprises, Community Organizing. Once The One solved all the problems faced by the citizens of His small section of Chicago (cursed are the naysayers who claim that problems remain, He gave them perfect love, and they have prospered), He embarked on his true calling, a life in politics.

His rise has been meteoric, and His rise is not at an end. He will reverse the rise of the oceans, and cool the fevered earth, He will heal Mother Gaia herself, and Mother Gaia will bless the earth for its people had the wisdom to follow The One.

So on this day, Day One, of Year 47 (the calendar does not yet reflect today as Day One, or this year as Year 47, but give it time, give it time), The One celebrated, and The Many celebrated with Him.

And as the future is not yet written, there are still forces that work against The One, and The Oneness He Will Bring. If our electorate is not wise, and rejects The One, Mother Gaia will punish the planet, for her wrath is great, but she will single out The United States for the greatest wrath, for they will have deserved it, and she will inflict her worst on The Flyover States, for those shall be the people that thwarted The Great Healing that The One was put on this planet to accomplish.

Do not let this darkness happen, do not fail The One, do not doom the planet, and celebrate The One who shall Unite The Many, for today is His Birthday.

What's The Matter With Kansas (Greensburg Edition) . . .

. . . watched the Greensburg 'Special Presentation' on Discovery (as part of a cross promotion with sister channel Planet Green).

This program is pure propaganda, as is Planet Green. It's a rebranding of Discovery Home as an all green all the time channel, and I guess future episodes will be carried over there instead of on the main Discovery Channel.

The hour focused mainly on the F5 tornado, outlining the complete devastation of this small town (pop around 1500). After detailing those events, they move on to show that some folks will leave, but many will stay, and it shows that the town's political leadership seem to have all latched onto the idea of making Greensburg green.

They show a bit of what appears to be a town hall meeting or planning commission meeting (not sure which), and the business people seem to be stymied in being allowed to rebuild because plans haven't been finalized (I'm guessing it's set up for a later sequence of those same people marvelling at the wonderfulness of the outcome after the collective decision to go green had been made, but that transformation will be left for a later chapter).

Seems like letting the people rebuild in an ad hoc basis, without regards to whether or not they choose to do so in the 'greenest' manner possible would make more sense, but for the people making this documentary, and for the town's political leadership, collective action where they get to make the decisions for everyone else is so much sexier.

Towards the end, this douchebag, makes some ridiculous speech about America having lost its way, and how 'greening' Greensburg will be a sentry and signal to the rest of Kansas, the rest of the United States, and the rest of the World that we are living in a new Green Age where all will bow to the twin gods of Small Carbon Footprint and Sustainability (OK, maybe he didn't say all that verbatim, but Mr. Picard pretty much said all that without exactly saying that). All you really need to know about this douchebag, other than that he's obviously a douchebag the minute you hear him speak more than two sentences, is that he's (according to his own webpage) "one of the preeminent environmental consultants in North America" , and he's "a founding member of the U.S. Green Building Council" , and he "is represented by the Creative Arts Agency (seriously, this douchebag 'environmental consultant' is represented by agents, and not just any agents, but THE agency better known as THE DEATH STAR) in Los Angeles and serves as their in-house Sustainability Expert."

My tolerance for this stuff was exceeded by this single episode. Unfortunately I won't be watching the rest of this to see how it turns out. But I think I can guess where this is headed in the remaining 12 episodes. A few bad people resist the wonderful transformation, but the wonderful transformation continues apace, and Greensburg is rebuilt better, and greener than ever, and thanks to douchebags like John Picard, they'll implement all sorts of wonderful projects of dubious merit but great symbolic value and will trade in all their awful pick-up trucks and SUVs for shiny new Priuses cause we only have one planet, and we're all in this together, and only we can be the change we desire, and only insipid slogans have meaning, and if Leonard DiCaprio is on board it must be the right thing to do, and America can be great again, but only if Americans agree to use less resources and behave more like Europeans.

