22 October 2005

Jackbooted, Tree-hugging Thugs

In a bizarre twist to the Spotted Owl controversy, it now seems that the continued plummeting of the owls' population is not oldgrowth logging but - another owl.

The Enviro-Nazis strike again using their pseudo-science and unchecked "enthusiasm" to impose their worldview on everyone who thinks that trees and animals are more important than human beings. The Wall Street Journal showcases just what a travesty the 1973 Endangered Species Act has been.

In 1990 Clinton jumped on the Spotted Owl bandwagon and, almost overnight, shut down 24 million acres of timber and stopping 80% of logging operations in California, Oregon and Washington. All this in an futile attempt at "saving" the Owl. The environmentalists claimed that logging was contributing to the deterioration of the owls' habitat. The governments' actions resulted in the decimation of the logging industry - the loss of 130.000 jobs, millions of dollars of revenue and the destruction of families.

The knee-jerk reaction to environmental issues is appalling. The Enviro-Activists act like nobody but them care about clean air, clean water and preserving our natural resources. And there seems to be a fringe quality interlaced throughout the Environmentalist community. The establishment of environmentalism came about due to Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring (1962). It highlighted an apocalyptic future which would come to fruition if the continued indiscriminate use of DDT continued unabated. DDT is now proven to be an effective pesticide that has saved millions of lives by reducing blood-born pathogens, such as malaria. But that factoid never gets computed by the Enviro-Nazis when calculating which 'cause' is going to get their attention next.

It turns out that much of what she wrote was not true. The science of pesticides and their environmental impacts were just coming into being when she was writing so it's somewhat understandable that she'd have some inaccuracies. But what is not forgiveable is the incessant whinings of the Enviro-Left and how they feel the need to take up the cause of every little species that gets labeled "endangered." The issue is - What is the basis for determining something is at-risk? The science has been shown to be faulty so their actions are based on false assumptions. The environmentalists have a fringe element that is, frankly, a bit frightening. Check out this ChemTrails website or this . Currently Contrails or Chemtrails are getting some press via the underground conspiracy theorists. There is even one site that claims to be able to eliminate ChemTrails simply by "willing them away" through mentalism. With many of these types it is like 'Conspiracy theory' meets grizzly addams. Not a good combination.

"Sonar hurting Whales" has now come to the forefront and smacks of being more tree-hugger hysteria. Yet another example of the non-sense that the environmentalists are spewing. "Nature" did this study but what did they use for methods? I remember distinctly that the Navy was blamed for causing Dolphin deaths - and, again it turned out that it was other Dolphins doing the damage & killings. It turns out that notall Dolphins are adorable, brighteyed "Flippers" with IQs of 110. Some of them kill other Dolphins for the fun of it. Hmmmmm.

I'm not saying that environmentalists are bad people - I'm convinced that the vast majority of them are good, decent people. It's just that their leadership and platforms need to be clearer on issues that they choose to get involved in. Otherwise they become just as indiscriminate as the chemicals that they deride. EarthFirst! wouldn't be Earth without humans.

I'm going to start a new organization: USAFirst!

No comments: