Al Gore, Zinc Miner And Hypocrite
Here is an excerpt from this article on opinionjournal.com. It shows that on top of his over the top energy consumption( which he pays carbon credits to himself to justify), he is also a zinc miner whose company polluted rivers. So it seems that Al Gore is being outed for the environmentally unfreindly hypocrite that he is.
Here is the excerpt:
Then there is the Gore zinc mine. Mr. Gore has personally earned $570,000 in zinc royalties from a mine his father bought in 1973 from Armand Hammer, the business executive famous for his close friendship with the Soviet Union and for pleading guilty to making illegal campaign contributions during Watergate. On the same day Al Gore Sr. bought the 88-acre parcel from Hammer for $160,000, he sold the land and subsurface mining rights to his then 25-year-old son for $140,000. The mineral rights were then leased back to Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum and the royalty payments put in the names of Al Gore Jr. and his wife, Tipper. Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider claims the terms of the 30-year Occidental lease agreement gave the Gores “no legal recourse” to get out of it. She said the Gores never thought about selling the land and would not comment on whether they ever tried to void the lease. “There is a certain zone of privacy once people go into private life,” Ms. Kreidler said. She said critics of the arrangement should realize it should be viewed in a “1973 context, not a 2007 context. . . . There was a different environmental sensibility about all sorts of things.”
But what about a 1992 context? That is the year Mr. Gore published “Earth in the Balance,” in which he wrote: “The lakes and rivers sustain us; they flow through the veins of the earth and into our own. But we must take care to let them flow back out as pure as they came, not poison and waste them without thought for the future.” Mr. Gore wrote that at a time when he would be collecting zinc royalties for another 11 years.
The mines had a generally good environmental record, but they wouldn’t pass muster either with the standard Mr. Gore set in “Earth in the Balance” or with most of his environmentalist friends. In May 2000 the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a “Notice of Violation” notifying the Pasminco mine its zinc levels in a nearby river exceeded standards established by the state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. In 1996 the mine twice failed biomonitoring tests designed to protect water quality in the river for fish and wildlife. “The discharge of industrial wastewater from Outfall #001 [the Caney Fork effluent] contains toxic metals (copper and zinc),” the analysis stated. “The combined effect of these pollutants may be detrimental to fish and aquatic life.”
The Gore mines were no small operations. In 2002, the year before they shut down, they ranked 22nd among all metal-mining operations in the U.S., with total toxic releases of 4.1 million pounds. A new mine operator, Strategic Resource Acquisition, is planning to reopen the mines later this year. The Tennessean reports that just last week, Mr. Gore wrote SRA asking it to work with a national environmental group as it makes its plans. He noted that under the previous operator, the mines had, according to the environmental website Scorecard, “pollution releases from the mine in 2002 [that] placed it among the ‘dirtiest/worst facilities’ in the U.S.” Mr. Gore requested that SRA “engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices.” The Tennessean dryly notes that Mr. Gore wrote the letter the week after the paper posed a series of questions to him about his involvement with the zinc mines.
Pro-Troop Demonstrators Draw Huge Crowds In Washington DC
The American Thinker site today has a great article about the pro-troop rally in Washington DC yesterday. What pro-troop rally you must be asking yourself. There is good reason you probably haven’t heard about it, it hasn’t been widely reported about in the mainstream media.
The media is too busy carrying the Democrats anti war battle cry to give you the facts about most of the demonstrators. You see, most accounts have the pro-troop demonstrators greatly outnumbering the anti-war crowd. The estimate of pro-troop demonstrators is about 30,000. That would look good for the president and the country, so we can’t have that. They media portrays everyone there as anti-war protesters.
This is the battle we wage on the home-front, trying to keep up the fight abroad while the Democrats and the media do their best to secure defeat at home. The best way for them to do this is to break the will of the American people. It is sad and disgusting that they continue to misrepresent the truth all in an attempt to bring down George W Bush.
You can read the full article here, it was written by one of the pro-troop demonstrators who was down there. I would like to thank everyone who went there and showed us what supporting the troops really means.
Could Fred Thompson Be A Viable Option For Conservatives?
Fred Thompson seems to have a more realistic chance at getting the Republican nomination, and the white house than the second tier men that I have been looking at. While I like Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Duncan Hunter this man seems to have a legitimate shot at the nomination. I will be watching closely if he decides to run to see how this changes the dynamics of the race.
This article is from realclearpolitics.com:
Thompson Could Fill the Missing Slot
By Peter Brown
In most presidential campaigns, after the party nominations are settled, voters experience buyer’s remorse: a sense that other candidates might have been a better choice.
What’s fascinating about the 2008 Republican race is the widespread buyer’s remorse a year before the primaries, almost a conventional wisdom that there must be a better choice for conservatives who dominate the GOP nomination process.
Largely because of that belief, a quiet effort has been underway to convince Fred Thompson, the former movie actor, turned U.S. senator, turned back into television star, to run. Read more…
Global Warming Hoax Indoctrination Continues In Schools
Our children are being indoctrinated into this global warming hoax and we need to stop this before it is too late. This whole scam is being perpetrated for more government controls and regulations. To dictate to us how we must live. This whole carbon offset scam is just a precursor to some kind of environmental tax. More money and control to the government, and it is being taught to our children as fact. They won’t know any better unless we keep re-educating them from this hoax being taught in school.
Here is an article from burlingtonfreepress.com:
Global warming discussions in schools
By Sky Barsch
Free Press Staff Writer
Some parents question how global warming is taught in schools In Montpelier earlier this year, Bill Burrell’s sixth-grade students testified before legislative committees about global warming and what Vermont can do about it. The students also are immersed in conservation and alternative energy projects.In South Burlington recently, a middle school math teacher used a portion of Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” to illustrate linear equations. An English teacher used the movie to spark opinion writing. Another documentary, “Too Hot Not To Handle,” was shown in a science class during a climate and weather unit to help illustrate the effect that human beings have on the environment, according to Frederick Tuttle Middle School Principal Joe O’Brien.In Jericho this week, Jericho Elementary School students put on a play about global warming.
As global warming has shifted from the subject of scientific trade journals and alternative media to the center of the public and political arenas, it also has become a hot topic in public schools. That has some parents questioning what their children are hearing. Parents who disagree with the global warming theory, or who chalk it up to environmental alarmists or political hyperbole, are finding that their points of view aren’t given the attention afforded the “other side.”
This has educators wondering if global warming is the next intelligent design versus evolution debate?
“That’s always a very delicate situation, that we provide a balance,” O’Brien said of the global warming discussion. O’Brien was contacted recently by parent Linus Leavens, who was upset that “An Inconvenient Truth” and “Too Hot Not To Handle” were shown to his children.
Although school officials say the movies were used as a tool to illustrate linear equations and to show how an argument can be presented, Leavens is still concerned that countering theories were not shown.
Leavens said he is not convinced that humans are causing climate change. He points to the views of S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University who is skeptical of global warming theories such as those discussed in Gore’s movie, and wants to ensure that the views of global warming dissenters are presented at school. Also, he complains, Gore is a politician.
“Al Gore is a political animal,” Leavens said. “That, I have an issue with. There are people out there who are not buying the left-wing environmental blitz hook, line and sinker. I want both sides to be presented.” ?
THEORETICAL DEBATE
All scientific theories are just that — theories. Cell theory and atomic theory aren’t “proven,” just as the global warming theory isn’t proven, says Judy Allard, a biology teacher at Burlington High School. At some point, cell and atomic theories were controversial, too; but these days, a parent would be hard-pressed to find a public school that spent equal time teaching opposing cell or atomic theories.
Allard said the political attachment to global warming — like the religious factor in the creation and evolution debate — keeps it controversial and prevents objective evaluation of the evidence.
“Global warming, 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, was thought of as sort of a wing-nut idea. It’s not a wing-nut idea anymore because of the data that’s accumulated,” Allard said. “It still involves interpretation, but the political attachment is what makes it difficult. It’s easier to deny that it exists than to say it does and we have to do something about it.”
Allard also pointed to the growing evidence that supports the evolution theory, but said religious fundamentalism gets in the way of acceptance.
Schools are still careful to point out that evolution is one theory and that there are others, O’Brien said.
“The development of the universe — some parents strongly object to it,” O’Brien said. “We always preface that unit by saying this is a scientific approach and others have other theories. We have parents that do object to us talking about the word ‘evolution.’” ?