Nanny(State) Knows Best

(S)motherism is the newest craze in statecraft. There seems to be few things in life that aren't subject to state interference. The temp you set your thermostat is the latest thing to come under attack here in California. (via Samizdata)

It's for Gaia, so we must submit. We must allow state bureaucrats decide what temps we can set our central air/heat at so that they won't have to build any additional Gaia offending power plants.

I don't think the committee that recommended these changes expected anyone to notice in time to complain before they get slipped into new building codes. Luckily, this is an invasive enough intrusion on people's liberties that this issue should become toxic even for the most liberal politicians and should die a speedy and ignomious death.

Or at least I hope.

Once again though, as with many of these energy type issues, I live my life greenly, not as a matter of Gaiaism, but more frugality and location. It never gets too hot here, with the frequent ocean breezes, so no central air needed, and the few months it's cold enough to require heating, it's never so cold that our old gas furnace can't handle the job without destroying too much of the planet. But if I lived in the desert, that wouldn't be the case, and if they want to change people's behavior, then expose them to the market more, don't regulate frugality. People will change their habits if they see immediate costs to keeping their houses at 68 degrees when nobody's home on a 100+ degree day. The Enron scandal wasn't a scandal born of de-regulation, but of sloppy and easily manipulated regulation. The powers that be see to it that power will never be subject to a true free market. Because of this, folks don't behave as sensibly as they might otherwise. The solution isn't technological, the solution lies with the market. But don't expect that argument to get proposed by any government commission tasked with finding energy 'solutions'.

Things Expressly Designed to Irritate Me (Or So It Would Seem)

[photo borrowed from the webpage of Southern California Disposal, also the same folks who are choosing to fly this flag]

Something new has popped up on the Santa Monica landscape, catching my eye, and irritating the hell out of me. We have a 100 foot tall tower adjacent to the Cloverfield onramp/offramp of the 10 Freeway (yes, I used an article before the name of a freeway, wanna make somethin' of it?) from which flies a 30'x50' American flag usually, but Old Glory has been replaced.

The owner of that mast has decided to fly the goddamn dirty hippie "American Ecology Flag" instead.

Here's what they have to say for themselves on their webpage (and the PDF of their press release here):

SCD Flies World's Largest Ecology Flag

Since the late 1960's, the Ecology flag has been an icon of the Ecological movement.

We are flying our large, 30 foot x 50 foot Ecology flag as a symbol that we are doing our part to reduce global warming through our recycling services and by our use of renewable, earth-friendly B100 Biodiesel fuel made from soybeans. By using Biodiesel, we are significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a leading cause of global warming. We are also lessening our nation's dependency on foreign oil while at the same time supporting American farmers.

Our hope is that the flag will serve as a daily reminder that all of us can play a role in reducing global warming by making environmentally sound choices in our daily lives.

For more information on the benefits of Biodiesel, please visit the National Biodiesel Board website at: http://www.biodiesel.org/.

Learn what you can do to reduce global warming by visiting: www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_actionitems.asp.

If GLOBAL WARMING (sorry, seems you always have to shout at the top of your lungs and intone the words with as much gravitas as you can muster) is your main concern, then you should be troubled by mounting evidence that switching to biodiesel is counterproductive.

I'm guessing the city is harassing them over some petty issue, so this is Southern California Disposal's sly way of tweaking our city over their green nonsense. At least I hope that's what they're doing. Clearly, 'going green' is a great excuse for garbage haulers to charge more fees, so all this green nonsense could be good for SCD's business. I'm hoping that their flying of that goddamn dirty hippie "American Ecology Flag" has more to do with motivated self interest than any desire to 'save the planet'. I don't mind greedy businessfolk duping idiot hippies into thinking they are on the hippies' side, I do mind dumb hippies duping businessfolk into following silly and counterproductive practices just because of the latest faddish nonsense regarding the latest push to 'save the planet'.

Noticing the Primitivism and Collectivism of the Greens . . .

(hat tip Classical Values)

I'm not the only one who noticed. The President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus wrote in the Financial Times on the subject.

