The Straight Skinny About Liberal Dreams

of Tree-Hugging

                Good stewardship of the earth, as in conservation of resources and threatened environments and animal and plant life; prevention of toxic effects and substances despoiling the planet; some sort of wise and attractive balance between mankind and the natural world; and n0n-polluting power sources are what liberals call “no-brainers.” Unfortunately, not using your brain to go beyond these obvious desiderata and the practical implications for individual people and their governments is the reason that so many liberals seemingly act like they don’t have a pea-brain in their heads. 

                The amazing ability of green enthusiasts to demand draconian measures (including ultra-extreme population control methods) which show less than small regard for their fellow man while championing the survival of menaced mice, mosquitoes and mildew is shocking in its obvious misanthropy. In a perfect world: everybody would be green conscious philanthropists who think of fellow humans first.

                The green contingent’s miniscule regard for homo sapiens is easiest seen in the abhorrent and extreme population control methods advocated by Obama’s Science and Technology Czar John Holdren in a 1973 book he co-authored with the notorious Ehrlichs (Paul and Anne) in their “Human Ecology.” The book, said to have played a role in the passing of Roe vs. Wade later in the year, championed forced abortions, mass sterilization (via secret chemical additions via the water supply), mandatory body non-fertility implants and also paid more than lip service to eugenics. 

                The Ehrlichs and Holdren wrote: “a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being . . . a fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until it is born” thus the rationale behind forced abortions etc. on “potential human beings.” Since the born child years after birth will ultimately develop into a human being, infanticide sounds reasonable, too, no?

However, Holdren, an enthusiastic worshipper of notorious eugenicist Harrison Brown is not alone among the “liberal elite” (is that an oxymoron or what?) in believing that only certain types of special people should be allowed to live . . . recently Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a rather shocking interview with the New York Times said, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

There’s good reason to think that Einstein, who didn’t speak until age five, might well have been labeled as “a population” that Ginsburg “doesn’t want to have too many of . . .” Of course, 20/20 hindsight clairvoyance would help Rajjpuut decide his first candidates for abortion would be Ginsburg, Holdren, the Ehrlichs and Harrison Brown as well as mass murderers, tyrants, child molesters and all supporters of government spending and government interference boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs).  In fairness to the lady justice, it may well be that she only meant “poor people” we don’t want so many of . . . ???

If you were to make a litmus test to discover idiots from the ultra-right wing, it would probably include belief in absolutely no abortions even in case of rape or incest; creationism taught in all public school science classes and evolution banned; religion taught in public schools; and howitzers for every six-year old capable of hunting small game.  To discover extreme liberals perverts, however, the litmus test listing could be much, much shorter -- let’s shrink the list of beliefs down to just one item: POPULATION CONTROL whether that means ZPG (zero population growth) or NPG (negative population growth). One item? Is Rajjputt crazy? Consider this:

1.        Abortion on demand: plays first violin in their population control symphony.

2.      Global warming/cap and trade/green tech: all these supposed problems and impractical solutions are their bass instruments in the NPG or ZPG movement of our “Unwashed Symphony.”

3.      End of Life Counselors in Obamacare: any potential chance to refuse medicines or services to the elderly for cost control or intercede in the natural decision to live as long as possible is clearly their brass section since Medicare is the problem ($34 TRillion in obligations now and officially bankrupt in 2016) and the last six months of life cost one-half of a person’s lifetime health care expenses . . . the temptation to control costs by “omission of care” to the elderly is surely too great to be avoided.

4.      Curtailing human endeavor for the sake of “endangered species” (such as the delta smelt in California stopping irrigation of the country’s largest and most fertile vegetable growing region and driving unemployment nearby to 41%) is their greenie symphony conductor letting the world know who’s more valuable: mankind or a two-inch fish too stupid to avoid irrigation piping.

5.      Etc., etc. the main message of radical environmentalism is that people are the problem and the planet would be better off without any people, except radical environmentalists, of course, leaving no one to hum along with their symphony.

Rajjpuut finds this approach disingenuous, if nutcase greenies really cared for the planet, surely their own suicides would be the logical and integral acts affirming their love of the natural planet and hate for humankind? Save the planet^^, Greenie, kill yourself now! 

Of course, Mother Nature herself has on two separate occasions pretty well cleaned things up on her own without any help from Wall Street and other “polluters.” The comet 65 million years ago that brought on the demise of the dinosaurs and eventually the rise of mammals and even primates and mankind also wiped out 96% of all life on the planet: plant or animal; and 420 million years earlier over 98% of Earth’s life was extinctED, to coin a term, by widespread super-volcanic activity bringing down upon the planet a total ice age lasting about six million years if Rajjpuut’s memory of pre-pre-history serves correctly. Given that background a little more reverence for the preciousness of human life might surely be in order in Rajjpuut’s not so humble opinion.

 The more vocal the green advocate whether their primary focus is global warming, other ecology, or green tech . . . the more likely they are to be an advocate of ZPG or NPG. In fact many Negative Population Growth fans literally are promulgating desired human population numbers ranging from as low as 180,000 to as high as two million for the entire planet. To put that in perspective, 29 out of every 30 people living on earth would have to die to satisfy the two million figure; and 33, 332 out of every 33, 333 people now living would be sacrificed to the whims of those favoring 180,000. If that seems like some sort of cruel intellectual parlor game to you . . . you’re right . . . that is exactly the sort of Maoist-Hitleresque mentality that it takes to dream up this sort of philosophy of life. One suspects that the earth-firsters would see the necessity of including themselves in the 180,000 valuable survivors, eh?

The main reason that “thinking lefties and greenies and even anarchists” (Rajjpuut knows, yes, that’s an awful lot of oxymorons) are so in favor of forcing green tech down our throats (even at the cost of $675,000 and 2.2 real jobs** for every green temporary green tech job created by government intervention) is their fervent belief that the planet’s only hope, regardless of quiescent human population is to develop a power source that is non-polluting. In that desire and understanding is the only agreement that greenies and Rajjpuut have. Green tech is ultimately desirable. Green tech would be a godsend. However, it’s in the little matter of PRACTICALITY that we differ. To insist upon cap and trade laws now or on financing green tech now is putting the cart before the horse. Right now practical, AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE green technology is a dream only.

A whole lot of people marvel at Da Vinci being beyond his time with drawings of tanks, helicopters, and submarines centuries before those ideas became practical. That’s the way it is with green tech. Let’s say that 40 years from now, 89-90% of the greenies’ fondest wishes come true and a 21^st Century Edison-clone comes along and does for power generation and green tech what Edison did for electricity . . . hurrah! What we must NOT do now is to spend today’s dollars and eliminated today’s jobs on pipe dreams. Now’s definitely NOT the time to spend money on green tech jobs and converting the power grids . . . not 40 years too early, for crying out loud. 

What we can do now is to fund research, and only research, by bona fide scientists/inventors (not global warming enthusiasts friendly to the administration’s viewpoints)who've proven their credentials most practically of all by winning contests open to anyone where anybody with a non-polluting or extremely-lightly polluting non-traditional energy source ideas can demonstrate the efficacy of their ideas. Winners win cash prizes, free patents and government research bucks for, say, ten years. When we find our Edison, then we spend and convert the energy grids, not before.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

** This data comes from a longitudinal study of the Spanish experience with funneling tax money into green-tech and furthermore it showed that only one in ten green-tech jobs was permanent. Many of the green tech jobs of the five million Obama promised/threatened to create will only last three weeks or a month, or perhaps six months. This means that 22 real jobs are sacrificed to create one permanent green tech job, which alas, only pays $10-$16 per hour.