This nails it for today - the original is posted on RealClearPolitics. (Emphasis mine)
By Dennis Prager
The state of the liberal mind is on display on this week's cover of Time magazine.
The already notorious cover takes the iconic photograph of U.S. Marines planting the American flag on Iwo Jima and substitutes a tree for the flag. Why Time's editors did this explains much about contemporary liberalism.
The first thing it explains is that liberals, not to mention the left as a whole, stopped fighting evil during the Vietnam War. As I wrote in my last column, whereas liberals had led the fight against Nazism before and during World War II, and against Communism after the War, the liberal will to fight Communism, the greatest organized evil of the post-War world, collapsed during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War did to American liberals what World War I did to most Europeans -- it rendered them anti-war rather than anti-evil.
That is why liberals have gone AWOL in the fight against Islamic totalitarianism. As during the post-Vietnam Cold War, when liberals fought anti-Communists much more than they fought Communists, they fight anti-Islamists much more than they fight Islamists. Thus, Democrats routinely dismiss the Bush administration's talk about the threat of Islamic terror as "scare tactics."
But -- and this is a primary reason for Time's cover -- liberals know that they have largely opted out of the fight against Islamists; their only passion on this matter is abandoning the war against Islamists in Iraq. But like nearly all people who believe in a cause, they know that they have to fight some evil -- after all, the world really seems threatened by something. So they have channeled their desire to fight threats to the world to fighting an enemy that will not hurt them or their loved ones -- man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas.
The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis.
Second, for much of the left, the cover reflects the primacy of environmental concerns over moral concerns. For example, the left seemed never to care about the millions of Africans who continued to die from malaria largely because of the environmentalists' worldwide ban on the use of DDT as pesticide. The same holds true for another leftwing environmentalist fantasy. Changing corn into biofuels is causing a surge in food prices throughout the world. The European Union continues this policy despite warnings even from some environmentalists that food shortages, starvation and food riots are imminent. But human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation.
Third, the left is far more internationalist -- global, if you will -- in its orientation than national. As the Time article states, "Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?" Whereas, for most Americans patriotism remains red, white and blue, for much of the left it is green.
Fourth, the further left you go, the more inclined you are to hysteria. From the threat of DDT to the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America to that mass killer secondhand smoke, the left believes and spreads threats that, unlike the threat of Islamic terror, really are "scare tactics."
Years from now, Time's cover will be regarded as another silly media-induced fear. But, as with Time's 1974 article warning its readers about "another ice age" and its many articles on the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America, Time will just let public amnesia deal with credibility problems. Until then, however, one fact remains: Today, conservatives fight evil and liberals fight carbon emissions. That's what this week's cover of Time is about.
6 comments:
"for much of the left, the cover reflects the primacy of environmental concerns over moral concerns."
Why are these two things dichotomous? The reasons people are environmentalists are inherently moral. This helps explain why there is a growing trend of Christian groups taking environmental stands. If God made us and the Earth, don't we have an obligation not to ruin it? How is that not moral?
"Conservatives fight evil, liberals fight carbon emissions."
Oh, that had me rolling. Though I'm sure most other conservatives are all for a clean environment, we're certainly not going to speculate on questionable science at the expense of the lubricant that keeps the machine going. And I'm not talking oil; i'm talking business.
Don't kill business to decrease emissions of something absorbed by trees! You're treehuggers, remember?!?!?
"unlike the threat of Islamic terror -- You just made my soul hurt, Gross...
It is not moral because Al Gore says we have a problem... Ergo, what Al Gore says is immoral leftist garbage. What don't you understand about that?
“The already notorious cover takes the iconic photograph of U.S. Marines planting the American flag on Iwo Jima and substitutes a tree for the flag.”
This is a very common tactic used to grab people’s attention on a particular issue. It’s alright if don’t like that they did that, but if you’re going to condemn them for it, you’ll have to condemn conservatives, satirists, parodists, pretty much all TV show writers, and anyone who makes an allusion to anything.
“The first thing it explains is that liberals, not to mention the left as a whole, stopped fighting evil during the Vietnam War. As I wrote in my last column, whereas liberals had led the fight against Nazism before and during World War II, and against Communism after the War, the liberal will to fight Communism, the greatest organized evil of the post-War world, collapsed during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War did to American liberals what World War I did to most Europeans -- it rendered them anti-war rather than anti-evil.”
If you remember, after 9/11 almost 100% of the country was pro-war, even liberals. The reason they don’t support the war now is because we (the American people) were told that these “evil” countries had nuclear weapons, and to date, not a single one has been found. That’s the real scumbag tactic. The anti-war people you’re thinking of are called hippies. Not all liberals are hippies. That’s like saying all black people are poor, crack smoking criminals, and that all Muslims are terrorist . . . wait, this article already implied that one.
“As during the post-Vietnam Cold War, when liberals fought anti-Communists much more than they fought Communists, they fight anti-Islamists much more than they fight Islamists.”
Maybe that’s because they believe in one the principal values upon which this country was founded: religious/political tolerance. People have the right to be Communist, just as others have the right to be Republican/Democrat, and the same hold true to following Islamic/Christian beliefs. It’s not these beliefs that are bad, but the radical people who gain power and try to force everyone else to follow these beliefs.
“It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas.”
Global warming actually is a human evil. It’s a result of too many carbon emissions, resulting from the inefficiency of car/truck/bus/etc. engines to burn oil, and these engines were created by *gasp* humans. Everyone know that the liberal media will celebrate those who support the liberal mindset, just as the conservative media celebrates those who support the conservative mindset. It’s all propaganda. No one is threatening those who fight global warming because they’re not arrogant enough to think that they are the only ones who can fix the problem. They’ve maintained from the beginning that global warming is an issue that we need to work together to solve, unlike the war, which apparently only the US is able to bring about a happy ending. These fights shouldn’t be about the glory or awards you receive, but war heroes receive medals of honor, silver stars, purple hearts, etc.
“The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis.”
America as a whole offers cheap heroism. Look at the Purple Heart. It’s an award given to anyone who has been injured in combat. Some moron could’ve just been playing around with a grenade, accidently set it off, and survived the blast, and he’s called a hero. Also, in (I think) “The Red Badge of Courage”, a group of idiot soldiers is playing around during a battle on a hot day and waste all of the water. One of the idiots runs into the middle of the battle to get more water and because he bring it back, he’s called a hero. In short, I’m saying that America calls stupidity heroism.
“Second, for much of the left, the cover reflects the primacy of environmental concerns over moral concerns. For example, the left seemed never to care about the millions of Africans who continued to die from malaria largely because of the environmentalists' worldwide ban on the use of DDT as pesticide. The same holds true for another leftwing environmentalist fantasy. Changing corn into biofuels is causing a surge in food prices throughout the world. The European Union continues this policy despite warnings even from some environmentalists that food shortages, starvation and food riots are imminent. But human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation."
I’ll agree that turning corn into biofuel is stupid. However, we do need to look for alternative forms of energy, if for no other reason than oil is a nonrenewable resource. My solution: hemp. No one eats it, so it won’t raise food prices. Also, it’s already been said that we have a moral obligation to take care of this planet. That is, we do unless you’re such a selfish prick that you’ll leave your children/grandchildren screwed, just because you didn’t want to get up your easy and convenient lifestyle.
“Third, the left is far more internationalist -- global, if you will -- in its orientation than national. As the Time article states, "Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?" Whereas, for most Americans patriotism remains red, white and blue, for much of the left it is green.”
This completely contracts the above paragraph. If liberals are so focused on international issues, why wouldn’t they help the Africans with malaria, or advocate something other than corn for biofuel. Besides, this article continuously talks about the war. You know who’s fighting the war? People who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. If liberals are more concerned about the world instead of the nation, oh well. There are more people in the world than in the US. It’s all about the greater good. If you’re going to praise soldiers for giving their lives for the nation, you should praise liberals for giving their nation for the world.
“Fourth, the further left you go, the more inclined you are to hysteria.”
The same hold true for the right. The further you go on any side, the more inclined you are to hysteria. That’s why they’re radicals.
“Today, conservatives fight evil and liberals fight carbon emissions. That's what this week's cover of Time is about.”
Wow, that’s not arrogant or bigoted at all. I like how you belittle liberals for not having any national pride, but you condemn Iraqis for having it. What’s with the double standard?
"Global warming actually is a human evil. It’s a result of too many carbon emissions, resulting from the inefficiency of car/truck/bus/etc. engines to burn oil, and these engines were created by *gasp* humans. Everyone know that the liberal media will celebrate those who support the liberal mindset, just as the conservative media celebrates those who support the conservative mindset. It’s all propaganda. No one is threatening those who fight global warming because they’re not arrogant enough to think that they are the only ones who can fix the problem. They’ve maintained from the beginning that global warming is an issue that we need to work together to solve, unlike the war, which apparently only the US is able to bring about a happy ending. These fights shouldn’t be about the glory or awards you receive, but war heroes receive medals of honor, silver stars, purple hearts, etc."
Are you a fool or just gullible? This "global warming" phenomenon is merely an effort to wrestle control from the masses via fear. The liberals want an "enemy" that is clear and present in order to get us to bend to their will (usually an effort to stay in power and collect more taxes). Yes, conservatives have done this before; whether it was anti-communism or anti-fanaticism.
HOWEVER, there is a REAL basis for the fears of islamo-fanaticism. Global warming? Hogwash. Methane emissions are responsible for 4x the capacity to trap the sun's rays. CO2 is absorbed by trees. This is merely an effort to block capitalism from working its wonders while increasing the Democrats' and other liberals' tax bases.
For shame for suckers believing this. I don't hear anyone talking about how to capture and store cow's flatulence which is far more responsible for any "global warming" then our autos are.
Post a Comment