Thus, the need for Trippin'.
The Times correctly observed that since "young viewers' appetite for scientific knowledge is limited, Ms. Diaz is betting that their interest in celebrities will draw them to the show and help them [find] a world beyond the exurbs and X-Boxes." The paper, however, dismissed Diaz's extremism as just fun and games: "she dwells on excrement, both for laughs and for edification."43
But we're not letting Diaz off the hook that easily. While visiting Nepal, she referred to village walls covered in cow dung as "beautiful" and "inspiring." Then she took to praising "pounding mud" with sticks as "the coolest thing."
In Chile, Barrymore told the MTV audience that spending time in a primitive village sans electricity was uplifting. "I aspire to be like them more." Barrymore, by the way, at the time of Trippin', reportedly grossed $15 million a flick.
During the Bhutan episode, Diaz remarked that she loved how the "country's wealth was not based on dollar amount but on gross national happiness." Regarding the countryside still being relegated to undeveloped forest, she proclaimed, "That is so awesome. I like Bhutan." On you Americans--you greedy Americans--Diaz, who reportedly makes $20 million a movie, said this: "It's kinda gotten out of hand how much convenience we think we need."44
And just when you thought it couldn't get worse, it does. It turns out that local officials actually had plans to bring some parts of Chile closer to, um, the twentieth century, never mind the twenty-first. There were proposals to turn significant portions of the forest into a highway and also build an aluminum smelter. But it turns out our Hollywood eco-princesses weren't too keen on these projects, because of their alleged harmful impacts on the environment. Diaz rhapsodized: "Each of us can make a difference. If everyone recycled the aluminum cans they used, there would be no need for new smelters. So stop being a fucking pig and recycle your aluminum cans," she chortled.
Now, if you're wondering how these celebrities found their way around the jungles of South America, you're a very astute reader. While Diaz and her team were celebrating the lifestyle of a caveman, Trippin' shows them flying on multiple carbon-spewing airplanes and chartering pollution-puffing helicopters and even gas-guzzling boats to reach their site locations. The cringe-inducing irony was made complete when the series also showed the celebrities being "chauffeured to the airport in a full-size Chevy SUV," notwithstanding multiple public service announcements aired on Trippin' trashing the use of those same big, bad SUVs.
Ah, the hypocritical life of the eco-celebrity: raking in millions of dollars per film, being chauffeured around in private jets and SUVs, vacationing in the jungle, all while praising primitive life in parts of the world that can't provide basic infrastructure and sanitation for their own people. Forget hypocritical. It's depraved, perverse, and downright cruel. But it's a perfect if small example of how Hollywood continues its radical, hypocritical environmentalism onslaught against those of us who consume but a tiny fraction of the energy that celebrity mansions and car collections suck up.
Kind of like Live Earth. Remember that? As we discussed, it was the biggest, most detailed and intricate concert, stretching seven continents, filling stadiums with thousands, and reaching millions more on television to raise awareness about global warming.
Again, celebrities who have the biggest carbon footprints of us all--with their mansions, private jets, spending sprees, vacation homes, movie productions, and concert tours--are telling ordinary folks like you and me that we need to cut down on our own carbon footprint. As those world-renowned climatologists the Red Hot Chili Peppers explained, "The climate change situation is the No. 1 problem facing humanity."
In a rare moment of journalistic integrity, even the New York Times was suspicious. "If less is more," the Times wondered, "then why is biggest better?" According to the Times, "this seven-continent, multimedia eco-extravaganza was colored by the very complacency it vowed to combat: No matter how dire the problem, the solution can be small and painless."45
The Times pointed out how the emcee at Giants Stadium, musician David Holmes, was "discussing alternative eco-products while balancing an Apple computer on his lap." Um, David, how on God's green earth do you think your laptop was produced? Wasn't through wind power, brother . . . and it definitely wasn't at the hands of a barefoot Chilean boy rubbing sticks together in his hut.
NBC, which is in the tank with the green agenda, televised the Live Earth concerts. And, as expected, their "reporter," Today's Ann Curry, asked softball questions, such as the one to Trudie Styler: "Why do you care so much?" Hey, Ann, a better question, maybe to Kanye West and Ludacris, might have been: "Your lyrics gratuitously praise big cars, fat wallets, extravagant homes, bitches and hos, excessive partying, and big guns, and you tour the globe on concerts. Why do you think you're in a position to lecture the rest of us about cutting back?" If only Ann Curry were a real reporter. Then we might get an answer.
"So much star power assembled in so many places," notes the Times, "to assure fans that all they need do to save the planet is change a light bulb, choose paper over plastic or, as Cameron Diaz recommended, turn off the shower while shaving their legs."46
The New York Times wasn't the only news outlet to point to the extravagant hypocrisy of Live Earth. The London-based Daily Mail estimated that the total footprint of Live Earth was 31,500 tons of carbon emissions, given all the energy consumed while traveling to the concerts and powering the productions. The paper's investigation revealed that "far from saving the planet, the extravaganza generated a massive fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tons of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army."47 Add to that the estimated television audience and the carbon footprint exceeds 74,500 tons! In case you're curious (which you should be), the average Briton's carbon footprint is around 11 tons . . . per year. An interesting way for left-wingers to address a planet that is on the precipice of environmental Armageddon--to blow past a year's worth of carbon footprints, by 6,777 times. Makes sense, no? Come to think of it, adulterers should try this kind of lefty logic when pledging renewed fidelity to their wives: Cheat more--not once, not twice, but 6,777 times further!
