Every semantic artifice is utilized to focus our attention on our driving habits and their ill effects on the environment. Habits that have been consciously built into our lifestyle for a hundred years. Billions were spent on highways and infrastructure to facilitate our moving from place to place. Creating of suburbs and exurbs engendered a better, healthier life for our children. Now suddenly we are told that was all wrong. We were selfish and thoughtless of the environmental impact. And now the believers who bought into that dream after having been told it was the American way are expected to accept the blame for the destruction of the planet. Does no one perceive the foolishness in such malarky? Does anyone really believe this paradigm is in any way reversible?

More important than propaganda about how the public can be more energy efficient in their driving habits is what we are not being told. Fuel is not the only byproduct which places a demand on the supply of crude oil extracted from the earth’s surface. When I was growing up, literally everyone burned coal in their furnace for home heating. They claimed it was polluting our air, and indeed it was. What was the solution? Clean burning oil did the job. With modern technology it would be far easier to revert to clean coal than to reprogram the transportation habits of a third of the world population. There are myriad available oil resources within our own borders. We are told it will take ten years before we can extract any oil from them. What we are not told is many of these sources could achieve production in as little as a year. In lieu of having acted in a timely manner, the specious argument is put forth that drilling now will do nothing to solve our immediate problem at the gas pump. Based on this false assumption it is further rationalized drilling should not begin. Continuing to not act predicated on such a conclusion defies any known system of logic. Instead we are given slogans; “we can’t drill our way out of our crisis”. We were earlier told Ethanol was going to solve our problem. What we were not told is it would create a crisis in the food supply chain. Now we face world food shortages and increased cost in the raising of livestock. Another bad idea promulgated by government subsidized agribusiness to boost grain sales but sold to the public as something else. It will also take time to create alternative automotive power systems. But it should begin. We are years behind in the development of nuclear, solar, and wind power. Had we not been bamboozled by the bullshit from the overbearing environmental zealots we would have begun all these processes decades ago. I find it difficult to think we have not made some progress in these areas, but we have most certainly not been advised of it by the media or the government. Instead we have “chicken little”, Al Gore, running around telling us the sky is falling and all based on questionable data. And somehow it’s all the public’s fault.

Fuel of all kinds only accounts for roughly half of our oil consumption. What you don’t hear anyone speaking about is petrochemicals. Before we work ourselves into a frenzy over “big oil”; perhaps we should give some of the same kind of scrutiny to “big plastics”. How hard would it be for everyone to give up a free plastic bag for their groceries, or any other small purchase for that matter. Do we really need to put nearly every liquid we purchase in a plastic bottle, jar, or jug? Do we really need plastic disposable razors, plastic flatware, plastic cleaning bags, cling wrap, pilfer proof packaging that is nearly impossible to open, or any of the other thousands of throwaway items we use daily and to which we give not a second thought? One need only look around them to find innumerable instances of plastic. Vinyl flooring, upholstery—the list is enormous. I suggest if you need further itemization you check out the following website:
Much of this usage is convenient but not essential by any standard. There was a lifestyle and methods to accomplish all of these needs before cellophane and bakelite. I remember well when cookies were sold from large boxes stacked in front of the grocer’s counter. The grocer picked them out of the big box, dropped them in a paper bag and you were on your way. The butcher wrapped your steaks in paper. Pickles were frequently sold out of a big barrel as were lingonberries around Christmas. We all survived. We have—to mix a metaphor—”high-teched” ourselves into a corner. When the suggestion will be made to divert some of our oil resources away from these relatively nonessential uses, lobbyists for the petrochemical and plastics industries will be jumping around like a maelstrom of macaques. When they finally quit chattering they can begin to repurpose their plastic manufacturing plants quicker than an entire nation can change lifestyle patterns a hundred years in the making. We’ll also get a chance to see just how sincere both presidential candidates were when they told us how they would “get the lobbyists out of Washington”.

The point is this. It is time we start hearing what politicians, bureaucrats, and the propagandists in the media are telling us and begin parsing the sentences. That we begin to question the shaded meanings to determine if there are alternate solutions to those proposed by parties with a vested interest in the status quo. And, most importantly, that we not jump to emotional conclusions about what we only think we hear. For practice try listening to the pharmaceutical commercials. When they want you to believe their product is a cure for a particular malady you will hear something like; “…emerging research suggests there may be beneficial relief from the symptoms of…”. Unless you are a complete fool, this information will generally be ignored. However, when similar gibberish emanates from the mouth of a politician; it’s time to get nervous and scared.