He knows the dangers of collectivism first hand, and now that they've prospered under individualism for nearly two decades, he's wise enough to warn his people against the leaner, greener collectivist threatening European prosperity.

The Greens are really just another shade of red, it's obvious to anybody willing to pay attention, but only cranky paleo-conservatives and people who lived under the communist boot are willing to state the obvious.

Collectivism is appealing on a gut level, individualism is frightening at that same primal level. Collectivist offer the state as permanent (s)mother, individualists are the father who tells you, 'you're grown now kid, go out there and build yourself your own life'.

The greens want to (s)mother the world to save it. Beware of folks who want to (s)mother grown ass adults.

Maybe I'll live blog the insanity that will be the 7.7.07 big green collectivist fest. I might be able to endure it, given enough alcohol.

Visited the website devoted to the event and did their "carbon footprint calculator". I'm ashamed to say that my carbon footprint is less than 2 tons per year. The national average is 7.5. I'm Mr. Green and didn't even know it (helps that I haven't been on a plane since I was eight, drive a Honda, don't have a commute, and don't live in a house with AC).

Hollywood Rediscovers Faith . . .

Sorry, wrong Faith. Though, does seem like Eliza Dushku should work more, I mean look at her (and she's not a bad actress, either).

The LA Times has an article, not really an article more an unpaid press release, today regarding Evan Almighty. It's aimed at assuaging fears that the picture is anti-religion, or that the picture is too religious.

But the message I take away is that the film isn't a celebration of a Christian God or Christian Theology, but it's pure, unadulterated Gaiaist Worship wrapped in a flimsy gauzy pretext of being semi-christian. The article doesn't address that issue at all, instead they end the piece with a warm and fuzzy anecdote about some viewer in Kansas who was thankful for this picture (but for all we know her reaction was more for the 'green' message of the film and not the religiosity)

Somehow I doubt they ever address the promise from God to Noah in the Old Testament that He would never visit a global flood upon the Earth again. Seems like the whole 'covenant with God' part of Genesis should be the take away from that part of the bible, and not, 'gee, wouldn't it be cool if God did something to help fix the environment, like wipe almost everybody out with a flood again'. Guess little plot inconveniences like that aren't worth worrying about. Not like anyone really ever reads that text all that closely, anyway, right? I'm no bible scholar, not even faithful, but even I know that there's an explicit mention in Genesis that there wouldn't be another global flood (presumably they address this somehow in the picture).

The main message of the film based on the press and the ad campaign seems to be about environmentalism. Caring about the planet and being Christian aren't antithetical, many would argue that being a good steward of the environment is a basic tenant of faith, but based on that article, I don't get the sense that beyond having God in the picture, or having Evan pray, or mentioning a few biblical passages, that this film has anything to do with Christianity as it is practiced. Instead this film feels like an extended Goracle approved Gaiaist revenge fantasy about how our wicked and wasteful ways will loose upon the Earth unbridled destruction unless we all buy twisty compact fluorescent light bulbs and insist that everyone else ditch their SUVs, set their thermostats to 80 during the summer, and downsize their lives.

My impression that this is primarily a Gaiaist picture and not a Christian or Jewish picture (Genesis is Old Testament after all, should give the tribes some love, even though they've been trying to sell this pictures to Christian groups, haven't seen anything in the publicity or press that precludes the Evan character from being Jewish), isn't helped by the official website. An "Act of Random Kindness" link is there (so hippie dippie), and a prominent link to another website http://www.getonboardnow.org/, which is nothing but the usual crunchy granola enviro-action recommendations and blather. To suggest that this film is somehow a kindred spirit to all those sword and sandal, fishes and loaves pictures of the 50s and 60s seems like a far, far stretch.



Ten things I know about this picture without seeing it or reading much press about it:

1. Other primates are always funny.
2. Beards are always funny.
3. No matter how bad the inevitable flood scene looks, somehow nobody will be killed.
4. Lauren Graham is a cutie (see, being 40 can be fabulous!)
5. There will be at least 4 scenes in this picture where various people step in various animal droppings.
6. This movie cost an arkload of money to make.
7. You could do worse than Morgan Freeman for casting "God".
8. I like lamp (sorry wrong, Steve Carell character).
9. Get Smart won't be funny, either (sorry, already getting a head start on dismissing Steve Carell's picture for next summer).
10. Shouldn't this film have disqualified Tom Shadyac from ever directing a feature again?

UPDATE: Decided if I'm going to mention Steve Carell should at least spell his name right.

Whatever Your Ideological Perspective May Be, Can We All Agree On This One Thing?

That thing being, they show far too many films in K-12 schools. A North Ontario kid named McKenzie complains that he's seen Inconvenient Truth in four different courses at his high school.

But first, a digression about the, 'we used his first name only to at the request of his parents to protect his identity', bit. How protective of ones identity is the use of a first name if that first name itself is fairly unique? How many male 18 year olds in high school in North Ontario have the first name McKenzie? I know people have been picking some messed up first names over the past 3-4 decades, but a Canuck with the first name McKenzie? That's messed up. Besides, it's totally a chicks name to begin with, so unless you have centuries of family precedent you're honoring, don't name your boychild McKenzie. He probably would have been less identifiable had they gone with last name only rather than first name. But given the nature of his complaint (he makes no complaint about the content of the doc itself, just that the teachers at his school all feel compelled to show it, even in classes where it may be of dubious relevance), why bother with the whole, 'protect his identity' silliness in the first place?

But anyway, back to my point about the overuse of video in classroom settings. We don't pay teachers excellent money (yes, I said excellent money, given that it's a 9 month a year job, one that only requires 5-6 hours of face time with students per day, and has some of the sweetest benefits packages and most militant unions of any job available) to rely on videos to babysit the students in their charge.

Video should be used never to exceedingly rarely. Students are there to learn from each other and their teachers, if the teacher can't get the job done without wasting class time on videos of little true educational value, then find a different line of work, cause those teachers are just killing time and feathering their nests till they've served long enough to receive full benefits in retirement.

We all had those teachers more interested in counting the minutes than even their students, this is a symptom of that problem. Force them to engage, or quit, demand quality from instructors, maybe you'll find that if mediocrity is no longer tolerated, then higher quality people will be attracted to the job.

But back to this particular incident, it sure seems like Gaiaism is the newest and most agressive religion to be let loose on this planet. I'm fairly certain that there are those that believe in Goracle Infalibility with regards to statements he makes on the environment, and even if he's wrong on the facts, he's right with his message so don't let any inconvenient misapplications of the data get in the way of genuflecting before the holy DVD that shows the Goracle in all his most glorious Goracleness.

Sometimes the Money Follows the Science, and Sometimes the Science Follows the Money . . .

The fervor favoring 'doing something' immediately about global warming has increased even as the scientific data supporting the primacy of manmade causes to that warming have decreased.

At least that's what this climatologist claims (hat tip Tim Blair).

I think this explanation/analysis says quite alot

And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

Word of the Day (You Call This Journalism? Edition)

Gobsmacking

The AFP, being unbiased purveyors of the truth . . . ,



or not.



(no by-line, but I wouldn't be surprised if The Goracle himself had written it)

Green Doesn't Rhyme With Hygiene

Being hygienic seems to be antithetical to being a good environmentalist.

Who knew?

First, Sheryl Crow suggests one square might be plenty of toilet paper for personal hygiene needs.

In England 140 councils are switching to fortnightly trash collection, "designed to be a green initiative".

If this what it takes to save the planet, I say screw the planet, I'd prefer to be unsmelly and disease free.

As far as the Sheryl Crow thing, how many times does it have to be pointed out that paper pulp is grown from trees expressly planted to be turned into consumer products, so the more paper you WASTE the more oxygen giving, carbon sequestrating trees get planted. Go ahead and wad up that paper and use as much as your plumbing can stand, that's the green thing to do.

As far as England, I suppose the council leaders responsible for these kind of decisions are hoping for an outbreak of plague, as nothing is better for the environment than wiping out scads of folks.

