By Ronald Glenn
As most of the recent news cycles have been centered around the fate of three Somali Muslims threatening an American with an AK-47 to his head (where I’m from, those are called “terrorists”), some stories have slipped through the cracks or have simply worn out their welcome after dominating news cycles last week.
Here are the most recent tidbits and mish-mash I feel compelled to share. Now, I will restrain myself from commenting on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, since I have found there is great danger when one stands between a lover and his or her beloved. We all like or dislike people for different reasons, but one thing is for certain — regardless of whether a break-up is necessary, unfortunate or inevitable, those involved need to do it on their own.
Watch Your Carbons at Every Meal
Eco-Eating. It’s the newest trend that extends from the Al “The Enviro-messiah” Gore and his pseudo-science, and is based on the notion that everyone in the world needs to eat not a low-calorie diet, or a low-fat diet . . . but a “low carbon diet.”
To bring about a low carbon, eco-friendly diet in your own life, you are supposed to calculate exactly how much carbon is used to put the plate of food you eat on your table. This includes the ecological carbon “cost” of fertilizers, pesticides, and whatever fuel is used in preparation, packaging, transportation among anything else that comes to mind.
It becomes increasingly apparent in each article on the subject that it is necessary for humanity to move closer and closer to a vegetarian diet. After all, the single-greatest enemy to mankind and our planet is, you see, a gas-emanating bovine — known by most of us as a cow that farts. Gore and his devotees seem to believe that these generally inert, rotund mammals have done more damage to the atmosphere than all the combustion engines and vacuous speeches by Nancy Pelosi combined.
No word, by the way, as to whether the carbon “cost” of bovine flatulence should be accounted for in calculating the environmenal impact of your t-bone steak, nor about the possible adverse effects from veggies like broccoli or cauliflower, which may seem environmentally friendly on the consumption end, but cause similar flatulatory emissions in eaters on the other side of things.
It is unclear to me how the calculations are to be made on a regular basis at all. How does one discern the carbon difference between a potato chip and a pretzel? It also never seems to occur to anyone that all this ridiculousness is being pushed on everyone on the basis of a global warming theory that actually may not be true to begin with! The whole “green” movement in general reminds me of the custom of leaving cookies and milk for Santa Claus — it has more to do with making the giver feel good than helping the designated recipient.
A feel-good mechanism or not, watch out for the economic and cultural effects of this growing practice. Look for the beef and pork industry to come under increasing attack. Look for increased government intervention in the form of food production regulation, all based on ecological concerns. And watch out for the likelihood this diet will be taught in public schools and be used as a guide for what is served in school cafeterias from coast to coast.
The Federal Reserve as God
Many of the young people I talk to treat the Federal Reserve as if it is God, in the sense that it has the power to create something from nothing. In conjunction with the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve has supposedly spent over $12 trillion in the last six to eight months (actual numbers are difficult if not impossible to come by, as the Fed isn’t talking). Meanwhile, the gross national product for 2008 in America was $13 trillion. Regardless, younger Americans like those I speak with have the attitude that this spending does not affect them since they are not contributing any of their own money. Instead, the Federal Reserve is creating it. From scratch. Like the Heavens and the Earth.
This may be the most extraordinary attitude to emerge from the bailout. One young man even told me the Federal Reserve should mail everyone $100,000 a year so nobody would be poor and so everything would be okay. Alas, the relationship between work, value, and money may be in the process of permanent destruction.
Mom, I Want To Go Home.
The internet has found itself concerned lately about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) building camps to house dissident Americans. This is normally labeled “paranoid.” Even radio and television commentator host Glenn Beck, himself often deemed “paranoid,” has even addressed the issue.
[As far as I know, it has been debunked, and much of the videos and information which started the rumblings have been proven to be years old and recycled from other purposes. -- Jeff]
Regardless of the veracity of the rumors, the underlying reason for this discussion has to do with the fear governments experience when they face the possibility of a collapsed economy. I do not doubt for a moment that the American government has had discussions in the Pentagon and within FEMA about what course of action should be taken if a large number of families in America became homeless.
It is the function of a government agency that is doing its job to make contingency plans. I think it is important for us to understand that America is not a nation that is used to high unemployment, and it is difficult to gauge what the reaction of this nation would be to a period of unemployment in some regions that could push 20 percent.
It is equally important to remember that recessions do not always attack the nation equally, that sections of the nation weather economics storms differently. It is very possible that much of the pain and suffering will be concentrated in California and the old midwestern industrial belt. If that’s the case, how does someone live through a homeless winter in Detroit? The answer: with help.
Vermont legalized gay marriage this week by a vote of its legislature instead of waiting for a decision from its Supreme Court. I wrote on this issue last week for America’s Right from the perspective of the internal struggle within the Republican Party. This time, I’d rather comment using a different philosophical perspective.
My attorney acquaintances have pointed out to me that a great deal of legislation and court rulings in the modern era are based on assumptions that were not held a century ago by the leaders of the Judeo/Christian west. Social laws stemmed from a belief that the world had a given order that the state and its citizens needed to follow. If that order was grossly violated, the society was doomed to failure. The core center of this natural order was the traditional family unit of husband, wife, and children.
Of course, this has all changed under the enormous social pressures of the last fifty years. The point is, the lawyers tell me, this had led to the belief that all laws of a society are artificial, man-made creations (athiests have their own idea of social order) which can be altered at any time at the behest of the government, not only allowing the government extraordinary leeway, but putting government in the position that it is expected and required to rule on every aspect of our lives since the social order cannot be taken for granted.
As trivial as it may seem, when President Bill Clinton was asked under oath if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, he asked the questioner what was meant by by the word “sex.” The left, see, is in the midst of re-defining American life in its own terms and by its own values, and it is important to remember that these may not be the same terms you thought we all had in common.
Those who believe in natural law must feel as though they have been abandoned. Meanwhile, only forty-six more states to go.
Ronald Glenn has worked in real estate and law for more than twenty years. He now works in Philadelphia, and lives outside the city with his wife. Ron has been writing for America’s Right since January 2009.