Posts Tagged ‘Planet’

Is Man a Plague Upon the Earth?

by Selwyn Duke on Saturday, February 2nd, 2013

First there was the anti-Western Westerner, the hate-America-first crowd, and the self-loathing white person. Now we have the anti-human human, who, like General Ursus in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, seems to think that “the only good human is a dead human!” Of course, the Kum-Gaia-singing misanthropes don’t actually say that; rather, as David Attenborough recently opined, they assert that man is a “plague” whose burgeoning population threatens to do to the planet’s resources what the feds do to the treasury. Now, I already pointed out in a recent piece that Attenborough is factually wrong: The world will in the foreseeable future likely face a population implosion, not an explosion. But he is philosophically wrong as well.

There is no doubt that we should be good shepherds of the Earth. We have a responsibility to conserve resources when possible and should cherish God’s creation. And while we can acknowledge that we all too often fail in that regard, it is quite another thing to call man a “plague,” which clearly implies that he is a troublesome life form deleterious to something more important. Yet the issue here isn’t just that some ascribe greater value to the Earth than to man, or at best equal value. It is the larger questions of why they believe the Earth has any intrinsic value at all and the basis on which that value is assessed.

If you were a Christian, you’d presumably believe that the world had value because it was a gift from God; you would also likely believe that man had greater value and had been given a mandate to subdue the Earth. This is clearly not the position of the man-as-plague (MAP) crowd, however, which tends to operate under a worldview of atheism, either stated or implied. A corollary of this is that “man is the measure of all things,” which, of course, means that man is the only agency around to ascribe value. What follows from this is that the Earth, that curious arrangement of atoms, has no intrinsic value; it is only that man happens to value it. This is precisely, by the way, why some philosophers explicitly say that absolute intrinsic value doesn’t exist.

Of course, some think man-as-measure judgments carry weight; many will go so far as to say that man’s preferences for behavior are significant, and they even will sometimes label these tastes writ philosophically large as “morality.” So, okay, let us accept for argument’s sake that the Earth has “value” because man says it does. A logical extension of this is that if man didn’t exist, the Earth would have no value; thus, it derives its value from man to begin with. And this brings us to a relevant question: How can what is valued be more valuable than what can, with credibility, value it?

After all, if we can rightly be a yardstick that can determine the value of the Earth, we must be above it. And then it is ridiculous to subordinate man to it and describe him as a “plague” upon it.

This leaves the MAP crowd with little room to maneuver.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

On Angels and Demons

by Selwyn Duke on Wednesday, November 7th, 2012

This is article 127 of 246 in the topic Religion

Angel vs. DemonWhen actor and director Mel Gibson was asked some years ago about certain difficulties he had when making his film The Passion of the Christ, he registered a countenance of unease and said (I’m paraphrasing), “Something doesn’t want this to happen.”

Being just a couple of seconds of his interview, it was perhaps hardly noticed by many. But it might have made the ears of people of faith, particularly Christians, perk up. And they would have known precisely to what he was alluding.

Of course, any talk of spirits not confined to the local liquor store is now often considered the stuff of children and crackpots. Yet is such scoffing logical?

Modern man, ever the materialist, may scoff at that question. “Matters of faith are anything but logical,” says he, “so making light of them is eminently so.” But this betrays a misunderstanding of logic. Logic is not an answer; it is a method by which answers can be found. As such, like a computer, its “output” is contextual to the entered data. In other words, it can only tell you if something makes sense within the universe of information, or assumptions, in which it is operating.  So, garbage in, garbage out. But note that garbage makes absolute sense in an intellectual garbage dump.Some may now think the next question tackled would be: which is that mental landfill, the religious or secular universe of ideas? In this article, however, I will deal with a little picture, not the big one. We are going to examine angels and demons, whose existence, of course, I cannot prove or disprove (although I certainly have always believed them, as when I was a wee lad already, my mother told me in no uncertain terms that I was a little devil). Yet there is something I can prove: scoffing at talk of their existence is illogical within the context of what, even today, is most people’s world view.

A majority Americans will say they believe in God and also that we humans have souls. Of course, to believe the former but not the latter would be to contend that God created soulless sentient beings, organic robots who — or, I should say, which — are just some pounds of chemicals and water. For, without souls, that is all we would be. This conception of man’s nature is, by the way, a corollary of atheism and is the expressed belief of people such as physicist Stephen Hawking.

But while most will reflexively say we have souls, they do not consider what a soul actually is. It is called the spiritual part of us because it is in fact a spirit, a ghost. All these terms are synonyms.

Now, a corollary of belief in God and His creation is that the spirit preceded the flesh (viewing matters through our “handy illusion,” as Einstein put it, called time); after all, God is a spirit and He came “first.”

So now let us lend perspective to the belief in angels. It states that before the spirit we call God created man, who is spirit and flesh, He created a race of beings who are only spirit. And like us they have intellect and free will, which is why they could choose evil and some rejected God.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Bill Maher: The perfect communist?

by Stephen Levine on Tuesday, October 16th, 2012

This is article 30 of 70 in the topic Communism

Here we have an avowed atheist promoting the Marxist power program of creating and managing scarcity, rather than fostering independence, achievement and growth. It is one of the Marxist tenets that there are finite resources on Planet Earth and that governments must institute “population control” to assure that planetary resources are available for succeeding generations. Even though Marxism is thought to be a “scientific” method of governance, it also posits that people – “population units” – are too stupid or self-absorbed to see the “big picture.” Thus requiring an “enlightened ruling elite” to make the hard decisions to preserve the Planet.

So I am not surprised when Bill Maher, a useful idiot, stands up and spouts the “party line.” 

Bill Maher: ‘The Planet Is Too Crowded and We Need to Promote Death’

( – HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher says he’s “consistently pro-death” – and “not one of those people who thinks all life is precious.” Even dogs can create life, he said in an Oct. 7 interview on satellite radio. Maher explained his views on life and death when Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and host of StarTalk Radio, raised the death penalty. “You support the death penalty, according to my notes,” Tyson said.  “Isn’t it largely Republican?  They may not have birthed the idea, but?”

“Yeah, I guess so,” Maher said.  “I mean I have a lot of ideas that you might consider conservative.  But I feel like on that, I’m just consistent, like the pope is consistent.  The pope is consistently pro-life; I’m consistently pro-death.” “I am for the death penalty, although I do believe in more DNA testing,” Maher continued.  “My motto is, ‘Let’s kill the right people.’  I’m pro-choice.  I’m for assisted suicide.  I’m for regular suicide.  I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving.  That’s what I’m for.” “It’s too crowded,” Maher continued.  “So, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.” “I mean it’s not that hard to create life, it’s teeming everywhere.  It’s something a dog can do.” <Source: Bill Maher: ‘The Planet Is Too Crowded and We Need to Promote Death’ |>

The party line …

From Margaret Sanger to Melinda Gates: Population Control Continues

In July 1912, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes and other leaders in the early race-cleansing eugenics movement held their first international conference in London.

Among the leading topics of discussion were how to stop poor and “unfit” African women from breeding. Exactly 100 years later, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the British Government sponsored the Summit on Family Planning in the same city. This is most likely a coincidence, but the irony is stunning. The objective of the Summit on Family Planning was to raise enough money to “provide 120 million women in the world’s poorest countries with access to contraceptives by 2020,” with a heavy emphasis on Africa. Atop the list of the Gates Foundation’s partners were ― you guessed it ― International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International, the two largest abortion providers in the world, back to finish the work their founders had started a century before.

Click to continue reading “Bill Maher: The perfect communist?”
Go straight to Post

Friday Afternoon Roundup – Planet Liberal

by Daniel Greenfield on Saturday, April 21st, 2012


On Planet Liberal this man is the embodiment of white racism. On Planet Earth, he came into the courtroom much as you would expect a man who had not wanted to be in a lethal confrontation and did not spend his time licking his chops at the prospect of killing a black teenager.

On Planet Liberal this was supposed to be some inverse version of To Kill a Mockingbird, A Time to Kill and every other of the numerous entries in that genre. On Planet Earth, it’s looking like a weak case with an incompetent and unethical prosecutor whose own team is unable to answer the question of who started the fight between Martin and Zimmerman.

But living on Planet Liberal requires believing twelve impossible things before breakfast.

To live on Planet Liberal, you have to believe that only white people can be racist, that going deep into debt is the only way to fix the economy and that freedom means forcing other people to do things for you.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that sexual orientation is fixed permanently in an individual’s genetic code and can never be altered, but that gender is a fluid social construct that can be swapped with a little mutilation and some hormone shots, or just with a change of outfit.

