Posted on 02/10/2003 12:59:31 PM PST by tbphillips
Let me preface this by saying that I will only be referring to American Leftists in this article. No I have not forgotten you European Leftists but for now the Americans are my immediate problem. Don’t worry my friends across the pond, I will gladly find a way to offend you another day.
First things first, you will notice that I refer to those on the Left, not as “Liberals” but as “Leftists”. Something within me prevents me from gracing them with that moniker when their core philosophy stands strikingly contrary to it. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “liberal” as:
“1.a. Open-minded; tolerant. b. Favoring civil and political liberties, democratic reforms and protection from arbitrary authority. 2.a. Tending to give freely; generous.”
While I can certainly see why it was appealing for 60’s era Marxists and other Leftists to appropriate this term for themselves, no intellectually honest person can believe that such a definition accurately describes the Left. Just for fun though, let’s give it a shot…..
The Left is decidedly open-minded and tolerant, of anyone who agrees with them and all ideas consistent with their own. Leftists favor all civil and political liberties, which allow them to live their hedonistic lifestyle free from consequences and personal responsibility. Leftists favor democratic reforms, as long as those reforms are neither spearheaded nor implemented by Conservatives, Libertarians and the like. Leftists are committed to protecting society from the dictates of arbitrary authority. Unfortunately the only “arbitrary authority” in the mind of a Leftist is that which is unassociated with any branch of government. They do however make an exception when those in charge the government are not Leftists. Then, and only then, is government considered an “arbitrary authority.” Finally, who can deny that Leftists are the most giving and generous people alive, with other people’s money. Ok, so maybe the Left is in fact, Liberal….Not!!
The American Left today is a strange mixture of three distinct, though sometimes overlapping, groups of people: Marxists/Socialists, Democratic Party Faithful and Environmentalists.
This half of our political and social dichotomy is results oriented. Contrast that with the Right which is process oriented. It is often said that the Left never considers the logical effects of its policies and ideas. I beg to differ. The Marxists and Environmentalists Left are well aware of the effect their policies and ideas have on our society and economy. It is only the Traditional Democrat who seems oblivious to issues of cause and effect. Whereas the Right is committed to ensuring equality of opportunity (Process Egalitarians), the Left is committed to ensuring equality of outcome (Results Egalitarians). Thus the Left typically takes an ends-justify-the-means approach to social, legal and economic issues.
Let’s examine the control axis of the Left in a little detail.
Marxists/Socialists
I know some believe that there is no difference between Marxism and Socialism but Marxism is but one branch of the Socialist tree. Many Socialist thinkers proceeded and followed him, however it is Marx who has been credited with giving rebirth to an idea that, by the latter half of the 19th Century was falling into the abyss due to successful challenges from both economics and sociology. Oh, the good old days when most intellectuals understood both economics and human nature.
Karl Marx believed in dictatorship and revolution but understood that such was highly unlikely in the United States and Great Britain. Because our societies were so committed to the concept of liberty, the only manner in which to bring about his Socialist utopia would be through incrementalism. Hence, we have our American counterpart to the British Fabians (the force behind the Labour Party), known as Progressives.
For the record, Fabian Socialism owes its name to ancient Roman General Fabius Maximus. Fabius was known for never engaging the Carthaginians in direct attacks. Instead he opted for tactics intended to gradually weaken and demoralize his enemies. For the most part, he was quite successful at it. This then became the model for the incremental socialist revolution practiced by Leftist “intellectuals” in the England and the United States since the beginning of the 20th Century.
While the Right was sleeping Progressives assumed control over all of America’s cultural institutions albeit the three areas where their philosophy has the greatest potential to do long-term damage to the idea of “America” are Law, Science and History. Through judicial activism, junk-science and historical revisionism, the Left has amassed a mountain of intellectual jargon to support its beliefs. Moreover, their control over America’s educational institutions provide them with the captive audience needed to foster this their beliefs.
The most disturbing characteristic of this branch of the Left is the fact that they tend to be vehemently anti-American. No I am not one of those who describe all Leftists as anti-Americans. My charge is limited only to those factions of the Left who reveal themselves to be so.
Socialists believe that the free-market system, upon which America prides itself, is morally and ethically flawed. Therefore, anything that supports such a system is deemed evil and worthy of attack. They fail to see that “America” is not so much a place as it is an idea. It is an idea of Freedom, Individual Rights, Success and Rugged Individualism. It is the idea that we are all entitled to equal opportunity but are not guaranteed equal results. It is the idea that actions have consequences both good and bad. These are the ideas which make America, America. This idea however, is the single greatest threat to the realization of the Socialist dream.
True, America has strayed from it founding principals in far too many respect, but the core ideas of our nation has remained day after day, year after year, decade after decade. It is a virtual genetic code written on the hearts and minds of all who freely assimilate into our culture. It may be somewhat naïve on my part, but I firmly believe that no matter how successful this branch of the Left is, nothing short of a Stalinists or Khmer Rouge-like extermination will rid America of that genetic code. Thank God for the Second Amendment!!!
Democratic Party Faithful
This group of people are loyal only to the Democratic Party. Unlike their Marxist/Socialist brethren, they actually love their country. What they hate are those who disagree with them, namely, Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians. When they attack America note that they are not attacking the country per se. No, they are attacking the fact that the wrong people are in control of it. Hence, their attacks cease when their guys are in the driver’s seat. Notice the calming effect the Clinton years had on this group? Hypocrisy? Yes. But at least their consistency makes them predictable.
They do not hate the electoral process, they just hate it when that process results in a victory for the other side. They do not hate government, they just hate the fact that their political and ideological enemies control it. They do not hate the judicial system, they just hate judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. They do not hate the Founding Fathers, they just hate everything the Founding Fathers believed, stood-for and represented (Ok, so they also hate the term “Founding Fathers” also). I could go on with this but I’m sure you get the point. As Ann Coulter says, “Conservatives disagree with Liberals (sic), but Liberals hate Conservatives.”
At times it can be somewhat difficult to distinguish Democrats from the other branches of Leftism. Just remember that many Democratic politicians, when sounding like Marxists and/or Environmentalists, are usually just pandering to their base on the Left in the same way that Republicans pander to Conservatives and Libertarians.
Yes, they can be annoying, but it is unfair to characterize all Democrats as anti-American.
Environmentalists
This is the really fun group on the Left. These people have but one goal in life; to return the world to its pre-industrial state. Some would even prefer its pre-human state but they haven’t yet worked out the details of that one. The most frightening idiosyncrasy of Environmentalists is their propensity to use violence.
Environmentalists are Gia-worshipping, tree-hugging, Earth-loving fanatics who believe that the worst thing to happen to the Earth is human ingenuity. As America is the virtual epitome of human ingenuity, that makes America the root cause of all of the Earth’s problems. They don’t actually want to live anyplace else, they just want America to cease being a haven for free-market enthusiasts and stop that annoying habit of exporting free-market ideas to the rest of the world. Their beliefs are synonymous with Marxism in some respects but they don’t really crave a Socialist form of government. Environmentalism, though mired in Socialism, views Socialism as a means to an end and not the end itself.
Additionally, Environmentalists believe that everything that damages our environment can be traced back to some form of capitalist conspiracy. Furthermore, Environmentalism is their religion. This is the reason they become so enraged when they feel that their beliefs are under attack, reminiscent of “Christianity” of old and modern-day Islam. In like manner, they have no qualms about using force to achieve their goals. It is not enough that you agree that there has been irresponsible stewardship of our environment, you must completely reject your beliefs in private property rights, individual freedom and free-market ideas or you are a part of the great capitalist/corporate conspiracy that is destroying the planet.
