Energy technology is neither a "Left" nor "Right" issue — the troubled years before the deluge

Per the title of this blog post, energy technology is neither a "Left" nor "Right" issue. So it has always irritated me that the so-called "caring and altruistic" Left seems to think renewable (aka "sustainable") energy is their exclusive domain, while the "evil and greedy" Right seems to prefer centralized, government1-controlled energy sources such as oil, nuclear, coal, etc. My irritation is compounded by the fact it seems that so many, perhaps even most, of the actors and musicians whose work I admire most lean to the left politically2. So I thought it was time to clarify the propaganda-induced confusion and faux "controversy" a bit.

At the outset, the one thing I wanted to make sure I did not fail to emphasize is the great amount of credit that I believe is due to the role-modeling of "star3" environmental activists such as Ed Begley, Jr, Daryl Hannah, Jackson Browne, and many others. They put their money where their mouths are, and try very hard to be good examples of their "green" political gospel. Ed even has two shows, "Living With Ed" and "" where he tries to demonstrate for his audiences what is possible. Having said that, the bad news is that there is so much they don't talk about that their approach to the issue is so extremely simplistic that it borders on deception. And, the folks whose work I admire aside, there are plenty of fascist4 scumbags5 wanting to profit from the sale of deception and manipulation to the more naive, ignorant and intellectually lazy among us.

Following are some videos which demonstrate Ed Begley Jr's environmental activism in a very positive light:

Ed Begley Jr. - Driven to Sustain - Part 1 - YouTube video

Ed Begley Jr. - Driven to Sustain - Part 2 - YouTube video

Simple Living with Wanda Urbanska #405: Ed Begley Jr. Specials / Local - YouTube video

Rachelle Carson-Begley and Ed Begley Jr. invite you to experience how they go green at home - YouTube video

Here is one of my favorite environmental songs by Jackson Browne, one of my favorite singer/songwriters:

Jackson Browne with David Lindley - 06 Before The Deluge, June 26, 2010 - YouTube video

Wikipedia has an article worth reading on what has euphemistically been referred to as "global warming". Of course it also ignores the desperation of the marketers of the global warming theories. A new marketing brand is "climate change", which obviously ignores the self-evident fact that all climate does is change. It has always warmed up and cooled down, just as it has always changed back and forth from light/day to dark/night with the rotation of the Earth. "Climate change" - what a manipulative crock!

I like to refer to the members of the global warming religion as "Global Warmers" (GWs) because I like to tell them that I'm "okay" with global warming. Throughout Earth's history, there have been numerous Ice Ages and Tropical Ages, so I never bother to argue about whether or not global warming currently exists because warming periods have occurred before. I don't really know whether one exists now, and, because I can't do very much about it if it does exist, I don't really care. Everybody has to die someday from something. From a philosophical point of view, I don't see how it matters much whether you die from an Ice Age, a warming period, or a collision with a giant doomsday asteroid. I am just inherently allergic to collectivist Star3-Syndrome-based "Chicken Little" political scare tactics. I just don't want a bunch of lying scamming scumbags5 to get rich off of peddling irrational "Chicken Little" fear to the naive and ignorant by using the coercive power of collectivist government to radically raise taxes on, and steal the labor of, all but the elite debt-as-money oligarchs/criminals and their myrmidons.

There are a number of things about GWs which bother me, not least of which is the manner, typical of many liberals, in which they engage in what I call "rhetorical brinksmanship6" and radically raise the emotional heat of any given conversation. An example of that would be "nice guy" environmental role model, Ed Begley Jr, making a fool of himself by acting like an arrogant, ignorant, coercive twit in the following video clip. Keep in mind this is the very same guy who said in another video clip during a candid moment of resignation to the seemingly inevitable, "people get on board when they do, and we're happy that they do, they finally get it". I could say that exact same thing about people not understanding the honest money issue.

Ed Begley, Jr Blows Up Over Climate Gate! - YouTube video

Another problem for GWs is the fact that, at one time, the Vikings farmed Greenland. Greenland has been covered with ice more than once. In order for the Vikings to farm Greenland, the ice had to have melted off during a period of warming, which, according to Wikipedia, it apparently did from about 950 AD to 1250 AD. The logical inference from that inconvenient-to-GWs little fact is that there was dramatic "global" warming prior to the Industrial Age when man started pumping so-called "greenhouse gasses" into the air and creating so-called "carbon footprints". Since there was no industrialization during the time Vikings were farming Greenland, where did the radical warming prior to the "Little Ice Age" come from? I'll be darned — it must have been from our good friend and chief warmer, the sun, exclusive of human activity.

A third problem I have with GWs is that they insist on pretending that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a toxic pollutant. That is pure B.S. CO2 is a necessary naturally occurring compound. The animal and plant kingdoms have a symbiotic relationship in which the animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. The plants do the reverse: they breathe in CO2 and give off oxygen. CO2 is plant FOOD, for crying out loud. Many green house operators and florists actually buy CO2 to help their plants thrive. Since humans are over-populating the Earth anyway, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of plants thriving a little more while humans decline a bit — assuming arguendo that is even what is happening, or going to happen.

As you can see from the following four video clips, lots of other people have problems with the GW dogma too.

Al Gore Lies about Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels - YouTube video

Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman - YouTube video

Lord Monckton on Climate Change - Melbourne Highlights clip (1 of 2) - YouTube video

Lord Monckton on Climate Change - Melbourne Highlights clip (2 of 2) - YouTube video

Part of the problem is exacerbated by the charm of many on the Left, as manifested by the following three video clips of two men I greatly admire for their musical talent, if not their politics.

Bruce Springsteen inducts Jackson Browne Rock and Roll Hall of Fame - YouTube video

Jackson Browne accepts award Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions - YouTube video

Jackson Browne performs Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions 2004 - YouTube video

In the following interview Dr. Thomas Sowell explains how he "progressed" from Marxist to "conservative". In so doing, he demonstrates that the Right can have charisma too. About liberals, Sowell said: "They are people who seriously believe that they are wiser and nobler than others, and the way to improve society is to have the government force people to follow what the anointed want rather than let people do what they themselves want to do. And there are all kinds of fiascos that follow in the wake of this kind of notion."

Thomas Sowell: The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube video

I consider myself an environmentalist, yet I'm the farthest thing from a leftist, I "care about people and the planet", and I vigorously proselytize on behalf of not only sustainable energy, but sustainable human behavior of all types, and sustainability in general. So the "I care more than you" Left can take a hike regarding their wannabe-clever propaganda manipulations as constituting some logically relevant part of the energy technology debate.

On the opposite hand, anyone with a living brain can easily see that fossil fuels are in such limited supply that it would behoove humankind to research as vigorously as possible as soon as possible for long-term sustainable alternate energy sources. Yet you hear the Right invent talking points about the inadequacies of renewable energy, such as "what if it's a cloudy day?" The false premise behind that talking point is that energy is an all-or-nothing affair. It isn't. It's self-evidently better to get what energy you can from the sun while it is shining than to not even try to make use of all available solar energy. Likewise with the other forms of renewable energy.

What the oil/nuke/coal crowd never talks about is that by far the cheapest, most effective, and most trouble free type of energy is INSULATION. When we have the technology to build homes that would last hundreds of years, it is both stupidly inefficient and a moral crime to be throwing up houses which, if all goes well, barely last until the last mortgage payment is made. It is not important that "the construction workers need something to do". If we have enough long-lasting energy-efficient housing, the folks involved in construction can spend time in other worthwhile intellectual pursuits such as inventing Luke-Skywalker-type anti-gravity speeders or ships to travel in space. Useless "busy" work just so a few politically dominant people can profit from the ignorance and naïveté of others in no way represents the highest spiritual and intellectual potential of humankind.

Another thing the oil/nuke/coal crowd never talks about is the freedom-versus-slavery difference between centralization and decentralization, in other words centralized energy sources versus decentralized energy sources and how that might relate to the crucial issues of sustainability, self-sufficiency and individual freedom. As Ed Begley Jr likes to say in effect, "you can't make gasoline on the roof of your house, but you can make electricity from the power of the sun on the roof of your house".

While in my opinion it is definitely an overall positive thing that trust-funder types and relatively wealthy celebrities utilize renewable energy in their own homes, and even have television shows to demonstrate what is possible to impress the hoi polloi, I can't help thinking how much more a service to humankind would be lists of books, blogs, videos and websites which would make available all the resources and information necessary for every individual to successfully build and/or install all the necessary equipment to make his own home energy efficient, perhaps even energy self-sufficient.

Under construction . . .


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

Ted Nugent On Colorado Shooting :: Gun Talk Radio with Tom Gresham - YouTube video

Ted Nugent performs the Star Spangled Banner (US National Anthem) on Glenn Beck FOX News - YouTube video

Jackson Browne - Glastonbury Festival - I Am A Patriot - YouTube video

Following is some important information that the "I care more than you, I'm a better person than you" liberal trust-funder environmentalists never seem to talk about. Gee whiz! I wonder why.

Thomas Sowell -- Basic Economics

Part 5/5 Edwin Vieira at Faneuil Hall Dec 14 2008

For your convenience, I transcribed Dr. Vieira's anecdote about how law is taught, and linked a PDF file HERE.

Money As Debt - by Canadian artist, Paul Grignon

Money As Debt 2 - by Canadian artist, Paul Grignon

What the Heck is a Bailout? - YouTube video

Quantitative Easing Explained - YouTube video

America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version - Google video


1. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"2. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to delegate their will to (DELEGATED will is fraudulently called "authority"), and to follow and obey.

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.

3. You can find various examples of so-called "spoiled star syndrome" Hollywood stars, but that's not what I mean by the euphemism "star syndrome". I'm talking about the lemming like behavior of otherwise normal human beings when they throw away their brains and admire and worship a bunch of personality-disordered narcissists. I'm talking about crowds of otherwise decent hard-working people watching spellbound as a relatively small group of entertainment and political "stars" live their pathetic little intellectually-challenged self-absorbed lives. Guess what, boys and girls? Our species is never going to figure out how to travel in space following that path. A far more worthwhile and productive goal would be to help each other learn how to be self-owning and self-sufficient.

4. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership of government.

John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author

"Fascist" = scumbag5 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.

MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones (see videos below), the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions, all the while using the coercion-based police powers of "government7" to enrich themselves.

Jesse Ventura,Willie Nelson,Alex Jones"The Gathering"1/2 - YouTube video

Jesse Ventura,Willie Nelson,Alex Jones"The Gathering"2/2 - YouTube video

Willie Nelson & Jesse Ventura"Ask Questions Damn It!!"1/2 - YouTube video

Willie Nelson & Jesse Ventura"Ask Questions Damn It!!"2/2 - YouTube video

Inside USA- Jesse Ventura- 01 Aug 08- Part 1 - YouTube video

There are five basic groups of people: 1) fascist "liberals" who use "government" to enrich themselves, 2) illiterate lemming "liberals" who only spout meaningless "leftist" talking points, 3) fascist "conservatives" who use "government" to enrich themselves, 4) illiterate lemming "conservatives" who only spout meaningless "right-wing" talking points, and 5) illiterate, apathetic, passive/aggressive disordered underachieving loser types who feel some sick sense of personal empowerment by trolling talk strings and spouting illiterate low-IQ drivel in an effort to distract and destroy meaningful and intellectually honest truth-seeking conversation.

"Socialist or Fascist" is an extremely useful article by Dr. Thomas Sowell bearing directly on the definition of fascism.

5. It bears constant repetition: explaining the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals and/or ideologies. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads are in fact effective. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling "scum" what it is. Surely a huge majority of people, especially black people, would agree that any person or group who sincerely believes in slavery or pedophilia, by way of example, qualify as "scum". Point made.

6. "Rhetorical brinksmanship", as practiced by the Left and other sophists, is raising the emotional heat and intensity of a conversation to the point it reaches either violence or capitulation. This is done as a matter of calculated strategy designed to get one’s polemical and/or philosophical opponent in the conversation to capitulate, or, at the very least, shut up and go away. The despicable manipulators who practice rhetorical brinksmanship presume that most well-intended, benign human beings will capitulate in a discussion rather than start exercising violence. And, of course, that disordered presumption is usually correct. Examples of rhetorical brinksmanship are 1) gays who fraudulently/manipulatively demonize people as "haters" and/or "homophobes” merely for holding the sincere belief that smearing feces on one’s urethra is disgusting and medically risky, that rectums were designed for the expulsion of waste not the expression of romantic love, and/or that, as has been the tradition in most cultures for millenia, “marriage” is between one man and one woman; 2) race-hustling blacks who in effect fraudulently/manipulatively say, “any white person who doesn’t want to pay more taxes so I can have more government freebies is a racist"; and 3) militant gender feminists (aka "feminazis") who fraudulently/manipulatively demonize people as "misogynist” for merely holding the sincere moral belief that, at some stage in its development, pre-birth humans deserve to have the same legal rights as post-birth humans.

The practitioners of rhetorical brinksmanship will inevitably lie about their intent. Deception is a necessary part of their modus operandi. It's what they do. It's who they are. They will say things like, "People who feel so threatened by the love of others they have to imagine that those who choose different family situations other than their own are part of some militant ‘gay agenda’ out to ‘destroy traditional marriage.’" That's utter crap. They know full well that virtually nobody feels threatened by the love of others. Gay propaganda strategists want to co-opt the word "marriage" because somebody somewhere in one of their political propaganda strategy sessions decided that if homosexuals could be "married", then that would gravitate towards causing heterosexuals en masse to believe homosexuality was more acceptable as "normal".

The sophistic practitioners of rhetorical brinksmanship falsely accuse — there again, as a matter of deliberate calculated strategy — their opponents of being guilty of the very same behavior that the sophists themselves are engaging in and are guilty of. They falsely accuse their opponents as being "hateful" and "intolerant", when in fact that's what they are. They are the REAL haters. They are the ones who are arrogantly and fanatically intolerant of any views other than their own. Shrinks call this type of manipulation "projection". But in the case of sophists, it is worse then mere projection. "Projection" can stem from mental illness, in which case the person doing the projecting isn't aware of what they are doing. In the case of the sophistic practitioners of rhetorical brinksmanship, as I said, the projection is a matter of deliberate calculated strategy. In other words, evil.

In my opinion, dealing with deliberately strategized aggressive propaganda rhetoric is different than merely dealing with the humanity and adverse opinions of another human being. Kindness, patience and grace are appropriate when dealing with a person. But when dealing with deliberately aggressive sophistry, I suspect the “hate evil” admonition in Amos 5:15 is more effective. Accordingly, rhetorical tit-for-tat seems a more effective strategy when dealing with sophistry and rhetorical brinksmanship.