To live on Planet Liberal, you have to believe that America, Europe and Israel have no right to sovereignty over their territory, but that Saddam’s Iraq and Ahmadinejad’s Iran do.

To live on Planet Liberal, you have to believe that every breath you take helps raise planetary temperatures but that buying carbon credits is the only way to save earth.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that despite Lee Harvey Oswald, the People’s Temple, the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Anarchist Bombings of 1919, the real threat to this country comes from right wingers.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that wealth redistribution from the people to the government is social justice.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that religion is bad because it’s divisive and has to be taken on faith, but that left-wing politics are good because they are divisive and their utopia has to be taken on faith.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that the only people who should have guns are those who work for the government and that this will protect the people.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that teachers should be paid more than basketball players, without any regard to where the money would come from.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that war is bad, but that terrorism is good.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that the Constitution is outdated, but the decisions of the Warren Court, led by a racist from the 19th century, should be kept forever.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that the people want you to implement all your ideas, but you have to lie about it to them because they’re too dumb to know they want them implemented.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Go straight to Post

EPA solicits 6-word essay submissions celebrating Earth and EPA, not necessarily in that order

by Doug Powers on Thursday, April 19th, 2012

This is article 54 of 96 in the topic Environmental


Earth Day is just around the corner, and the EPA needs your literary assistance in order to properly observe the occasion:

The Environmental Protection Agency is asking denizens of Planet Earth to submit six-word essays about said planet for a taxpayer-funded project aiming to “celebrate the environment.”

As promoted on the EPA’s blog earlier this month, the “Six Words for the Planet” project is accepting submissions from “citizens of any country, living anywhere.” Submissions that meet the list of requirements (e.g. no “hatred”) will be posted on the EPA’s website and shared via the agency’s social media channels.

“One planet. One people. Billion regulations.”

You can read a few six-word essays written by EPA staff here. And to think Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann believe we can do without these people!

Because a half dozen carelessly strung together words can make a difference, in the spirit of contributing to the goal of a cleaner planet, below are a couple of my submissions:

–Idling buses constrained. Happy trees rejoice.

–Obama inauguration litter made Indian weep.

–Environment cleaner. Thanks, Gore limo convoy.

–Fifty dollar bulb. Polar bears saved.

–Apologies for fracking you, Mother Nature.

Give it a try, it’s fun — sort of like Haiku for tree-hugging bureaucratic over-regulators.

I heard that Vice President Biden might pen a submission. To help him out, I’ve taken the liberty of writing his six-word essay for him: “Keep the planet clean, enjoy life more.”

Feel free to use it, Joe.

Go straight to Post

Do You Need Psychological Treatment for Global Warming Skepticism?

by Doug Powers on Saturday, March 31st, 2012

This is article 164 of 342 in the topic Global Warming

nullIf the underwhelming lack of convincing non-tampered evidence and numerous examples that the climate change movement is motivated purely by greed and a lust for power isn’t enough to convince you to believe Al Gore, well, they just might have to resort to alternate methods:

Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

So what’ll it be, deniers — medication, the psycho ward, or both?

Check out the story. Trust me, the photo of the University of Oregon professor is worth the click. It’s so good to know our tax money goes to support wackos like this.

Go straight to Post

The Greens Think You’re Stupid

by Alan Caruba on Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Every day sends me an email that features links to several articles on issues they regard as urgent and important. If I had no knowledge of science or much else, I would be spending my days in a state of panic and that would be just fine with the EcoWatch folks.

In late February, one of the articles to which one could link was “Top Earth Scientists Warn of Global Ecological Emergency” that was the epitome of everything that is wrong with the environmental movement in general and the machinery of the United Nations whose goal is to be the single global government with which to rule the Earth. Towards this end, the UN has an Environmental Program whose most recent gift to humanity has been three decades of lies about “global warming.”

Now the UN has its eyes set on “transforming” the world’s economic system in general and the destruction of capitalism in particular. That is what the upcoming Rio+2- Earth Summit in June is all about. Why anyone would believe anything these people have to say defies explanation.

“Ecological Internet (EI) reiterates is declaration of a planetary ecological emergency, first issued two years ago. Since then abrupt climate change has revealed itself in all its fury. Habitat loss and extinction have intensified, food and water have become increasingly scarce, and human inequity and injustice have grown.”

