First time visitor? Learn more.

The New Manacles

by coldwarrior ( 23 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Climate, Economy, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Science, Special Report, taxation, World at February 24th, 2012 - 7:49 am

The New Manacles

-Coldwarrior 24 FEB 2012

 

Manacles are a metal band, chain, or shackle for fastening someone’s hands or ankles to restrict movement and prevent their escape and freedom.

Origin:
1275–1325; Middle English,  variant of manicle  < Middle French:  handcuff < Latin manicula  small hand, handle of a plow. See manus, -i-, -cle1

 

Normally manacles are placed on a prisoner or criminal because he will want to escape his confinement.  The warders have a duty to restrict this criminal’s freedoms. This duty and these manacles are given to the warders as part of the social contract between the citizens and government. The citizens allow the government to try, incarcerate, restrict the movements and freedoms of, and eventually deem the criminal as rehabilitated and release him from his manacles.

 

In the last decade we have seen a different kind of manacle placed on not the criminals, but on the law abiding citizens. These manacles are the policies and fees and extra costs levied because of Carbon driven ‘Global Warming’ both globally and here in America. Any distortions in the energy market, restrictions of availability, or increased cost in the use of energy is a manacle on the economy and on the citizen’s freedoms when we get right down to it. We are going to see $5-6 dollar gas this summer because of lack of drilling and lack of refining that was in part a product of the environmental/Global Warming agenda. Electric costs are up due to the onerous regulations placed on coal fired power stations, ‘necessarily skyrocket’, anyone? We could have built Nuclear Stations, they are clean and emit zero carbon dioxide. That should have placated the Global Warming crowd, right? No, we can’t have all the energy we want: Manacles placed on you and me for what? A myth?

 

‘Global Warming’ as a driver of policy and taxation is dead in the US. It has even become the butt of jokes on late night TV. Seriously, could we have blamed anything else on Global Warming? The blogs, some real scientists, and the Global Warming crowd with their lies and fake data cut off this manacle. It took us about ten years to get back to reality, Carbon Dioxide is plant food and does not have an appreciable effect on the atmosphere. Therefore, much to the chagrin of the New Carbon Warders, Carbon Driven Global Warming eventually makes a lousy manacle.  The Carbon Trading desk at the Chicago Mercantile exchange was closed without much fanfare and now the New Carbon Warders are all silent. The prisoner came out of his trance and could see through the manacle and break it with common sense and a little research on the internet.

 

That should be the end of the story. It isn’t.  The New Carbon Warders will change uniforms. It leaked out in the President’s speech last night confirming what I have been saying in private for a couple of months. The New Carbon Warders will change into the ‘Sustainability Police’ . Sustainability will replace Global Warming as the driver for taxation, fees, and destructive policies that will continue to retard and distort our economy.The Sustainability Police will insist that this is for our own good, they just want to make sure we survive. Isn’t that what Sustainability is, survival and the ability to endure? Why not care for the ecosystems while providing for our needs? We can get fuel from algae! What a great idea! The Sustainability Police sound rational enough at first until they get into the implementation phase.  They see consumption of any kind to have a negative impact on the ecosystem. Instead of using Carbon as the Manacle, they will use ‘Carrying Capacity of Planet Earth’, ‘Management of Human Consumption’, ‘Impact’ and ‘Footprints’ to form the restrictions of our freedoms:

In 2007 a report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated: “While much discussion and effort has gone into sustainability indicators, none of the resulting systems clearly tells us whether our society is sustainable. At best, they can tell us that we are heading in the wrong direction, or that our current activities are not sustainable. More often, they simply draw our attention to the existence of problems, doing little to tell us the origin of those problems and nothing to tell us how to solve them.”

 

Sustainability will be the new manacles placed on the citizens to restrict their freedom and control their lives. Sustainability does not need science behind it. There does not need to be tree rings, temperature monitoring stations, and massively complicated computer models to back it up. Sustainability only needs the force of law and regulation. It is, simply because it is, and it is what the Sustainability Police say it is. This is a far more dangerous Manacle because the regulators and the activists define the ‘reality’; there is no scientific process to dissolve the chains that will be placed on us in the name of Sustainability.

 

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

23 Responses to “The New Manacles”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | February 24, 2012 8:09 am

    “Sustainability” ultimately requires genocide, because there are already too many humans for the Sustainability Police to tolerate. They want to reduce the population to a sustainable level. Say a billion people, or 5/6ths less population for the world. There is no way to achieve this goal without genocide. It would require far more draconian policis that the “One Child” rule in China, which has, itself, led to a genocide of unborn women.


  2. coldwarrior
    2 | February 24, 2012 8:12 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    this is far more dangerous a driver of policy than global warming because of the intentional lack of science/definitions contained therein.


  3. mawskrat
    3 | February 24, 2012 8:45 am

    take some Viagra and you will have Sustainability


  4. mfhorn
    4 | February 24, 2012 8:46 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    ‘Unborn women’? How can you say that? It’s ‘just a fetus’, just a ‘mass of cells’ with no life in them.

    //

    Hell, to our Glorious Leader, we’re keeping women from being punished with a child.


  5. 5 | February 24, 2012 8:53 am

    mfhorn wrote:

    Hell, to our Glorious Leader, we’re keeping women from being punished with a child.

    That is exactly the kind of attitude these people bring to the table. The unborn are disposable. I think that they feel that way about all “excess” people. They just want ot be in charge of who gets disposed of…


  6. mfhorn
    6 | February 24, 2012 8:56 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Bullseye.


  7. mawskrat
    7 | February 24, 2012 9:08 am

    and to Palestinians thier children are
    disposable

    future work place accident victim
    in training

    to the Palestinians, children are just tools
    for propaganda


  8. buzzsawmonkey
    8 | February 24, 2012 10:49 am

    What is interesting is how the proposals and programs of the Sustainability Police are not, in fact, sustainable.

    Take for instance the debt incurred by the current Administration, which constantly uses “sustainability” rhetoric; the debt is unsustainable, particularly under this Administration’s policies, yet they insist on adding to it. The “green energy” and “green jobs” solutions this Administration puts forth are unsustainable unless they are underwritten by more unsustainable debt.

    Just as one can be sure that the Left is plotting precisely what it projects upon its opponents, one can be sure that if someone puts forth a proposal on the basis of that proposal’s “sustainability,” it will not be self-supporting, “sustainable” without massive subsidy, or—most likely—necessary in any way.


  9. coldwarrior
    9 | February 24, 2012 10:52 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    yep:

    “Sustainability only needs the force of law and regulation. It is, simply because it is, and it is what the Sustainability Police say it is.”


  10. buzzsawmonkey
    10 | February 24, 2012 10:53 am

    Whenever I hear “sustainable,” it sounds like “shit-stainable.”


  11. Bumr50
    11 | February 24, 2012 10:56 am

    Sustainability is completely subjective.

    Sustainable for the planet itself? Sustainable for humans? If so, how many humans?


  12. coldwarrior
    12 | February 24, 2012 10:57 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Carrying Capacity of Planet Earth

    Carrying Capacity of Planet Earth

    watch for it.


  13. coldwarrior
    13 | February 24, 2012 10:58 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Bumr50 wrote:

    Sustainability is completely subjective.

    and that is why this is far more serious than algore


  14. lobo91
    14 | February 24, 2012 10:58 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable, and yet they keep reducing the amount of money going into them.


  15. buzzsawmonkey
    15 | February 24, 2012 11:02 am

    Hey, it’s all “sustainable”—so fit me up with some of those Alfred E. New Manacles™; “What, me worry?”


  16. 16 | February 24, 2012 11:02 am

    @ lobo91:

    Logic tells you that they want them to collapse. It would be possible for one or more of the Democrats to be unutterably stupid, but they are all in lockstep about their drive to spend the country into penury. A more plausible explanation is that they want to do so. Of course, they may want to do so because they are unutterably stupid (witness Pelosie Galore), but I think the real leaders know escatly what shoals they are steering us onto…


  17. 17 | February 24, 2012 12:17 pm

    Another disturbing factor, to me at least, is the increasing meddling of the U.N. in such matters as gun control, climate, etc., exhorting everyone to see issues as a global rather than local issue. They want a “world tax” they want authority over more and more aspects of an individual’s life. Unless the Obamas of this world are stopped politically right now, it is only a matter of decades until the U.N. is the world’s ersatz governing body, because socialist/one world/eHarmony/it’s for your own good dictators will have subjugated the population.

    And I don’t discount China in all this. They are buying up other countries’ debt and that sword of Damocles is going to fall one of these days. China will hold the world hostage financially and the rest of the world may well be in no position to stop it.


  18. Buffalobob
    18 | February 24, 2012 1:21 pm

    Maybe we should be looking a lootability: lootibility the state of mind the blind followers must be lulled into by the BS of their regine leader. lootability: the level of stupidity a populace must be reduced to so as not to raise any alarms as he, his family (wife) and his cronies divert wast amounts of money into cache they can access after they are thrown out of office. “The lootability of Haiti under the reins of Pa Pa Doc Duvalier was only surpassed by his son Baby Docs lootablity”.


  19. 19 | February 24, 2012 1:25 pm

    @ Buffalobob:

    Obama has looted the USA to the tune of a trillion dollars. That has to be some of the best looting ever in history! The lootability of Obama’s America exceeds that of all the cities in the path of the Mongol Expansion…


  20. Da_Beerfreak
    20 | February 24, 2012 3:23 pm

    Every time I see or hear the word “sustainable” used I replace it mentally with either “socialism” or “socialist”; works in most cases to revel the true meaning of what is being said. :evil:


  21. Da_Beerfreak
    21 | February 24, 2012 3:28 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    mfhorn wrote:
    Hell, to our Glorious Leader, we’re keeping women from being punished with a child.
    That is exactly the kind of attitude these people bring to the table. The unborn are disposable. I think that they feel that way about all “excess” people. They just want ot be in charge of who gets disposed of…

    They are neo-Malthusians. This in part explains their love of abortion and eugenics. :evil:


  22. huckfunn
    22 | February 24, 2012 5:32 pm

    Glad you put this up, Cold. Every single day there are thousands of faceless bureaucrats, against whom we have no electoral recourse, writing thousands of new laws and regulations that are taking away our liberty. Simply put, every new law and regulation takes away more of our freedom. As someone else on this blog once said, “we increasingly find ourselves living in that narrow space called “compliance”; doing all of the things we must do, and not doing all of the things we must not do, in order to comply”.

    Everyone should google in your city and/or county with the word “sustainability” behind it and see what you come up with. You’ll be shocked.


  23. 23 | February 25, 2012 1:01 pm

    Buffalobob’s icon looks like a UTERUS UTERUS UTERUS LOL


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David