Bored of essays already....

One of the funniest articles I've read recently was today in a link from the Drudge Report.
It's entitled "Global Warming: Moving Towards Metrosexuals" (click here to read it).

Basically the author feels outraged that methane produced by cattle is being targetted by Global Warming activists. He feels this is part of the "liberal" attack on all things masculine as this would mean we now want to criminalize eating charcoal-grilled Steak. Here's an excerpt or two:

"So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills. It can't be much longer before cowboy movies, cigars and hockey are held to be enemies of the earth as well."

"This has got to be the most blatant assault on guyhood since ABC moved Coach to the same night as Roseanne, and turned Hayden Fox into Phil Donahue. It's a wonder that liberals don't cut to the chase, by simply claiming that global warming is caused by testosterone. Then, they could make public school nurses siphon the offending fluid from the boys during health class."

He may have a point.... I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory. But besides from being well written polemic, it does raise some interesting points about this guys view of "guyhood". What's sadder and probably more an affront to masculinity (rather than global warming activists) is the fact that the manhood this guy is holding on to has been completely emasculated. His paradigm of masculinity has no substance, no balls.

Basically manhood in our day and age boils down to believing what the ads tell you to. Men have yet to recover from years of feminist ideological domination and so hold strongly on to whatever images they can. This means the XL-Whopper at Burger King, or bigger fuel-guzzling engines (with "Like a rock" playing in the background), pure aggression from the 6-nations or March Madness (although even basketball is a bit iffy cause women do that too...right?) American Football...that's a man's sport. I love that the author described other affronts on masculinity in terms of moving TV programmes around. Isn't the fact that most Western men spend their evenings sitting in front of the TV more the affront to manhood? Testosterone can't do much when we're sitting on our asses.

Basically, we've lost the battle already. We've got no concept of any sort of healthy manhood, so we play into two feminist imposed expectations and roles: 1) man as uni-dimensional brute aggressor, or 2) man as metro-sexual image conscious wanna-be sex-icon (when in history were so many guys so concerned about having rock-hard abs?)... i guess there should be a third category often seen in media and real life....3) man as completely apathetic self-absorbed couch-potato/internet junkie....(i've got a lot of this in me).

Something to think about....not saying that the feminists (do you like my stereotyping...and I do mean "ALL" feminists) were wrong, they've done well. And most were probably ignorant at the effect they were having at emasculating society. But since us men put up no fight of our own, maybe it's our own fault.

Climate Change.....are critics sane?

So probably like most people, I'm one of those who tries to do my bit for the environment, but probably could make a lot more of an effort. I try to recycle, not take too many uneccesary car journeys (easy when you don't own a car) and the like. I definitely believe that human activity overall impacts the environment more for bad than good, and that we really should be doing more to reduce our carbon emissions and live in more of a harmony with what's left of nature.

(A quick side-note, I remember once when Janet, a Dr. with Servants Cambodia, took me out on a trip to the countryside where she helps do a TB clinic. When we got there, I felt as if I was in paradise, and wondered to myself if this was the first time I had ever breathed "pure" air. It was so untouched by pollution).

So anyway, I was reading on Drudge Report which I use as my source for a right-wing perspective in news (I like to get a wide spectrum of news sources to try and then formulate my own opinion), and found this article written in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. Written by Richard Lindzen, a professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, the article discusses the politics of climatology and what he sees as the silencing of anyone who dissents on the topic. It is interesting reading, and I don't know enough about the author, or the context in which he is writing to really know what to think of it, but it does make me think. Basically what he says is that the jury is still truly out on how and even if man's activities on earth are causing a global rise in average temperature.

This is basically his main point: "Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred."

Anyway, I find it interesting. I'm the type of person that likes for dissension to be free. The second we start silencing opposing voices we threaten scientific progress and the accountability that comes with having people research debated and questioned. We wouldn't stand for a government without having an opposition, we also shouldn't be content to have a scientific community where dissension, no matter how small the voices, are squashed out of political and monetary concerns (on both sides).

Have a read of the article for yourself here....it's only about a page long. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

I think that whatever happens to be the cause of rising global temperatures, we still have good reason to quench our carbon emissions, and burn less fossil fuels which cause mass polution and bad air quality. Humans are here as caretakers of the environment, nature was not made FOR us, but rather for our maker, therefore we must stop acting like we were the only things made, and stop treating the rest of the world as there for our exploitation.