This kind of Chicken Little blather is the very lifeblood of environmentalism.

If individuals and nations cannot be driven to pay dearly for “carbon credits” in order to emit carbon dioxide, than some new scheme must be devised and driven by the same scare tactics and campaigns that worked for global warming until it became apparent that it was a complete fraud and those who advanced it little more than criminals with PhDs.

Parenthetically, it is precisely the Big Lie of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” that is at the heart of the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule-making that would destroy the nation’s manufacturing and energy production sectors.

Americans and others around the world are largely unaware of the massive propaganda machine, aided and abetted by the news media and even Hollywood, that works relentlessly to shape public perceptions and opinion.

In just four day’s time, EcoWatch emails provided twenty-four links to stories, some of which had the following headlines:

“Who’s Funding Climate Change Denial?”

“Overfishing leaves Swaths of Mediterranean Barren”

“Water Scarcity Impacts at Least 2.7 Billion People Each Year”

“As Fracking Boom Hits Ohio, Deceptive Industry Practices Squeeze Landowners”

“10 Ways Monsanto and Big Ag Are Trying to Kill You—And the Planet”

“School Lunchrooms Put Planet and Kids at Risk”

“7 Dangerous Lies About Plastic”

There are common environmentalist themes in just these few examples. All corporations are evil, but those seeking to provide sources of energy are more evil than, say, those providing farmers the means to grow more crops to feed more people. Anything that might improve the economy or enhance the lives of Americans is vigorously opposed.

The use of deliberate deception is a constant factor in environmental claims.

The assault on America’s children continues unabated, especially in their classrooms where they are routinely taught that humans are to blame for destroying entire eco-systems, the climate, and everything else.

Click to continue reading “The Greens Think You’re Stupid”
Go straight to Post

Fighting Global Warming, Ted Turner Style

by Doug Powers on Thursday, March 1st, 2012

This is article 161 of 342 in the topic Global Warming

The Hollywood Reporter has published an extensive interview with Ted Turner. In one section of the interview, after saying the Tea Party is “mean spirited” (a man who knows how to spot Nazis at Fox News can be trusted to root out overexaggeration wherever it exists), Turner expressed his frustrations with the Tea Party’s denial of settled science:

“It’s so heartbreaking to have [them] say that global warming is a hoax,” Turner says in a new Hollywood Reporter profile.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, he admits to driving a Prius and supporting President Obama.

Digging a little deeper into the Hollywood Reporter story, after reading about Turner’s environmentally friendly Prius and global warming concerns, we find this gem that makes Al Gore look like a buck private in the Army of Hypocrisy:

He may lack the ebullience of his earlier years, yet Turner shuttles endlessly among his 28 properties — 14 of them ranches with 55,000 bison — traveling hundreds of thousands of miles per year on his private Challenger jet.

Not exactly Ed Begley, Jr., is he? Maybe Turner could convince more people that global warming is a grave threat to humanity if he would behave as if he believes it. But the joke’s on the rest of us, because when global warming turns everybody into cannibals, Ted Turner will be 35,000 feet off the ground.

Finally, the story features a little bit about Turner’s television viewing habits:

He only watches CNN and no other channels on television — not even CNN’s sister HLN. “I haven’t watched in years,” he said. “I want to see serious news.”

Well he’s watching the right network then:

nullPrevious crackpottery:
Ted Turner Suggests Child Offsets; Poor People Overcrowding Planet, Obstructing View of His Vacant 2 Million Acres

Go straight to Post

Dumb and Dumber, Watching TV

by Alan Caruba on Monday, January 30th, 2012

This is article 36 of 116 in the topic Hollywood

I am pretty sure that, in their heyday, the Three Stooges, were looked down upon as low comedy by some folks. To this day, I still do. The truth is, however, even chimpanzees yuck it up when one of their fellow primates falls out of the tree. Since we share a great deal of our DNA in common with them it should come as no surprise that many people tune into “America’s Funniest Home Videos” to watch other people sustain a variety of injuries and himiliations.

In these horrid times, we all need a bit of entertainment and a few laughs, but it is hard for me to scan the evening’s television schedule without concluding that what passes for popular culture these days suggests that our collective IQs are scraping the bottom percentiles.

