2006-07-04
If gay sex caused global warming...
... might Bush and his "base" be a bit more interested in it? (Global warming, that is, not gay sex--a topic for which these folks have a seemingly bottomless fascination.) The question is taken up by the above-linked LA Times op-ed by a Harvard psychologist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well-written.
This explains why Paul is more adverse to warm beer and processed food than he is to global war and oppression.
If Guiness sponsored a universal health care initiative in the US he would be all for it.
(Nadir, you mean "averse", not "adverse".)
The writer assumes that the Bushies reject the "global warming caused by humans" hypothesis for non-scientific reasons, that they reject it because accepting it would lead to "inconvienient conclusions." Indeed, those who want widespread prosperity should hope that human economic activities do not lead to world destruction!
Wouldn't lefties be as likely to reject this hypothesisif the global warming advocates cited homosexuality as its cause? Lefties have already married themselves to the triumerative assertions that (1) the earth is warming, (3) it is warming to a catastrophic extent, and (4) that human actions cause all or most of it. But they have also married themselves to homosexuality. So it seems that homosexuality as a cause of global warming would create more of a quandry from lefties, who would have to: (1) reject homosexuality or (2) accept and embrace global warming.
And if Guiness "sponsored a universal health care initiative", I would support it if that meant that the company would use its profits to pay for health care bills of people who could not afford it. But if this "initiative" meant influencing voters and politicians to create a socialized medical system, I would certainly oppose it, as I am convinced that such systems promise to deliver more than healthcare than a capitalist medical system (including one that includes voluntary charity from various evil companies), but always delivers less.
Meanwhile, people with little economic means could boost their health more than any govt program by switching from Miller, Coke, and Five Alive to Guiness.
"(Nadir, you mean "averse", not "adverse".)"
Thanks, Paul. Should I start correcting all of your misspellings and typos as well?
Post a Comment