How the ‘Long Green’ Becomes Green Power
The Defenders of Wildlife spent $1.3 million dollars to defeat Marilyn Musgrave. Musgrave represented the 4th District of Colorado, a largely poor rural district with a total population of just over 600,000. The Defenders of Wildlife’s expenditures alone turned out to nearly match the amount Musgrave was able to raise as direct contributions, and were almost double her opponent Betsy Markey’s direct fund-raising.
This is, I think, a telling example. When Musgrave was targeted by a member of the environmental activism industry with deep pockets, she was immediately at a significant disadvantage, even though Musgrave had a nearly 2 to 1 advantage in direct fund-raising.
Of course, the implications for political power are obvious: after Defenders of Wildlife spent nearly twice as much on defeating her opponent as Markey was able to collect in contributions from her constituents, you can bet that when Defenders of Wildlife calls, Markey will answer the phone.
Now, extend this over the whole of Congress. If you’re the target of the environmental activism industry, every campaign becomes a national campaign, with comparatively unlimited resources available to your opponent.
This is power. It will be a rare politician, from a very safe seat, who will dare to defy the activism industry.
So enviro-progressive groups are allowed to use their 501(c)(3) status and still make political contributions? What is more amazing is that these 12 received FEDERAL grants totaling millions of dollars. This is a shake down of the American public.
Talk about corruption.
I say we tax their (enviro groups) income at 99% and take away the tax breaks for the donors. Then we tax any candidate who receives money from these groups at 99%.
How much more evidence does anyone need to see that the left and America cannot coexist. There needs to be another civil war.
Heh. Watch tomorrow’s article in the series, both in PJ and the Examiner.
It will be a rare politician, from a very safe seat, who will dare to defy the activism industry.
Or a citizen legislator who understands the corrupt mechanics of campiagn donations that you’re describing so well in this series.
The rise of Big Green has given us a shadow government which is unaccountable to the public and operates on its own, with no regard to the damage it willfully inflicts on the lives of the people. Take the EPA’s recent decision to classify carbon dioxide, a naturally occuring substance, as a pollutant. While the agency goes through the motions of accepting public input prior to their final decision, it’s a charade, the end result already having been pre-determined.
When I hear the phrase “special interests”, radical environmental groups (is there any other kind?) spring immediately to mind, despite what the left wants me to think.
Great stuff. The same parasitical co-option of a good cause by Democrat Party politicos was suffered by the feminist movement.
Has anyone done a survey of how many kneejerk supporters of wildlife organizations are deeply rooted urbanites who never set foot in the woods? (Mosquitos, ticks, bears, oh no!) To my neighbors here in Manhattan, bucolic is Central Park and the great outdoors is Fire Island. But mention drilling in Alaska and they get apoplectic.
Has anyone done a survey of how many kneejerk supporters of wildlife organizations are deeply rooted urbanites who never set foot in the woods?
Rhetorical much?
I’ll answer anyway.
Most if not all supporters I know are avid bikers/hikers/kayakers/etc. and spend a great deal of time outdoors. All are sincere. Most have degrees, and many have technical degrees (i.e. enough math to grasp the technologies they are dubious of.)
Are there fruitcakes? Of course. Just like PJM readers aren’t representative of the mainstream republican, the fruitcakes aren’t representative of the greens. PJM readers tend toward the left’s stereotypical impression of right wingers: bible thumping authoritarian twits. Many green-spouting lefties tend toward the right’s stereotypical impression: amoral hippie twits. (Note that in both political cases the lowest common denominator is that the stereotype is based on abject ignorance: neither party is immune.) The truth is that PJM is no more representative of the average right winger than the hippe green is representative of the left.
In the last election the left pounded a message of science — green technology to create jobs. This was breathtakingly wrong, of course, but the left played on the stereotype of green being pro-science and the republican base of social conservative evolution deniers were anti-science. The problem is that the republicans didn’t address this with a pro-science plank advertised to create a new wave of high paying tech jobs. Instead, they ignored this and played to their perceived base. This included advising McCain to tap Palin. The result was predictable, and predicted. One needen’t be a student of (fictional) Hari Seldon’s psychohistory to perceive the goading points of human crowd/herd movement. One such is science, which ought not be surprising in a technological society.
As such the real problem is that evolution denying anti-scientific nonsense will continue to empower the left’s perceived hold on science issues. This of course is of paramount importance in a society of increasing technical sophistication. When the right gets a clue it will drop the social conservative planks and claim science advancement itself.
Does the right have a basis for doing so? You bet. I’m in “high tech” and almost all of the movers/shakers/etc that have a clue are in fact fiscal conservatives. The more technically adept they are, the more they tend to fiscal conservatism. In fact, I don’t know competent techie types that are NOT fiscal conservatives. (At the same time, I don’t know any competent tech types — i.e. the people who drive this stuff — who are social conservatives, either.) All the right wing has to do is divorce itself from the social conservatives and the left doesn’t have a chance to win. Their entire schtick is simply Dems = science, Reps = anti-science. There isn’t any more to it than that. Take that away from the left, and the left can’t win. Why this isn’t obvious to everyone is a mystery.
Of course, this is PJM, so it’s a given that if I say my piece in a forest with no listeners, I’ll still be wrong. This is expected; what is to be learned herein will be derived from the snarkiness of the putdowns by the technically bereft social conservatives.
Hullo Alston:
“PJM readers tend toward the left’s stereotypical impression of right wingers: bible thumping authoritarian twits.”
Thank you, Alston. Glad to know that I haven’t lost my touch.
“Most if not all supporters I know are avid bikers/hikers/kayakers/etc. and spend a great deal of time outdoors.”
That’s swell. But what of hunters and fishermen? Are they not outdoors types too? Or do they “not count”? I ken that most rod and gun club types are pretty strong conservationists, but not eco-cultists making a fetish of “natural Nature”…a few days freezing your bippie off in a tree stand during deer season, or in a duck blind will tend to add a mature perspective to one’s views on the great outdoors.
And BTW, my ship was just this week released from the BP Macondo Spill Response Site…guess how big the tuna and barracuda were out there? And how many of them?
(Note to you Gulf Coast sport-fishing types: as soon as the site is opened, take your behind out there. 10 and 15 pound yellowtail jumping clear out of the water between the Development Driller 2 and the Development Driller 3).
“All the right wing has to do is divorce itself from the social conservatives and the left doesn’t have a chance to win.”
Seems to me like the right wing is doing pretty swell by staying the course.
Don’t make a fetish out of “Science” either, Alston. Doing so is as bad as any other form of zealotry…the cult of “Climate Science” comes to mind…its flaming wreckage is under that towering column of black smoke over the horizon yonder.
But meanwhile, back where the electoral rubber meets the political road, it seems you have misinterpreted the results of “Experiment 2008″:
Without the social conservatives,(allegedly “anti-science” n’all), there ain’t much left TO the right wing.
“This is expected; what is to be learned herein will be derived from the snarkiness of the putdowns by the technically bereft social conservatives.”
Gosh Alston, it isn’t like you to cringe and cower so like a whipped puppy.
What’s up with YOUR life to make you so mizz?
That’s swell. But what of hunters and fishermen?
Trouble with the ramifications of the use of “ETC” ?? Sally Field doesn’t mention the grip in her award acceptance speech. Using your “but what of grips” logic, this must mean she can’t stand grips, or worse, is too vapid to grasp their contributions.
Meanwhile, you’re attempting to make the std idiotic point from the right wing playbook that people who play in the outdoors are somehow less knowledgeable of the outdoors than those who kill things outdoors. Epic fail. And don’t even think of denying this is what you’re implying. It’s quite clear. Sorry, but the guy who goes camping for the purpose of killing something isn’t automagically more qualified to judge *anything* regarding the outdoors than the guy camping a mile away for the purpose of hiking to some interesting geology. You can take your noble hunter schtick and shove it.
…it seems you have misinterpreted the results of “Experiment 2008″:
Without the social conservatives,(allegedly “anti-science” n’all), there ain’t much left TO the right wing.
You’re stroking yourself. Any child could look at the 2008 electoral map and correctly perceive that the thumpers in the bible belt turned out in droves to cast a vote for Saint Palin, and the moderates abstained or voted Obama out of disgust. If your conjecture was even remotely in the area of correct the pattern would have looked much different. Face it, if reality were to explode it would be about a week before you perceived the flash. That’s how far out you are.
Don’t make a fetish out of “Science” either, Alston.
Yeah, admiring the only tool the human race has ever developed that lets us figure out how nature works is a real fetish. It’s science that allows you to type words you don’t understand into a box you don’t understand. All else is navel gazing nonsense.
“You can take your noble hunter schtick and shove it.”
There ya go, Alston! Glad to see you buck up and get back into form!
“Meanwhile, you’re attempting to make the std idiotic point from the right wing playbook that people who play in the outdoors are somehow less knowledgeable of the outdoors than those who kill things outdoors.”
No Alston, I was simply pointing out that you don;t have to weep for the tress and wail for the whales in order to be someone who enjoys and makes use of the great outdoors.
FWIW, I rather WORK outdoors, and while I don’t care to sail through Cuban waters for all the ghastly shit that our rotten rat bastard Commie neighbors excrete from their island, neither do I have a nervous breakdown and retire to my cabin with the vapors should a sea turtle get caught in a gill net.
“Yeah, admiring the only tool the human race has ever developed that lets us figure out how nature works is a real fetish. It’s science that allows you to type words you don’t understand into a box you don’t understand. All else is navel gazing nonsense.”
Gee, Alston old boy, I certainly didn;t mean to criticize your “Chosen Religion”.
Or is it simply that you are trying an appeal to authority by donning a white lab coat, a prop stethoscope, and shouting:
“It’s SCIENCE, you superstitious barbarians!”
in order to curtail any counter-arguments?
“You’re stroking yourself. Any child could look at the 2008 electoral map and correctly perceive that the thumpers in the bible belt turned out in droves to cast a vote for Saint Palin, and the moderates abstained or voted Obama out of disgust.”
Well, then, if any child could divine that the religious right voted for Palin, then that would mean that all the moderates and the moonbats got themselves all worked up to run out and cast their ballots for…wit for it…Joe Biden.
Right?
(Gee Alston, the “Science Cult” doesn’t look too good in THAT light, does it?)
Of course this is ridiculous.
The name at the top pf the ticket is the draw, not the “co-star”. McCain didn’t draw the right like he had hoped to, so McCain gets to relieve John kerry in the Loser Chair until 2012.
Have you got that now?
Good….here, have a cookie.
Thank you for deigning to answer a technically bereft social conservative given to rhetorical muchness, Alston.
Nice to know that you have so many friends who support wildlife organizations. Nice to know, too, that most are bikers,kayakers and hikers. Amusing to think that you automatically associate enjoyment of such sports with environmentalism. Equally amusing your fantasy that wildlife organization supporters who are less than enthusiastic about such outdoor sport are fruitcakes, presumably rare.
Bikers are by and large pests. Here in Manhattan there are paths along the Hudson River running north-south the length of the city. For many years these paths provided opportunity for long liesurely walks to anyone who cared to use them. In recent years, the local bike lobbyists got City Hall to to pave all the unpaved sections of these paths, including the narrowest portions, to accommodate bikers. So successful was the project that today, bikers drive in from Jersey and Connecticut for the smoothly paved scenic ride along the Hudson. Stand on Riverside Drive on a Sunday morning and you can see whole families unloading their bikes from SUVs with Jersey and Connecticut plates. Dare I mention, Alston, that biker pedestrian accidents are way up and a relaxing stroll along these paths on a Saturday or a Sunday is no longer possible?
As for bikes on city streets, they are an unnecessary and annoying hazard to biker, pedestrian and motorist alike. A friend with a Ferrari, a Porche, a Mercedes and two very hot German and Italian motorcycles lined up in the basement garage of his apartment building used to insist on commuting to and from his Fifth Avenue office on a bicycle. That was until last year when he ran into the door of a parked car opening suddenly in his path. Wearing a helmet luckily. Only busted his rotator cuff.
Trail bikers are worse than mere pests. They’re a plague and a curse on the environment. There is nothing more disconcerting on a wilderness trail than half a dozen jerks in electric blue and dayglo orange spandex and helmets whipping around a bend at twenty miles an hour yelping belated warning. Nothing in the woods so glaringly clashes with the natural environment and its pace. Nothing so ruts the trails and tears up their edges as knobby trail bike tires. Nothing so disturbs wildlife. Two or three riders–and the jerks always travel in packs–are as disruptive to the environment as a snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle.
Kayaks, kayak paddles, PFD’s and everything associated with Kayaks are made of synthetics of the most noxious sort. Back when white led South Africa was under international embargo, my kids paddled at the local American Canoe Association camp and I was in the market for flatwater racing kayaks. High end South African microfiber boats were selling at a fraction the cost of English, Canadian or American boats. Not so much because South African boats were not legal for sale, I was informed. Rather because being excommunicate, the South African manufacturers were ignoring costly worker safety measures required of competitors in other nations by their governments. Kayak manufacture is poisonous to humans and kayaks are poisonous to the environment.
Kayaks, like bikes,do not represent an alternative to more polluting forms of transportation. They are, in the main, merely toys. Wholsome and virtuous playthings for self righteous dilettantes with plenty of leisure time and the illusion of scientific sophistication.
Look in the mirror, Alston. Recognize who I’m talking about?
GL, you’ve got some good points that I can’t do justice to — this is a busy week — but you also slipped in a bit of a straw man — or a reverse straw man, an assertion of fact as basis for an argument. It’s one that I’m not willing to buy: the “green jobs” push is “science-based”. The facts as we know them now are that most of these green jobs are either sinecures — like weatherization — or things like wind energy, which so far turn out to be ways to create energy inefficiently, at great cost, with under-reported side effects, in places that don’t need it so it can be transported by inadequate infrastructure to be used to satisfy political goals — and, I think not coincidentally, end up enriching the politically well-connected. There is no step there that is particularly “scientific”.
…but you also slipped in a bit of a straw man — or a reverse straw man, an assertion of fact as basis for an argument. It’s one that I’m not willing to buy: the “green jobs” push is “science-based”.
Oh? Here’s what I said — ” This was breathtakingly wrong, of course, but the left played on the stereotype of green being pro-science and the republican base of social conservative evolution deniers were anti-science.”
The point is about image, not a claim of green = science.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, Industrial/military complex Speech
Green is the old red.
First we have to ELIMINATE the Environmental Protection Agency. Then we have to ELIMINATE the “standing” of environmentalist groups to SUE any time they wish to stall or stop American Citizens from taking advantage of our abundant natural energy resources, oil, gas, coal, shale oil.
Second, we STRANGLE any funds going to GREEN Socialist Marxist (Environmental) organizations; and then eliminate any funding to these destroyers of National Wealth.
The concept of regulating normal commerce, based on science, is an appealing, but flawed theory of governance. It presupposes that science is not ideological, that it it wholly rational. Modern history says otherwise. The EPA has closed science, the back ground technical analyses for its rulings, are often off limits to technical opponents, on the basis that scientists own their hard won information. This is unlike employees of large corporations, who sign these rights over, the first day on the job. As a result, we have Democratic science, or Republican science, depending on which Professor gets the grant. By definition, this is absurd. All government funded science, excluding national security matters, must be open information to those who paid for it. If a geek spends a decade writing code, studying global warming, that code should be public property, available to his/her detractors. His fee should be based on this reality.
Currently, we have a history of Freedom of Information legal conflicts, suppressing information in extremely volatile scientific areas of study. We practice “gotcha” science, wherein, long after the conference, press release, court decision, or legislative vote, we learn that fundamental flaws, omissions, or commissions, were knowingly put forth as truth. However, in science, it is almost impossible to determine, “what did he know, and when did he know it”, and worst, “When should he have known, but fudged arcade knowledge for personal gain?”.
The EPA, by charter, and culture, is anti corporation. It will not regulate dirty lawn mowers, but has regulated “point sources”, large smoke stack industries, out of business within the US. Society needs their products, so we obtain them from offshore supply. It is inevitable, given their charter, and modern technology, that mature technical regulators will morph into absolute dictators of our economy. They may destroy it, or have destroyed it, as they have no understanding of costs.
Step 1: In 2010, remove as many Democrats from congress and state legislatures as possible. Stop and reverse the ratcheting up of government.
Step 2: In 2011, stay on top of the redistricting process to try to keep Democrats from coming back. Attempt to block new stupid regulations.
Step 3: In 2012, defeat President Obama. House seats and electoral college delegates shift to red states.
Step 4: In 2013, start selling off federal land to both help pay off national debt and reduce the power of environmental groups. Change the Clean Air Act to explicitly state that carbon dioxide is not pollution. It’s plant food. Change EPA regulations in general to compensate land owners for reduced land value when EPA regulations take away land value. Replace stupid regulations that generate compliance nightmares with more streamlined regulations.
I admire Mr. martin for speaking up. I have been inloved in tracking the growth of big green and thier opressive efforts to micromanage every last action that free human beings take- next they will be preventing the sale of beans, lest we fart too much and increase the Co2 load.
Let there be no mistake-the people such as the Pews and Packard’s who have joined forces to create the worl’d first scientific dictatorship have more than ten billion doallrs at their disposal- they craft compelling propagnda campaigns to make us beleive thier motivations are pure- they get needless, fereedom killing laws like th 1999 marine life protevtion act passed via asembly bill (never a vote by the people) they put up the pocket change to get the ball rolling then leave the $40 mil/yrs operational costs to to the unwitting tax payers- they gey us to pay for the yolk of our own opression- pretty slick. They are both opressive and cheap.
The key to the whole thing is pandering to the universities- big green pumps truck laods of money into most marine science schools such as UCSB and SCRIPPS- the university heads such as Steve Gains enjoy the funding, titles and the fact that the new laws such as the marine life protections act create permanent tax payers funded work for their otherwise useless graduates. The universities were stamping out a pruduct (marine sceintists) by the droves into a world that did not need thier skills set- so Big Green helped to create one- it amounts to nothoing more that scientific wellfare.
The hell of it is- the marine closures are 100% not needed- the whole idea that the the ocean in California is in peril is fabricated- the ocean ecosystem in California is th healthiest it has been in my life-we have all been duped and corraled- Governor Arnie is at the becon call of the Pews/Packards and is attempting to force (before the election in 45 days) the fish and game commission to pass permenent, fishing closures over 75% of the best areas in California-the closures are faith based not science based and may actually cause harm to the ecosystem by causing overfishing in the open areas.
So far the closures are located directly in front of the universities that will enjoy the money and work that comes form them- Governor Arnie set aside $90 million bucks in the ocean protection council to fund the univserity “studies” of the closures- simply becaus ebig green asked for it-Arnie has taken $90 million away from tax payers and handed it directly to big green special interest-all in the midst of our greatest recession.
Long live a free and sustainable ocean!
“The key to the whole thing is pandering to the universities- big green pumps truck laods of money into most marine science schools such as UCSB and SCRIPPS- the university heads such as Steve Gains enjoy the funding, titles and the fact that the new laws such as the marine life protections act create permanent tax payers funded work for their otherwise useless graduates. The universities were stamping out a pruduct (marine sceintists) by the droves into a world that did not need thier skills set- so Big Green helped to create one- it amounts to nothoing more that scientific wellfare.”
Two years ago I sailed with a Mate who had voluntarily given up a Master’s gig on one of WHOI’s,(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute),research vessels.
He claimed that he was sickened by what he was assisting the subsidized “Scientificultists” do to the economy on the Cape, (where he lived). It especially enraged him that these bozos would shut down a privately owned and financed aquaculture operation. Let’s face it…there ain’t a whole lot of “impactables” that go into a tidal aquafarm…lengths of chain and rope and some float-buoys?
Anyway, this guy fit in on our Oil Patch mudboat like strawberry jam mixes with Dijon mustard, plus he was a truly shitty boat-handler, so they ended up mailing him off to a barge full of novelty rubber dog-shit bound for China.
Just recently out at the Macondo site, there were two NOAA boats,(I know…who woke THEM up?), that would blithely sail straight down “the slot” of all the working ships there….you will have seen photos of how tight the sea-space was there, and all of the ships were keeping station via dynamic positioning.
So you can imagine the stress of having some government NOAA noodlehead come cruising right through the dance floor…especially since we all had ROV umbilicals also extending down below.
The NOAA clowns were supposed to be “listening for further oil leaks”…few of us in the fleet bought that story since what their hydrophones would likely have picked up was the symphony of diesels that our fleet consisted of.
All they did was get in the damned way and endanger seamen’s lives needlessly with their BS.
At any rate, that’s all over now and the NOAA fleet, like cicadas, can go dormant for another 17 years again.
I know of these cicadas of which you speak.
There is nothing right about toxifying the enviroment. That being said, there is nothing right about stiffling productivity and many facets of the economy with regulation. Where goes regulation goes litigation which is a very useful tool of the vigilante Eco-Nazis who control enviro-issues and hence the economy by way of the courts: mining, logging, grazing, building, trucking, etc…. If they were merely planting trees and cleaning rivers, the greenies actions would be laudable. Bribing and elbow twisting politicians is old school. The base is about power and control with a useful front cause to celebrate. Al -The Sky is Falling-Gore and his acolytes have the disaster industry down to a pseudo-science.
Hey Alston,
What do you call someone who describes themself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal?
A cheap liberal!
What do you call someone who describes themself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal?
An adult capable of actual thought.
You opened the door, and the result upsets you?
To me, any mention of the word “social” in a political sense, is a reminder of legal stealing. “Social justice/social liberalism/social equality” means nothing more than “Give us your money and we will make things right with the world. Your guilt feelings will go away. It’s for the children.” Today’s green machine has become a powerful lobby, using science and “social liberalism” as a crowbar to extort money from governments. Does it do some good? Sure. Does it do bad? Think the global warming scare. All you need do is imagine the power and money that will be up for grabs if the world governments are mobilized to combat Al Gore’s inconvenient lies. It’s all about money and power, and need I say it – redistribution of wealth. That to me is “social liberalism”.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, Military/industrial Complex Speech