About Me

Name:Green Faerie
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Heresy in the Church of Gaia

Posted by Green Faerie on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:43:21 PM
 Ever try to argue with anyone (especially female) who believes in the coming Apocalypse of Global Warming?  I have and it's not pretty.  Ever since the Reverend algore issued his Book of Revelations in the form of the much-gushed over movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the new converts to the Church of Gaia tremble in fear of how my driving a car to get to work will cause coastal cities to runneth over with water...just like in "The Day After Tomorrow!"

When it comes to the holy writ of Global Warming, I'm somewhat of an agnostic.  One thing I know for certain is that alarmist predictions about cataclysmic climate change have been around my entire life and none of them have come true.  Where's that new ice age?  How come we didn't fight wars over food and water in 1990?  Shouldn't we few survivors on Earth be envying the dead by now?  All of them were put forth by experts and they were all wrong.  So I'm skeptical about Reverend Al's claims of imminent doom.  The other thing I know for certain is that socialists and communists have long ago infiltrated the environmental movement.  The Reds know that their philosophy sends Americans running and screaming in the other direction.  So they couch their message in Green instead, using guilt, fear, and feel-goodism about saving the little birdies.  Clever sods.

And boy do they ever use fear.  Rev. Al has the chutzpah to rant about how President Bush "played on our fears" in regards to Iraq, but that's exactly what he does with his piece of agitprop.  Millions are gonna die!  Eeeek!  Vanity Fair, which pimped "An Inconvenient Truth" and ran scary pictures of Manhattan under water, proclaimed that global warming was a bigger threat than terrorism.  Most of the dino media and the popular culture accept this cataclysmic view of global warming as indisputable fact and seldom feature any opposing views on the issue.  This is why a populace informed by the likes of Jon Stewart, The View, and People magazine are stunned--STUNNED--when they are confronted by anyone who doesn't buy the sermon.  (In other countries, where they are taught the only reason why America has such a strong economy is that it's despoiling the planet, it's worse.)  They assume you don't care or you're not informed on the issue, because otherwise you'd be a true believer too.

Aside from shoving "dissenters" under the carpet, the Gaianists also attack their character.  "Global warming denier" is a popular perjorative, implying that disagreeing on global warming is on the same moral level as denying the historical fact of the Holocaust.  Anyone with half a brain realizes people can and do honestly disagree on scientific theory, which is what this global warming argument is about.  Theory.  Denying the cold, hard facts of the Holocaust--recorded in writing by everyone from Anne Frank to Elie Wiesel to meticulous Nazi record-keepers and recorded in photographs/films of skeletal bodies piled high in concentration camps--is based on old-fashioned anti-Semitism.  The people who try to sell the idea the Holocaust never happened or was exaggerated believe Jewish folks are sneaky, conspiratorial liars who made the sob story up just to get a little piece of real estate in the Middle East.  There's a big difference in being a bigot and being an honest skeptic.

But in the mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up relativistic world of the enviromental fundamentalist, evil is disagreeing with his theology.  These guys would burn you at the stake if they were convinced it wouldn't harm the ecosystem somehow.  It's too bad because I think it's good to find cheaper, cleaner sources of energy.  I'd be happy with giving less of my money to the likes of Saudi Arabia's terrorist-loving sheiks or Hugo Chavez.  I'm all for recycling; why waste resources that can be reused?  But there is no rationality with a movement driven by fear and guilt.  We all lose.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

War and Football

Posted by Green Faerie on Monday, December 18, 2006 6:34:37 PM
As a chick, I admit I'm not as big of a sports nut as 90% of the male population.  Most of what I know comes from growing up in a football-loving family (except for my mom) and listening to Jim Rome on a co-worker's radio.  But whenever I hear about people saying they support the troops even though they are against the war, it makes me think of football.  Or really, any other sport.

In England, fans of their football (our soccer) are called "supporters."  In America, we assume that if we are fans of the Chargers or the Bears or the Colts or the Seahawks, it means we support those teams, right?  You don't have to love every player.  You don't have to agree with every play; even in the best games, your team is going to fumble or make some other mistake.  You don't even have to like the coach.  But if you truly support your team, you always want your team to win. 

Well, our military is America's all-star team and if you support the troops, it ought to mean you want the troops to succeed in their mission.  But many on the left are in the loopy position of claiming they support the team but they don't seem to want the team to win the game.  Either they resent the coach so much, they hope the team loses the game just for spite (and maybe in the hopes of getting a new coach they do like) or they really don't support the team at all, because they hate their country.  Leaving your support at pity for players' injuries doesn't quite cut it either. 

At best many on the left are Fair Weather Fans, jumping on the bandwagon only when times are good, when the coach is someone of their liking, or when public opinion favors the team.  The worst of them jeer the players at the airport or actively cheer for the other team.  Can we question their fandom then?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tis The Season For Threats and Lawsuits

Posted by Green Faerie on Monday, December 11, 2006 12:27:46 PM
     What is it about the Christmas season that brings out the knuckleheads?  I don't mean the guys who steal your parking spot at the mall or the crazed sweater lady who battles you a la "Gladiator" for the last electric nosehair trimmer.  I mean the parade of school and government officials who take political correctness and multiculturalism to levels of stupidity.  Or the stores that dare not mention the holiday that makes those cash registers ring with joy for fear of offending or excluding a tiny percentage of customers.  Or the Grinches and Scrooges at the ACLU hellbent on keeping Christmas out of Christmas, protecting Americans from the onslaught of those horrid nativity scenes.  Thank goodness for that; the ACLU knows a nativity scene viewed by the naked eye is far more dangerous to the average American than a child molester or a terrorist.