‘DENIERS’
As with any theory, global warming has its dissenters. Leavens is one, and he said he doesn’t appreciate being viewed as though he “thinks the earth is flat” and his “head is in the sand.”
Leavens has problems with Gore’s movie, and he questions Hollywood’s profits.
“The real question and concern is, are we getting our science curriculum from Hollywood? Because Hollywood is known for a lot of things, but the foundation for science and critical thinking, it’s not.”
Burlington resident Steve Coss also questions the science.
“My concern is there just doesn’t seem to be any balance anymore,” Coss said. “It’s like if you question the science you’re actually called a denier now. It’s like the Holocaust deniers.” ?
STUDENT RESPONSE
Jericho Elementary School third-grade teacher Sharyl Green said she anticipated controversy when she began discussion of “what an erratic climate pattern this is,” she said. So she wrote to parents to explain her intention — to educate, not alarm. And she’s been successful, she said.
“They are eating it up,” Green said of her students. “They are very in touch with it. I don’t think they feel saddened or distracted by it. Most are hungry for information. I don’t think that they feel responsible for it; they understand we need to change habits.”
Students put on a global warming play Thursday.
Green said she will show some clips from “An Inconvenient Truth,” that focus on climate change, not Gore.
“I have seen the film myself, and it certainly was a catalyst for me,” Green said, “but I don’t think that it’s necessary or appropriate to show the whole thing. Al Gore’s life is not what we’re talking about.” ?
Contact Sky Barsch at sbarsch@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com or 660-1861. ?
Democrats And The Culture Of Corruption
Here is another example of the culture of corruption in the Democrat party. For them to sit on their high horse and call the Republicans corrupt while forgetting to make sure their own house is clean is laughable. The worst offender in my opinion can be read about here.
Here is the latest corrupt Democrat, if this was a Republican it would be splashed all over the mainstream media.
From timeswv.com:
Report congressman’s finances are target of grand jury probe labeled ‘unsubstantiated’
From Staff and Wire Reports
FAIRMONT — Rep. Alan Mollohan’s finances are the target of a grand jury investigation that will look at whether the veteran congressman failed to disclose source of income, The Dominion Post reported.
Witnesses have been subpoenaed by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to appear before the grand jury on April 3, the newspaper said in Saturday’s editions, citing sources close to the investigation. The newspaper said it had agreed to withhold the sources’ identities.
Mollohan, who has denied any wrongdoing, said he was unaware of the grand jury investigation and had not been subpoenaed.
“If it’s true, then you know it and I don’t,” the West Virginia Democrat told the newspaper Friday.
On Saturday, Mollohan spokesman Gerry Griffith called the story an “unsubstantiated” one.
“In fact, the newspaper that originated it tried to claim that Mr. Mollohan himself had received a subpoena, which is incorrect,” Griffith said.
“They need to be cautious when they run unsubstantiated stories.”
Channing Phillips, spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Columbia, said the agency could not comment.
“Pursuant to department policy and grand jury secrecy rules, we cannot comment on such matters,” Phillips said Friday.
A conservative group, the National Legal and Policy Center, has alleged that Mollohan has undervalued his assets in annual financial disclosure reports.
The Justice Department has been investigating whether Mollohan has benefited from directing federal funds to nonprofit groups he helped start.
At issue is at least $202 million of federal funding that Mollohan has steered to five nonprofit groups in his district — with much of the money going to organizations run by people who contribute to the lawmaker’s campaigns.
Mollohan and a political action committee he controls have received more than $146,000 in the past 10 years from donors affiliated with these nonprofits.
Last year, Mollohan stepped down from the House ethics committee after media reports into his activities, and the FBI soon launched an investigation.
Earlier this year, the FBI subpoenaed financial records from the nonprofits, though no charges have been filed.
Canaan Valley Institute, which receives much of its funding from federal earmarks from Mollohan, turned over more than 15,000 documents but has not received any recent subpoenas, said Larry George, the institute’s attorney.
“After we delivered it, I never heard from them again,” George told the newspaper Friday.
Others who turned over documents or had been investment partners with Mollohan declined to comment, the newspaper said.
Are The Attacks On Alberto Gonzalez Racially Motivated?
