Author's Note: This is the beginning of an exploration of my political beliefs. They are mine, and it took me 38 years to figure them out. You may feel inclined to comment on them, or even ask questions, and I would encourage you to do so, provided that you: (a.) avoid the trap of name calling and absolutes, and (b.) write those comments as if we're having a discussion. If you think I've grossly overshot and missed the point, then by all means, let's talk about it. But if you think I'm wrong because I don't see it your exact way, then frankly, I don't want to hear it. I'll do you the same courtesy of not trying to tip your sacred cows, as well. Remember: you can't reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into in the first place. With all that said, if you're interested in what I have to say, then press on!
Showing posts with label GNDN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GNDN. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Chicken Pride Day and What It All Means
No doubt, the memes and cartoons and movies and sniglets and bumpersticker wisdom that has choked FaceBook over the last week regarding Chick-Fil-A and its owner's conservative values have managed to once again polarize friends and families alike, and polarize them where they hurt the most--in their stomach.
I won't recap the battle, because all you have to do is log into FaceBook and scroll down for six or seven seconds until you find examples of what I'm talking about above, and probably links to the story of how the Muppets ditched Chick-Fil-A after what their owner said, because, well, it's not widely known, but Jim Henson was gay. And since the Muppets are about everyone getting along together with no hang-ups, you can see how some people close to the creator of Sesame Street and Kermit the Frog might have gotten their noses Gonzo'ed out of shape over that.
This, to me, is a rare peek at a much, much larger concern: who we are doing business with as consumers. I know it's not a pleasant conversation to have, and moreso because no one has ever asked us, as Americans, to have it. In fact, there's been a lot of effort to suppress it. Anytime slave labor or grossly inadequate wages regarding goods and services are brought up (usually in a Wal-Mart discussion), someone who doesn't want to have to make a choice about where their $8 t-shirt comes from will pipe up and accuse someone of being a Communist, a Socialist, or Anti-Capitalism in general. This, of course, derails the conversation completely as the accused now has to assure everyone that they are not, in fact, a Pinko. And so the topic seems to sit out there, bobbing in the mainstream, and only occasionally nudged to the right or the left as it suits people.
Well, in fact, it's not a red or a blue issue. It's a voting issue. It's democracy 101, and most especially since we don't elect presidents anymore, but the Electoral College does, and most people can't name their state senators, and wouldn't take the time to write them a letter if their head was on fire and the politician had the last glass of water in the world. No, I'm talking about the only votes that ever seem to matter in America: the bottom line. The Red and the Black. Profit and Loss. These are our new Overlords, and I do not welcome them. But they are here, nonetheless.
It's really simple: since corporations exist as a firewall between themselves and their shareholders, and the stated intent of all corporations is to make money for their shareholders, you cannot really punish a corporation the way you punish a person (and Mitt Romney is wrong--about so many things--but most emphatically that "corporations are people"). All you can do to send them a punitive or encouraging message is to vote with your dollar. Spend it or withhold it as you deem necessary. When the shareholders see the bump, or the dip, the next quarter, they will know why, and they will correct whatever is causing the bump. And it's just that easy.
There were lines around Chick-Fil-A restaurants across America yesterday, and I suspect they were all in line for one of three reasons:
1. Their chicken is delicious and they wanted a sandwich. This would have been the smallest group yesterday, incidentally.
2. They felt that poor old Chick-Fil-A had gotten beat up over the past week and they were making a show of supporting them (really a sympathy purchase) to help them in these trying economic times. I need a minute after that last sentence; it's hard to type while laughing out loud.
3. They honestly, earnestly believed in the sanctity of Chick-Fil-A's stated policies of not being open on Sunday to observe the Sabbath, giving donations to Right to Life organizations, and admonishing the gay and lesbian community in general for their hedonistic ways. These would have been largely the politicians and pundits who needed a photo-op and something to Tweet about.
I've known about Chick-Fil-A's practices for some time, and I've curtailed 98% of my spending there, which amounts to doodley squat for their bottom line, but it mattered to me. It meant the chicken sandwich I bought didn't contribute to a Right to Life group, however legitimate, who may have taken a donation from Chick-Fil-A, and then that money somehow got handed off to a more radical sect, who thinks it's okay to firebomb clinics and kill doctors and nurses in order to justify the existence of what amounts to a parasite growing in someone's body. An extreme example? You betcha. But understand this: I have no say in how Chick-Fil-A spends its money. None whatsoever. And neither do you.