In summation regarding my feeling toward propagandists and semantic manipulators of all stripes; I am tempted to embrace a statement attributed to Reich Marshall Hermann Goering; “When I hear the word ‘intellectual’; I reach for my revolver”.

What we’re told

July 5, 2008

The original ruckus over “global warming” engendered enough negative connotations as a result of ombudsmen such as Al Gore it became necessary for its proponents to revise that term to “climate change”. It has now become necessary to find other key words with which to perpetuate fear and angst in a populace weary of an unending war and a weakening economy. Feeling the need to put a more positive spin on world conditions semantic manipulators have now begun to create new emotional meanings for words. Global warming and climate change have suddenly morphed into “green”. But, face it, green is just a color. It has no meaning beyond that. Whatever emotional connotation one may ascribe to it is purely subjective. Therefore it cannot be rationally challenged and thus needs no defense. It also happens to be the color of money, but the climate alarmists don’t want you to think about that so they keep up the tattoo of guilt that the issue is somehow the fault of humans. The whole global warming nonsense is all about getting money from new taxes; money to fund specious research on “climate change” in the social engineering institutions our colleges and universities have become over the last 100 years. The intension of promoters of human responsibility for permutations which have been occurring in nature since the beginning of time is to scare the common sense out of the public. All this in order to bring us to a mental state in which the people will clamor for government control. Can we say… socialism? The media have been willing propagandists in the charade. It fits their liberal socialist motives as well plus nothing sells like bad news—more money to promote their agenda. So now everyone begins jumping on the “green” bandwagon. It’s like a gigantic sales promotion program. “Go green, buy our product…”; “Buy our ‘green’ car today and get $2.99 gas for the next 3 years…” It’s a disgrace! It’s buncombe and balderdash! Meanwhile that bloated toad, Al Gore, uses enormous amounts of energy in his mansion and jet planes. On top of which much of his family wealth came from mining coal. My guess would be some of which was strip mining—really environmentally friendly. I just heard Nancy Pelosi declare that the idea of doing more drilling to advance the cause of energy independence was “a scam”. It is a big question as to who is scamming whom. It would be laughable if the temerity of her tactic were not so frightening.

Be all that as it may; for every scientist that supports the concept of man’s responsibility for the so-called warming trend there are ten others coming forth to offer countering views as to its existence and/or its cause. I recall in the late 1960s or early 70s when we were expected to panic over an impending ice age. By the time everyone had heard about the threat, the temperature trends began to reverse themselves. It is one of human nature’s failings to jump to conclusions on the basis of incomplete facts. Particularly in view of our experience any benefits of the conclusion all too frequently accrue to the financial advantage of the informant.

As to the responsibility factor and the ensuing guilt; one has to wonder just what those dinosaurs did to bring about their demise.

I have often thought the lost art of oratory was in need of revival. Or, more accurately, an orator need come on the scene. Ronald Reagan came closest of anyone in recent times. I tend to see him more as a presenter. Clinton was considered by some to be a communicator. I’ve never quite figured out exactly what that means. My best guess would be something akin to “hot air merchant”. Both Bushes, Jimmy Carter, Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower could barely choke out a simple declarative sentence. I’m thinking more along the line of FDR (who my folks despised) or a Winston Churchill. For good or evil these men could rouse the sleeping spirit to action. Obama, it appears, is an orator. Empty rhetoric perhaps, but an orator nonetheless.

I recall conversations with a friend of mine; an advertising man from my era. He spoke of the art of message delivery-cum-oratory. He loved to compare Demosthenes and Aeschines. He claimed when Aeschines spoke, people remarked; “what a wonderful speech.” But, when Demosthenes spoke they cried out; “let us march against Phillip!” It would appear the populace is less moved by substance than by style. A fact of life regardless of the era.

Obama fills a need the public has to be inspired and motivated. I remember well the feeling we all had when we heard; “We will fight in the air, we will fight on the beaches, we will fight on the land! We will never give up, never give up, never!”

Would that McCain could turn some of his legendary inner rage into oratory which got thinking people off their butts and into the the streets. “To the ramparts! The enemy is upon us!”

Glad you stopped by.

March 28, 2008

I have been advised by a close friend that the best way to relieve my need to rant was to set up a blog. I frankly think he was just tired of listening to me. But, now that he has gone his merry way my wife will have to re-assume her role as the “rant catcher.”