Video: Robert Redford gets bad reviews from black ministers
posted at 10:00 am on January 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Niger Innis and CORE joined several black ministers in downtown Salt Lake City to protest Robert Redford and his environmental stands just before the start of the Sundance Film Festival. The ministers protested the notion that rich elites should bar drilling that would eventually secure low energy prices that keep poor families warm in the winter. Redford’s allies accused the ministers of selling out to oil producers:
Video Courtesy of KSL.com
On the eve of the Sundance Film Festival, filmmaker Robert Redford got some very bad reviews today, not from movie critics but from black ministers. They came from around the country to attack his environmental views and to stand up in favor of oil and gas drilling.
Redford’s critics chose the Broadway Theatre in downtown Salt Lake, hoping to draw a few of the cameras that would normally be covering the film festival. The ministers said they were here to speak up for the poor, but critics claim that some of the organizations involved are actually fronts for industry. …
It’s a national coalition arguing that more drilling would lower energy costs for the poor.
Rev. Gerard Henry, president of the group “Speak Life!” said, “Being able to afford to heat your home with natural gas isn’t a luxury. It’s an absolute necessity. It can be a matter of life or death.”
The ministers, joined by Utah lawmaker Greg Hughes, attacked Redford. In our recent interview, he reiterated opposition to drill rigs near national parks and monuments. At the time of our interview, Redford said, “One rig one day is too much for that beautiful country.”
Of course, the response to Innis and the others in this protest on the issue would be that government should subsidize the cost of energy for poor families — which it already does through LIHEAP. However, that puts the poor in the position of dependency on handouts rather than true economic viability. What doesn’t get mentioned in this protest, or at least in this report of the protest, is the massive economic expansion that would accompany an effort to seriously boost American oil production — at least hundreds of thousands of new, good-paying jobs for some of the families represented by the protest.
Redford’s allies avoided the issue, though, by attempting to paint the ministers as sell-outs. In the report, they point to money contributed by Exxon for their efforts, which they claim is the entire reason for their protest. At least one of the groups gathered in Salt Lake City hasn’t taken a dime from oil companies, as is seen in the protest, and that’s more of a non-sequitur argument in any case. Are Redford’s allies saying that CORE, for one example, exists only to serve Exxon’s interests? That’s absurd. CORE has been around almost 40 years longer than the Sundance Institute, founded when Redford wasn’t quite six years old.
The real issue here is class, as one minister notes in the protest. We have a class of limousine liberals who can afford to pay high energy costs and who want to block oil production for their own aesthetic reasons, while the means to ensure low energy costs for decades and provide jobs for potentially millions of Americans sits unused. They prefer that America instead transfers hundreds of billions of dollars a year to foreign potentates for our energy needs, or better yet, that America greatly reduce our economy by hobbling our energy use — presumably on everything but the electricity that runs theaters and our DVD players. That’s the real economic hypocrisy at work in this story.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
That is funny. Robert Redford does not “get it.” Ha.
<a href=”http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24914958-5000540,00.html” Also in an unrelated post, you have to love the Australians for this one. And you were worried about ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Mr. Joe on January 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Also in an unrelated post, you have to love the Australians for this one.
Mr. Joe on January 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM
How much pollution is caused by the Sundance Festival?
We are not allowed to ask.
artist on January 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Leftist civil war! I love it!
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Calling a spade, a spade.
singlemalt_18 on January 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM
…because no Black folks would live in Utah, right?
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Hope for change (in environmental policy).
And is this the mud the libs will (continue to) throw? Are they following the lead of Screecher of the House Nazi Bella Pelosi and claim that if you support drilling you are a “handmaiden of big oil”?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 15, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Liberals…always champions of the little guy. A river runs through him – a river of elitist arrogance.
whitetop on January 15, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Lefties eating their own..now That’s Entertainment!
beththebaker on January 15, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Yes, with “the little guy” meaning squirrels & flowers. People aren’t as important.
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Fantastic allusion. I love it.
BuckeyeSam on January 15, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Black ministers fighting for the right to “drill here, drill now” – what a hoot! This will really put the liberals into the spin cycle.
BoomJunkie on January 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Dude, link not working.
beththebaker on January 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Agreed with everything the minister said. Once and for all we must acknowledge that the left is only interested in looking like they care. They prove it every day in every way
As for Exxon Mobile giving these groups $250,00. After listening to what the ministers said, we know that this was money well spent.
Tommy_G on January 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Mr. Joe, your link doesn’t work.
sondiehl on January 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Typical leftie tactic–attack your critics, and ignore the valid charges.
Of course, Innis and the other black ministers are correct, and should be given a bigger platform.
PimFortuynsGhost on January 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
It’s ironic that usually, the first thing to go when times get tough is the entertainment budget.
One would think that Hollywood would be all about reducing the costs of necessities so that more people could afford to give them money.
James on January 15, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Wait.. didn’t realize it was Niger Innes…. it’s the black conservatives against the “white” liberals… Oh, well, it’s still great entertainment!
beththebaker on January 15, 2009 at 10:20 AM
This should be a good opening for the “drill here, drill now” Republicans — especially The ‘Cuda.
irishspy on January 15, 2009 at 10:20 AM
There are some soul-searching questions here:
a) Are the poor in the cold entitled to enough heat to keep from freezing to death during the winters?
b) If so, are they able to buy it in an unrestricted market?
c) If (a) but not (b), and we subsidize their purchases, where does the money come from, and where does it go? Do we like where it’s coming from? Is it correct that it goes where it goes?
As conservative as I am, I draw the line at artificial markets like electricity and gas and water. Since the companies providing these things have, for very good reasons, government-provided monopolies in their respective service areas, regulated prices seem to be required. And if you aren’t going to regulate prices for an essential commodity held by a monopoly, then you have to pay the monopoly the going rate somehow.
I don’t have a solution, but every time some poor old lady dies because she couldn’t pay her gas bill and the company turned off her service, I lose a little faith in the free marketplace.
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM
The core of liberalism is a deep-seated hatred of self and humanity.
Liberals will save the whales, they will save the eagles, they will save the unhatched eggs of every single species on earth, save one.
When it comes to unborn humans, the liberal will call their destruction a sacred and neccessary right.
BKennedy on January 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM
If had bothered to listen to the video, you would know that the black ministers are right-wing. Or you could have googled Niger Innis and CORE, and found out CORE supported Nixon in 1968.
thuja on January 15, 2009 at 10:23 AM
I actually hold Niger Innis in high regard.
He’s got it right.
Corky on January 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Hopefull, Hannity will have Niger Innis on about this. They’re friends. This is a great story. The Libs will find a way to negate the ministers’ opionions.
kingsjester on January 15, 2009 at 10:25 AM
This is the killer argument. Denying energy production means a lower standard of living, and opportunity, for the poor. As in right now.
Greg Toombs on January 15, 2009 at 10:26 AM
You people make me happy with the Democratic Congress. Your jihad against the environment is about as sensible as what Hamas is doing. You may wish to notice that we actually happen to live on the planet Earth.
thuja on January 15, 2009 at 10:26 AM
So they’re right wing; do you have an opinion on their ideas or pointing out they’re right wing is all you can do.
americanpatriot on January 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM
And I just found out that CORE gave the cannibal Idi Amin a life time membership in the 1970′s. Innis was also head of CORE back then.
thuja on January 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM
You’re right. It was wrong of me to assume that a group of Black preachers was left-wing.
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM
You’re wrong. No one has a jihad against the Earth.
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Welp, glad we have that cleared up. I was almost under the guise that this planet was Coruscant.
Darbraun on January 15, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Redford used to be “pretty” and stupid. Now he’s old, ugly, and stupid
Bevan on January 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I’m laughing just as the thought of airdropping GreenPeace into Coruscant. What would they do about an entire planet comprised of a single massive city?
BKennedy on January 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM
thuja on January 15, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Yep. The
fishsea-kittens really like to hang out around the bases of the oil platforms.kingsjester on January 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I’m sure they petition Palpatine to stop the rape of Mother Coruscant. Then he’d choke-slam them with the Force.
Darbraun on January 15, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Boy, when it comes to Black preachers, It’s always something.
They need to focus on making sure black children pay attention in school and get an education. Otherwise, you wind up with illiterate dunces that can’t compete in the USA.
saiga on January 15, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Obama will sit these “mavericks” down and straighten them out…either get on board, or get cut-out…”black folk” cannot think for themselves, the democrats will tell them what to think.
right2bright on January 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Typical Liberal response… Don’t debate the issues, attack the character of your opponent. The strategy of the intellectually bankrupt.
hburns on January 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Yup, gubmit would continue to block energy production and otherwise boost energy prices (e.g., energy taxes), while subsidizing the energy costs of poor families. This way it exploits the energy crisis to grow its dependency constituency and accelerate the redistribution of wealth. Clever, yes?
petefrt on January 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM
petefrt on January 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM
That is why Barry will have to shut up these ministers as fast as he can. They have shined light into the darkness and revealed the truth. Can’t have that.
kingsjester on January 15, 2009 at 10:51 AM
That is exactly what the liberal elites want. They like being the lord of the manor, with all the serfs dependent on them.
Socialism is just the modern form of feudalism.
rbj on January 15, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I love it. Better late than never, Reverend.
Jaibones on January 15, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Redford needs to partner up with Newman for Butch and Sundance revisited..
Wade on January 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Hey, that’s all that matters, isn’t it? To hell with the poor, and especially those bad, bad, bad oil and gas companies (of which my husband works for).
tru2tx on January 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM
I tell ya, the news is fun today!
First Israel votes overwhelming support in a poll for the Gaza operation, probably because they want to live. Who knew? This quaint idea of self-preservation is, of course, foreign to lefties, and morally repugnant to them.
Then Imadinnerjacket tells Obama he’d better butt out of everywhere, while “global warming” is setting records everywhere freezing our butts off as nature is doing its dead-level best to prove human-caused gw is a hoax.
And this on top of it! These people have the right idea. Celebrities and politicians telling us all to sacrifice for what
reprogressives want makes those of us not wealthy pretty mad.We should capitalize on that.
Alana on January 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM
You should take a look around you. The prices that these monopolies (and I disagree that there are good reasons for most of them to be a monopoly) charge are highly regulated.
Every state that I am aware of has a commission that the monopoly has to go to, before it can raise it’s rates.
As to anyone dying because they can’t afford to pay the heat. That isn’t a failure of the free market. It has nothing to do with the free market. It’s not the job of the free market to provide charity. Charity is your job, and it’s my job.
If there are people in your community who can’t afford the basics of life, get together with some of your fellow citizens and help them. Don’t demand that some company give away it’s product. Charity using someone else’s money is what liberals are known for, not conservatives.
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Yes, which is why the ones this sort of thing really hurts are the working lower middle and middle classes. As always.
Alana on January 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM
What jihad against the environment.
The earth is in great shape and getting better every year.
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Bingo. And even if these families did not directly benefit in the way of jobs in the oil and gas industry, we all benefit as the economy expands and trickles down to other areas. The more people who are gainfully employed the more they spend, and the more retail stores, car dealerships, restaurants, and so on thrive, along with their employees. Another benefit? Increased revenue to the Treasury.
This is the only massive infrastructure program I approve of, and taxpayers need not spend a dime on it.
Buy Danish on January 15, 2009 at 11:27 AM
But loads of diesel motors for ski lifts is just fine.
“Liberal” is a synonym for hypocrite.
drjohn on January 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM
American Awaking
Kini on January 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Robert Redford was a mediocre actor at best who was carried by his looks and Paul Newman.
Why we should care about him now that he’s lost his looks and Paul Newman is not around to carry his sorry ass, I’m not sure.
NoDonkey on January 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM
And what do Liberals want for the poor to do? To depend upon Hugo Chavez for their subsidized oil and gas? To have everything given to them… at a price?
Sorry, but the CORE guys are in the right here.
newton on January 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Hilarious.
You mean Sarah Palin actually had a point? Impossible!
Yet I wonder who Mr. Innis voted for . . .
patriette on January 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM
The ministers are correct on this issue. Lower energy prices benefit everyone. The problem with libs is that no policy is good unless it benefits the zero-liability voter almost entirely.
