On a page by itself, we find this inside the front cover of Al Gore’s latest climate fraud promotion book: “I’m offering you the choice of life or death. You can choose either blessings or curses.” –Deuteronomy Chapter 30, Verse 19

Let’s imagine that a Republican former vice president (say Dan Quayle or Dick Cheney) authored a similar book telling us that apocalypse was at hand unless we shoveled massive amounts of public money toward companies they’ve heavily invested in. Let’s say the Republican-authored book also prominently featured the Bible verse above, suggesting that Quayle or Cheney was offering the reader the choice between life or death.

In the scenario above, would the mainstream media give Quayle or Cheney the same respect and free book promotion airtime that Gore has received in recent weeks?

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A sampling of those from Jay’s post from last night: Smack Down of Obama Administration on KSM Trial Decision

And guess who celebrates this as some sort of victory for “justice?”

It’s no secret that the greatest threats to America on the international stage can depend on the ACLU’s extended hand of friendship. The ACLU, as the most dangerous threat to this country from within, has long been writhing around passionately with every enemy of this country like mating slugs at the end of a mucus thread. That the ACLU cheers this latest attack on American national security is no surprise. After all, they are up to their ear holes in making sure KSM and Da Boyz get sprung, although the MSM seems to be ignoring the ACLU role. Jay wrote last year at PJM about the execrable “John Adams Project” that undoubtedly played a lead role in securing three hots and a cot for KSM while he awaits his circus trial:

The ACLU has launched an initiative called the “John Adams Project.”…What is it? In a nutshell, the ACLU has assembled a “Dream Team” of attorneys with an $8.5 million budget to defend terrorists currently held at Guantanamo. Who’s the primary object of the ACLU’s affection? Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The ACLU, true to form, impugns the professionalism and competence of men and women of infinitely more honor than their accusers by referring to tribunals as “kangaroo courts.” But could the ACLU really be so scandalized that this mass murderer will stand before a military tribunal? Could the ACLU truly be standing up for his “fundamental rights?”

What is the true purpose of a multi-million-dollar campaign to get KSM off the hook?

The ACLU explains: “The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed’s defense, Romero said, because he appears to be “the government’s top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.”

So that’s it. The ACLU wants to set KSM and 300 other terrorists free or at least make it impossible for the tribunals to serve their function. Because KSM is the worst of the worst, because he is the terrorist in custody most responsible for 9/11, the ACLU is his champion.
This PR stunt can only serve to undermine American credibility by creating the illusion – sure to be propagated by the mass media – that mass killers are somehow being denied “justice.” Think our enemies don’t appreciate the ACLU’s efforts on their behalf – on both legal and the PR fronts? Clearly, this will leave America more vulnerable to attack.

So is it really any surprise that the ACLU would be reaching around to pat itself on the back yesterday?

NEW YORK – In a major victory for due process and the rule of law, the Obama administration will announce today that the five defendants represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather than in the Guantánamo military commissions. However, the administration will also announce that it will continue to use the illegitimate military commissions system to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, including the defendant accused in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks and other military commissions defendants. The Guantánamo military commissions proceedings have been plagued from the start with legal challenges and international condemnation due to their disregard for basic due process rights.

“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America’s international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve. It would have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a process riddled with legal problems,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while protecting both American values and sensitive national security information. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts.”

This just didn’t seem to smell right, so I ran it through Babel Fish (translating from ACLUgandan to English) and here’s what came out:

BIZARRO CITY – In a major legal and propaganda victory for al Qaeda, the Obama administration will announce today that the five demented killers represented by the John Alan Muhammad Memorial Project who were responsible for the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans will await acquittal in federal court by Leftists in New York rather than standing before the incompetent troglodytes who “serve” our country in the Armed Forces…The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint conspiracy with the National Association of Criminals Disguised as Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals who’ve blessed us with the glorious 9/11 holiday. The Guantánamo military commissions are staffed by drooling fools in odd uniforms with weird oak leaves, eagles and stars on their shoulders and collars and who are despised by our international comrades.
“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for al Qaeda and is sure to threaten our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve, but we think should be applied to international terrorists, who until now have never in history been granted the constitutional rights that were once reserved for American citizens. It would have been an enormous blow to ACLU self-esteem and fundraising if we had tried these murderous thugs in a process that actually would have resulted in justice being done,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some terrorists using those idiots with really short haircuts. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves willing to advance the ACLU agenda — truth, justice and national security be damned. This has us just tickled pink.”

As diabolical as this latest move by the Obamanable Administration is, even more demented is the symbolism of trying Mohammed mere steps away from the site of the greatest act of evil — an act of war, not the street crime the Obamanable Administration is treating it like — ever committed against America on our own soil. Miles, or even blocks, away from the husbands, wives, children, mothers and fathers who were left behind to mourn because of the act of terrorism directed by the very man who has now been extended all the protections of the American constitutional system by virtue of nothing but robbing so many innocent AMERICANS of the same, forever.

Say KSM goes free…the blood of all those innocents murdered, on 9/11 and by those aspiring future Islamist killers emboldened by our manifest lack of will and strength, will be splattered and smeared all over the walls of ACLU headquarters.

Update by Lobo: Just a point I want to get covered, but not enough for a post of its own.

The military commissions are obviously constitutional because Congress instituted them and that power is vested in them.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Congress set up the Commissions for the express purpose of trying enemy combatants. I can not find any vested power in the Executive branch to order ECs tried in federal courts.

I do find it amusingly ironic that for 8 years, liberals screeched about the US going into foreign countries and forcing “democracy” on it and now their leader is ordering foreign enemies be brought into a country they hate, filled with people they want to kill, and force a democracy they despise, on them.

You might want to check out a point that Levin made. (I couldn’t get to it from Google search and could backout)

he said something to the effect that the combatants weren’t “mirandized” and that will create a technicality right from the get go. I’d be willing to bet that Obama is counting on that one!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough to Slow Climate Change

Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone publishes a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.

“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone. “Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole – a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs – like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress – may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming.”

According to Stone’s research, slowing the rate of forest loss around the world, and regenerating forests where lost, could significantly slow the pace of global warming.

“Treaty negotiators should formally recognize land use change as a key driver of warming,” said Stone. “The role of land use in global warming is the most important climate-related story that has not been widely covered in the media.”

Stone recommends slowing what he terms the “green loss effect” through the planting of millions of trees in urbanized areas and through the protection and regeneration of global forests outside of urbanized regions. Forested areas provide the combined benefits of directly cooling the atmosphere and of absorbing greenhouse gases, leading to additional cooling. Green architecture in cities, including green roofs and more highly reflective construction materials, would further contribute to a slowing of warming rates. Stone envisions local and state governments taking the lead in addressing the land use drivers of climate change, while the federal government takes the lead in implementing carbon reduction initiatives, like cap and trade programs.

“As we look to address the climate change issue from a land use perspective, there is a huge opportunity for local and state governments,” said Stone. “Presently, local government capacity is largely unharnessed in climate management structures under consideration by the U.S. Congress. Yet local governments possess extensive powers to manage the land use activities in both the urban and rural areas.”

The Environmental Science and Technology article is available at http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag.

SOURCE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Andrew Bast of Newsweek thinks he’s got the real reason behind Major Nidal Hasan’s murderously criminal rampage at Fort Hood last Thursday. Could it be that Hasan was steadily radicalized and steeped in hateful Islamofascism? Could it be a jihad mindset that sent Hasan into that military clinic yelling Allahu Akbar as he shot at anyone that got in his way?

Nope. Ridiculously, it was a “military on the brink,” it was the “stress” an uncaring U.S. military is forcing upon its members that was at fault as far as Bast is concerned. This is his obtuse conclusion in Newsweek’s piece headlined, “Is Fort Hood a Harbinger? Nidal Malik Hasan May Be a Symptom of a Military on the Brink.”

Ominously, Bast begins with his worry that there could be more members of the military about to follow Hasan’s murderous example. Bast absurdly starts his piece with this: “What if Thursday’s atrocious slaughter at Fort Hood only signals that the worst is yet to come?” And why would it be a sing(sic) that “the worst is yet to come,” you might wonder? Why else but that all that “stress” the military is putting everyone under is about to cause the whole combined services to explode?

[Hasan's is a] killing spree that may momentarily remind us of a reality that most Americans can readily forget: soldiers and their families are living, and bending, under a harrowing and unrelenting stress that will not let up any time soon. And the U.S. military could well be reaching a breaking point as the president decides to send more troops into Afghanistan.

Once again we see a member of the Old Media entirely dismissing the role that radical Islam played in Hasan’s crimes. In fact, Bast seems to suffer the fantasy that at any minute hoards of “stressed” soldiers will soon be roaming military bases across the world indiscriminately shooting at their fellows. One wonders if Bast thinks that they will all be yelling Allahu Akbar in their “stress” as Hasan did? Likely he doesn’t because he doesn’t think Islam had any role in this incident.

Saying that it is “hard to draw too many conclusions” about Hasan’s rampage, Bast then incongruously goes on to ascribe his actions to “stress” instead of radical Islam and that this stress is hampering our armed forces.

… it comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers individually that it makes it increasingly difficult for the military as a whole to deploy for wars abroad.

Bast then goes on to ascribe motivations to Base Commander Cone’s actions in the aftermath of the attack that make no logical sense at all.

In an abrupt news conference, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the top commander at Fort Hood, said in response to the shooting that authorities would “increase the security presence” on the military base. On the surface, it seemed like a logical enough plan. But it makes one wonder how much any kind of lockdown will either get at the root causes of soldier stresses or better prepare them for more battle.

General Cone’s lock down of Fort Hood, Mr. Bast, had nothing at all to do with getting “at the root” of stress. It was a security effort meant to get a handle on that particular incident. Why Bast made the illogical jump from a decision made to quell a crisis to the military’s overall efforts to deal with soldier stress is anyone’s guess.

Naturally, radical Islam couldn’t possibly be at fault here Bast obviously thinks. “Hasan’s perspective is unknown,” the Newsweek hack says. Oh? Yelling “Allahu Akbar” during his criminal actions, his past conversations expressing Islamic jihadism, and his radical Islamic Internet postings aren’t any indication of Hasan’s “perspective,” Mr. Bast? Couldn’t the fact that Hasan attended the same radical mosque that the 9/11 hijackers attended serve as even a tiny hint of his “perspective,” Mr. Bast?

Then Bast goes on to compare soldier suicide rates with Hasan’s crimes as if they are comparable.

Listen, no one denies that concern for the mental health of our soldiers is an important issue nor that stress really is rising in the services today. No one will deny that these issues should be carefully investigated and that solutions to these issues are supremely important to our uniformed personnel. No one dismisses the oft times devastating effects of posttraumatic stress disorder on our troops and no one wants to just sweep these problems under the proverbial rug.

But neither “stress” nor any assumptions of posttraumatic stress disorder have any bearing on what this murderous Muslim did at Fort Hood. It is plain that radical Islam served as Hasan’s chief motivation and for the Old Media to wish this fact away is criminally negligent on its part.

Of course, the real reason that Bast grafted this “stress” issue onto Hasan’s criminal actions is clear by his last paragraph. It is obvious that Bast’s chief aim here is to discredit the military and try to force the nation to accept a loss in Afghanistan as his ilk did at the end of the Vietnam Conflict. His only goal is to undermine the troops and lead to the end of a war of which he obviously disapproves.

The U.S. is drawing down troops in Iraq at a quick clip, but Gen. Stanley McChrystal has requested tens of thousands more to fight in Afghanistan. Though President Obama has made no decision about the way forward, some suggest that as many 80,000 more could be sent in as reinforcements. That would put nearly 150,000 American soldiers in country for at least the foreseeable future, pushing a thumb down on an already stressed-out military. Of course, the vast majority of those under that stress, no matter how brutal, will not pick up a gun and shoot indiscriminately, like Hasan did. But the situation is bad, and getting much worse. From there, it isn’t much of a leap to argue that to further tax our military would do as much as anything to guarantee that the homegrown terror on display today could well repeat itself in the future.