Earth Day has become anti-human day, it seems. It shouldn't be an "us against the planet" situation, but that seems to be the dichotomy "greens" set up in their strange little fantasies about global degradation.

Not only are these "greens" generally assholes, but judging from Sheryl Crow and "No Impact Man" (remember him ?), they are poorly wiped assholes, and there is no worse kind of asshole than a poorly wiped asshole (or an asshole with poor reasoning skills and a 'green for thee, but not for me' attitude).

And if you really believe this global warming stuff, then the only honest solution that doesn't require economic devastation, or calls for limitations on other people that you have no intention on following yourself, is the building of lots and lots of nuclear power plants (if it's good enough for France . . . ).

Hey! Will F. Buckley, Jr., Where's My Link?

I'm glad you read my blog, Mr. Buckley, Jr., I've been a fan of yours since I was in grade school (didn't all 4th graders watch Firing Line?), and I gobbled up your Blackford Oakes novels in the 80s (but stopped reading them after High Jinx), but dude (may I call you dude?), where's my link?

I came up with the idea of the Green Inquisition, I don't mind you using the idea, fleshing it out in your inimitable style, but dude, I want my link.

Is that too much to ask?



(hat tip Drudge)

Speaking of Buckleys, I really am looking forward to reading Christopher Buckley's latest Boomsday, sounds like something I might have thought up (but I never got around to creating a "proposal", so I can't take credit on this one).

A "Green" Luther Must Arise to Denounce The "Goracle"

Seems like the 'carbon offsets' program favored by the environmentally conscious but unwilling to make personal sacrifices crowd fits in with the past practice of indulgences so well, that the antidote to said practice may end up being very similar.

Martin Luther provided his antidote to the hypocrisy he saw, not just because the church was being hypocritical, but because the church was playing fast and loose with the principals at the foundation of Christianity.

Is Papa Viridus Albertus Gore XL the new Pope Leo X?

Will somebody nail a list of demands to the main gate of one of The Goracle's mansions?

If they do, it should look something like this.

1. Our Great and Green Mother Gaia Has Willed that all her children must Curb Their emissions of the foul Carbon at all costs
2. Carbon can not be 'offset' through market schemes, all of Gaia's children must reduce, reuse, and recycle every last bit of substance that passes through their lives
3. Yet, carbon reduction can not only be an inward manifestation, one must outwardly demand others mortify themselves before Gaia and deny their own flesh
4. The penalty, the death of the entire planet, will loom as long as people are allowed to do as they will without regard to the consequences for Gaia
5. The Goracle can not absolve you of your Carbon Sins, only each individual can reduce their own footprint
6. Gaia loves all, but will also punish all if we do not repent our sins collectively
7. We can not forgive those from the past their sins, as their actions remain in the atmosphere, but we must not copy those sins
8. The Goracle is still to be revered, as his pronouncements are correct, just his methods lacking
9. Ignorant and wicked are those that preach 'greenness' while continuing to consume beyond their measure
10. Carbon offsets are a form of 'purgatory' for evil doers, but it's a false purgatory produced by greed and a desire for an easy path, there is no easy path for true oneness with Gaia
11. The Goracle can claim carbon offsets absolve those of responsibility, but Gaia knows that it is a mere market scheme meant to bilk the gullible from their money, and has nothing to do with true greenness
12. Therefore, those that preach on behalf of offsets are in error, money alone can not absolve folks of their carbon footprint, only through an ascetic denial of earthly pleasures may Gaia be appeased
13. Only those who have already perfected themselves can be offered absolution, if someone is less than perfectly Green, then their absolution has no meaning
14. The Goracle does not have special power over the environment, he does not control the laws of nature, the power he and his friends consume is just as dirty and earth destroying as that which anybody consumes
15. Those that preach contrition to Gaia must also live contrition to Gaia
16. The highest of officials must live the lives they expect others to live, to do less would be less than Green

That's enough of that, you get the idea already (you didn't really think I'd do 95 of those, did you?).

(read the real thing here)