Conservatives = everyone
Liberals = only some
Which group promoter inclusiveness and which one actually does it?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 15, 2009 at 12:04 PM
A jihad involves killing people. Three fingers certainly point back to you on this one, for every old lady that dies in wintertime because the price of gas is too high.
And, with respect to your vaunted Democratic Congress, I think most of them are on board with developing domestic energy — they don’t like old ladies dying on their watch nearly as much as I don’t like it. Back to Congress, and lawmaking in general: As was once said in a certain cult classic movie, “Get used to disappointment.”, or, better, “Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Oreos.
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
And still they keep voting the liberals in.
ctmom on January 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM
A nice libertarian thought — that people will always be altruistic without prodding. To put it bluntly, how much money do you donate each year to heat the old lady’s house? And if you don’t, how do you expect a bunch of Democrats (who tend to undersupport charity and overpopulate cities) to do so?
If nobody gives money, the old lady’s house doesn’t get heated. So who ought to give the money? In a libertarian world, nobody — since nobody is required to do so.
And, if you are morally required to do so, then does the mechanism for doing so matter?
Just pointing out that this nut is a harder nut to crack than your simplistic solution indicates.
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Oooo……you went there.
HEH!!!!
BigWyo on January 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM
You people make me happy with the Democratic Congress. Your
So you are for nuclear power? How about old ladies freezing to death? And going hungry because grain is being used for fuel? And for the high cost of essentials? I guess that it is nice to be a celebrity and afford the high cost of essentials and be above the fray.
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Charities have traditionally provided that function. Those evil Christians.
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Not a libertarian thought, a conservative thought. Maybe you should spend awhile boning up on the philosophy.
Over the last 10 years, I have averaged about 12% of my pre-tax income to charity. How have you been doing. Or do you limit your charity to complaining how someone else should be doing more?
How on earth can you claim to be a conservative, then in the same breath demand that govt force other people to be charitable, so that you don’t have to.
Let me see if I have this right. You actually believe that it is the proper role of govt to force people to live up to your standards?
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM
I might add that charities have traditionally done a much better job of providing for the poor than govt ever did. Even in the depths of the depression, nobody starved. Not because of govt, but because of good hearted people, looking out for each other. The same good hearted people that liberals typically assume don’t exist.
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Was Niger Innis even alive in 1968?
Jaibones on January 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM
The only difference between a populist and a liberal, is a populist wants govt to control what goes on in the bedroom, as well as what goes on in the boardroom.
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM
What percentage of the huge welfare payments are actually legitimate and what percentage do you think are paid to people that should actually fend for themselves?
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Had to clip this from Wikipedia. Consider the source before quoting with too much confidence; I find Wiki to be a left-biased mess, but here they engage in friendly fire on leftist whackos at MSNBC.
As they say, read the whole thing. I thought his conservative, level-headed reaction was most telling. He graduated from college in 1990, thuja. I don’t think he was a big Nixon supporter.
Jaibones on January 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I am a little confused. Are you talking about “eco-terrorism or green terrorism, that is terrorism committed in support of ecological, environmental, or animal rights causes”.
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Redford’s fate on an Untouchables episode has always appealed to me. Frank Nitti bumped him off, doused his body with wood alcohol, and then dumped the body on the doorstep of Eliot Ness.
Percy_Peabody on January 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM
In Nevada, it is against the law for utility companies to shut off service in the extreme heat of summer or the extreme cold of winter. I don’t know how it is elsewhere.
Also, on every bill, there is a charge which is used to help pay the costs for qualifying consumers who are unable to pay their own bills.
There are also several non-profit organizations which will help, but they depend on donations from the private sector. When people have less money for their own needs, they are less likely to be generous when giving to charity.
Jvette on January 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM
If companies can be forced to provide free heat for those who can’t afford it.
Why not force hospitals to provide free medical care for those who can’t afford it.
And grocery stores forced to provide free food to those who can’t afford it.
And Detroit provide free cars to those who can’t afford it.
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM
The problem with many of the elites is they don’t know what the people on the other side of the tracks go through on a day-to-day basis, just to survive. They think that just because they rub shoulders with them when they are out trying to get their votes that they know what is best for all. Shame, Shame, Shame!!!