If a corporation wants to fund overseas heroin farms with its profits, then I don't want anything to do with that corporation. And neither should you. Another extreme example, but I'm making a point. It DOES matter where and how we spend our money. In the wake of scant to no regulation of things like investment banks, companies doing business overseas, and so forth, it seems clear to me that the message is not self-regulation but fiscal regulation. We send the message with our purchases, or lack thereof. We the people tell the corporations what we will and will not accept.
Think about it: no matter how many negative Wal-Mart stories you see on the news about cheap Chinese labor, they don't change. Why? Because people are still buying $8 shirts, whether they need them or not, because "it's a good deal!" Consider what would happen if Wal-Mart got 10 million signatures asking to buy clothes made in the USA again, and that we'll stop buying t-shirts from them until they do: they'd laugh at first, but after one month of their t-shirt sales being down 75%, they'd have a textiles factory in the midwest up and running in a fortnight. Think about it. Does Wal-Mart like to leave money on the table? They do not.
The problem is, we've never really used that power. Not until this, until now. And it was kind of a bust, really--so many people signed on for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich yesterday in some kind of righteous indignation, even as this picture made its way across FaceBook. And this is always--ALWAYS--an option for Christians to lead through action rather than to get drawn into a debate with other people. I would think that if someone was really passionate about their beliefs and the opportunity to both support a multi-million dollar chicken restaurant and also feed the homeless with delicious sandwiches presented itself, it would be a real win-win for everyone else involved, including the homeless. But of course, the last thing a lot of the people who espouse these values seem to care about is putting a sandwich into a needy person's hand. There's irony in there, somewhere, I'm sure of it.
So, now the door is open. You can peek inside and see how they make the sausage, and if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. You can even tell them why. My suggestion is that you start doing that very thing. Of course, most of the people who read this blog already do things like this anyway, so I'm just preaching to the choir. Therefore I have to ask you to start talking this idea up with the people you know who don't know any better. It's time America started thinking for itself again.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go figure out how to reverse engineer their secret recipe so I can make Chick-Fil-A sandwiches at home.
This, to me, is a rare peek at a much, much larger concern: who we are doing business with as consumers. I know it's not a pleasant conversation to have, and moreso because no one has ever asked us, as Americans, to have it. In fact, there's been a lot of effort to suppress it. Anytime slave labor or grossly inadequate wages regarding goods and services are brought up (usually in a Wal-Mart discussion), someone who doesn't want to have to make a choice about where their $8 t-shirt comes from will pipe up and accuse someone of being a Communist, a Socialist, or Anti-Capitalism in general. This, of course, derails the conversation completely as the accused now has to assure everyone that they are not, in fact, a Pinko. And so the topic seems to sit out there, bobbing in the mainstream, and only occasionally nudged to the right or the left as it suits people.
Well, in fact, it's not a red or a blue issue. It's a voting issue. It's democracy 101, and most especially since we don't elect presidents anymore, but the Electoral College does, and most people can't name their state senators, and wouldn't take the time to write them a letter if their head was on fire and the politician had the last glass of water in the world. No, I'm talking about the only votes that ever seem to matter in America: the bottom line. The Red and the Black. Profit and Loss. These are our new Overlords, and I do not welcome them. But they are here, nonetheless.
It's really simple: since corporations exist as a firewall between themselves and their shareholders, and the stated intent of all corporations is to make money for their shareholders, you cannot really punish a corporation the way you punish a person (and Mitt Romney is wrong--about so many things--but most emphatically that "corporations are people"). All you can do to send them a punitive or encouraging message is to vote with your dollar. Spend it or withhold it as you deem necessary. When the shareholders see the bump, or the dip, the next quarter, they will know why, and they will correct whatever is causing the bump. And it's just that easy.
1. Their chicken is delicious and they wanted a sandwich. This would have been the smallest group yesterday, incidentally.
2. They felt that poor old Chick-Fil-A had gotten beat up over the past week and they were making a show of supporting them (really a sympathy purchase) to help them in these trying economic times. I need a minute after that last sentence; it's hard to type while laughing out loud.