If celebrities truly bought into all the climate meltdown talk that they spew, they would stop filming movies immediately. Their lifestyles and vocations produce more than triple the carbon footprint of the average household. Madonna can forgo simulating sex onstage and Cameron Diaz can crap in the forest without the cameras rolling. Diaz, prone to gross confessions, described to Jay Leno the type of life she pictures for the rest of us: "I do follow the 'If it's yellow leave it mellow, if it's brown, flush it down.' I believe in that 100 percent."48 So, if you ever happen to be invited to one of Diaz's cocktail parties, don't be surprised that her bathroom reeks of urine.
THE FINAL TOOL used to lobotomize aspiring Obama Zombies involves the "scientific" shell game promulgated by the left against America's youth.
If a lie is repeated often enough, it's thought to be true. And nowhere is this more true than in the false notion that a "consensus" of scientists is that man is responsible for warming the planet. It's not true. But Obama Zombies don't want a real debate. They want an Al Gore slide show that leaves folks feeling all warm and fuzzy about saving polar bears.
U.S. senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma has himself assembled a growing list of more than 650 top scientists from around the globe who have challenged the global-alarming hysteria proffered by the liberal machine.49 Consensus? What consensus? Slowly, even the reliably liberal media are noticing. Politico conceded that a "growing accumulation" of atmospheric data could signal that the "science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation,"50 and the New York Times's environmental reporter Andrew Revkin acknowledged that "climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)."51
Interestingly, the Times, which editorializes with the belief that man is in fact warm
ing the plant, still felt compelled to call out Al Gore and Barack Obama for sensationalizing the threat of global warming. On February 25, 2009, the paper ran a story with the headline "In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall." As they pointed out, Gore was forced to remove a slide from his presentation that correlated global warming to a sharp spike in "fires, floods and other calamities around the world," after the research group Gore quoted said he had misrepresented the data. The Times explained that "while climate scientists foresee more intense droughts and storms, there is still uncertainty, and significant disagreement, over whether recent patterns can be attributed to global warming."52
When the New York Times is scolding you as an eco-exaggerator, you know you have problems.
So let's get to the basics. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant that is causing the earth's temperature to rise?
I'm gonna go with no.
Here's why: Try this experiment. Breathe in the air that you exhale. Now, let me know if you faint, feel nauseous, or as if you're about to die. After all, we human beings exhale carbon dioxide, for crying out loud! Perhaps Barack Obama forgot, but carbon dioxide is essential for life. Plants and crops depend on it. Some farmers even deliberately generate increased levels of CO2 to bulk up food production.53 More "pollution," anyone?
In any event, there's no need to become apoplectic over CO2. Geologist Dudley J. Hughes published a paper for the Heartland Institute pointing out that rising carbon dioxide levels are nothing to worry about, since it comprises less than 1 percent of the atmosphere. Nitrogen and oxygen, by contrast, cover about 99 percent. Hughes gives us a workable analogy to understand how absurd it is to say that CO2 has any meaningful effect in our vast atmosphere. "For simplicity, let us picture a football stadium with about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume each person represents a small volume of one type of gas. . . . Carbon dioxide is represented as only about 4 parts in 10,000, the smallest volume of any major atmospheric gas."54
Basically, our world doesn't have a thermostat that liberals can toy with. Our climate is always changing, from the Medieval Warming Period to the Little Ice Age, which followed that. There is no such thing as a global mean temperature. Besides, the infinitesimal "warming" that certain parts of the world are experiencing--over the past hundred-plus years--is nothing to write home to Mom about and is a far cry from saying kids in Jamaica are going to burst into flames one of these days.
But the Jamaican kid can relax. In fact, let's buy him a sweater, because we may be experiencing global cooling now. In 2008, outlets that track global temperatures worldwide released data showing that the earth faced cooling cycles large enough to negate the warming documented over the past hundred years.55 Baghdad, for instance, experienced snowfall for the very first time.
Which is it, Obama Zombies? Warming or cooling? I've got to know! You see, folks, meteorologist Obama can't predict the weather tomorrow, but he can predict a global climate catastrophe? Even Al Gore's most ardent believers have come to realize this fact, which is why now they prefer the term climate change to global warming. It's more vague that way.
Not only is 1934 the hottest year on record, but five of the ten warmest years transpired before World War II--well before we started pumping globs of CO2 into the atmosphere.56 So what was causing global warming in 1934?
Interestingly, environmentalists can't even make up their minds on whether to abandon fossil fuels for the much-hyped biofuels. One activist group is urging the British government to halt rules that require a percentage of transportation energy to consist of "green" fuels. According to Friends of the Earth, cutting down forests to plant and harvest crops for biodiesel purposes has the unintended consequence of generating an extra 1.3 million tons of CO2.57 Similarly, one study by professors at the University of California-Davis found that it could be more eco-friendly to drive an SUV than to take a train. Oil, gas, and coal, for instance, are used to produce electricity to power and build trains as well as the building of transportation infrastructure. When all is said and done, sticking with your SUV may actually be better for the environment.58 Recycling may absolve you of inner guilt, but the process of cleaning and cataloging materials requires using an abundance of--gasp--energy.59 Funny how that works, eh? And let's not forget about those second rounds of trucks that bulldoze through neighborhoods like tanks to pick up our color-coded recycling bins. The emission that comes out of those bad boys is no joke.
Move past the idea that mild warming in the earth's temperature is catastrophic (especially while we're cooling down now) and go find whatever mode of transportation you want. Recycle if it makes you feel better. Adopt a glacier. Befriend sheets of ice. Plaster your walls with cow dung. Choose to buy doofy-looking hybrids. It's called freedom. But please spare the rest of us the self-important chest thumping about how you're saving the environment. And above all, don't tread on our God-given freedoms. You do have the right to be duped by the "scientific" shell game, but you also have the right to think for yourself and not act like a Zombie.
IN THE END, I actually agree with Obama on one key point: global warming will affect my generation. But what we need protection from is not the warming (now cooling), but rather an authoritarian cult of blind followers who will attempt to remake our lives for the worse. Liberals like to speak of leaving their kids a better planet than what was given to them. If Obama Zombies don't wake up from their slumber, we will be paying for B.H.O.'s climate schemes, not only in higher taxes but also in less output as a nation; in lighter, less safe vehicles; in less innovation; and most importantly, in a loss of freedom.
Republicans, in many ways, have only themselves to blame for the plight we face. John McCain was a worthless candidate, in particular on the subject of climate change. His efforts to reach out to young voters amounted to little more than an embrace of the cockamamie eco-hype while cobbling together his own stack of government-run solutions.
Sorry, Barack. We want to keep our homes at whatever temperatures we choose. We want to drive whatever we decide. We want to eat whatever we damn well please. And we reject you and your liberal machine's attempt to create a perennial voting bloc of young people scared out of their minds that they are ruining the planet.
6
Health-Care Hypnosis
How to Destroy the Greatest Health-Care System the World Has Ever Known
You've heard it before: there are 46 million people in America without health insurance.
It's an outrage!
It's immoral!
It's unjust!
It's an abomination!
It's . . . a freaking lie!
Let's do the thing Obama Zombies hate the most: look at the actual facts.
The 46 million figure they spew forth with brainless obeisance is, in fact, a complete hoax, even by Obama's own admission. But that oft-cited figure is just one of the many reasons the liberal machine was so successful in conning so many members of my generation to swallow Obama's prescription for socialized medicine.
Let's break down the numbers using the Congressional Budget Office statistics:
Nine million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States.1
Twelve million are already eligible for government assistance but for some reason have been too busy to sign up for free goodies.2
Seventeen million of the uninsured have household incomes above $50,000.3
Pause and think about that last number for a minute. Seventeen million individuals who are being touted as the "uninsured" make more than $50,000.
How's that mythical 46 million number looking about now? Let's recap: We started off with 46 million, then we subtracted 9 million foreign nationals and illegals. Then we deducted the 12 million who are already eligible for some type of government assistance but haven't claimed it. From there we subtracted the 17 million who are banking more than $50,000, but choose not to purchase insurance because it's their God-given right to do whatever they darn well please with their money.
Wh
ere'd that 46 million figure vanish? In reality, the figure drops to around 5 percent--out of a population of 300 million people--who actually may slip through the cracks. And our health care is the envy of the world.
Still, affordability is a serious and important concern, and it's a concern that conservatives care about far more than liberals. So what is the conservative solution for rising health-care costs? Free markets and real competition.
The problem is that a free market where consumers and providers freely partake of each other's services does not exist. Governments work hand in glove with providers, such as chiropractors and drug-abuse counselors, to arrange a package of services (read: mandates) that we are forced to buy--it's corporatism at its ugliest. Every special industry lobbies for its crack at the mandate. It's money in their pocket, after all.
Obama is just like any leftist politician--he gives lip service to taking on special interests but in reality supports policies that are a lobbyist's dream, because they allow the special interests to get subsidized by the government. Obama officials have met privately with health-care executives and drug companies, a brazen violation of his campaign promise to have all negotiations of bills broadcast on C-SPAN for all to see. Of course the mainstream media haven't grilled Obama on this campaign promise. It took a blogger to uncover the truth.4 But why broadcast for all to see a policy debate that only involves the takeover of a $2 trillion health-care system? That's peanuts to a liberal! I mean, it is only your money. Why should the White House negotiate in public when it can do so in secret, cutting deals with lobbyists5 and pharmaceutical companies6 behind the scenes?
Hope and change, people!
Obama Zombies: How the Obama Machine Brainwashed My Generation Page 11