Speak with any honest Environmentalist (Ok, stop laughing, there are a few). They will admit that Socialist regimes (i.e. the former USSR and China) have caused more environmental destruction than exists in so-called “Capitalist” countries. Of course their explanation for this falls back on the capitalist/corporate conspiracy argument.
Perhaps you may have wondered why I did not mention Pacifists as members of the Left. Fact is, Pacifists, like Populists, are neither Left nor Right. All Leftists occasionally masquerade as Pacifists yet we know that few, if any, genuine Pacifist will be found among them. Leftist “pacifism” is merely a mask for anti-Americanism or anti-Conservatism/Republicanism/Libertarianism and/or anti-Capitalism.
True Pacifism adheres to the philosophy of “turn the other cheek.” They live their lives according to the principal that man can only destroy the body, whereas God can destroy the soul. Their reluctance to use violence is genuine myopic love of their fellow man no matter how naïve we may view it. Thus they make great moral leaders but horrible (and sometimes suicidal) political leaders.
Leftists, on the other hand, who put on a Pacifist’s face for the camera always reveal themselves for who they truly are. Any attempt to sound like a Pacifist becomes a springboard to a basic ad hominem attack. They cannot keep up the charade because it pains them not to mention the evil of America, the stupidity and/or evil of the Right or attributing the motives of their enemies to some capitalist/corporate conspiracy. In effect, all charges raised in opposition to war come from an existing paradigm. Anyone who has ever witnessed one of the Left’s radical demonstrations should see quite clearly that the Left is but Pacifist.
At times it seems that these groups all meld into one. That is a perfectly reasonable observation. Unfortunately, not taking the time to understand the differences between them can and will hinder your ability to engage them properly. Yes, they all have in common a basic belief system that unites them. They all, on one level or another, hate or are suspicious of anyone who disagrees with them which makes them an endless source of richly comical stupidity. Their style of argument is simple: obfuscate when you can, prevaricate when you cannot. I am often torn between viewing the philosophy of the Left as semi-articulate asininity or passionate prevarication.
No matter how you define them, never make the mistake of believing that they are all the same.
But what has happened is that the original environmental movement was pretty successful. So the mainstream members dropped out since it was successful. Thus leaving the radicals to take over. Kind of like if the KKK and Stormfront and other wacko "right-wing" groups were to hijack the conservative movement (not a chance, they have been chased out and marginalized). We should probably figure out how to distinguish between the wacko "environmentalists" like PETA and the legitmate ones (that got lead based paint and lead based gasoline banned, coal fired power plants to scrub, and catalytic converters put on cars.) [I am sure now that someone will call me an enviro-wacko, and how catalytic converters are harmful and nothing is wrong with lead and they put DDT on their cornflakes. In my observation such people are normally 30 years old or younger, or if older then could have been standins for the banjo scene in Deliverance.]
Conservatives were the original "Conservationists". My definition is that conservationists would like to preserve the Earth for the people. Whereas the enviromentalists worship the earth as an end unto itself. They'd preffer a burned forrest to one that has been thinned so it won't burn.
As for DDT, the absence of it kills millions of people a year from malaria. The original "Silent Spring" author, who has a chain of parks named after her in Maine, should be scorned as a modern day Adolf Hitler, capable of killing far more humans than the old National Socialist could even dream of.
As for the harm of DDT vs. birds, there was apparently only one scientific study on that, which was not designed to test DDTs affect on birds eggs (only on its direct toxicity to the birds). The methodology was fatally flawed (because of the testing technology, they fed the test birds a different feed than the control group), and the bottom line is, DDT doesn't harm either humans, or birds eggs.
DDT just kills bugs. Which in the end, is enough to get the earth worshiping environmentalists to hate it.
Oh, yes. There has been some recent studies that indicate that metals like lead and mercury may actually help humans. The old theory about "what doesn't hurt you makes you stronger", may actually be true.
The original theory was that if a substance in large quantities harmed life, then small quantities must harm to a small degree, even if its affect cannot be measured. That apparently is not true, which putts a whole different picture on things like "carcinogens" etc.
Acute Toxicity: DDT is moderately to slightly toxic to studied mammalian species via the oral route. Reported oral LD50s range from 113 to 800 mg/kg in rats (79,73); 150-300 mg/kg in mice (79); 300 mg/kg in guinea pigs (73); 400 mg/kg in rabbits (73) ; 500-750 mg/kg in dogs (79) and greater than 1,000 mg/kg in sheep and goats (79). Toxicity will vary according to formulation (79). DDT is readily absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract, with increased absorption in the presence of fats (73). One-time administration of DDT to rats at doses of 50 mg/kg led to decreased thyroid function and a single dose of 150 mg/kg led to increased blood levels of liver-produced enzymes and changes in the cellular chemistry in the central nervous system of monkeys (73). Single doses of 50-160 mg/kg produced tremors in rats, and single doses of 160 mg/kg produced hind leg paralysis in guinea pigs (73). Mice suffered convulsions following a one-time oral dose of 200 mg/kg. Single administrations of low doses to developing 10-day old mice are reported to have caused subtle effects on their neurological development (73). DDT is slightly to practically non-toxic to test animals via the dermal route, with reported dermal LD50s of 2,500-3,000 mg/kg in female rats (79, 73), 1000 in guinea pigs (73) and 300 in rabbits (73). It is not readily absorbed through the skin unless it is in solution (73). It is thought that inhalation exposure to DDT will not result in significant absorption through the lung alveoli (tiny gas-exchange sacs) but rather that it is probably trapped in mucous secretions and swallowed by exposed individuals following the tracheo-bronchial clearance of secretions by the cilia (73). Acute effects likely in humans due to low to moderate exposure may include nausea, diarrhea, increased liver enzyme activity, irritation (of the eyes, nose or throat), disturbed gait, malaise and excitability; at higher doses, tremors and convulsions are possible (73, 76). While adults appear to tolerate moderate to high ingested doses of up to 280 mg/kg, a case of fatal poisoning was seen in a child who ingested one ounce of a 5% DDT:kerosene solution (73).
Chronic Toxicity: DDT has caused chronic effects on the nervous system, liver, kidneys,and immune systems in experimental animals (73, 74). Effects on the nervous system observed in test animals include: tremors in rats at doses of 16-32 mg/kg/day over 26 weeks; tremors in mice at doses of 6.5-13mg/kg/day over 80-140 weeks; changes in cellular chemistry in the central nervous system of monkeys at doses of 10 mg/kg/day over 100 days, and loss of equilibrium in monkeys at doses of 50 mg/kg/day for up to 6 months (73). The main effect on the liver seen in animal studies was localized liver damage. This effect was seen in rats given 3.75 mg/kg/day over 36 weeks, rats exposed to 5 mg/kg/day over 2 years and dogs at doses of 80 mg/kg/day over the course of 39 months (73). In many cases lower doses produced subtle changes in liver cell physiology, and in some cases higher doses produced more severe effects (73). In mice doses of 8.33 mg/kg/day over 28 days caused increased liver weight and increased liver enzyme activity (73). Liver enzymes are commonly involved in detoxification of foreign compounds, so it is unclear whether increased liver enzyme activity in itself would constitute an adverse effect. In some species (monkeys and hamsters), doses as high as 8-20 mg/kg/day caused no observed adverse effects over exposure periods as long as 3.5-7 years (73). Kidney effects observed in animal studies include adrenal gland hemorrhage in dogs at doses of 138.5 mg/kg/day over 10 days and adrenal gland damage at 50 mg/kg day over 150 days in dogs (73). Kidney damage was also seen in rats at doses of 10 mg/kg/day over 27 months (73). Immunological effects observed in test animals include: reduced antibody formation in mice following administration of 13 mg/kg/day for 3-12 weeks and reduced levels of immune cells in rats at doses of 1 mg/kg/day (73). No immune system effects were observed in mice at doses of 6.5 mg/kg/day for 3-12 weeks (73). Dose levels at which effects were observed in test animals are very much higher than those which may be typically encountered by humans (74). The most significant source of exposure to individuals in the United States is occupational, occurring only to those who work or worked in the production or formulation of DDT products for export (75). Analysis of U. S. market basket surveys showed approximately a 30-fold decrease in detected levels of DDT and metabolites in foodstuffs from 1969-1974, and another threefold drop from 1975-1981, with a final estimated daily dose of approximately 0.002 mg/person/day (73). Based on a standard 70-kg person, this results in a daily intake of approximately 0.00003 mg/kg/day. Due to the persistence of DDT and its metabolites in the environment, very low levels may continue to be detected in foodstuffs grown in some areas of prior use (73). It has been suggested that, depending on patterns of international DDT use and trade, it is possible that dietary exposure levels may actually increase over time (73). Persons eating fish contaminated with DDT or metabolites may also be exposed via bioaccumulation of the compound in fish (73). Even though current dietary levels are quite low, past and current exposures may result in measurable body burdens due to its persistence in the body (73). More information on the metabolism and storage of DDT and its metabolites in mammalian systems is provided below (Fate in Humans and Animals). Adverse effects on the liver, kidney and immune system due to DDT exposure have not been demonstrated in humans in any of the studies which have been conducted to date (73).
Reproductive Effects: There is evidence that DDT causes reproductive effects in test animals. No reproductive effects were observed in rats at doses of 38 mg/kg/day administered at days 15-19 of gestation (73). In another study in rats, oral doses of 7.5 mg/kg/day for 36 weeks resulted in sterility (73). In rabbits, doses of 1 mg/kg/day administered on gestation days 4-7 resulted in decreased fetal weights and 10 mg/kg/day on days 7-9 of gestation resulted in increased resorptions (73). In mice, doses of 1.67 mg/kg/day resulted in decreased embryo implantation and irregularities in the estrus cycle over 28 weeks (73). It is thought that many of these observed effects may be the result of disruptions in the endocrine (hormonal) system (73). Available epidemiological evidence from two studies does not indicate that reproductive effects have occurred in humans as a result of DDT exposure (73). No associations between maternal blood levels of DDT and miscarriage nor premature rupture of fetal membranes were observed in two separate studies (73, 77, 78). One study did report a significant association between maternal DDT blood levels and miscarriage, but the presence of other organochlorine chemicals (e.g., PCBs) in maternal blood which may have accounted for the effect make it impossible to attribute the effect to DDT and its metabolites (79).
Teratogenic Effects: There is evidence that DDT causes teratogenic effects in test animals as well. In mice, maternal doses of 26 mg/kg/day DDT from gestation through lactation resulted in impaired learning performance in maze tests (73). In a two-generational study of rats, 10 mg/kg/day resulted in abnormal tail development (73). Epidemiological evidence regarding the occurance of teratogenic effects as a result of DDT exposure are unavailable (73). It seems unlikely that teratogenic effects will occur in humans due to DDT at likely exposure levels.
Mutagenic Effects: The evidence for mutagenicity and genotoxicity is contradictory. In only 1 out of 11 mutagenicity assays in various cell cultures and organisms did DDT show positive results (73). Results of in vitro and in vivo genotoxocity assays for chromosomal aberrations indicated that DDT was genotoxic in 8 out of 12 cases, and weakly genotoxic in 1 case (73). In humans, blood cell cultures of men occupationally exposed to DDT showed an increase in chromosomal damage. In a separate study, significant increases in chromosomal damage were reported in workers who had direct and indirect occupational exposure to DDT (73). Thus it appears that DDT may have the potential to cause genotoxic effects in humans, but does not appear to be strongly mutagenic. It is unclear whether these effects may occur at exposure levels likely to be encountered by most people.
Carcinogenic Effects: The evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of DDT is equivocal. It has been shown to cause increased tumor production (mainly in the liver and lung) in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters in some studies but not in others (73) In rats, liver tumors were induced in three separate studies at doses of 12.5 mg/kg/day over periods of 78 weeks to life, and thyroid tumors were induced at doses of 85 mg/kg/day over 78 weeks (73). In mice, lifetime doses of 0.4 mg/kg/day resulted in lung tumors in the second generation and leukemia in the third generation; liver tumors were induced at oral doses of 0.26 mg/kg/day in two separate studies over several generations. In hamsters, significant increases in adrenal gland tumors were seen at doses of 83 mg/kg/day in females (but not males) , and in males (but not females) at doses of 40 mg/kg/day (73). In other studies, however, no carcinogenic activity was observed in rats at doses less than 25 mg/kg/day; no carcinogenic activity was seen in mice with at doses of 3-23 mg/kg/day over an unspecified period, and in other hamster studies there have been no indications of carcinogenic effects (73). The available epidemiological evidence regarding DDTÕs carcinogenicity in humans, when taken as a whole, does not suggest that DDT and its metabolites are carcinogenic in humans at likely dose levels (73). In several epimiological studies, no significant associations were seen between DDT exposure and disease, but in one other study, a weak association was observed (73, 80). In this latter study, which found a significant association between long-term, high DDT exposures and pancreatic cancers in chemical workers, there were questions raised as to the reliability of the medical records of a large proportion of the cancer cases (73,80).
Organ Toxicity: Acute human exposure data and animal studies reveal that DDT can affect the nervous system, liver, kidney (73). Increased tumor production in the liver and lung has been observed in test animals (73). An association with pancreatic cancer was suggested in humans in one study (73, 80).
Fate in Humans & Animals: DDT is very slowly transformed in animal systems (74). Initial degradates in mammalian systems are 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-dichlorodiphenyl)ethylene (DDE) and 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDD), which are very readily stored in fatty tissues (73). These compounds in turn are ultimately transformed into bis(dichlorodiphenyl) acetic acid (DDA) via other metabolites at a very slow rate (73). DDA, or conjugates of DDA, are readily excreted via the urine (73). Available data from analysis of human blood and fat tissue samples collected in the early 1970s showed detectable levels in all samples, but a downward trend in the levels over time (73). Later study of blood samples collected in the latter half of the 1970s showed that blood levels were declining further, but DDT or metabolites were still seen in a very high proportion of the samples (73). Levels of DDT or metabolites may occur in fatty tissues (e.g. fat cells, the brain, etc.) at levels of up to several hundred times that seen in the blood (73). DDT or metabolites may also be elminated via motherÕs milk by lactating women (73).
In other words, not particularly dangerous compared to dying of all kinds of rotton equatorial diseases. Just don't eat it.
Perhaps this, too, is part of the Bush strategery.
Note that with lead there are strong differences in how it is absorbed by infants and adults. Lead is extremely dangerous to small children (it makes them stupid and they grow up to be Democrats.) IMO, if the Democrats had known this in advance then lead would never have been banned. :-)
Unfortunately for them, American's are not going to give up the right to own property. So the EnviroLeft has adopted the tactic that, if they can't TAKE the land, they can take the VALUE of the land by rendering it useless through overarching regulation in the name of environmentalism. Thus, you run your sprinkler a little too long one night and all of a sudden you wake up to find your house in a Wetland. Federally-protected, no less. So now, even though they couldn't take your house, they CAN make sure that you can't get the value out of it by selling it.
There are a lot of pieces of property in this country designated as wetlands that are merely ground that's poorly-drained. So the enviros want the land, but can't just outright TAKE it, so they Wetland it. Then, when you finally die and your property becomes worthless, THEN they take it - and fill it in and build an entitlement office on it.
The environment is only window-dressing for these control freaks. Their REAL plan is public ownership of all land in the country and the destruction of private property.
Michael
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.