Goose, meet the gander
Environmental activist George Monbiot, the scourge of cars, buys himself an automobile. (Hat tip: Tim Blair) Reason: Monbiot moved out of town and found he needed one to commute.
His move from Oxford to rural Wales with his family in January meant a change of lifestyle, and he discovered he needed personal transport. “I had cars from 1982 to 1989, then I didn’t have a car until about six weeks ago,” he says. “I’ve had to break a long-time commitment, but the only way to get by, we decided, was to have the occasional use of a car.”
Monbiot moved to Wales in the first place for this reason. "His intention to move to Wales, reported in The Sunday Times in November, was prompted by his Welsh wife Angharad, who wants their 14-month-old daughter Hanna to grow up as a fellow Welsh speaker" And that's fine. Nobody said it was a crime to own a car or argue that a language preference was an invalid reason to move far from the city. Nobody except perhaps the environmentalists. No matter. To atone for the climate crime of owning a car "the couple have plans to make their home as environmentally friendly as possible, adding insulation, solar thermal panels for hot water in the summer months, and a wood-burning stove (using sustainable wood) to provide heating and hot water during the winter."
It is fashionable to denounce Pat Robertson as a theocrat, but what do you call individuals who demand that the whole world live according to the dictates of their religion except theocrats? Environmentalists? Speaking of nature, the Seven Commandments of Animalism in the Orwell's The Animal Farm may be relevant to the discussion. The Commandments were:
- Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
- Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
- No animal shall wear clothes.
- No animal shall sleep in a bed.
- No animal shall drink alcohol.
- No animal shall kill any other animal.
- All animals are equal.
Due to the exigencies of the Revolution several commandments were later amended to permit higher organs to defend the cause without undue inconvenience. The amendments were necessary, you understand.
- No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
- No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
- No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
Finally the entire philosophical system evolves to were certain actions are licit for revolutionary purposes but illicit otherwise. Today we are told it is a climate crime to travel overseas on vacation, but it is perfectly acceptable, even virtuous, to travel by private jet to attend a conference to Save The Earth. In the end, the Commandments of Animalism evolved into one simple proposition, which was probably the point of Animalism from the beginning. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
posted by wretchardthecat at 6/06/2007 02:24:00 AM
5 Comments:
One thing struck me back in the early 70’s, when people put “ecology flags” on the bumper of their cars, was how invariably those flags were all but obscured by soot from the tailpipe and dirt from everywhere. These people thought so little of their vehicles that they did not wash them or properly maintain them.
They had contempt for the very technology they used so carelessly, so they deigned to ever lower themselves to take care of it. It apparently never occurred to them that having to build a new car to replace the one that they let rust away might not be good for the environment. Or that tuning up the engine might make the car cleaner to operate.
The biggest problem with fanatics is that they are, on the whole and typically, incompetent at most if not all things.
ONE THING NOT COVERED IN ANIMAL FARM IS THE PROBLEM OF THE GROWING PIG POPULATION COMING IN THE FUTURE. THOSE GREEDY, GRABBY, GRASPING GLUTTONS WHO LIVE ONLY FOR THEMSELVES!!! THEY WALLOW IN ALL COUNTRIES, ALL POLITICAL PARTIES, AND THEY LURK IN THE SHADOWS WHERE THERE IS POWER TO PILFER!
TED
The word you're looking for is "gaiacrat".
There is something profoundly wrong with the current aristocracy, like Moonbat.
Old line Aristos did not care what the average person did, or how they lived. They were aristos, secure in their social position, and had people wanting to become them.
What happened to debase the aristo class into wanting total social control over every aspect of a person's life? A Stalin, or a Mao, or a Ghenghis Khan I get. They are the new kings of the new dynasty and the old affections for the old dynasty must be erased.
But this class of aristos has been in power since 1968 or so. That's almost 40 years. Why the desire for total social control?
The only answer I get is that they see profound challenges to their legitimacy as aristos and thus MUST have total social control to prevent another king and aristocracy from overthrowing them.
Whiskey 199:
Nope, it’s cause it ain’t working – and they know it.
They are afflicted with that scourge of the 60’s, McNamara Syndrome.
They say:
1. “Here’s the plan. Do it this way and it will be much better.”
2. “It’s not working? Idiots! You are not doing it right. Let me show you how.”
3. “Well, you can’t do anything right! Not even when I tell you exactly!”
And finally, as this goes on you get:
“You put your left foot in and your left foot out. Pick it up and shake it all about…”
The Puppet Master ends up with everyone dancing the Hokey Pokey in a desperate attempt to make his stupid ideas work.
Post a Comment
<< Home