politixcartoons:

New cartoons
for your inbox!


Safely delivered by FeedBurner

Archive for _Environmentalism

What a load of !

what-a-load-of-toon-by-ben-hummel

The Colorado Legislature just banned the future sale of so-called wasteful, inefficient, high volume (in other words, effective) toilets and other plumbing fixtures. Really? Was that really necessary? While that might sound good to some people (yay, we’re saving the planet), what it is not is FREEDOM.

The truth is, the so-called “high-efficiency” toilets don’t always save water. While that may be true for some people in some communities that have high pressure water systems, for the many rural and mountain communities on well water, these toilets are a disaster. They require several flushings in order to properly and sanitarily dispose of the waste. How is this efficient? The rural home owner should have the FREEDOM to purchase whatever toilet they feel best suits their needs and their worldview. You don’t see the mountain man trying to stop an earth lover from purchasing a high-efficiency toilet. To each man his own choice of toilet.

This is a case of “mind your own business” in a huge way. The constant drumbeat by those on the left is “stay out of our bedrooms,” when conservatives try to push sexual morality. Well I say to this, stay out of our bathrooms!

I have a horrific and aggressive auto-immune disorder in which I suffer from major… ahem, let’s call it lower intestinal duress… in other words, poopy problems. I feel as if I can speak with authority about this subject matter. [um… this next paragraph is going to get graphic and personal in a hurry… you had your warning, so like, yeah, move on to the next toon if this is too much for you] The way my malfunctioning gut often works is that it stops for a few days and then in one big movement, unloads drastically. We’re talking it would make an elephant proud. I have been on those high-efficiency pots and it has required the use of coat hangers and several flushings in order for the material to finally be done away with. In my case, the “inefficient” toilet would actually be more effective in the long run! Fortunately, I have one of those at my current residence and am thankful. I should be allowed to choose whatever throne best fits my derrière, as I know my buttom best!

Phew! That said, this legislation stinks like the anti-freedom load of crap that it is.

Green Energy

So let’s see if I have this straight. The green energy company Solyndra receives tons of money from the stimulus as part of the green jobs initiative. A few months later they go bankrupt. Where did the money go? Not sure, but we find out later that Solyndra contributed to Obama’s election campaign. Something’s not right with this picture, but the complacent media seems all too eager to sweep it under the rug.

Imagine if this was reversed. Suppose Bush earmarked through tax payer dollars a ton of money to some oil company who then gave it back to his election campaign before going bankrupt. The American media would go nuts, the American people would be outraged, and both would be right in doing so. Yet, in the case of Solyndra, we barely get a yawn.

What’s the difference? Is it because Obama is a Democrat, and therefore untouchable? Is it because Solyndra is a Green Energy company, so somehow their actions are divine and holy?

I’m all for standards. But double standards I can’t stand.

Liberalism in 3D

Liberalism in 3D

Almost everybody I know who has seen this movie, liberal or conservative, has told me it is nothing more than a tired, recycled plot, pumped up on special effects. Yet, because it carries an anti-capitalist world view, it has been lauded by the Academy and up for Best Picture.

The Academy Award goes to the film that best carries our message and slaps it upside your head.

I’ve noticed that over the past five years, I have hated 99% of all Academy Award nominated film. I now use today’s nominations as a guide. Has it been nominated? Well then, I’ll skip it.

NOTHING BUT HOT AIR

nothing but hot airThe UK Telegraph, by no means a conservative paper, reports on how the insistence of using private limos and jets by all these dignitaries attending the Copenhagen Summit has contributed more CO2 emissions than a mid-sized city. The excesses don’t stop there, as they have been dining on expensive fish and cavier (despite being told we’ve got to stop eating fish because we’re overfishing the oceans.) And I won’t even touch on the other scandalous excesses that have been reported, as this is a family-friendly blog. You can read the entire story here: http://tinyurl.com/yzfvhe2

The whole ordeal is comical, but the policy issues they want to pass as a result of all of this are frightening. CO2 is NOT a toxin, not anymore than oxygen is. You follow that logic for very long, and you end up in the camp that says we need to eliminate life to sustain it, because there are too many humans exhaling. Once you end up there, you’ll find yourself in a bad place. Since you’ll be hard pressed to find volunteers to leave the planet, government will have to make that choice for you.

We’ve got to stop eating beef because cows fart. We’ve got to stop eating fish because we might overfish. We’ve got to stop eating plants because they’ve got feelings too. Let’s ban incandescent bulbs because they run hot. But why stop there. Let’s just ban manmade light altogether, as today’s Blackout Friday attempted to do. Forget the fact that we’ve spent CENTURIES to develop the technology to improve and lengthen our lives, technology is the new evil, let’s deny it and go back to the Dark Ages (has anybody studied the history of Rome, by the way?)

I’ll restate my position on environmentalism. God commanded man to be a steward of the land, nothing more. Man cannot save the earth. That is God’s job and in the end, we are promised, it will be destroyed. The problem is not with conservation or recycling or being litter free. It’s when government uses “environmentalism” based on shoddy science as an excuse to pass laws to control and dictate our lives.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Grocery Bags

The dirty secret is that grocery chains want you to purchase their reusable bags. Why? Because it saves them money on paying for bags themselves. Sure, some may be environmentally conscious, but overall, money speaks the loudest. If it weren’t so, then why is it so hard to get grocers to bag your products in paper bags? Paper bags are far more environmentally friendly than plastic, but most chains don’t carry them, and the ones that do groan every time I ask for paper. It is because plastic is still cheaper than paper. (I exclude natural grocery stores, but they make back the profit on their prices for food items)

Fuel Efficiency

Carbon Footprints

Man Made Disaster

Guest Editorial by Tommy Hummel

Green Lands

We are all familiar with the term “Green” as in “to go green,” the current push toward environmental preservation. The use of the word “green” has now taken on many different connotations. It is a word used to evoke images of nature and wildlife, specifically, green wildlife. It is ironic that the word seems to ignore the many other environments on this planet that are not green at all and that would actually be polluted or grossly changed were they to become so (e.g. deserts, the ocean, and the arctic). Still, when people think about environments that they want to visit, they picture lush tropical islands or deciduous forests and so, naturally, this image would create a more emotional draw than had environmentalists created the slogan, “Go Brown!” (though the deserts would benefit).

It’s Because of Global Warming

How Inconvenient