    A few weeks ago, the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Chicago, fresh from banning foie gras from the plates of restauarant patrons, pressured a Christmas festival to drop the sponsorship of New Line Cinema, which was going to promote its flick "The Nativity Story."  City officials feared the outward display of religion might "offend" non-believers.  The $64,000 question is, why would an easily offended non-believer go to a CHRISTMAS festival??  Wouldn't he or she just stay home or do something else instead?  Then this morning I hear about Seattle removing Christmas trees from the airport after a couple of guys complained there was no menorah to be seen alongside the trees.  The airport officials decided it was just better to stuff the trees away and pretend Christmas didn't exist than to either set up a menorah or simply tell the guys to chill out.  (Shockingly this morning on Fox News, I actually agreed with Bob Beckel when he pointed out that unlike a nativity scene or something, a Christmas tree is a 'secular' symbol of the holiday, not an overtly religious one like a menorah, therefore the airport was within its rights to keep the trees out.)  

    The overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas in some fashion, even those of us who aren't terribly religious or people who have mixed faith families.  It is a part of American culture.  But the secular progressive crowd either out of a misguided desire to make sure no one feels excluded by the holiday (hey, nobody has ever told me, "Geez I pity you...you get one lousy day for gifts while I get eight.  God, I feel terrible!") or out of a not-so-innocent desire to stuff everything traditional out of sight, comes up with crazy things like "winter holiday," banning Santa Clauses from parades, and "holiday" trees.  Both corporate America and government officials get beaten over the head with sensitivity training and multiculti crud that makes them actually believe outward displays of Christmas cheer makes millions of poor souls miserable.  And moreover, they should CARE about that.  This is how we got the nonsense of stores forbidding its employees from wishing customers "Merry Christmas."  (I don't have a problem with "Happy Holidays," so long as it's not explicitly prohibited from wishing a customer carting a Christmas tree a "Merry Christmas.")

    Lately, Christmas fans have been fighting back.  Liberals tend to dismiss or pooh-pooh evidence there's an attempt to mess with Christmas (surprisingly, ditto for some Christian conservatives who want to keep the holiday small and strictly religious).  Sometimes it can get a little shrill from the right as well.  But it's not a case of no big deal.  It is a big deal.  Are we as a society going to surrender our culture to a tyranny of the minority in the name of "sensitivity?"  Where is that in the Constitution, exactly?

    Today, the battleground is Christmas.  Tomorrow, it could be Festivus.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Putting The "Ho" Back In "Hollywood"

Posted by Green Faerie on Friday, December 01, 2006 4:25:48 PM
So, after spending two years married to a slacker and making babies, what do you do for a comeback?  Why, show off your bits and pieces, of course!

Back in my day, starlets starving for attention would appear in a glossy pictoral in Playboy.  The old-fashioned way was to get paid a lot of money and have some guy make those soft focus touch-ups on the pictures so that you at least looked somewhat artfully presented while shocking everyone with your brazen nakedness.

But that's old school!  Nowadays, the celebrity set just makes tawdry sex tapes ("I didn't know anybody had a copy!  Honest!") and lets the paparazzi photograph them sans panties.  No touch-ups there!  The sad part is, this desperate attention-getting works.  Britney Spears may eternally be an embarrassment to her two sons (who also have an embarrassing dad) and never again reach the heights she reached in 1999-2000, but she will settle in for a fabulous career as being famous for being famous. 

Then you have babes like actress Scarlett Johanssen who have yet to pull a Sharon Stone for the paparazzi but compensate for it by revealing TMI details about their private lives instead.  Miss Johanssen recently revealed in an interview she gets tested for STDs twice a year because she's "socially aware."  Does this mean the gents in Tinseltown are aware that she is quite "social?" 

As ink space and bytes get precious with gobs of young stars vying for publicity, the more they will push the limits to get the attention in their direction.  Sure, there are things they still won't do, i.e. scream racial epithets in a nightclub or make strange slurring statements about Jews at a DUI stop.  But anything else is fair game.  To top Britney, some chick (Lindsay, maybe?) will have to just show up buck naked at a club.  Someone else will have to top ScarJo by having her next trip to the OB/GYN shown on the internet.  How about topping Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction by defecating onstage at an awards show?  Just say you're doing it as protest against the Bush administration and the celebrity butt-kissers in the media will adore you.  As it is you can cheefully make yourself look like a fool tanked up on t.v. and have everyone shrug, just as long as you trash President Bush in the process.  It's your Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

Hey, Hollywood chickies, if you really want to stand out, keep your clothes on, act like a decent human being, keep your trap shut about your medical history, and don't get sloppy drunk on the town while you have little kids at home.  Don't marry losers either.  Otherwise, you're just a cheap conformist.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »