When I talk to liberals about politics, I always come away thinking they are a few bricks shy of a load. I want to understand them, but logic invariably gets in the way. Maybe it's me. Yesterday, after a cocktail or three, I decided the only way I could ever identify with liberals was to become one, so I quit my job, signed up for food stamps and Medicaid, and started formulating a scam to collect SSI.
I was off to a good start, but still, it didn't seem like enough. Something was missing. Then it hit me. I needed an advocacy group !!! You can't be a self-respecting liberal without a liberal cause. So I formed the Night-time Unemployed Ten-Speeders (NUTS, for short). The NUTS group is founded around a key First Amendment right that all Americans should enjoy – the right to ride our ten-speed bicycles on MetroPark trails in the middle of the night. Currently, this is very difficult and dangerous to do, because the trails are not lighted (no doubt due to the Bush administration not caring about REAL people like us night-time ten-speeders). Also, the MetroParks are closed at night. CLOSED, dude ! What's up with that ? It's fascist. So I contacted the ACLU about filing a lawsuit against Bush and Cheney to get the trails lit up at night (yeah, I know they're out of office, but c'mon, you know it's their fault somehow).
I was eager to put NUTS into action, and the ACLU kept hanging up on me, so I got one of those beer helmets (pictured above), and I duct-taped a flashlight on top so I could see where I was going on the MetroPark trails. Thus, the first NUTS outing was convened. Because I was the only member of the group to date, I made myself the President of NUTS, and last night at 2am, I was off and pedaling on the trails, leaving the Park Ranger behind, cursing in my wake.
It was great !!! I was whizzing around those trails, really enjoying my new First Amendment right, when I came to a sharp left turn in the trail. As I banked into it, a mighty old oak tree stood directly in my path (darn those ACORN's). There was no way I could avoid it. Quicker than I could say 'Buck Fush,' I slammed into the tree and was knocked unconscious.
That's when the dream started. Suffering from head trauma, I had a kind of senseless epiphany. I saw the genius of the liberal view. Obama was brilliant, man ! Not only were single-payer health care and cap-and-tax cap-and-trade great ideas, but so was big government in general. We needed even more of it ! A lot more. If it is a great idea to get rid of the greedy profiteers in health care, then it followed that we should get rid of those nasty profits EVERYWHERE we found them, man, in order to bring about the perfect utopian society. Let's have the government take over, like, the food industry, so we can have cheaper food. Free food, actually. Let the rich pay for it. It's the compassionate way. Ditto for the clothing industry, and the entire retail industry for that matter. We don't need retailers. They make profits and make things more expensive too. That ain't good for people and other living things. We don't need wholesalers either. That's just more profit, driving up the costs and hurting the people. Let's just have the government run EVERYTHING !!! Why didn't I see it before ? It's wonderful. No more greedy businesses. No more jobs to go to. It'll be awesome ! I'll have so much more time for Night-time Unemployed Ten-Speeding.
Wait a second. There is ONE problem. We will still need somebody to produce things and deliver them to my house (no more mortgages either ! Banks profit from mortgages. They're evil. Free housing for all ! Rock on, liberals !). How do we solve the production and delivery problems ??? Hmmm. Bummer. Wait. I know, we'll get the illegals to do it all. They work cheap. Let them ALL in and have them all work for the government. They'll be grateful to be slaves happy workers for the rest of us. Oh my God, this is going to be SO sweet ! It would also be nice if the government could take my kids off my hands. We not only need universal government pre-school, but we need universal government babysitting too, from birth. That would free up even more of my time !
Let's calculate. What would be a fair amount of money for the government to send me so I can have a nice life with all my needs provided for ? I think $5,000 per month should do it (that's AFTER my free food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc). That sounds fair. After all, I didn't get to go to Harvard. They owe me. I was oppressed.
Man, I love this dream……
When I came to, I found myself handcuffed, with the Park Ranger and two cops standing over me, laughing. Oh, great. The Nazis were here to harsh my mellow. I tried to explain NUTS to them, and I guess they believed me, sorta. They sent me to the psychiatric wing of a local hospital for observation. Did I mention before that I was only wearing a red Speedo ? It's freedom of expression, my brothers and sisters. Looks like THE MAN was coming down on us liberals AGAIN. Still, we have to fight the power. No justice, no peace.
