Globaloney

Now that it is revealed what we already knew, and that is Global warming is bunk, will we next learn the Global War on Terror is nonsense too?

Here is a post form my llistserv a few years ago...

Folks,

Globalism is s term the entire political spectrum recognizes, and one’s view of
globalism is a
litmus test for what category one falls in. The right sees globalism as a
threat to Pax
Americana. The left sees it as a threat to peace and justice. And I see it as
a natural, if
messy, outgrowth to the end of the evil tyranny so prevalent last century.

In the context of globalism, we have the Global War on Terror, which for the
Right there is
even a military medal. Soldiers can be awarded a medal for participating in the
global war on
terror.

http://tinyurl.com/2jq324

For Global Warming the Left has no such medal, but there are prizes, such as
Richard
Branson’s $25 million he has earrmarked, and certainly there is an entire
industry of research
grants for those who can say “global warming” just as there is on the Right for
anyone who can say "Global War on Terror."

What I have noticed from both sides of the political spectrum is not only may
you not be
silent on the issue, you must vocally agree with their views.

Try this: the next time the topic of global warming or the global war on terror
comes up, and
your views are solicited by way of conversation, try saying “I really don’t have
an opinion.”

That will not do. Try saying, both sides are bunk. That will not do either.
Strangely, it is even
worse. Here is where it gets tricky. You may disagree with either side, but only
if you agree
with the opposite side. For example, if you believe global warming is bunk, you
must believe
that global war on terror is job #1 in USA. And vice versa.

If you will not serve as a follower of one side, you must serve as an enemy to
the side you will
not follow. It’s ok to not believe in global warming, as long as you believe we
must fight
global war on terror, because then you can serve as the enemy. And vice versa.

What is utterly unacceptable is to believe both sides are delusional. You may
not say “both
sides are wrong.”

I’ve put a lot of thought into this, and I am trying to work out a way to deal
with this. Is there
a means to weigh the both sides, so I might join one, and get some relief?

After making a long list of pros and cons of both sides, I find they are equally
tendentious
and equally destructive to mankind. Perfect symmetry, except for one tiny
difference.

Please compare and contrast the very titles each side subscribes to in the topic
of Globalism:
global war on terror vs. global warming. Compare how each side uses the exact
same
characters for the first ten postions... global war (on terror) vs global war
(ming). In each we have "Global War...".

Whereas with the right, they go on another ten positions (on terror), matching
their lust for
bigger everything, whereas the left goes on only four more positions (ming),
matching
President Clinton’s gift of smaller government during his reign.

So it seems to me, that if I am to seek relative peace by taking sides, and I
believe both sides
tedious, then the left is less tedious by six places. Not only does it take
less time to say
global warming, ratehr than global war on terror, it takes less paper and ink to
write it, and there is some advantage there, to
be sure. And it takes less time to listen to "global warming" vs listening to
'global war on terror."

All of my life I have been willing to sell out to one side or the other, but
sadly no one has ever
made me an offer to join their intrigue. So I’ll consider this, but I am not
sure the left will
ever accept my offer to join.

John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post