Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Greening Thwarted at Democrat Convention

It seems the greening of the Democrat Convention has malfunctioned.

According to the New York Sun, instead of the usual plastic card keys, the Sheraton hotel was going to provide keys made of something called "sustainably-harvested wood" to their environmental wacko patrons.

Of course, like most environmental wacko plans, it didn't work out too good and after a bunch of complaints about card keys that didn't work, they whipped out the plastic again.

I have a question, though.

How do you have a "green" activity that kills something green? Trees are green, right? And you have to kill them to harvest their wood, right? So how do you manage to call killing a tree "green?"

I would imagine the tree huggers are mortified to hear about this. Can you hug a "sustainably-harvested tree?" Can spotted owls live in "sustainably-harvested trees?"

Is it to say that, if we replace the tree we killed with another tree, then that's "sustainably-harvested wood?" If so, then why do the environmental wackos have to go so bonkers over logging? After all, we have more trees in America now than we did at the time the country was founded.

Is it the typical liberal difference, such as how Al Gore can fly all over the planet in an effort to stop people from traveling too much, or lives in a house that burns 20x more electricity than the national average?

Is it that if you kill a tree for a products used by a tree hugger, then it really isn't the same as if we killed the tree for a regular old capitalist resource consumer?

It's so hard for me to keep up with the twists and turns of liberal logic...


Catherine said...

The distinction between wood from sustainably harvested trees and wood from logging operations comes from how the trees are raised, harvested and, most importantly, replaced.

Bob Ellis said...

You mean harvested and replaced...like we've always done?

I suppose the real difference here is kinda like abortion: if the woman wants the child, it's "human"; if she doesn't, it's "tissue."

If an environmentalist cuts down the tree, it's "green"; if anyone else cuts down the tree, it's "environmental apocalypse."

Guy Smylie said...

I'm sure that starving the trees by outlawing Carbon Dioxide is quite the quandary for them also!

Anonymous said...

With environmentalists and libs in general, it's "Heads they win. Tails you lose." It's OK to kill babies at any stage of pregnancy, even to leave them to die in a dirty utility room, but inhuman to take the life, however humanely, of vicious criminals. I know some libs who are repulsed by what they see on "Animal Cops" (as am I) but are indifferent to the decay and squalor that millions of children are forced to live in because of a corrupt and misdirected "welfare" system.

I guess it's all about good intentions--damn the consequences.

Clicky Web Analytics