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.

Once upon a time an energetic young bull was let out into a beautiful green pasture.   A long, long way off, down a hill, he could see a whole herd of cows. “Oh boy, oh boy!” he snorted and he went tearing off at full speed towards the “promised land.” It took him quite awhile to get close and he was really panting, but as he approached he could see there was a pretty high fence separating him from the rest of the cattle. He also saw a huge old bull heading down the hill just 100 yards ahead of him. Despite his fatigue, the youngster sprinted ahead to catch up with the older bull. The old bull paused and was chewing some dry alfalfa when the youngster pulled up next to him fully out of breath. The old bull nodded to him but kept eating.

After awhile the young bull caught his breath, “Been here long, Old Timer?” 

“About 45 minutes longer than you.”

“Well, what the heck are you waiting for? Let’s run down jump over that fence and find us a heifer?”

“After you, Sonny. Me, I aim to mosey over there through that little gate and do my duty with a whole bunch of heifers.”

So it is with liberals . . . the accursed rush-to-judgmentitis that afflicts them keeps them from really understanding most important things, causes a lot of harm and almost always keeps them from seeing the truly best options available.

Right now two vastly important scenarios are playing out in the congress and another every bit as important is standing in the threshold awaiting disposition:

·         The “Cap and Trade” bill is poised at the senate.

·         The House of Representatives is dealing with  “Health Care Reform” legislation

·         President Obama’s effort to “create five million green-tech jobs” is taking form outside the congress in preparation for drawing up a bill

Like the parable of the young bull snorting and pawing up the ground and tearing all over the pasture . . . in their own way, Liberals are constantly in a lather, always seeking action, seldom pausing to think, and mostly wasting a lot of time, effort, money and resources. But we human beings have a lot more power and responsibility than any domestic animal and we can cause immeasurably more harm.

Somewhere back in the 70’s when many of the older ones among them were dropping a bit of acid, eating hallucinogenic mushrooms, rebelling against wearing brassieres, and  testing out a wide variety of new music, sexual mores, and radical literature  – a combination of movements already somewhat afoot caught their wild-eyed fancies. 

They turned their enthusiasm about those ideas (the women’s movement, the environmental movement and the civil rights movement) into far more radical and dangerous manifestations that no more resembled their origins than a bear claw resembles the original natural ingredients (sugar beets and wheat in the field, milk from the cow’s udder,  grapes on the vine, or the cinnamon tree). Those three radical expressions:  feminism, black power and radical environmentalism struck an immediate and disharmoniously pleasing chord among a good third of the younger generation in those days accentuating a generation gap already growing in the country and influencing positively and especially negatively the development of the three main movements (women’s liberation, the equal rights movement, and environmentalism).  Throw in an atavistic infatuation with creeping Socialism in the form of both “commune-style living experiments” and a strong belief that government spending could solve every problem and now push the clock forward 35 or 40 years and you see and understand the roots of today’s radical expressions of Liberalism.

Liberalism, like most anything else, in the right proportions can be a very good thing.  Just the right amounts of Liberalism is called Progressivism: it’s responsible for changes in the law to clean up some of our worst environmental hellholes; to grant the blacks the vote and a much more level playing field opportunity-wise; and to allow women the opportunities they now enjoy in areas previously closed to them. These and other good and strong things that came with those three movements were however, almost totally overlooked as the radical agenda that arose alongside them came to dominate the printed news and especially the broadcast media. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive and Abraham Lincoln was a Progressive . . .  Jimmy Carter was a radical liberal ‘nuff said. 

The dangers arise when anger drives common-sense Progressivism into radical Liberalism and four fairly predictable things happen . . .

1.        The coin that is freedom and responsibility becomes misshapen into something resembling a “Hershey’s Kiss” as the edge of the coin (understanding consequences) disappears and freedom becomes the whole coin (all for ME) while responsibility mutates into the tiny point at the apex of the Kiss. 

2.       MY intended consequences become all-important, the real-life results of my actions are ignored and swept under the rug unless they are precisely what I’d “planned”  because “I’m just a soul whose intentions are good, Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.”  No matter the size of the mistake, it was not what I intended, I am NOT responsible.

3.       Fairness and the spirit of just laws mean nothing: if I get MY way that’s fair.  

4.       Finally, the end justifies the means because God or good or right is on MY side. I’m really a good person, I am.

Looking at how all this plays out in the real world: Item #1:   Liberals, unable to see the consequences of their action (the side of the coin was gone) created the mortgage-guarantee legislation that bankrupted the country. They took no responsibility for it but blamed the ensuing fiasco on the people who tried to stop it first by voting against it in 1998 under Clinton’s watch; and then again in January, 2005, when Democrats and a handful of Liberal Republicans again out-voted them. The Liberal media has continued the charade and voices to the contrary were ignored.

Item #2:  Barak Obama promises anything, including some very noble things to get elected, but once elected all promises are meaningless, all bets are off. He intends to do good and “cure” the economic woes . . . so why should it matter that he doesn’t understand economics or the free-markets that sprung up and made America the world’s desiderata and Americans the greatest, noblest people from 1850 to 1945. If his actions extend the recession into something much worse (as the actions of FDR extended the recession he found a full nine years into a full-blown depression) well, history will probably erroneously remember me as a hero, too. The fact that there is a huge disconnect between his actions and sound economic policy mean nothing just as they meant nothing in voting for the mortgage-guarantee laws in the first place.

Item #3: Just laws don’t matter, to me. If, to push my agendas, I interfere in two bankruptcies acting like an advocate for unions that donated mightily to my campaign and bankrupting three Indiana pension plans despite 232 years of solid bankruptcy laws and precedent . . . what does it matter so long as I get my way, and those that support me get rewarded? Along the same thought path,  affirmative-action for a limited period, say a quarter century to right the wrongs and imbalances of the past, has a place. But when well after that period, a test deliberately redone to make it more fair to all participants is given and the twenty-two who passed the test are denied the fruits of their study, labor and money (paying for courses to help them master the material involved: a "leadership" test) and others who did not pass the test benefit as a result: a judge who’d make such a decision deserves no place on the highest court of the land.

Item #4: If I say things like . . .

a.        “Every act of heterosexual intercourse, even on the marriage bed is RAPE.”

b.      The home is a comfortable concentration camp for a woman’s spirit.

c.       We don’t want them to have that choice (home and family) because too many will take that choice, it’s too easy . . .” 

d.      “We must “raise consciousness” so that all women will disparage it” (marriage, motherhood, home and family).

e.      “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

And forty years later society has become a mess:   more kids have more problems in every conceivable way; more single-women, mostly teens, are having children out of wedlock; divorce is now more common than marriage and serial divorce is a fact of life;  a far higher percentage of women and families live in poverty than ever before; far more women are found in mental institutions and prisons than ever before; far more women are alcoholics and addicted to tobacco and/or drugs than ever before; far more women are dying of lung and breast cancer than ever before;  seventeen times more women have had an abortion than before Roe vs. Wade and twenty-seven times as many women have had multiple abortions; and you have succeeded in causing all that . . . will you take credit?

Item #4 more: If I create five million environmentally-friendly green-tech jobs, does it matter if eleven million jobs from the wider economy are lost. Sometimes soldiers are lost in battle for a right cause – my cause is right, no sacrifice, by others, is too great. What? You say only 1/10^th of the jobs I create will end up being permanent? I choose not to believe that. We’re fighting the good fight and the environment must be protected just as we wiped out that cursed DDT. What? You say fifty million people have died of malaria since that happened and DDT can be drunk and even used as salad dressing with no ill effects and two million people a year die now where only 40,000 cases of malaria existed in the years before the ban. I choose not to believe that. And, even if those things were true, lower population, of others not me – of course, means less of a problem with global warming in the future. What? You say that the world’s scientists are rapidly changing sides and saying global-warming is based on very sketchy science. I choose not to believe that.    How long will I suspend by belief of these facts, you ask? They wouldn’t take away Gore’s Nobel Prize would they?

Item #4 continued: OK, OK so we goofed on DDT and malaria, but in a way it’s just like eco-terrorism. We’re in a war to save the planet, there will be casualties, justifiable casualties: the military calls them: collateral damages. You know if some dumb lumberjack dies because one of us spikes a tree with a five-inch nail . . . so long as it slows things down and keeps even one more tree growing one more day . . . . Or we burn a few SUVs to dramatize the effect of fossil-fuel idiocy on dear MOTHER EARTH, compare our tiny mistakes to the gross errors that are destroying the planet . . . oh, hell it’s all Reagan’s fault, or maybe Nixon’s.

We all have rushed to judgment at one time or another, especially when we were young. Maturity means we do a lot better later, but the leadership young and old of the three liberal movements mentioned (feminism, black power, and environmentalism) deliberately refuse to consider the incredible truth that they’ve been wrong often and they’re causing more harm then good and it’s time they grew up and looked at the reality of what their legacy of thoughtless rush to judgment has meant for America.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut