Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Can we have a brainwashing ban?

Jason Mattera on Human Events has a piece against the US governments Great Outdoors Initiative intended to help millions of young Americans reconnect with our natural and cultural heritage.

According to Mattera and his friend Myron Ebell, the only thing the Great Outdoors is good for is mining, drilling and polluting. Anything else is nothing more than a brainwashing boot camp and land power-grab.

Myron continues:
The Obama administration’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative is another attempt to expand public land ownership, waste taxpayer dollars, and indoctrinate young people in the belief that more government ownership and control is better for our environment...

Creating a conservation corps may make people feel good that the federal government is helping to provide employment for unemployed young people, but it would do much better to provide economic conditions so that private investors could create real jobs.

[The] unfortunate effects of the program [will be a] larger constituency that supports the federal land agencies, just as the Peace Corps has created a constituency for useless federal aid programs to poor countries.
Yadda yadda yadda yadda. We need more ignorance to do our evil work.

The fact is there's a difference between brainwashing and education. Education enriches and improves your life and the way you live, while brainwashing uses lies and false information to make you behave in ways that are harmful to you.

Speaking of which, the billionaire Steve Forbes suddenly seems to care about Mercury poisoning when it comes to phasing out old and inefficient technologies in the lighting department. Technological progress he does not want. He gets Myron Ebell to fill him in on the bollocks:
Cost savings are exaggerated. First, the [new] bulbs are tested under ideal conditions. Some household uses approximate these ideal conditions. Most do not. For example, if you turn a light on and off a lot, such as a bathroom light, you will save very little electricity because CFLs use a lot of electricity to start up. Second, CFLs tend not to last as long as advertised. Therefore, you end up replacing CFLs before they have achieved the savings needed to make up the [cost] difference [of the old-fashioned bulb].
Media Matters has covered this story. Turns out that every single allegation made in it is wrong or no longer accurate due to advances in technology.

As usual, if you want to know what's right, it's always the exact opposite of what the mass extinction engine known as Myron Ebell says.

2 Comments:

Blogger Panta Rei said...

No light bulbs should be banned...

There is no present or future shortage of energy sources for electricity
justifying telling what paying consumers can use,
especially since the overall USA energy savings from light bulb regulations
are less than 1% anyway,
based on the US Dept of Energy’s own statistics ( ceolas.net/#li171x )
-remember the politicians keep including non-incandescent street and
industrial lighting in the usual high US usage percentages quoted.

Much greater, and much more relevant, energy waste savings arise from
effectively organized electricity generation and grid distribution,
and from reducing the unnecessary use of appliances:
rather than from stopping people in their choice of what appliance to use.

10:05 AM, March 29, 2011 Permanent link to this entry  
Blogger goatchurch said...

No children's pyjama fabrics should be banned.

If parents want to buy value-for-money materials to keep their young children warm at night and are willing to take the risk of the fabric catching fire like a newspaper soaked in gasoline, then let them.

After all, if properly handled, very few children are likely to burn to death. We can't afford the extra few dollars up front to avoid the expense of having many of our children scarred for life.

And in the long run all of these children are going to grow old and die anyway.

11:37 AM, March 29, 2011 Permanent link to this entry  

Post a Comment

<< Home