What a pile of crap, name calling, bullying and lies. Note the great use of “some people” straw man, the neat metonymy of “collectivism” for “communism” and other typical right-wing propaganda techniques. The topic at hand is drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but really, does it matter?
For some people, environmentalism is collectivism in drag. Such people use environmental causes and rhetoric not to change the political climate for the purpose of environmental improvement. Rather, for them, changing the society’s politics is the end, and environmental policies are mere means to that end.
The unending argument in political philosophy concerns constantly adjusting society’s balance between freedom and equality. The primary goal of collectivism — of socialism in Europe and contemporary liberalism in America — is to enlarge governmental supervision of individuals’ lives. This is done in the name of equality.
People are to be conscripted into one large cohort, everyone equal (although not equal in status or power to the governing class) in their status as wards of a self-aggrandizing government. Government says the constant enlargement of its supervising power is necessary for the equitable or efficient allocation of scarce resources.
Therefore, one of the collectivists’ tactics is to produce scarcities, particularly of what makes modern society modern — the energy requisite for social dynamism and individual autonomy. Hence collectivists use environmentalism to advance a collectivizing energy policy. Focusing on one energy source at a time, they stress the environmental hazards of finding, developing, transporting, manufacturing or using oil, natural gas, coal or nuclear power.
A quarter of a century of this tactic applied to ANWR is about 24 years too many. If geologists were to decide that there were only three thimbles of oil beneath area 1002, there would still be something to be said for going down to get them, just to prove that this nation cannot be forever paralyzed by people wielding environmentalism as a cover for collectivism.
Can I ask you a question? Have you ever been to Prudoe Bay or Kaktovik?
This is my reponse to Mr Will:
Dear Mr. Will,
1) The fact that the place might be not 100% pristine, as well as that there are no trees, does not mean that the place is not worthy to be preserved. Did you know that trees do not grow over some altitude, and over some latitude? It is a biological fact. So what? So, you are seriously arguing that if a place have no trees, it has no environmental value ??? It is ignorance of yours, or you could not resist to make such a simplistic and misleading point ?
2) The area to be impacted is not just “a patch” of land. There must be pipes that go through, there must be machinery to place those pipes in place. The professional evaluation of environmental impact, as a whole, is not only based in the size of the “patch”. But, it help to make your point to cite that. The thing is, does it serve the truth?
3) What is supposed to be “your” point, Mr. Will, is to equal environmentalism with communism. How sad. Because communists have no soul, they consciously conspire to produce scarcities, in order to achieve their agendas. How childish. Senator McCarthy would have been proud of you. I am not.
4) A journalist has the privilege of a public tribune to expose his or hers views. That privilege, when is used to push an agenda, by manipulating facts, is an abuse.
Sincerely,
Miguel Villegas, Phd.
I agree with your comment about George Will’s not so subtle use of loaded verbiage to paint the entire environmentalist movement in a bright shade of pink. His use of the word “drag” echoes Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “girlie men.” His reference to the public anger at gasoline prices as “histrionics” only displays his thinly veiled contempt at the economic stress of ordinary people (What? You don’t have an income of more than a million dollars a year? No wonder you are crying about $3 dollar a gallon gasoline you poor ignorant slob. If you were smart like me, you would have loaded up on Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil when the Iraq War started). George Will and his coterie of robber baron comrades are just aching to pick up Arctic Refuge land at pennies on the acre while fleecing US citizens of hundreds of billions of dollars from the newly pumped oil revenues. It’s cheaper than printing money (and the Lord knows this administration has printed a lot — it would make Argentina blush).
At least he’s honest as far as admitting what drilling in ANWR is really about for conservatives: sticking it to the environmentalists.
And this: The primary goal of collectivism — of socialism in Europe and contemporary liberalism in America — is to enlarge governmental supervision of individuals’ lives. is particularly ironic in light of the current news stories (in his own paper, no less) about possible illegal governmental supervision of US citizens in the name of the WOT.
Good points all of them–especially about the meaning of “pristine.” This reminded me of something I caught on C-span some time ago. Murkowski, now governor of Alaska, said “it’s not pristine, it’s cold.” I have posted on this on my website (you might also be interested in Will’s praise of Michael Crichton’s science fiction novel on global warming).
I agree with your previous commenter, drilling in ANWR is really about conservatives sticking it to the environmentalists. It’s not much of a solution to anything.
At the risk of going slightly off-topic, I would note that I am a long-time engineer in the nuclear energy industry who has written a novel about this beloved energy source called Rad Decision, available at no cost at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com. I’m really not sure what our energy future should be, but I think we’ll do a better job of deciding if we understand our energy present.
“I’d like to see Rad Decision widely read.” – Stewart Brand, futurist and founder of The Whole Earth Catalog
Perusing your blog, specifically, “Jon Stahl’s Journal”, I have arrived at what I believe is a defensible inference. Both you and your readers would welcome news of in-your-face overt opposition to your “smirking chimp”, my “dum’ya botch”.
In plainer terms, Mr Stahl, I want to run for Representative for Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District on a platform calling for the impeachment of President George Walker Bush.
Incidentally, I deliberately referred to your blog, to indicate that I visited your blog as an individual, and not as a spammer. Yes, that last is an illustion to a “pre-deconstruction” chick flick with a rating of two and a half hankies.
Oh, alright (!) already, I’ll own up to it. I owe getting my message out to so many bloggers to COPY/PASTE … gim’me a break … will’ya puh-lease! I got to get the word out somehow.
Ah, before you click on any of the enclosed hyperlinks, please read the entirely of my comment. For example, the three planks I nailed together in my platform out to get me elected. “impeach bush” is the first plank. The second is “impeach bush”. The third is like the second, “impeach bush”.
To continue, the first hyperlink below leads to the opening salvo of my campaign.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/danger-senator-specter-danger.html
As for the second hyperlink, it leads to evidence that my candidacy is about more than opposition solely for the sake of opposition.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/dispelling-stench-in-oval.html
toodles
……\
.he who is known as sefton
oh, by the bye, it’s a good guess you’ll find what I have to say in PROMETHEAN COMMENT interesting to the point of startling. In that segment, I advance the case that the mere nomination of Judge Alito is tantamount to treason.