« Liberals to fight for public option in health care bill |
Blog Home Page
| Hawaii activists demand US military out, Gitmo detainees in »
June 26, 2009
In the Green Inc. section of The New York Times, James Kanter walks readers through the eco-benefits of naturism. Apparently, nude vacations are green vacations.
The Green Inc. section, ironically enough, seeks to promote issues relating to "Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line."
The suspiciously knowledgeable writer types:
Readers are also introduced to the walk-through-the snow nudists:
Of course, it never occurs to the tree-first writer to raise the obvious questions: If global-warming and skin cancers are good friends, then why are "green" naturists exposing themselves? And, do global cooling trends across the globe suggest that the beach nudists are in trouble? Or how about this for logic: Do we really need more obese mammals on our beaches?
Face it. Green writers are eco-illogical thinkers.
Need more evidence? You don't have to walk too far (but you do have to walk with the traffic). Tree-first exercise gurus are leaders in stupidity. Of particular interest, though, is the disciple who cycles or walks to work to "save the planet."
I cannot overstress the idiocy of walking with traffic. Wouldn't it be healthier to take a long walk in the park, and cool down with a juicy Cuban? Or are car fumes healthy and cigar emissions less so? The more you question "the science" the less science you'll see. And, in any event, is showering (before and after cycling) and drinking copious amounts of water ecologically sustainable?
In 2009's Heaven and Earth Australia's Professor Ian Plimer points out (p.443):
And it gets sillier (p.449):
Many liberal Democrats, though, if questioned, will locate the foundation for their green fundamentalist faith on Planet Gore. They live to make a new state-controlled tomorrow. Still others (eco-feminists come to mind) are trying to get back at daddy. God, the Father? No. Mother Earth rules!
In older times, green hysteria was less fashionable because people lived deeper, more meaningful religious and philosophical lives outside The Church of Global Warming. Or because they prized mathematics more than we do, or because they believed in holding their politicians to account, or because they lived outside cities and were closer to nature's mood swings.
This is not to say we can't laugh at liberals. It beats crying. It beats using one square-sheet of toilet paper too. Statements that the warming movement is, or, should be viewed as a morally superior system, are as persuasive as Meghan McCain's temper tantrums.
But green organizations like the National Resources Defense Council (NRCD) thrive on hypocrisy - and in Green Inc. Christine MacDonald give us another hilarious example (p.79):
I buy, therefore I'm green? It's very Californian.
Romans and countrymen, logic tells us that critical-thinkers are heretics in a global-warming culture; it's only how you feel the so-called facts. The unwritten liberal law determining which philosophy gets to keep the ball is clear. Whichever side, screams the loudest, makes up the most apocalyptic stories, or promotes a hypocritical lifestyle, gains the dead-tree media's respect (until a depression hits Malibu).
In: Totally nude beaches, walk-to-work-and-preach customs, naked ski camps, global warming, driving "hybrids" to airports, recycled dog tags, panda coffee mugs.
Out: Textilists, man-sized cars, engineers, leather belts, climate history, meat consumption, pizza trays, nuclear technology, calculators.