[TheForge] Clean unused paint cans? OT: POL:

[Andrew Vida]

dann at wctatel.net wrote:
> Yep.  Nuclear hazard vs oil hazard.

They are equal, only in different ways.  Consider when oil runs out, 
assuming it will - and this appears the more likely case: we are very 
dependent on fuels for transportation, heat, manufacturing.  Add to that 
pharmaceuticals and fertilizers and we will all have front row seats to 
the largest cull of the human population yet.  The world of humanity as 
we know it will come to a grinding, screeching, and painfully ugly halt.
> 
> I had friends send me a bunch of anti-environmentalist emails this past
> week.  Maybe that just coincided with oil prices jumping up, and a bunch
> of wannabe Presidential Candidates doing political rallies around Iowa.

Environmentalism, as commonly practiced is the very definition of mental 
illness.  I am all for a clean environment, but we as a species are now 
in a corner, having become dependent on technologies whose realization 
necessarily incurs an overhead of waste products.  The immediate-term 
choice before us is continue and seek better alternatives, or stop.  How 
will we stop on a dime what took the past 200 years to bring to speed 
without killing half the planet in the doing?
> 
> Environmentalists become the political whipping boys, when they try to
> balance the poisoning of what we eat, drink, and breath( our shared
> environment) versus economic interests of big business.

	But many don't try to balance anything.  They go on with their idiotic 
rantings without considering the practical results and implications. 
Look at the Fabians - socialist environmentalists who shamelessly 
encourage the rapid reduction of the human population, as well as the 
forced sterilization of... well... most of us.  I have, however, never 
noted a single one of them volunteering to be among the first to have 
their naughty bits snipped or to step into the disintegration chamber 
for the sake of their fellows.  No - that is all for others to endure.

	If you are not familiar with this sort of movement, google "Margaret 
Sanger". She is the very epitome of murderous, vomiting insanity.
> 
> My Conservative grandparents believed in Conservation.  For them, being
> conservative meant not wasting anything.  Grandma thought she was a
> Conservative Republican, but these days, I think if she were alive now,
> she would fit better with the Environmentalists than the Drill Baby Tea
> Party.

	Doubtful.  Environmentalists are, on the whole, out of their minds. 
They have shown a profound lack of understanding in terms of reason - 
all their arguments driven by wild emotionalism and junk science serving 
as the hammer with which they work to beat the rest into submission to 
their agenda.  None of this works to credibility or to help us solve the 
problems we face.  Nobody wants to starve or die of disease, yet these 
are some of the more practical results that await us if 
environmentalists have their way to the degree they propose.  I, for 
one, have no intention  of going there.

	There is this thing called the "middle path" and it is usually the 
best.  Both sides of this argument hold their truth and their lies.    I 
am not a fan of much that the corporate world holds up as virtue, but 
some of it is indeed fabulous.  Without it, we would all be living very 
different lives.  Maybe better in some respects, but definitely worse in 
others.  The same may be said for environmentalism.  Everything has its 
price.  The world has largely chosen not to let its children die in the 
large proportions they used to - not to let simple injuries result in 
death - not to go hungry on a regular basis - not to be bound to the 
limits of one's inborn physical and even mental endowments.  We have 
chosen to venture past all of that, and that choice has a price.  This 
is what the watermelon marxists fail to consider.  I don't see any of 
them returning to the stone age existences they seem to advocate be 
forced upon everyone.  I wonder why that might be?  Couldn't be that 
they are mindless hypocrites, right?
> 
> Like changing the meaning of a word in slang,  as in using the slang word
> "Bad" to mean good, I think that the term Conservative got flipped upside
> down, during the last 60 years.

	So has "liberal".  I am a classical liberal, which would today be 
called a libertarian.  This illustrates the hazards associated with the 
misuse and abuse of language.  Language is the single most important 
think human beings possess.  Nothing else even comes close because it is 
through language that all other human endeavors are made possible, save 
eating, crapping, sleeping, running away, and making more humans.
> 
> Anyway, I don't believe real Conservatives would be pushing to ease
> regulations on new nuclear plants, or how to commend the corporate
> safeguards as demonstrated last Summer by Big Oil.

	Real conservatives would not have government coercion and subsidization 
of commercial endeavors.  That being absent, the nuclear industry would 
never have gotten off the ground in the first place.  As it exists, it 
is a bankrupt technology in its very fabric.  That is has come to such a 
pass, that it exists as such is evidence of just how dangerously insane 
fascism and its analogs are because those are the only ways such white 
elephants have ever come to be realized.