3. They honestly, earnestly believed in the sanctity of Chick-Fil-A's stated policies of not being open on Sunday to observe the Sabbath, giving donations to Right to Life organizations, and admonishing the gay and lesbian community in general for their hedonistic ways. These would have been largely the politicians and pundits who needed a photo-op and something to Tweet about.
I've known about Chick-Fil-A's practices for some time, and I've curtailed 98% of my spending there, which amounts to doodley squat for their bottom line, but it mattered to me. It meant the chicken sandwich I bought didn't contribute to a Right to Life group, however legitimate, who may have taken a donation from Chick-Fil-A, and then that money somehow got handed off to a more radical sect, who thinks it's okay to firebomb clinics and kill doctors and nurses in order to justify the existence of what amounts to a parasite growing in someone's body. An extreme example? You betcha. But understand this: I have no say in how Chick-Fil-A spends its money. None whatsoever. And neither do you.
If a corporation wants to fund overseas heroin farms with its profits, then I don't want anything to do with that corporation. And neither should you. Another extreme example, but I'm making a point. It DOES matter where and how we spend our money. In the wake of scant to no regulation of things like investment banks, companies doing business overseas, and so forth, it seems clear to me that the message is not self-regulation but fiscal regulation. We send the message with our purchases, or lack thereof. We the people tell the corporations what we will and will not accept.
Think about it: no matter how many negative Wal-Mart stories you see on the news about cheap Chinese labor, they don't change. Why? Because people are still buying $8 shirts, whether they need them or not, because "it's a good deal!" Consider what would happen if Wal-Mart got 10 million signatures asking to buy clothes made in the USA again, and that we'll stop buying t-shirts from them until they do: they'd laugh at first, but after one month of their t-shirt sales being down 75%, they'd have a textiles factory in the midwest up and running in a fortnight. Think about it. Does Wal-Mart like to leave money on the table? They do not.
So, now the door is open. You can peek inside and see how they make the sausage, and if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. You can even tell them why. My suggestion is that you start doing that very thing. Of course, most of the people who read this blog already do things like this anyway, so I'm just preaching to the choir. Therefore I have to ask you to start talking this idea up with the people you know who don't know any better. It's time America started thinking for itself again.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go figure out how to reverse engineer their secret recipe so I can make Chick-Fil-A sandwiches at home.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
"Like" Us if You Needlessly Debate...
Oh Boy...
You have just got to see this: http://www.facebook.com/Anonymous?sk=wall
For those of you who don't trust to blindly click through on a posted link in a blog, this goes to the FaceBook page created for the movie, Anonymous. In brief, it's the true story of who author's Shakespeare's plays, directed by Roland Emmerich. For those of you who's brains DIDN'T derail at that sentence, I'll break it down for you.
1. "Who wrote Shakespeare's plays" is a debate that is maybe not-quite-as-old as Coke vs. Pepsi, but close, and among academics, just as fiercely debated. At least this fight deals with facts and literary interpretation as opposed to, say, nothing tangible.
2. The idea a "true story" around Shakespeare and his plays is laughable, since there's not really any concensus about any of the above, and especially nothing pertaining to Elizabeth I, and moreover, we're dealing with a movie, one of the most shortcut-taking mediums in storytelling. They can't manage to get details right about a made-up story taken from a book, much less history and literary theory. So, we know going in that this will have as much historical credibility as a John Wayne World War II movie.
3. Directed by Roland Emmerich. The guy who gave us Stargate (and an ad campaign that kept asking, "Is Stargate this generation's Star Wars?" and the answer to that was, of course, NO), Independence Day (and an ad campaign that kept asking, "Is Independence Day this generation's Star Wars?" and the answer to that was, of course, NO), and finally a Godzilla movie so horrible, terrible, no good, and very bad that he hid his name in shame for several years before he made the passable film, The Patriot. In fact, there's probably as much historical accuracy in The Patriot as there is in Anonymous. Okay, so he's no Francis Ford Coppola. It's only in his last couple of films that he started giving himself a director's credit in the previews again. But I remember Godzilla, pal. We will never forget...
So, based on all of the above, you're either really excited about seeing Anonymous, which opens at the end of October, or you're going to smirk and give it a pass (and either wait for the DVD or just rewatch Shakespeare in Love). Either way, what you're probably not going to do is start a balls-to-the-wall FaceBook debate on the movie's page.
Seriously.