If the Republicans want back in power it would be a good idea to cultivate and grow ideas how the masses can rise up from poverty by using intelligence and rugged individualism, and, that it is open for everyone that is willing to grow into a new life, just like we have done in the past.
DL13 on January 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Dumbass comment of the day. This type of nonsense is part of the reason I hold the ecofreaks in complete contempt.
We need nuclear power, more clean coal plants and more drilling. The ecofreaks are attempting to destroy this country (note they leave China and Middle East drilling out of their grievance litany) for sheer vanity. Industry and its byproducts offend them. Their neighborhood must be clean, except for their swimming pools, mansions, private planes, etc. When the “good life” trickes down to us hoi-polloi it becomes evil and cruel.
Screw them. If Redford surrendered his wealth and moved into a studio apt in Chicago he could preach, but he lives a wealthy life. He just wants the rest of us to suffer
clnurnberg on January 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I hope this is getting out into the general public at large. Who knows about this besides us at Hot Air?
cjs1943 on January 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I would expect that quite a bit is paid to “welfare queens” (people who are providing for themselves, but sip from the government till as well), as well as to people who intentionally have chosen not to provide for themselves. But isn’t that part of the “hard nut to crack”?
It’s a problem for charities as well — I’m also sure that a lot of money given out by charities helping the needy goes to people who aren’t or have volition not to be. At my church, we bag food (provided by both the government and by local supermarkets) for 300 people per week. Those people are referred by all manner of agencies, government and private. They show up with their food voucher, and we give them a bag, and some of them show up driving Mercedes Benzes. It doesn’t get more blatant than that.
If I google “heating bill assistance”, charities aren’t even in the top 100. Government seems to occupy all the top niches.
Of course, there is another solution. The old lady can shovel out her driveway, get into her car, and drive to California, right?
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Like clockwork White douchebags pretending to be Black (thuja and others) come to attack Black preachers who don’t toe the White Liberal party line. Niger Innis is picking up where his father, Roy Innis, left off in challenging the hateful White Liberals who want Blacks to be a slave class completely dependent on their non-existent largess.
The Black community needs jobs and to be part of a free market system. Blacks that shake off the White Liberals shackles succeed and the ones who believe the earth is warming up and they can rely on Hugo Chavez for heat do not.
Core worked hard to help the Indians and other minorities in Amin’s time who were being attacked by Amin and his cronies and had no more contact with him than Nixon did. The left supported the Communist Amin until he was exposed as a cannibal, and they still support his policies of racial hatred based land seizures (like in South Africa and Zimbabwe) and few of the liberals bashing these men of the cloth speak out against the poverty spreading programs in Africa, or here, that people like you Thuja, support mainly out of pretension, misanthropy and a secret desire to see blacks suffer.
The Innis’ are great people and deserve a little respect even if you disagree with them.
Rob Taylor on January 15, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Why should private charities spend money on a need that govt has already handled? Do you want them to be paid twice? Get govt out of the way, and the private sector will step up.
Most private charities never makes it onto the “official” lists anyway, since it is person to person.
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Just pointing out that this nut is a harder nut to crack than your simplistic solution indicates.
unclesmrgol
I think that Mark’s point was simple and correct. You have intentionally tried to make it more complicated so as to solidify your contention. Only the mechanics can be complicated. The philosophy is foundational to Judeo-Christian teaching,…or is that what irks you?
SKYFOX on January 15, 2009 at 1:11 PM
We could all start our SUV’s and warm the planet.
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 1:11 PM
.
The Salvation Army for one. My sister (a “free spirit” who could and should work at a steady job but won’t — she’s a pet sitter) couldn’t pay her electrical bill, and PG&E was going to shut her off. She was referred to the SA, and all they wanted from her was a certification as to how much rent she was paying as well as a signed document where she attested to not being able to pay the bill, and they would pay it one time. Since I own the house she lives in, and she doesn’t pay rent, I had the choice of either giving the paper and having the SA pay her $500 bill, or stepping up to the plate myself. I figured there are more worthy people in the world for the SA to help than my deadbeat sister, so I paid her bill myself. Charity begins at home. Obviously, the $500 came out of discretionary budget, which are where our charity donations come from as well, so some other charity didn’t get our donation that month. Now that I think of it, I should have had the SA pay her bill and then donated to the SA — that way I would have at least gotten the tax deduction. Oh well — live and learn.
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I don’t have an SUV. Where can I get one for free?
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(catching breath)
Ok.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
madmonkphotog on January 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Here in Texas we are already doing that; of course it is done so that lettuce will not be twenty five dollars a head.
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Is that not what the bailout is for?
Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Long as it’s not Arizona… we have enough snowbirds here as it is. I keep wondering, “if it’s snowbird season, what’s the limit and where do I get a permit?”
psrch on January 15, 2009 at 1:19 PM
MarkTheGreat, I love your posts. Tis a smart one you are.
DrMagnolias on January 15, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Uh-Oh, the liberals are eating each other.
Pass the popcorn.
HornetSting on January 15, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Pu-leeese! We all know we live on this planet and must be good stewards, but if you had studied Maslow’s heirarchy of needs you would know that survival needs always come first and other needs such as protecting the environment are secondary, e.g., what will it matter to someone what the environment will be like 100 years from now when they froze to death this winter because they couldn’t afford to heat their home!
It’s like those greenies that argue against building new refineries, “oh no, we can’t build more refineries that’s more pollution!” Yet they don’t look at the bigger picture, since there hasn’t been a new refinery built in 30 years a new refinery would be built with the latest environmental control technologies, it would be much more energy efficient, more efficient in converting the oil to gas, it would be less polluting, it would employ people, and it will enable us the capacity we will need to refine the untapped oil reserves we have, which in turn will help us transition to alternative sources of energy and stop the transfer of money to countries that hate us and use those oil funds to plot against us and hold us hostage!
Thuja’s logic is typical of the lefty enviro-hippies, the ones that protest anything they think will harm the environment and when the protest is over they drive away in their 60′s era VW van that gets worse gas mileage than a big azz SUV and spews more carbon monoxide in 1 mile than a newer SUV would spew in 50 miles!
Liberty or Death on January 15, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Amazing to me how elitists can indirectly call for the death of poor people for aesthetic reasons.
In America & the rest of the world the poor are at risk when basic necessities are forced to a premium by govt intervention. This means poor people have less $$ to invest in healthier lifestyles, i.e. going to the Dr more, buying healthier foods, being able to afford a safer mode of transportation, being able to live in a safer community (which can be more expensive) etc. Not being able to pay for a healthier lifestyle ultimately ends up reducing the mortality of poor people.
This is something rich & well-off people never think about bcs they can afford to hear their 10,000 sqr foot home, eat fresh meats & vegetables instead of cheaper processed foods, travel in safer vehicles (those that can survive a crash, not break down, etc).
The list goes on.
Robert Redford is a putz, like the rest of his ilk.
Paraphrasing a horse clinician who worked on the movie Horse Whisperer w/ Redford when asked the question:What did you think of Robert Redford?
the horse clinician: “He’s rich”
Enough said.
BTW-try & ask the people in Idaho where Redford bought all that property what it did to their ability to make a living ranching.
Badger40 on January 15, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Heh, as we say here in Arizona, “so many snow birds and so little freezer space” or “Arizona, God’s waiting room.”
Liberty or Death on January 15, 2009 at 2:18 PM
A consultant for CORE has been writing articles for the opinion section of the Washington Times on this subject and the global warming scam a few times a year for a couple of years. The articles ar always well informed and interesting.
burt on January 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM
They can’t get over how Redford’s character got Luther killed in the Sting.
That’s what happens to kindly minority sidekicks, guys.
Hollywood always offs them so the white boy hero can spend the rest of the movie kicking ass to avenge their deaths.
Course just like the Sting, by the end of the movie, everyone’s completely forgotten about the minority sidekick.
Sort of like being a Star Trek crewman. You’re forgotten faster than the morning twinkie.
NoDonkey on January 15, 2009 at 3:10 PM
…because no Black folks would live in Utah, right?
Well, 1% of a popluation of a 2.5 million isn’t exactly a huge number…
I R A Darth Aggie on January 15, 2009 at 3:11 PM
And, of course, there we have it in a nutshell.
MB4 on January 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Where were these guys before the election when the liberals were mocking “drill baby, drill” ?
fitzsweetpea on January 15, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »