In answer to the question: “Why do we bother?” the answer is supposedly that there are still some neutral people who are not taken in by the narrative, who can still think for themselves.
Trouble is – it takes so long for truth to come out that often it’s not until after great damage has been done, by which time the pushers have moved onto new things which need opposing.
That truly is an astounding statement, given the plethora of material on wind farms and how uneconomic and how ungreen they are. Seems to me that whoever made that statement does not read blogs which quote stats and other data, e.g. WUWT or else that person simply does not want to know or has an agenda or is just plain ignorant and has a habit of it.
It’s these wishful false dreams again, isn’t it? This next one though is not a dream, it’s getting the wrong end of the stick and then institutionalizing it:
Oh gosh, who’dathunkit? Just what does it take with these people? If you sit back and look at different scientists coming to radically different conclusions, diametrically opposed conclusions, then it’s obvious that someone has not taken all factors into account. Perhaps it’s a “could never really know” situation, based on the complexity of the earth.
So why the erroneous data? Rush to judgment on simplistic models? Left latches onto what looks a worthy cause and takes the stats, any stats, in order to put the hugely damaging scam in place which Gore and Co began and Kyoto exacerbated?
Going back to those pushing shoddy science and other narrative, it’s not that they can’t think clearly, it’s that people who can’t think clearly get into positions of power. Yesterday, I ran a post on Jodi Farhat, Janet Napolitano etc., very bovine people who simply do not operate in a normal way.
I keep coming back to Farhat because, by ignoring her line managers of the corps of engineers, insisting she was boss, she was introducing a foreign element into the equation which shouldn’t have been in there. She introduced an ideological bottleneck – her gender. Result was the flooding of the Missouri Basin.
Which then comes back to the issue of parachutism and why so many are women of a most specific type, described in detail – the answer again is simple enough – ideology, PCism, quotas. When people’s lives and livelihoods in a valley are up to the Chief Kahuna, then one hopes the Chief Kahuna is taking all the advice she can if she’s inexperienced and has been parachuted in. One hopes all her experienced engineers and meteorological people would be in on the decisions.
But such slow-thinkers as Farhat, so full of her “woman made good”, “look at me, I’m the boss” mentality is the last person you want up there. And yes, I’ve pointed to the type over and over – Rebekah Brooks is a perfect example – as a 2IC, she did a good job in terms of efficiency but pushed into the top job – well, you saw what happened.
This blog has been consistently down on parachutees who are there for ideological reasons and who have barriers to effective management which they themselves create, partly due to enlarged gender-based foibles. Men have them too but they don’t make a religion out of them which is then taken up by govt and turned into social policy with coercion and discrimination.
Most readers can make the distinction, can see that this is not speaking of most women but of this twisted bloating of a naturally held desire to be taken seriously, to be respected as an equal. It’s this conflating of two separate things which is the cleverness of the ideology and the ease with which opponents of it can be labelled with a buzzword is quite wicked really.
It’s the deliberate misunderstanding of what is really being objected to which is why we’re in this situation. Yesterday, I received another bile-filled diatribe, a shorter one this time and it was one of those male supporters of feminism who are just shortsighted, mixed in with what they see as chivalry – a natural instinct in males but in this sense, it is twisted into a “support women of the worst type, no matter what they say or do” and then comparing women of a normal type to them and assuming all are lumped in together and misogynistically opposed – this shows an unread, woolly-headed thinking which is very difficult to tackle.
What this blog is actually objecting to did not matter in this case – the fact that most parachutees today, in line with social policy of govt, are of a particular gender which, by definition, cannot be criticized on any counts and that left-liberal males cannot see past the ideology going on here only confuses the issue more, allowing anyone criticizing to be zeroed-in on on a personal basis, not based on what is actually said.
And as Cameron has shown, official party designations do not, by any stretch of the imagination, preclude this woolly thinking permeating any party. We’ve been over and over it, ad nauseam. Which comes back to the question of this post – what does it take and why bother?
The answer is partly in the changed stance on climate change – it’s not a bad example to use. If we go on for long enough, just presenting the facts, eventually, people are forced to confront the actual facts, usually when the MSM starts to change its tune and they do that both for changed ideological reasons and because the other view is so at odds with most people’s views now that they can’t sustain the fiction any more.
By which time so much damage has been done. Fortunately, with Syria, it happened in the nick of time. With feminism, quotas and parachutism, it’s mixed in with the parachutees’ livelihoods which they’ll protect by all means possible – that and the feelings it plays on – which is why it is taking so, so long for this aberration to die a natural death.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, all about power. You had it, I want it, I’ll use any means to get it and if govt gets behind me to steal from someone and give to me, all the better – this is what it’s really about.
Therefore it’s not going to end any time soon and when it does, it’s not going to be pretty.
But the short-sighted can’t see this.