The answer to that question is no, of course not. This is strictly a political attack on president George W Bush. The Democrat party is trying to illegitimize his whole presidency, they still can’t get over the 2000 stolen election. This is a trumped up scandal where none exists.
This leads me to ponder the following question:
If Alberto Ganzalez were a Democrat and Republicans trumped up a false scandal to bring him down, how would this be treated? I believe we would hear from Democrats that this must be racially motivated. Why else would Republicans want to bring down such a high ranking Mexican-American? Do I know this for a fact, no, but Republicans have been stereotyped as racists for as long as I can remember. I am sick of it. Because most Republicans are against racial quotas like affirmative action. We believe a person should stand on his merits, not on the color of his skin. Affirmative action puts skin color above all else. And because we are against illegal immigration.
If Alberto Gonzalez were a Democrat, remember even though he is Republican, he is a moderate to liberal, we would see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the other race extortionists coming to his defense.Where are they? Why don’t they defend him? He isn’t a true conservative, so it must be because he is a Republican.
Did they come to Condy Rice’s defense when she was depicted in a cartoon in a very racially insensitive way? No. Because she is a Republican, they didn’t care how she was portrayed.
George W Bush has had more minorities and women in high posts than any president in history. With Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, Condy Rice, these people have had or still have high positions. It’s true that Bill Clinton had minorities in his cabinet also, but never any as high as these individuals.
So as you can see here the Republicans promote people based on qualifications regardless of sex or color.
Democrats play to the minorities during elections as the party that will take care of them through entitlements, when they are really keeping them down through those entitlements, all to ensure minorities will keep voting for the party they think helps them.
More Surge Statistics
Here we go with another post about the Iraq war surge, but I can’t help it. We don’t get any of this news on the mainstream media, so everytime I come across an article like the one below I am going to post it. The more people that hear about this subject the better.
From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Surging forward: Early results for Bush’s Iraq plan
Bad news for the cut-and-run crowd: The Bush administration’s new plan for Iraq appears to be working.
Earlier this week, while Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden was wailing on the Senate floor, urging President Bush to “stop this ridiculous policy you have,” and while Democrats in Congress were working on plans to require the quick withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, military spokesmen in Baghdad were detailing the progress “Operation Enforcing the Law” has achieved since it began a month ago.
During the first 30 days of the U.S.-led security crackdown, the number of Iraqis killed by violence in Baghdad was 265, down from 1,440 the previous month, Brigadier Qassim Moussawi, the Iraqi spokesman, said. Bomb deaths in the city decreased by 30 percent, execution-style slayings by half. More than 2,000 residents who had fled sectarian violence returned to their homes. Car bombs remained a threat, but those also decreased, from 56 the previous month to 36 after the crackdown began.
Another telling sign: Shoppers have returned to Baghdad’s open-air markets, favorite targets of car bombers.
“The achievements of the last 30 days cannot only be evaluated by numbers and statistics,” Moussawi said, “but must also take into account the confidence of ordinary Iraqis that a positive change is taking place regarding security and being felt by people.”
While warning that a reversal of the car-bomb trend would set off a renewed cycle of violence, Major Gen. William Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said that U.S. troops have stepped up efforts to prevent such a reversal from happening. Security operations have expanded beyond Baghdad, he said, to predominately Sunni areas where car bombs are believed to be assembled.
“If the high-profile car bombs can be stopped or brought down to a much lower level, we’ll just see an incredible difference in the city overall,” Caldwell said.
The developments of the past month are encouraging. Only two of the five brigades of the 21,500-troop surge are in place. A strengthened force can only increase the momentum already begun.
Sen. Sununu(R-NH) Says US Could Leave Iraq Next Year
My Senator, John Sununu, recently went to Iraq and has seen so much progress there he said he believes we may be able to start leaving next year.
What is the difference between him saying this and what the Democrats are saying? He is talking about victory while the Democrats want out before victory. They are calling for a timetable for defeat, Sununu is talking about a goal for victory.
Because he is calling for victory, (and supporting the troops) and he is up for re-election in ’08, his seat is considered by the Democrats to be one of the most vulnerable. That is why the Democrats are working so hard to secure our defeat, they can’t have anything so trivial as a United States victory in Iraq get in their way of a Democrat victory in ’08.
Can you imagine the blow the Democrats would receive if we left Iraq vitorious and not with our tail tucked between our legs?
Sometimes taking an unpopular stance is the right stance to take, and it takes courage to do so.
From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Sununu: US Could Leave Iraq Next Year
By MICHAEL COUSINEAU
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., said yesterday that he could envision having all American combat troops home from Iraq by the end of next year and that conditions appear to be improving in Iraq’s capital as the Iraqi government assumes more responsibility.
“I think the goal of withdrawing (all American) combat troops by the end of 2008 is very realistic and attainable,” Sununu told the New Hampshire Sunday News in an exclusive phone interview from Baghdad.
Sununu, touring the war-scarred country this weekend as part of a four-member congressional delegation, said Dec. 31, 2008, is a goal — not a deadline — for removing combat troops and that other military personnel would probably stay on to advise and assist the Iraqis.
“I think it would be foolish for anyone to predict a day when there would be zero …,” said Sununu, who faces re-election in 2008.
Sununu marks the second member of the state’s four-person congressional delegation to visit Iraq this month.
Two weeks ago, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., joined another delegation that visited Baghdad and was told by military leaders that more time would be needed to assess whether a surge of American troops in Baghdad would make the country safer.
Yesterday, Sununu said Iraq recently deployed about 6,000 of its own troops to Baghdad and established 10 districts to help with security.
“It’s only been four weeks and there has been some modest improvements,” Sununu, in an earlier conference call yesterday, told reporters. “It doesn’t change my concerns that unless the government continues to make tough decisions and takes on responsibility for security and political reconciliation, (improvements) we’ll see won’t be maintained.”
Joint Iraqi-American security operations have concentrated on markets targeted by “horrific car bombings” in recent weeks, Sununu said. “It is unfortunately only after the car bombings last month that an effort was made to limit automobile traffic through the markets. They have found since that’s been done in the last few weeks, activity in these two markets, which are the largest in the city, has dramatically increased.”
The U.S. military yesterday said suicide bombers blew up chlorine-filled trucks in Anbar province, killing at least two policemen and forcing about 350 Iraqi civilians and six American troops to seek treatment for exposure to the gas.
“It is an indication the insurgents are looking for a new method of attack,” said Sununu, some 15 hours into his stay in Iraq.
Sununu’s meetings have included Gen. David Petraeus, the top American military commander in Iraq, and a State Department team. He plans to talk to New Hampshire soldiers today before heading to Germany to examine medical facilities.
Despite the mounting American casualties, the United States must tackle Islamic extremism today, Sununu said, or “our children will be left to address it.”
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter’s(D-NH) Big Labor Payoff
Time for some more local news. Carol Shea Porter and Paul Hodes, both Democrat New Hampshire congresspeople, have paid their debt to the labor unions. The payoff was made in the form of campaign donations, and the debt repaid with their votes.
From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Blatant payoff: Hodes, Shea-Porter and Big Labor
We don’t know which should be of more concern about one of the first votes cast by U.S. Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes: Their quick and blatant payoff to labor unions or their thumbing their noses at the right to vote in private.
We have written about the vote in question. It goes by the incredible misnomer, Employee Free Choice Act of 2007.
It is anything but free choice.
It would do away with an individual’s right to vote, in secret, as to whether he or she wished to join a labor union. Instead, union organizers could demand recognition of their union merely by showing that employees have signed cards in their favor.
The catch is that the cards would be signed (and shown) in public, leaving individuals open to all manner of intimidation and peer pressure. Big Labor desperately wants this method of sign-up because it has steadily lost its appeal and dwindled in numbers in the American workplace.
But Big Labor has also donated millions and millions of dollars to Democratic candidates in recent years and their payoff was swift and sure. The new Congress, which claims to be ethically pure, quickly passed the card-check bill, with Hodes and Shea-Porter from New Hampshire in lockstep with their party.
That is pretty bad. But it is not wholly unexpected and there will no doubt be more such votes that Granite State voters should watch out for.
What may be worse is the nature of the bill itself. The right to the secret ballot is as close to sacred as it gets in our form of democracy. For New Hampshire’s two congressmen, who just got elected themselves, to take that away from America’s working men and women is incredible.
Granite Staters who chucked out Jeb Bradley and Charlie Bass last November, largely in reaction to the Bush mishandling of Iraq and GOP leadership failures, may be reconsidering those decisions more than once in the months ahead.
To read about how Carol Shea-Porter doesn’t believe you are one of her constituents if you didn’t vote for her, see here.
To read about how Carol Shea-Porter tried to intimidate her critics, read here.
You decide, this article is semi-comedic, but could it be true?
From nationalledger.com:
Global Warming: Moving Towards Metrosexuals
| By Daniel Clark Mar 17, 2007 |
The latest point of emphasis in the global warming movement is that cattle farming endangers the planet by producing too much methane. So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills. It can’t be much longer before cowboy movies, cigars and hockey are held to be enemies of the earth as well.This has got to be the most blatant assault on guyhood since ABC moved Coach to the same night as Roseanne, and turned Hayden Fox into Phil Donahue. It’s a wonder that liberals don’t cut to the chase, by simply claiming that global warming is caused by testosterone. Then, they could make public school nurses siphon the offending fluid from the boys during health class.Many environmentalists believe that the earth is a living organism, personified by the Greek goddess Gaia. Conveniently, it turns out that Gaia is a shrew, who demands that her men be reduced to henpecked, metrosexual noodles. Manliness makes Gaia angry, and we wouldn’t like her when she’s angry, because she’ll turn into a green monster and start smashing everything to bits. Hell hath no fury like an earth goddess exposed to excessive cattle-produced methane emissions.Wouldn’t it be more plausible if a few items like styling gel, latte makers and tofu were said to destroy the planet as well? Perhaps, but that would not serve the purpose of expanding the base of the global warming movement. Since no liberal cause can produce much support on its own, any one of them must ally itself with all other liberal causes, so that they can pool their resources.That’s why it’s almost impossible to distinguish the original purpose of a left-wing political rally. What starts out being an ‘anti-war’ demonstration will invariably become an convention of environmentalists, gun control advocates, pro-abortionists, animal rights activists, racial Balkanists, and outright Communists, because that’s the only way to prevent the size of the crowd from being laughably small. Therefore, environmental alarmists must incorporate other causes within their own, in order to keep their core of support relatively large and energized. Clearly, they’ve determined their alliance with the feminists to be vital to these ends.
It’s not coincidental that the icon of the global warming movement is former vice president Al Gore, who, during the 2000 presidential campaign, sought advice from feminist author Naomi Wolf on how to become an “alpha male.” Needless to say, she did not suggest that he scarf down a steak sandwich while sitting behind the wheel of a riding mower. Instead, her solution was to dress him in earth tones, as if obsessing over his wardrobe was any way to attain guydom. Never is it manly to ask, “does this make my butt look big,” even if you want the answer to be yes.
For Wolf to tell Gore that he’d become an “alpha male” just by wearing the right clothing is a little like a mother patronizing her young child. She probably got the idea when Gore put a bucket over his head and said, “Look, Ms. Wolf, I’m an astronaut,” and she replied, “Yes, of course you are, dear.”
Images of global destruction being more powerful than images of normalcy and stability, Gore and friends are bound to win the competition for people’s emotions. Hence, they are now deterring any analysis of the issue, by calling skeptics “global warming deniers,” a not very subtle comparison to neo-Nazis. If we succumb to this intimidation like a bunch of namby-pamby rice cake eaters, the debate will be lost for good.
Thus, the global warming movement seeks to repress guyhood in order to perpetuate itself. If a guy is shown a picture of a sad-looking polar bear adrift on an ice floe, his first thought will be something like, “I’ve heard that bear steaks are tough, but maybe if you marinated them in beer, they’d turn out all right.” At that point, the alarmists’ emotional ploy is foiled. In a world without guy stuff, however, his vacant mind may be invaded by irrationalities like, “Who will take care of the
polar bears’ children?”
In this chicken-and-the-egg scenario, the success of the global warming movement is both the cause and effect of our society’s emasculation. It would have never gotten this far if the “Nineties Man” hadn’t paved the way. When “I feel your pain” became a successful presidential campaign slogan, we should have known that charcoal-grilled steaks would soon be on the endangered list.
Daniel Clark is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance.
