Letters to the Editor
-
OF COURSE CONSERVATIVES CAN BE "GREEN"
For me the question is will they choose to be green? My guess is not until the "proper" persons or groups will realize a profit from being so.
-
If Newt were not a raging hypocrite...
...this would be his policy on petty crime:
"The state has to stop interfering with enterprising Americans. Instead of using the state to literally bind the freedoms of citizens who are taking initiative, we need to use the carrot to make sure that they are taking initiative that fits our priorities. We need to abolish the jails -- that would save a ton of taxpayer money that could be used as incentive to encourage changes in Americans who currently make a living through "appropriation" and "happiness traffic." Instead of outlawing their enterprising instincts, these incentives will encourage such innovated Americans to appropriate through other channels, like working with utility companies, or spreading chemical happiness with Oxycontin."
-
Yeah, fat chance.
Sorry, this isn't Christianity. Screw me once, you never get another chance. Here's a hearty "Up yours!" for Newt and his continued attempts to regain his megalomaniacal dream from a guy who remembers just what a hypocritical screw-up he was, and remains.
T
-
Sick of them!
I am sick and tired of these right-wingers who try to tell us how to conduct our lives. Go mind your own business, Gingrich, and try to grow up to behave decently to your spouse(s) before handing us advice we don't need. The parasite Gingrich is just another gross fascist hypocrite like compulsive gambler William Bennet, junkie Rush Limbaugh, and toilet queer Larry Craig. Go away, for f*ck's sake, and leave us the hell alone.
-
Do we really stand a chance?
Is it cynical to believe at this late stage that we stand a chance of saving the Earth and thus ourselves? The problems go much deeper than cleaner, more efficient engines and not dumping toxins into the waterways or into the air.
The biggest problems we face are overpopulation and totally unrestrained consumerism. These are psychological and even genetic considerations that most likely will never be addressed.
Look, the Chinese have been trying for 50 years to reduce the rate of population growth and have barely made a dent. Overpopulation isn't even a topic of discussion in the US. It doesn't take a genius to see that more people equals more environmental destruction.
After forty years of environmental action we can't even get home builders to orient homes toward the south when practical. Or to get people to stop cutting down shade trees because they "make a mess." Shade trees that cool your home for free in the summer, then drop their leaves to let the sun warm it in the winter.
As long as we have societies that are practically hardwired to believe that bigger is better, that the more stuff you own the happier you will be, and that let political/religious movements stand in the way of population reduction, there will be no "solutions" to the way we impact the environment.
Can anyone see Newt or any candidate saying people should have fewer children, live in smaller homes and consume less? I can't.
-
Hey Newt, Welcome To Reality!
As you can see from these letters, it's going to take a lot of work to convince most Salon readers that your latest foray into the issues of the day is not just more of the flim-flam you've been pedaling for years. You've made some progress, which is good, but you have a long way to go.
For starters, your probably by now ex-friends at Liberty Baptist University are not going to be happy with this statement:
The environment is constantly changing, constantly evolving.
You just used the "e" word, the verb form of "evilution"! Heavens, next thing you know you'll arrive at the corollary that the species that inhabit these constantly changing, constantly evolving environments are themselves likewise changing and evolving! You may even conclude that evidence and reason are superior to ancient Middle Eastern mythology in understanding the Earth!
You may be aware that you have possibly further alienated your former admirers at LBU by this statement:
Remember that people were clearing parts of Africa as early as 50,000 years ago with cutting and burning techniques.
50,000 years ago! That's exceeds the age of the Earth itself by a factor of 8.25, as understood by the good folks at LBU! You're gonna have some serious 'splainin' to do if you set foot on that campus again!
Seriously, I can't fully agree that wealthy people are better stewards of the Earth than the poor. The agricultural poor have traditionally achieve security in old age by producing a multitude of descendants, which ultimately leads to severe ecological damage. However, the ecological "footprint" of each poor person is relatively small. The rich may have the leisure to contemplate the glories of the natural world and work to preserve them, but if one traced the sources of their wealth, I think one would find a monstrous assault on nature at its source: depletion of minerals and fossil fuels, chemical pollution, and habitat destruction. Until wealth is redefined in terms of ecological harmony, I see this part of your argument as a pretty bandaid coving an ugly cancer.
-
Green tech boom
McDonald's ubiquity due to its superior product? Oh, I think not, Newt.
But, while I don't agree with his blind devotion to the guiding force of the Market, he does raise some good ideas. Like others here, I agree that prize money would be a good idea. Infact Silicon Valley is already doing that. Check out last month's Wired magazine article:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/magazine/15-10/ff_greenboom
-
Plenty of blame to go around.
He fails to fully appreciate that these laws and regulations came about after shortsighted industries took the money and ran. I'd love to live in a world without a lot of regulations and if it weren't for the greed-heads that abused the social contract of "not screwing you neighbor" we'd be a lot closer to that idea. At one time there were very few rules on resource use, short of age-old prohibitions aimed at preventing the despoiling the public green but when one was rich enough for one's own well, then what the hell it become everyone's obligation to get their own....yeah...even before the EPA. How can that be? You mean people were likely to screw everyone over public resources for money even before we started to write-up and enforce laws that we need to protect us from the greedy?
When Gingrich become honest about how the situation we face now is related to the oh-so wonderfull invisible (and presumably un-indictable) hand of the economy, we'll hold his perspectives somewhat suspect.