Bast’s real message is that it’s all “bad and getting much worse,” that the U.S. military is too “stressed-out” to be effective. It is plain that he thinks we need to end the efforts in Afghanistan and bring all our troops home now. Sadly, Bast is not above illegitimately using this Hasan incident to push his political ends, either. It’s all just another unprincipled effort by a member of the Old Media to push the anti-war meme.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Yes, the UN made a cartoon fairy a UN ambassador.

TINKER Bell is officially a UN ambassador.

And we’re not talking about Paris Hilton’s pretty pooch.

Peter Pan’s jealous little fairy friend has followed in the footsteps of other gorgeous gals Geri Halliwell, Gisele Bundchen and Angelina Jolie to do her part for the planet.

But this green do-gooder has made the history books – by becoming the first cartoon character to be honoured with the prestigious role.

The Disney favourite was named an “Honorary Ambassador of Green” in a special New York ceremony, which took place over the weekend.

As part of the Secretary General’s Creative Community Outreach Initiative, tiny Tinks will bring to life the underlying theme of caring for the environment, which regularly runs throughout her much-loved movies.

So while George promotes peace and David kicks it with the kids, this glittery UN girl is getting stuck straight into her first task by joining forces with the UK’s Energy Saving Trust to create Tinker Bell themed activity sheets.

Her no-cost energy saving tips include turning lights off when not in use and not leaving energy-guzzling gadgets such as games consoles and televisions on standby.

The amazing new gig comes at a busy time for Tinks, just weeks away is the release of her lastest flick Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure (out November 16).

Kiyo Akasaka, Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information said: ‘We’re delighted Tinker Bell has agreed to be our Honorary Ambassador of Green.

“This beloved animated character can help us inspire kids and their parents to nurture nature and do what they can to take care of the environment.”

Prestigious? Being a UN ambassador ceases to be an honor or a prestige when you start giving the title away to anyone who’s interested and is mildly famous, and becomes even less prestigious when you give the title to a freaking cartoon fairy. I can understand getting Disney’s permission to use her likeness to attract kids into caring for the environment, but actually naming her a UN ambassador? It’s ridiculous! Tinkerbell doesn’t even exist!

It’s like the UN has descended into a complete parody. When an organization is making cartoons ambassadors, it makes it pretty dang hard to take them seriously.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on !

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Even if the results were generalizable, however, there would still be problems with the inferences to be drawn from them. There is in fact some generalizable evidence on the topic drawn from general population sampling. I discuss it here

Conservatism and cognitive ability

Lazar Stankov

Abstract

Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.

Source

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . List of backup or “mirror” sites here or here — for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is “down” or failing to update. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On MSNBC on October 27, Rachel Maddow interviewed Jane Hamsher, well-known Hollywood roustabout and left-wing blogger for FireDogLake.com. The subject was the progress of Obamacare in the Senate and Senator Joe Lieberman’s warning that he might join a Republican filibuster of the Baucus bill if it contained the so-called public option.

During the discussion, however, Hamsher went off on a tangent about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and made the allusion that the famed anti-civil rights Dixiecrats joined Republicans to stand in the way of civil rights during the 1964 debates.

Maddow: Let me ask you about the statistic I attributed to you in my intro there – I know you have been doing some digging on this issue – of a Democrat joining a Republican filibuster. How, how unprecedented would a move like this be for Senator Lieberman?

Hamsher: Well, we have seen a number of the other party cross overs…well we remember the Dixiecrats joining the Republicans in the sixties on civil rights filibusters …

Naturally, host Maddow did not correct Hamsher’s misleading claim that the GOP stood in the way of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In reality, Republicans were great supporters of the legislation. Leave it to MSNBC to continue the left’s favorite myth that Republicans are against civil rights for blacks.

Of course, the truth is, the 1964 Civil Rights Act saw strong Republican support. In fact, of the total number of Republicans then serving in Congress, support never dipped below 70% on any of the final vote counts. The original House version got 80% GOP support, the Senate version got 82% and the final vote in the House was 82% of Republicans in support. On the other hand, Congressional Democrats never saw higher than 69% of its membership in support of civil rights for blacks.

And who was one of the leading voices in favor of passage? It was Illinois Senator Edward Dirksen, a Republican. Who was a leading voice opposing civil rights? Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia and still serving in that chamber.

If it were up to Democrats in 1964 the Civil Rights Act would never have passed. Yet here is the uninformed Hollywood Author Jane Hamsher of the extremist website FireDogLake falsely claiming that it was the GOP that stood in the way of civil rights for blacks. And it is MSNBC letting her get away with the falsity.

(Hamsher’s bit is at around the 4:10 mark)

(H/T ProteinWisdom.com)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

If the unemployment rate is at a dismal 9.8%, we’ve lost an average of 16,000 jobs a day, and only one state saw an increase in jobs over the last nine months (North Dakota, with an increase of less than 2,000 jobs), would you consider that there could be such a thing as a “jobless recovery”?

As ridiculous as it may seem, it’s exactly what Democrats seem content to settle for. They’re so preoccupied with health care and cap-and-trade that they’ve seemingly forgotten that we have an ailing economy and an outrageous pile of debt. While Obama is promising that he’ll work until everyone who is unemployed will be able to get a job thanks to his economic policies, his actions speak otherwise — and so do the words of his economic advisor, Christina Romer. Last week, she told Congress that unemployment was likely to stay exactly where it was, but that she still expected an economic growth in the third quarter.

And with that, we have a “jobless recovery”. Unemployment may remain at 9.8%, but hey, chin up — we’re still going to have some form of economic growth! You may not be able to afford to feed your family, but Obama’s economic advisor says it’ll all be OK, so take solace in that.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A POLITICAL row has broken out over a Derby Conservative councillor’s decision to show a climate change-sceptic film in the city’s council chamber.

The new film, Not Evil Just Wrong, is a documentary which suggests evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact climate change laws will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial. It is a direct challenge to Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, with was shown to councillors in Derby during Labour’s control of the authority in 2007.

Tory councillor Frank Leeming put forward the idea to show the new film today, sparking criticism from Labour councillors.

Wait, they were having a freak out simply because it was suggested that the film be shown last Saturday? A freak out included a request that the Conservative chairman resign? I wonder if they felt the same when Gore’s “movie” was shown? You know, the one which a British judge ruled was full of lies and half-truths, excuse me, 9 significant errors, which had to be told to the kiddies before they are forced to watch the propaganda piece.

“We are a democratic group which allows free speech. I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t do this,” (Harvey Jennings, leader of the Conservative group) said.

Bah, Free Speech is so over-rated in Liberal World.

The Leadership Campaign, a Massachusetts-based student-run group focused on the environment, is looking to have a series of sleep-overs on Boston Common imbued with a sense of urgency about taking action on the environment.

“Hey, we’re bringing awareness. We aren’t actually doing anything to reduce our own carbon footprints, that’s for someone else to do.” After the sleep-0vers, which they say will continue till the Copenhagen AGW working vacation, they are going to march down to the State House to whine. That should go well, seeing as how they certainly will have had no showers. I bet even Harry Reid would complain about the smell.

Over at the Daily Wildcat, after a bit of overly hysterical AGW claims, such as a potential global temp rise of 11.5 degrees F, we get

So what can we do? For the average college student, financial viability takes precedence over environmentally friendly alternatives to their lifestyle and this is completely understandable. Installing solar panels on your home and buying a Toyota Prius are simply not feasible ways to reduce your carbon footprint for most people. But there is a way to minimize the detrimental impact that you personally are having on our environment without having to make a radical change to your lifestyle or budget.

The answer is semi-vegetarianism.

Eating different food as a social statement. Only in Liberal World. And, the opinion writer even tells us the story of a freshman who is a vegan not because she likes it, but to “try to offset the average American’s consumption of meat.” Bet she is fun at parties.

It doesn’t matter whether you consider yourself to be environmentally conscious or not. We are all equally responsible for allowing the health of our earth to continue to deteriorate. We can no longer afford to be ignorant of the devastating effects that cultivating livestock has on global warming. You have no excuse.

Except, the health of the Earth is in no danger. Even if the temps went up 11.5 F, the Earth would get along just fine. You want to talk about actual pollution, I’m there with you. If you want to go climastupid, well, I’ll leave the rest of that thought un-written.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post