Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."



  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?





  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Maureen Dowd Leaving New York Times for HuffPo? [UPDATED] | Main | More "Well, Duh" Profundity »

Comments

Tom Strong

I've long felt that the hidden core of the environmentalist movement is morality. It's not about touchy-feely New Ageyness (though it can certainly masquerade as such!), but about moving through this world in a conscious and humble manner.

amba

I suspect that much conservative disdain for environmentalism comes from the Christian distaste for fallen nature. On the other hand, much liberal disdain for sexual restraint comes from Rousseau, who romanticized nature. You can see the human brain or soul as a battlefield between the natural and the spiritual, or you can see human life as nature plus the spiritual -- fulfilled, improved, guided. Pruned.

planck's constant

I think the audio apology I use whenever anyone finds my blog offensive is an appropriate ending for your post that you seek:

If you are offended by my blog

realpc

I agree that nature is easily thrown off balance and that our species is probably damaging it beyond repair. On the other hand, global warming can't simply be blamed on the conservatives, since we have been creating greenhouse gases for thousands of years. Of course, things got a lot worse since the industrial revolution -- but you can't blame that on conservatives either. Our friend Progress is the real enemy.

Conservatives who deny the dangers of destroying the environment are being idiots. On the other hand, it's very hard to sort out the data and determine how much of the climate change would have occurred if we weren't even here. Keep in mind that most scientists are Democrats with no great love for business. Naturally they are going to interpret ambiguous data through an ideological distorting lens.

Even if we decide human activities are causing global warming, what then? Even the staunchest anti-business liberals probably won't give up driving. Simply being a participant in our economy means being a contributor to the destruction of the environment. