Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Time Magazine's Environmental War Whoop
By Jonah Goldberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


Time magazine recently doctored the iconic photo of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima in order to "celebrate" Earth Day. Instead of Marines valiantly struggling to lift the stars and stripes, they are depicted planting a tree.

No doubt Time's editors think they will be celebrated in poetry and song for generations to come for their high-minded cleverness.

Still, if the symbolism wasn't clear enough, Time writer Bryan Walsh spells it out: "Green is the new red, white and blue."

There are any number of problems here, starting with the fact that this is simply a lie. Green is not the new red, white and blue. Concern over climate change may be the most honorable and vital thing imaginable. But if "the red, white and blue" means anything, it means patriotism or love of country. Patriotism and environmentalism simply aren't synonymous terms. Two things can be good without being the same. Fatherhood and all-you-can-eat chicken wings, for example, don't describe identical phenomena.

Even if Walsh and his bosses at Time were merely trying to be descriptive of American attitudes, they'd still be flat-out wrong. If Americans saw environmentalism as the purest expression of patriotic sentiment - like, say, buying Liberty Bonds during WWI - Time's declaration might be defensible. But Americans don't think any such thing.

The latest Gallup environmental survey shows that only 37 percent of Americans worry about global warming "a great deal," a drop from 41 percent last year. Indeed, the share of Americans greatly concerned with climate change is about the same as it was a decade ago, which still sounds a bit high since the globe pretty much stopped getting warmer in 1998. Even among environmental concerns, climate change isn't priority No. 1 for most Americans.

The editors of Time surely know this, which explains their real motive: They want to persuade Americans otherwise. And they are honest about it. Richard Stengel, Time's managing editor, who recently admitted that he doesn't much care about "objective" journalism, insists that "there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change."

"The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases," Time reports, "... and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it." Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jonah Goldberg's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: finally
Over-indulgence is a personal choice but not one where Americans or anyone for that matter, ought be held financially accountable.

Oil for gasoline which is utilized in your car for any number of needs or desires, is your personal choice.

Perhaps you confuse such things as entitlements.

There are no entitlements in this life.

You do, however, have a choice to get a job and purchase such goods and services. Two jobs if necessary. You could move elsewhere. You could move closer to work. You could....

Interesting observation
"The libertarian comment was only intended to point out that I understand your political perspective and the fact that it is based in a fantasy-filled, free market fixes everything position."


Another ad hominem, are you not capable of having others disagree with you? Why is it so personal with you? Is it because you wish to impose your ideas and way of living onto others and all those that disagree are just in fantasy-land?

The greater reveal in this comment is that which I highlight in my two recent posts: that you believe people, including yourself, are victim to life and rendered helpless when it comes to personal choice for the life you now live.

Your life is a series of choices by which you are now living the outcome. No one made these choices but you. In the face of circumstances not of your creation but whereby you placed yourself by being there in the first place, it's how you choose in the given situation that decides your outcomes, not the circumstance itself.

Free markets don't fix anything, they allow the exchange of goods and services for profit, which, in turn, creates greater quality of life for those that choose it.

Supply and Demand are what drive markets. If there's no demand, then there should be no supply.

The socialist perspective is to force supply when no demand is requested, for personal self-interest and political gain, but at a cost to the greater society.

Do you keep eating when you're full?

Do you continue to purchase cars after your need has been fulfilled? One for every day of the week or year? How far do you go with such choices?

Do you keep going to the doctor after you're well?

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.