I read Outside Magazine, but I am tired of writing letters to its editors. Almost every article is about green this and green that; climate change this and climate that; global warming this and global warming that. If only the editors and writers truly understand these complex issues as they pretend. One article about former New Mexico governor, Gary Johnson, made it sound as if they were surprised that an outdoor activist could be a Republican (Johnson has climbed Everest, run marathons, run adventure races, etc.). Everything they write about is slanted left, except when it comes to outdoor safety – they are very conservative. Here are some stats they published about people getting a false sense of security when doing outdoor activities with body protection:
- According to the Peltzman effect, helmets and seatbelts cause people to ski, drive, and ride more recklessly, if only slightly.
- Eighty-three percent of avalanche accidents involving trained skiers and snowboarders are due to poor decision making, rather than subtleties of the terrain or snowpack.
- A motorist will drive, on average, three inches closer to a helmeted cyclist.
- A zero percent drop in the risk of an ACL tear for someone who wears a protective knee brace.
- A 50% likelihood of being killed or injured by a grizzly bear while defending yourself with a gun.
- A zero percent protective benefit of an expensive bike helmet over a cheap one.
- A zero percent drop in fatal ski accidents at resorts since the widespread adoption of safety helmets.
It is hard to imagine that a Magazine which publishes commonsense statistics listed above (it is human nature to feel safer with more or better protection) would ever have a liberal ideology as its premise for its magazine. After all, every liberal policy gives people a false sense of security. Consider entitlements such as healthcare, food stamps, housing, and so forth. When people are receiving things for free they abuse these privileges because they have a false sense of security that they will last forever and are therefore less responsible and accountable for their actions. Hence, individuals with healthcare handouts will go to the hospital more often; those with low income housing will refuse to care for their home; and those with any form of welfare will have little desire to get a job and earn their keep. Eventually, the bank will break and reality will set in for some 170 million Americans who receive some form of welfare.
The same false sense of security occurs with climate change policy. Liberals falsely proclaim climate change can be reversed because it is manmade and primarily caused by evil corporations. This justifies policy to tax individuals (gas taxes, higher energy prices, etc.) and corporations more, which ultimately is used to pay off those that are dependent on entitlements. This is a vicious cycle that will eventually dry up. The bottom line is if the earth goes into another ice age or if its surface warms by 100 degrees there is nothing we can do about it. It is crazy how liberals and the media can use fear mongering tactics or spin propaganda talking points to give us a false sense of security to achieve their progressive ideological agenda.
Liberal foreign policy also gives Americans a false sense of security. Liberals claim we are safe and not in danger of being attacked by terrorists and therefore, we can scale back the military. However, 9-11 showed the U.S. is vulnerable and not as safe as liberals claim.
My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)
Think, Pat, of Outdoor's editors and writers as progressives. Progressives believe in utopia and in their ability to perfect human nature, that apparently because they see themselves as smarter and more powerful than, say, God.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about the false sense of security, Patrick. I never even thought of that.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me most about the “green” fad and focus on climate change is the mindless hypocrisy. Some outdoor enthusiasts travel far distances – using lots of energy – to pursue the activities they like. They buy products – and therefore use resources that they would otherwise not need – to engage in their pursuits. Of course I have no problem with them doing these things, but don’t tell me they care more about the planet than me.
I see the exact same thing with my decorating magazines. There’s always a “green” section that talks about using natural materials or whatever. Never mind that someone is tearing down a small house to build a large one. They seem oblivious to all of the energy that goes into such a project. Once again, I don’t care at all if they want to do that – just don’t pretend that they are any greener than mom and pop who are happily living in the same small house they built 40 years ago (btw, mom and pop aren’t looking for a pat on the back).
There is hardly anything that spotlights the shallow liberal mentality like the “green” fad. It is people looking for a way to congratulate themselves while doing exactly what they want to do and while making no actual sacrifice whatsoever. The same folks would probably applaud Bill Mahr for his good manners if he knew what fork to eat his salad with.
I agree completely, CW. It is okay if I am wasteful with energy because I buy "offsets" is one of my favorite "green" arguments - particularly Al Gore. I too am tired of people acting like they are better (as you say congratulate themselves) when they truly are not. Behind closed doors the so called greenies are hypocrites and are wasteful with energy. I have witnessed it with my own eyes.
ReplyDelete