Vision, Mission, and Strategy


Hillbilly Politics

She’s a celebrity. Of course that must imply that as a celebrity she must be an expert on global warming. Also, of course, being a celebrity, she deserves preferential treatment as in because she says so, it must be done.

In case you’re wondering what I’m talking about, I’m bringing your attention to Cheryl Crow and her friend, Laurie David ambush of Karl Rove at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and they made much of Rove’s dislike of being held against his will touched when he turned away from them rather than argue.

And what’s our expert’s celebrity’s solution to global warming? Why we should use less toilet paper. Why doesn’t she do less tours using up so much fossil fuels and electricity for equipment to make her sound great on stage or to make it a “show” with special effects and lighting? Or are the 6000 bulbs they gave out supposed to offset her carbon footprints?

The point is, these people have no clue about global warming. They are reacting to emotional trash. Scientists can’t agree on global warming but we’re expected to listen to these celebrity experts?

This fall in the same category of Rosie O’Donnell’s claim that fire doesn’t melt steel. Steel melts at 2800 degrees, it is weakened at 1500 degrees… with the kind of weight posed by the WTO buildings, weakening is all that is necessary for the collapse.

However, there are some steps that can be taken here in the U.S. Stripmining in West Virginia alone has raped 300,000+ acres of forested mountains, polluting waterways requiring chemicals to clean up, if they bother, and robbing wildlife of natural habitats. That, to me, constitutes a greater ecological disaster than using a few extra squares of toilet paper, which is biodegrable, by the way. Oh, wait, isn’t that Robert Byrd territory? It must be Bush’s fault, then. Never mind that it’s been going on for more decades than I’ve been alive (and I ain’t that young).

5 Responses to We_must_listen_because_

  • suek says:

    I’m conflicted on this….I _don’t_ believe that humans are responsible for any global warming that may be occurring – I think it’s another case of massive egocentrism, which is due in large part to a lack of belief in a supreme being, and the resultant replacement of God with themselves. They really are coming to a point where they think they are as all powerful as religious people attribute to God.

    On the other hand, I was raised with the philosophy of “Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do.” I find that any tendency to return to a simpler, less consumptive lifestyle is a good thing. I also think it’s a good thing if we can eliminate (though I’d settle for reducing) dependence on ME oil.

    But the carbon credit thing? I don’t think I even understand it – for example, how does an acre of soybeans compare to an acre of trees for the old carbon dioxide offset? Does it count if you buy an acre of mature trees – since they’re already there whether you buy them or not? – or do you have to plant an acre of baby trees? Do connifers fill the bill, or do you have to have deciduous leafed trees? I suspect it’s a bunch of garbage.

    At one time, I considered solar paneling (we needed a new roof). It might have worked, but in researching it, it seemed that the resources needed to produce the solar paneling was at least equal to if not exceeding the energy output over the life of the panels. That didn’t seem like a very good trade-off. I’m wondering now about the energy needed to produce fluorescents and compact fluorescents. We own a lighting store – anything you want to know about various lightbulbs, I can probably tell you – but not this. No info on the energy trade-off. Or the mercury problem, when you dispose of them. Of course, we don’t have to worry about it too much – they’re all manufactured in China. Too bad we can’t ship the recycled mercury back to China for them to use again. I think of all those container ships that bring our lightbulbs to us from China – do they return to China empty or full? Dumb questions…I know. I have a strange mind, I think.

  • hillbilly says:

    You know, I used to tell my students that there was no such thing as a dumb question. There isn’t such a thing.

    On the global warming trend, there are all kinds of factors into play for that… while humans may have some part of it, the part we play is not nearly as big as these people would have us believe.

    “On the other hand, I was raised with the philosophy of “Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do.” I find that any tendency to return to a simpler, less consumptive lifestyle is a good thing. I also think it’s a good thing if we can eliminate (though I’d settle for reducing) dependence on ME oil.”

    This is the best lifestyle but society has “evolved” (I’d rather call it devolved) into an excessive lifestyle (remember the Roman Empire?). If you don’t have……… (fill in the blank) you are nothing. Now, those same people who buy into that philosophy are being slapped with enormous guilt trips… except for the people who lay them, that is. Basically what they are saying is we should give up so they can have more. And when Democrat politicians (while preaching an ideaology of equality) use these narcissistic celebrities as endorsements for their campaigns, I write off the candidate, too since they are both out of touch with average america … including Fred Thompson but I have a feeling he’s not going to play that game if he chooses to run.

    The average american really can’t afford the excesses that these global warming proponents claim are causing that warming. Wages haven’t gone up but the cost of basic living has. We use only what we can afford to use as far as fossil fuels and the other utilities that depend upon them..or we do without something else we need. People who have a lot of money don’t understand these things and really don’t want to because it means they’d have to face a reality they’d rather not face.

    The carbon credit thing is basically a Ponsi (sp?) scheme where money flows to the top never to be seen again. You can’t offset carbon footprints because there is no such thing in reality. It’s a made up term to bilk people out of their money, plain and simple. I’m not sure of the total ins and outs of how much of what you have to buy to offset anything you already paid for but that’s the gist of it… you buy carbon credits to offset your carbon footprints… and it’s probably illegal considering there is no real tangible thing you are buying and buying into it doesn’t prove anything.

    The only thing I can see in all this is that it’s posh… the new “in” thing… so we’re supposed to just jump on board.

    I tried to answer your “dumb” questions as best I could.

  • suek says:

    >>The carbon credit thing is basically a Ponsi (sp?) scheme where money flows to the top never to be seen again. You can’t offset carbon footprints because there is no such thing in reality. It’s a made up term to bilk people out of their money, plain and simple. I’m not sure of the total ins and outs of how much of what you have to buy to offset anything you already paid for but that’s the gist of it… you buy carbon credits to offset your carbon footprints…>>

    I think you’re right …” you buy carbon credits to offset your carbon footprints…” This is the reasonable explanation…it’s just when you get into “now just exactly what does _that_ mean” that you begin to see a problem.
    I was reading a blog the other day which was discussing the irrationality of some of these statements/questions…for example, asking if God is all powerful , why can’t He make a square circle…or can he make a rock that’s too big for Him to move. The words sound like they make sense, but rationally, they just don’t.

  • Christi says:

    Suek, I think you make a good point because I think the liberal scientists believe that humans now have the power to control the atmosphere.

    As for all of the products they want us to buy to offset our carbon footprint? All I can say is remember all of the products we were told to buy for our homes and computers because of the horrific effects we would witness as a result of Y2K??? I didn’t buy anything and I made it through it just fine.

    I agree with you Steph that the wealthy are on a major guilt trip but I wish they wouldn’t try to get the rest of us, who have always turned our thermostats down in the winter and up in the summer just to save a few bucks, to take this trip with them.

    Cheryl Crow is just an aging Hollywood nut that is trying to stay relevant. But let me tell you, if the lady is only going to use one square – I don’t think too many people will want to be around her! lol

April 2007
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  


    


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.