Posted on 05/12/2009 6:33:35 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
A new propaganda video created by an extreme environmental activist is making its way into America's classrooms and The New York Times loves the whole idea. Enviro obsessive Annie Leonard, Greenpeace member and activist, has created a 20 minute video filled with anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda to encourage kids to eschew "stuff," calling the presentation "The Story of Stuff."
Leonard's propaganda piece is so anti-American she even begins her video by saying that her "friends" say she should describe the United States by using the symbol of a military tank because "it's true in many countries and increasingly in our own." And why is a tank "increasingly" the symbol of the USA? Because "more than 50% of our federal tax money is going for our military." Naturally, this misleading propaganda doesn't mention that a large portion of that federal military spending ends up going to the weekly pay and health care of our soldiers, something apparently Ms. Leonard is against. She goes on to say that a government's job is to "take care of us, that's their job." Here she is trying to promote dependency and proves that she has no clue what a government is really for -- especially in the U.S. system.
Leonard also starts the intro of the piece off saying that "some people matter more than others" in an effort to impress on kids that "the system" is evil and that "some" people are of lesser value as far as our system is concerned. Again, this is a clear abrogation of the simple truth that everyone in the U.S. is equal under the law but that the individual's own abilities makes them what they are.
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
Such is the way of ALL dictatorships. I laugh when they used to compare Bush to Hitler. Who is really like Hitler and his tactics? Though he’s more like Mussolini really but you get my point.
Factually incorrect. Actual number is less than 25% for all military and security spending, including veterans' affairs.
Daddy... Why do you work in that evil factory that pollutes the air and water? Wouldn’t be easier to just stay home and collect welfare?
Was at a college graduation recently and environmental, anti-freedom propoganda was the flavor-of-the-day among all the speakers.
It is a shame Ms. Leonard does not take on the sacred cow of recycling. She feels free to criticize everything else about our economy, but to her recycling is an unalloyed good.
She does spend a good amount of time trashing garbage incinerators, and rightly so, IMHO. Garbage incinerators take waste from a nice, safe landfill and put it into the air, which is the last place you want it. Garbage incinerators are both more expensive and more environmentally harmful than modern landfills.
So why do we incinerate? Actually, we don’t incinerate...
We do WASTE TO ENERGY which is RECYCLING!
Every municipality is required to recycle a certain percentage of waste. Unfortunately, these targets are unrealistic and murderously espensive if they are to be met using the traditional methods of sorting and re-using materials as raw materials. So a lot of municipalities meet their recycling goals by sending all of their waste to an incinerator, which, as a by-product, produces a small amount of energy. This energy production allows this process to be considered recycling, when the whole purpose of the project is to just get rid of the waste.
The electricity produced by a waste-to-energy plant would be a hundred times the cost of producing electricity by burning coal, and pollutes a hundred times as much. The only thing that makes incinerators cost effective is that they charge tipping fees that are far higher than the cost of landfilling. The reason municipalities pay these fees is because they are required to meet recycling targets.
It is an object lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences. The well-meaning law requires municipalities to do the most environmentally harmful possible thing with garbage, all in the name of environmental protection.
And, of course, the icing on the cake is that other laws require you, the consumer, to pick apart your garbage into four different waste streams, to make it easier to recycle the waste into new products. The dirty little secret is that all of that recyclable waste winds up being comingled and dumped into the incinerator, and all of that effort involved in sorting and storing it is wasted. The same exact result could be achieved by just taking all of your garbage and tossing it into the incinerator, saving you all of that time and effort.
Or, all of that material could be tossed into a nice, safe, modern landfill, at a fraction of the cost, and all of that waste could be kept out of the air. But that would make way to much sense, wouldn’t it?...
People should be as free as possible. That means some will choose to consume large amounts, and others may not, depending on their desires.
The problem is that a lot of our laws encourage more consumption than would otherwise exist. Recycling, as I talked about above, is the most obvious one. But there are a million others, like all the useless crap that has to be hung on an automobile these days, or zoning laws that require larger lots than are necessary, or the new CPSC rules that will make it pretty much impossible for anybody to resell anything.
Our government forces a lot of bad behavior on us.
Facts don’t matter to the liberal. Why let facts get in the way of scoring political points? 25%, 50%, they really don’t care what the number is. They just want to score their points.
These people loathe the military. Whatever the percentage is, they would act outraged and any number is too much as far as their liberal ideology is concerned.
BTTT for later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.