You've got to read the Internet Nerd-Rage that these Oxford and Cambridge alumni are throwing on one another. They aren't mad at the movie. They are royally pissed off at each other. And it's a debate that is raging all over the page, teleporting from wall post to wall post like Nightcrawler assaulting the White House in X-Men II.
It's frankly awesome. The righteous indignation, the ad hominim attacks, and the palpable disdain for anyone who isn't them...it reminds me of, oh, I don't know, just about every single one of my friends.
Oh yeah. Where's the Robert E. Howard people in the house? Or, as we're occasionally called, the Howard Purists. Where's the Star Trekkers (don't call 'em Trekkies!)? Where's my Old Star Wars Fans? You know, the "Han Shot First" crowd? Holler if you recognize! Marvel Zombies? Firefly fans? Battlestar Galactica ballers?
If you've ever had one of these heated debates, go read the Anonymous FaceBook page. That's what we look like when we fight with one another. If you have ever been in one of these debates, it's very hard not to get worked up. After all, there's suddenly, without warning, someone being wrong on the Internet! And what's worse, they are making themselves heard through FaceBook! Why, their wrong-headed and overly-simplifed conclusions could potentially infect...everyone who uses a computer! It's got to be stopped!
I know, it's crazy. And if you're chuckling silently to yourself, thinking "Oh, boy, what geeks! I'd never get that worked up about anything so ridiculous..."
Oh, reeeeeeally?
Then allow me to ask you how you feel about Medicare and Social Security. Or the flat tax rate. Or corporate bailouts. Or anything having to to with politics, religion, and society. Did your brain explode? Or did you just shut down completely.
You know, I get it, I really do. Sometimes it's easier to debate about the trivial stuff (relatively speaking; I know that Han shooting first is more akin to scripture) rather than try to wrestle with the big, complicated issues. What's wrong with just saying, "You know what? This is big and complicated and I don't understand it all." But if we get frothing mad about a Roland Emmerich movie, what won't we fight about? Sometimes being scrappy because it's part of our "American character," whatever that means, can become really tedious.
You have just got to see this: http://www.facebook.com/Anonymous?sk=wall
For those of you who don't trust to blindly click through on a posted link in a blog, this goes to the FaceBook page created for the movie, Anonymous. In brief, it's the true story of who author's Shakespeare's plays, directed by Roland Emmerich. For those of you who's brains DIDN'T derail at that sentence, I'll break it down for you.
2. The idea a "true story" around Shakespeare and his plays is laughable, since there's not really any concensus about any of the above, and especially nothing pertaining to Elizabeth I, and moreover, we're dealing with a movie, one of the most shortcut-taking mediums in storytelling. They can't manage to get details right about a made-up story taken from a book, much less history and literary theory. So, we know going in that this will have as much historical credibility as a John Wayne World War II movie.
3. Directed by Roland Emmerich. The guy who gave us Stargate (and an ad campaign that kept asking, "Is Stargate this generation's Star Wars?" and the answer to that was, of course, NO), Independence Day (and an ad campaign that kept asking, "Is Independence Day this generation's Star Wars?" and the answer to that was, of course, NO), and finally a Godzilla movie so horrible, terrible, no good, and very bad that he hid his name in shame for several years before he made the passable film, The Patriot. In fact, there's probably as much historical accuracy in The Patriot as there is in Anonymous. Okay, so he's no Francis Ford Coppola. It's only in his last couple of films that he started giving himself a director's credit in the previews again. But I remember Godzilla, pal. We will never forget...
So, based on all of the above, you're either really excited about seeing Anonymous, which opens at the end of October, or you're going to smirk and give it a pass (and either wait for the DVD or just rewatch Shakespeare in Love). Either way, what you're probably not going to do is start a balls-to-the-wall FaceBook debate on the movie's page.
Seriously.
You've got to read the Internet Nerd-Rage that these Oxford and Cambridge alumni are throwing on one another. They aren't mad at the movie. They are royally pissed off at each other. And it's a debate that is raging all over the page, teleporting from wall post to wall post like Nightcrawler assaulting the White House in X-Men II.
It's frankly awesome. The righteous indignation, the ad hominim attacks, and the palpable disdain for anyone who isn't them...it reminds me of, oh, I don't know, just about every single one of my friends.
Oh yeah. Where's the Robert E. Howard people in the house? Or, as we're occasionally called, the Howard Purists. Where's the Star Trekkers (don't call 'em Trekkies!)? Where's my Old Star Wars Fans? You know, the "Han Shot First" crowd? Holler if you recognize! Marvel Zombies? Firefly fans? Battlestar Galactica ballers?
If you've ever had one of these heated debates, go read the Anonymous FaceBook page. That's what we look like when we fight with one another. If you have ever been in one of these debates, it's very hard not to get worked up. After all, there's suddenly, without warning, someone being wrong on the Internet! And what's worse, they are making themselves heard through FaceBook! Why, their wrong-headed and overly-simplifed conclusions could potentially infect...everyone who uses a computer! It's got to be stopped!
I know, it's crazy. And if you're chuckling silently to yourself, thinking "Oh, boy, what geeks! I'd never get that worked up about anything so ridiculous..."
Oh, reeeeeeally?
Then allow me to ask you how you feel about Medicare and Social Security. Or the flat tax rate. Or corporate bailouts. Or anything having to to with politics, religion, and society. Did your brain explode? Or did you just shut down completely.
You know, I get it, I really do. Sometimes it's easier to debate about the trivial stuff (relatively speaking; I know that Han shooting first is more akin to scripture) rather than try to wrestle with the big, complicated issues. What's wrong with just saying, "You know what? This is big and complicated and I don't understand it all." But if we get frothing mad about a Roland Emmerich movie, what won't we fight about? Sometimes being scrappy because it's part of our "American character," whatever that means, can become really tedious.
Monday, September 5, 2011
A Break in the Monstrous Heat
Now that the temperature is down under a 100, I can say this without getting shot: If you or someone you know does not believe in climate change, then there's a real disconnect going on between the body of accumulated knowledge you have access to and your own personal experience.
Understand that when I say "climate change," I'm not front-loading that short phrase with anything other than its intended meaning: climate change. It's not a buzz word. It's not a code phrase. At least, it isn't for me. It just means that the weather is flipped out, and if you don't believe THAT, then you're living in a cave somewhere.
I'm only forty-plus years old. But I'm old enough to remember when children stayed out all day in the Summer, and the only time it was ever an issue about the outside temperature was that week in August (in Abilene, Texas) when the Mercury touched 100 or above. Usually 101. Or 102.
It never got to 112. And it never stayed that way for more than a week, never mind three months. Now, I'm no metereologist, but living in Texas, I do tend to pay more attention to the weather than, say, the average Californian. I know too many people who live on ranches, who own farms, and who depend on things like rainfall, both professionally and economically, to be more than a little concerned about the fact that it's been hotter, for longer, every year for the past ten years. This year was untenable. And it's clearly not over yet, thanks to the wildfires.
And then there's the hurricanes, and the tsunamis, and the floods. We used to see them every year, but they were remote and spaced out. When a hurricane or a tornado hit an American city in the 80s or the 90s, it was a big, big deal. Now it happens every year, and with such frequency that, like most good TV-watching Americans, we're numb to it. I wonder how much money it costs us as Americans to deal with those disasters? I don't know, but I'm betting it's a lot.
These are empiracal, inarguable facts. Something has changed. It's gotten worse in my lifetime. The polar ice caps are melting. That means something, too. It means something because they've been solid sheets of ice for as long as mankind has been exploring and encountering them. Now they are shrinking. It's bad for the wildlife, sure, but it seems to also be bad for us, too. Again, I'm no scientist, but that's my gut feeling.
I'm not going to frame a debate as to the cause of it all. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's not a single cause, but most likely a combination of things that has contributed to it all--including our involvement.That's really what "climate change" has come to mean for some folks, after all; we did it to ourselves. Period. We're solely responsible. That may be accurate--I really don't know. Some people believe that. Other people don't.
I think personally that what's gone on in the past hundred years (our explosive population growth and the rise of the machine age) has certainly played a contributing role. And while there may, in fact, be an inevitability to these kinds of meterological changes, and it's some sort of planetary accounting system to balance the books, and we had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I am nonetheless convinced that we could, if we really wanted to, take some serious steps to diminish our portion of the percentage of the problem. Say that the amount of human involvement is, I don't know, 33% of the overall problem. What if we shored up our shortcomings? Got rid of our contributing factors altogether? Would the Earth self-correct faster? Again, I don't know. I don't think anyone does, but I'm betting the brainiacs have some good guesses. Regardless, I think having one third less Hurricanes per season would be worth the effort, don't you? Maybe we could keep the storm naming in the designated range of the standard alphabet, without having to resort to Greek letters.
I don't have any answers. But I'm worried about what's coming next year. And the year after that. It seems as though, despite the appearance of a few wind turbines in Texas, that it's getting worse. And the public outcry gets caught up on whether or not the problem is fossil fuels, or a lack of recycling, and oh by the way, why do you, as a socialist, hate freedom. That's not helpful. It's the pipes on the U.S.S. Enterprise: G.N.D.N. Stands for "Goes nowhere, does nothing." That's what happens when people start debating climate change.
I just want it to rain again. Would some of you in the Military-Industrial Complex please start working on that? Maybe the Mayans had the right idea after all.
Understand that when I say "climate change," I'm not front-loading that short phrase with anything other than its intended meaning: climate change. It's not a buzz word. It's not a code phrase. At least, it isn't for me. It just means that the weather is flipped out, and if you don't believe THAT, then you're living in a cave somewhere.
I'm only forty-plus years old. But I'm old enough to remember when children stayed out all day in the Summer, and the only time it was ever an issue about the outside temperature was that week in August (in Abilene, Texas) when the Mercury touched 100 or above. Usually 101. Or 102.
It never got to 112. And it never stayed that way for more than a week, never mind three months. Now, I'm no metereologist, but living in Texas, I do tend to pay more attention to the weather than, say, the average Californian. I know too many people who live on ranches, who own farms, and who depend on things like rainfall, both professionally and economically, to be more than a little concerned about the fact that it's been hotter, for longer, every year for the past ten years. This year was untenable. And it's clearly not over yet, thanks to the wildfires.
And then there's the hurricanes, and the tsunamis, and the floods. We used to see them every year, but they were remote and spaced out. When a hurricane or a tornado hit an American city in the 80s or the 90s, it was a big, big deal. Now it happens every year, and with such frequency that, like most good TV-watching Americans, we're numb to it. I wonder how much money it costs us as Americans to deal with those disasters? I don't know, but I'm betting it's a lot.
These are empiracal, inarguable facts. Something has changed. It's gotten worse in my lifetime. The polar ice caps are melting. That means something, too. It means something because they've been solid sheets of ice for as long as mankind has been exploring and encountering them. Now they are shrinking. It's bad for the wildlife, sure, but it seems to also be bad for us, too. Again, I'm no scientist, but that's my gut feeling.
I'm not going to frame a debate as to the cause of it all. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's not a single cause, but most likely a combination of things that has contributed to it all--including our involvement.That's really what "climate change" has come to mean for some folks, after all; we did it to ourselves. Period. We're solely responsible. That may be accurate--I really don't know. Some people believe that. Other people don't.
I think personally that what's gone on in the past hundred years (our explosive population growth and the rise of the machine age) has certainly played a contributing role. And while there may, in fact, be an inevitability to these kinds of meterological changes, and it's some sort of planetary accounting system to balance the books, and we had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I am nonetheless convinced that we could, if we really wanted to, take some serious steps to diminish our portion of the percentage of the problem. Say that the amount of human involvement is, I don't know, 33% of the overall problem. What if we shored up our shortcomings? Got rid of our contributing factors altogether? Would the Earth self-correct faster? Again, I don't know. I don't think anyone does, but I'm betting the brainiacs have some good guesses. Regardless, I think having one third less Hurricanes per season would be worth the effort, don't you? Maybe we could keep the storm naming in the designated range of the standard alphabet, without having to resort to Greek letters.
I don't have any answers. But I'm worried about what's coming next year. And the year after that. It seems as though, despite the appearance of a few wind turbines in Texas, that it's getting worse. And the public outcry gets caught up on whether or not the problem is fossil fuels, or a lack of recycling, and oh by the way, why do you, as a socialist, hate freedom. That's not helpful. It's the pipes on the U.S.S. Enterprise: G.N.D.N. Stands for "Goes nowhere, does nothing." That's what happens when people start debating climate change.
I just want it to rain again. Would some of you in the Military-Industrial Complex please start working on that? Maybe the Mayans had the right idea after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)