Peter Cresswell: Women & Nuclear Environmentalists
THE BEST OF NOT PC
Two columns by Peter Cresswell from his Blog Not PC
NOT PC, 1: What's a woman to do?
'Big ups' as they say to the Auckland kick-boxer who pummelled a burglar last night found rummaging around his lounge after midnight. Well done, sir!
But what would you and I do when confronted with someone rummaging through our lounge uninvited? Or someone threatening violence against us or our family? What for instance could a women do, or a scrawny bloke, out alone after dark and set upon by thugs?
Despite police pronouncements at repeated arms inquiries that the thing to do when confronted with criminals is to ring the police, I think even George Hawkins now realises that the police are too busy to answer emergency calls when somebody is being set upon: too busy surfing for porn, collecting revenue or sorting out unassigned files. And we know that the 111 call system is a joke even if our victim could get to the phone.
So what can our victim do if she's set upon? She may be a kick-boxer who can do over a burglar with her bare hands, but if not there's nothing she can do but allow herself to be done over, or to hope for a kick-boxer to stroll past.
Our Nanny Government bans women from carrying a gun to defend themselves or their families - bizarrely enough it even bans them carrying mace, tasers, or pepper spray - and it is still trying to enact gun control legislation to remove guns from the law-abiding citizens. Non-law-abiding citizens just can't wait!
So what's a woman to do, then? Well, if she's Helen Clark or Rosie O'Donnell then she can have men with guns protect her. If you aren't they, then you'll have to ask these guys about making a submission on the Firearms Bill so that you might be allowed to defend yourself, and you might consider letting Ann Coulter help you with what to say.
NOT PC, 2: Environmental Religionists Going Nuclear?
Stewart Brand predicts here in Technology Review that "Over the next ten years ... the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbanization, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power."
There are a great many more environmental romantics than there are scientists. That’s fortunate, since their inspiration means that most people in developed societies see themselves as environmentalists. But it also means that scientific perceptions are always a minority view, easily ignored, suppressed, or demonized if they don’t fit the consensus story line.Brand suggests a consequence of the 'romantic view' is that it can take a while to notice that the science doesn't fit their preconceived notions - sometimes up to thirty years; for example, population growth rates peaked in 1968, but the scare stories only recently began to slow down.
So will Rod and Jeanette start crusading for nuclear any time soon? Well, they will if they're consistent about their convictions on global warming and 'peak oil.'
Bob Bidinotto disagrees with the term 'romantic' to describe environmentalists. He prefers to call them religionists as he explains here in his blog. "Religions traditionally criticize human reason, and extol faith." he points out. "So does environmentalism." Author Michael Chrichton makes a similar argument here .
And yes, there are a lot of these religionists about. A 1997 survey published in American Demographics found that fully a fourth of all Americans 'see nature as sacred, want to stop corporate polluters, are suspicious of big business, are interested in voluntary simplicity, and are willing to pay to clean up the environment and stop global warming.'
That’s amazing growth for a new faith in just three decades. At this rate, environmentalism will supplant all rival religions in a few more years.
"Why fight it?," says Bidinotto. Let's just accept environmentalism as a new religion and be done with it. At least then we could argue for the separation of church and state.