Hey ! Now that I'm in the hospital with a concussion and getting psychiatric care, that SSI should be a snap. Rock on !
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
I'll give it a 7 out of a possible 10, for imagination….but you can't dance to it.
Most accurate sentence? " Maybe it's me."
Best turn of a phrase? "The Nazis were here to harsh my mellow."
Outside of that…..it just seemed….I don't know…..like more bashing of the poor and vulnerable. Maybe it's just me, huh?
Try the Towpath Trail… It's open 24 hours a day
Dude, sounds like you've seen the light! But you forgot something. Since the government owns GM now, we should also all get a new, substandard car every 4-5 years. After all, everyone owes us. The rich will pay for it. At least until all their money is gone. Wait, I should know better. This is no time for reality!
Love the Rev's comment spam. We all need a little manufactured outrage in our lives, lol.
I am constantly amused by the back and forth between the supporters of Da King and The Reverend and I can`t help be drawn into the spectacle. It strikes me that your first two statements can be used with the same conviction FROM THE OTHER SIDE! It really is funny. The great experiment continues!
Rev says, "it just seemed….I don't know…..like more bashing of the poor and vulnerable. Maybe it's just me, huh?"
Here I am, trying to put forth some most excellent new liberal ideas, and I STILL get the class warfare argument used against me. You just can't please some people. Way harsh, dude.
Tom,
Thanks for the heads up. That'll help. I broke my flashlight when I crashed into the oak tree.
In the interest of truth I thought you might like to read something about John Holdren who you made the topic of one of your posts a while back and if you are really interested in investigating climate change you may also want to click on the link to the Obama Administration's report on climate change at the end of the info on Holdren.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/
Alchemist, I read your links with much interest. I found Mooney to be the typical defendant of "science" as people on the left side of life tend to do for each other. I was especially interested in the comments to Mooney's article.
Let me add some of my own comments. In 1977 I had to attend summer school to maintain my teaching license so I took an interesting appearing class which used that Ecosystem book by the Ehrlichs and Holdren. It was somewhat large for just a few weeks of reading and discussion and most of the students were either recent graduates or undergaduates and I was in my 45th year of life and only had about three others that I could really identify with.
I found that book to be really scary since it seemed to be very much against the population explosion the authors seemed to be so worried about. They were so convinced that we would all be starving by now and, yes, they did say that forced sterilization was one of the possible means of forestalling that over population. That was the kind of talk we were hearing from the UN at the time, also.
Mooney also indicated that Holdren had been inaugurated in some "holy" British scientific society and I thought immediately of our very own most recent Nobel prize winner, Algore, so had to read that part of your link. It seems that Mooney is one of the serious believers in climate change and global warming so he surely is a believer in anything Gorean.
You have broadened my knowledge about something I thought I learned about 32 years ago and I thank you. China has instituted laws to hold down their population explosion and sure enough they have used methods that the Ehrlichs and Holdren suggested. They probably waited a bit too long but if global warming doesn't finish us all off they may see some good come from their dictatorial method to control population. Just think what we can look forward to here after the present administration gets its "shadow government" fully in control.
Hey, alchemist, please explain to me what part of this blog relates to climate change theory. I'm having a hard time seeing it, but I'm sure that it must be there if you're talking about it. Thanks!
I forgot before to say that that class also studied and fought over the "in vogue" weather stories of the day. You know, the coming ice age that was supposed to have been here about 10 years ago. That was a better class than I ever thought. We discussed climate change the ice age) and overpopulation all in a couple of months and some were actually taken in by it all.
King, this is one of your best efforts at thinking out loud about liberalism and how hard it must be to be one of them. I laughed aloud more than once just thinking about the old days with you arguing with old Rev Red. Thanks for the comedy.
alchemist,
I'm not sure I'd depend on the guy who wrote "The Republican War On Science" as the arbiter of truth when he is obviously attempting to whitewash Holdren and Ehrlich's earlier views, which have been proven wrong. If you read some of the comments following that article, you will find some refutations of his refutation. Holdren referred to his ideas of forced sterilization as unpalatable, but then said the alternative (population bomb) was even more unpalatable. That's not exactly a disavowal of the extreme measures described in his book. It's more like an endorsement. Holdren did not present the extremist views in his book as 'here's what we should never do.' He presented them as valid options, albeit under extreme circumstances (that both Holdren and Ehrlich believed were happening).
But I am glad to hear Holdren has abandoned his earlier abhorrent views. That's something, though it's not like he had a choice. I wonder if Holdren was one of those guys who believed in global cooling in the 70's too. Oops, he WAS:
http://masterresource.org/?p=101
Tory Bug, I thought while reading all that good stuff from the author who was defending Holdren that he had also, previously, written an article about climate change. He is a believer, from his article, and obviously alchemist is like me, not an Algorean.
I really do think I am right about his intent.
alchemist,
The climate change link was pretty standard IPCC stuff. The author, Chris Mooney, also told a bunch of lies of omission and a couple outright lies. For instance, nowhere was it mentioned that the earth has been cooling for the last decade, which is what the science says, and which also proved the IPCC wrong about it's climate projections as soon as the IPCC made them (in 1999, I believe). As for Mooney's contention that Bush suppressed climate change info – the IPCC has been issuing findings all along, all throughout the Bush administration. They've never been a secret. Everybody knows about them. That isn't suppression. Bush just didn't act on them.
Roy,
Sometimes on this blog, I just need to entertain myself. This was a fun one to write.
Tory Bug
Read to the end — there is a link. I guess you did not read to the end or even click to the end — just some links that worthwhile reading in order to understand the issue.
King
I did read comments — just trying to broaden everyone's knowlege.
Roysoldboy
As far as "is climate change real?" It is simple — just watch sea level. Is it rising? If so why. Ask "why" 5 times and most of the time you will get to the root cause along the way. In case of sea level rise I will give you a hint — sea level rises because of melting ice and thermal expansion of water. The thermal expansion will not really begin until all of the ice has melted. Decide for your self — is climate change real and what is causing it?
alchemist, I don't doubt science. I believe the earth did get warmer in the 20th century, by about .6C. What is in doubt is why. Is it anthropogenic or natural ? If it's anthropogenic, why is it getting cooler now, as CO2 increases ? I don't know the answer, as I've said several times on this blog. I just try to present the evidence that much of the scientific community (IPCC) seems to want to keep under wraps. Secrets aren't science. It seems impossible to even engage any of the IPCC scientists in a legitimate debate on the subject. That's troubling.
And we're about to make major political changes in our energy production based upon an unproven hypothesis, a hypothesis the IPCC itself didn't believe in only fifteen years ago or so. That also worries me. A lot.
And Holdren, a global cooling advocate of the 70's, is a global warming advocate now.
Everyone's posting at the same time. Cool.
Or warm. Take your pick (pun intended).
I do appreciate your input, alchemist.
I'm watching sea level and so should everyone else.
Sea level has been rising for a long time, though it's doing so a bit faster recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
I'll ask again, alchemist, why did you bring climate change theory into this? I still see nothing in the original blog by DK about climate change. I did read your post to the end, though I didn't click your link. It seemed unrelated to the subject at hand. Still does, though you've hijacked this discussion quite nicely, lol.
Good chart! I put the end of the industrial revolution at about 1850. The diesel engine at 1892. The first airplane at 1903. The model T at 1908 and the assembly line at 1913. It looks like the slope of the line starts changing about 1915 but then the graph does not go back far enough to see if such a change has occurred before and when so we can look for reasons for that change. Since it is raining AGAIN and yard work is out AGAIN I think I will spend some time with a cup of coffee looking up some of that info.
Tory Bug I only mentioned the link because it has some good info. You see I do not like to read stuff that tells me what to think. I like to read stuff that encourages me to investigate and make up my own mind about things and I think most on the blog also like to be informed and make up their own minds. I did not intend a hijacking. Time for a new post King.
Done.