Compassionate Conservatism
"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."
-- Conservative Family Values Leader Bill Bennett
I just wanted to remind you how truly evil these people are. In the meantime, Cecelie S. Berry goes into further detail.
3 comments:
Hey,
It's been a long time. And this is totally off the subject, but this is just one reason why I love Michael Crichton. He's so inexpressibly honest.
Good reading. Love to hear your thoughts.
-nate
Crichton on Second-Hand Smoke, Nuclear Winter, and (most importantly) Global Warming
This makes for interesting reading. There are, of course, a few things Mr. Crichton chooses to omit, but first I will focus on the portion of the speech for which he deserves a medal. Second-hand smoke arguments are complete bullshit, thank you for saying so, Michael. The smoking ban, in its simplest terms is about banning something that is annoying. And because of the smoking ban in New York City, people bring their snot-faced screeching babies into bars. BARS! Can anyone honestly tell me that’s less annoying than someone smoking in a bar?
To the article, I’m not familiar with the studies, but Michael neglects to mention that every study that says there’s no such thing as global warming has been underwritten by ExxonMobil (I use them euphemistically, not specifically). Even if I grant his premise that there is junk science in the development of global warming theory, he ignores that by a large percentage, the corrupt sci-ostitutes fall mainly on the side of conservatives. And by conservative, I mean those who think we should buy Hummers and destroy the planet to speed the return of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
In other words, it’s difficult for him to make this claim when the advocates of global warming theory are trying to save our lives, while the deniers of global warming are trying to make sure that they remain the most profitable company in the history of capitalism.
First off, I second the second-hand smoke arguments.
Second, the argument that ExxonMobil funds everything is wrong, because they do not. They did not fund Lomborg, and if they gave him some sort of secret contribution, it is astonishing that they couldn't give him enough money to even silence his critics on a webpage.
They also do not fund some of the most outspoken critics of Global Warming - retired university professors. They are one of the biggest group of skeptics, but can only protest when retured because only then is their job, pension, etc., not in grave danger for arguing against consensus. No one is paying them.
Everyone gets their money somewhere, Michael. That doesn't make them automatic liars - or if it does, then both sides of the spectrum are lying, because both sides are getting paid.
Most oil companies have seats on many of the larger environmental advocacy groups - WWF, etc. (not PETA, so far as I know). If they're controlling the data of those who say that Global Warming isn't a fact, then they should be able to control the advocacy groups as well, but they do not.
And finally, the "conservatives" you mentioned exist everywhere, not just in Christianity. Some of them are Liberal and Atheist - basically, anyone who is so sure of him- or herself and his or her worldview that they ignore evidence to the contrary, brand skeptics as heretics, and engage themselves in a crusade to save the planet when in fact they may be destroying it and/or many lives.
Let me ask you this - do you think DDT should have been banned? And how strongly do you feel about it? And if I said that not banning DDT would have saved millions of lives in third-world countries, and that those who headed the ban sparked a chain of events that killed more people than Hitler himself, would you call me a heretic?
We're all nutbags in certain ways. The Conservatives, the Liberals, and the Environmentalists.
And people who bring their babies in bars.
Post a Comment