I will skip the usual stuff on the networks. Cops, lawyers, physicians are the stuff of most TV dramas from its earliest days. Many of these shows are well written, acted, and produced. The situation comedies, however, are the lowest, most vulgar stuff imaginable. The animated versions, “The Simpsons”, “Family Guy” or “American Dad” are generally cringe-worthy and, if you think about it, a wholesale attack on everything society generally regards as virtues. If you tear them down, what is left?

A show like “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” gets a bunch of fairly smart kids together and some really dumb adults to demonstrate how much they have forgotten or never learned when they were in fifth grade. There is a serious aspect to the question it asks.

I once wrote that if you wanted to lower your IQ, you should just watch the so-called History Channel, but to that I would have to add Animal Planet with shows like “American Stuffers” featuring a taxidermist and folks who had Fido and Fifi stuffed so they can be around in perpetuity. One can only hope they don’t feel the same way about the rest of their family.

This is the same channel that insists on broadcasting shows whose theme is that aliens from outer space are responsible for teaching the ancient Egyptians or Incas how to build pyramids. Let me repeat that, aliens from outer space! On a similar note, if the National Geographic channel keeps telling us that global warming is real, it should be dragged into court and heavily fined for every time it repeats this hoax.

Moving along, Animal Planet offers “Gator Boys” and the incomparable “Finding Bigfoot.” Why anyone would waste a minute’s time looking for Bigfoot defies the imagination, but watching them do so is comparable to announcing that you have reached a level of stupidity that embarrasses everyone who knows you.

Some shows are a category unto themselves like “Jersey Shore” in which a colony of morons is created solely for the purpose of providing viewers the satisfaction of saying they are not as stupid as the people they’re watching. There are gradations of this formula such as “The Real Housewives of” wherever, “The Bachelor”, etc.

I keep wondering when people who watch these shows will realize that “reality TV” has the same relationship to reality as junk mail does to a notice of eviction.

Click to continue reading “Dumb and Dumber, Watching TV”
Go straight to Post

Fear of a Lonely Planet

by Daniel Greenfield on Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

The left of center European press has responded to Prime Minister Cameron’s veto of EU 2.0 with all the hysteria of a man on a desert island who sees the rescue plane flying off into the distance. Equal to them is the American press which is already barking that if we don’t sign on to Durban’s boondoggle and accept a global environmental court, then we have doomed the planet.

This pathological drive toward regional and global union regardless of the negatives seems more like a neurotic reaction than serious policy. Is the UK really doomed outside of the EU, especially since for all the hyperbole it isn’t anywhere near to being outside the EU, and is a failure to create another disastrous bureaucracy in the name of saving the planet from disaster really going to doom the human race?

Union has become the neurotic obsession of progressive politics, regardless of whether that union does anyone any good or not. If we could pretend that EU 1.0 was leaving behind the ghosts of nationalism for union, EU 2.0 is mostly compensating for the failures of EU 1.0 with greater centralization and wishful thinking. There isn’t even the ghost of optimism or idealism on display here, it’s the board of Olympus deciding to cook even more books in the hopes that shareholders don’t notice that the whole thing is unworkable.

The problem with federalizing and unifying everything is that it’s expensive. Multiple authorities mean more costs. Bulking up the bureaucracy isn’t a triumph of the human spirit, it’s the last days of half a dozen empires.

The unified humanity under a global government project is a bad idea spawned by people who couldn’t properly run nations, let alone the world. And even more foolishly, its proponents like H.G. Wells assumed that such a project would be run by likeminded European socialists who would whip the religion and the nationalism out of all the peons. Their vision was really the British Empire, administering a global bureaucracy of reason, in which people might speak different languages, but they would all think the same way.

In its shameless arrogance this vision didn’t account for a Gandhi or a Mohammed, it assumed that the day when Europe and the Anglo Colonies agreed to fall in line with a rational brotherhood of man, then all the little brothers in Asia, Africa and the Middle East would join the consensus and learn to love the smiling mustachioed face of Big Brother.

But China, India and the Muslim world have their own agendas, which are the old-fashioned kind, national greatness through industrial prosperity and armed force. And Western leftists have been left standing there like the successful elder brother who drops out of his law practice to join a cult and then returns home shocked to realize that the rest of the clan is still working for a living.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin