Actually, what I wrote earlier about Norman Bourlag — a real “progressive” for a real “Green” Revolution — merits a postscript:

[I recalled when I read the following, below, earlier today, the comments by Gunnar Myrdal that were repeated by Stephen Schneider in Schneider's book, "The Genesis Strategy," for example.]

…

“After his triumph in India and Pakistan and his Nobel Peace Prize, Borlaug turned to raising crop yields in other poor nations especially in Africa, the one place in the world where population is rising faster than farm production and the last outpost of subsistence agriculture. At that point, Borlaug became the target of critics who denounced him because Green Revolution farming requires some pesticide and lots of fertilizer. Trendy environmentalism was catching on, and affluent environmentalists began to say it was 'inappropriate' for Africans to have tractors or use modern farming techniques. Borlaug told me a decade ago that most Western environmentalists 'have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists in wealthy nations were trying to deny them these things.'”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702…

You're forgiven.

“Conserving resources is something we should have started AGES ago.”

I live a “small footprint” life, in fact. My vehicles I have bought have all been two-seater compacts or motorcycles, for example. (One of them a classic Vespa scooter — the perfect thing for in-town use, though I rode it as far away as north into BC and south to Portland, OR when I lived in Seattle). I also don't like waste or pollution. (I even dislike sound pollution and forms of visual “pollution.”) That's not to mean I support what many activists want, which is a post-60s nihilistic self-loathing, self-destructive agenda for the West and especially the USA. We've seen that with the “population explosion” scam long ago, the projected famines and other problems with scarcity of resources (the development of which was fought) during the 1970s, and nowadays, using “global warming” or “climate change” (the term that is most current) as the excuse for deliberately crippling industry and individual livelihoods and radical change of the economy and society toward a planned, controlled, directed, politically correct dream. The same is true in a more broad or general sense when conservation is sought in other circumstances.

This isn't a general extension of the case of, for example, the depletion of fisheries, which those bearded, pointy-headed liberals had warned us about and we laughed about — but then the fish stocks were greatly reduced (depleted). There is no general extension of this kind. That there will be shortages and that reducing waste (part of which is addressed best by proper pricing of scarce resources) is desireable is fine, but there is no excuse for overreacting or overreaching or doing what is not cost-effective, or what is not only not justified or logical, but which is deliberately harmful.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/ghg…

[sound of crickets chirping if not demented cheering, instead]

I don't, in case you mistakenly thought so. I've lived all over the USA, including healthy places worried about problems with growth, as well as New York and Michigan, which are declining.

The radio programs I have listened to here (and elsewhere in the Midwest while on the road) are in no way out of the ordinary. Even the local-Detroit-related black-issues station features Jesse Jackson, whose show is not limited necessarily to Detroit city.

The same get-rick-quick schemes have been advertised in Iowa as well as in Michigan and New York, along with ads to buy gold, incidentally featuring lefty as well as righty talkers in those ads.

The “czar” point is stupid, frankly. The first was appointed by Nixon, more by Reagan, TONS more under the Bushes. I don't care if the Director of the Office of Drug Abuse Interdiction (“drug czar”) is approved by the Senate or not. The GOP will not confirm any appointee they are capable of holding up as an opposition tactic. SCREW that. A leader needs a team and allowing the opposition party to hogtie the administration by preventing the hiring of necessary positions works against all of us.

I oppose ALL signing statements and every single thing Obama does to hide behind executive privilege. I would favor rules that would prevent ANY president from usurping the power of the Congress or the courts. I believe the Congress and the Justice Department should vigorously investigate and PROSECUTE all suspected crimes, by either party.

Where was the fire in the belly of these protesters regarding the Patriot Act? The same arguments were used to justify the Patriot Act (we give up some personal freedoms/privacy in exchange for more collective security) as Rick says the protesters are currently railing against.

Can't speak for others opposed to the current big government trend Bu I was speaking out. A couple things I posted on another forum:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

–President George W. Bush
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York
April 20, 2004

Here is the link from the Whitehouse website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04…

Can you say.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/o/8/bus…
————————————
and this:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/smarter.html

My conscience is clean of hypocrisy. I was a vocal opponent of the Bush administration increasing Executive branch control over government and the rise of government spending then just as I am opposed to it now under the Obama administration and the democratic congress.

———————

No I'd like to ask, where are all those liberals who protested against the growth of unchecked executive power under Bush? Where were they when Obama appointed lobbyists, when Obama made backroom deals with Big Pharma, when Obama appointed a record number of Czars not requiring Senate Confirmation?, When Obama issued signing statements? When Obama continued warrantless wiretapping and still does? Where are they now? I know of a few on select issues, but apart from Glenn Greenwald, a very liberal blogger who I don't always agree with but whom I respect greatly for being willing to challenge his own Party and to criticize other liberals who refuse to, I don't see a whole lot of them.

Another problem I have with the accusations of socialism and strong opposition to any government involvement in anything at all is that government, by its very existence, is an infringement on people's freedom. But what kind of society would we have without it? The knee-jerk extreme conservative opposition to any government involvement shows a serious lack of thought. The fact that a bill, if passed, will result in more government intervention is not in itself a reason to reject it. We should be asking ourselves when it is appropriate for the government to interfere with our lives and when it is not. If you argue that it never is, you are ignoring the many cases in which the government already is interfering with our lives and we are better off for it. When it comes to opposing liberals, conservatives' best tools are rational arguments that demonstrate why this or that government action crosses the line, either because it violates people's rights, or it just makes government too big or too inefficient to sustain. The conspiracy theory arguments are not really arguments at all, and the more they get repeated, the less opportunity there is for any real arguments to be made. Up to now I feel like the discussion has gone like this:

Left: We think the role of the government should be expanded because (reason X, reason Y, reason Z).

Right: No. The role of the government should never be expanded because Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini expanded their government's influence. If you expand government, you are like them.

Left: You're just upset because your side lost the election. Also, you're racist.

Right: No we're not.

Left: Yes you are.

Right: Well, maybe some of us are. But you are liars.

Left: No we're not.

Right: Yes you are. And you're evil and un-American, too.

etc…

At least the left started the conversation out properly, but in the end, who wins? We all lose.

Man, what are you still doing there? All your neighbors wised up years ago, and during recessions they moved to Florida or Texas to find work. Some are trying to move back now that our economy is down, but the pay is so bad here, they can't afford it.

If you think Detroit is like the rest of the country, forget it.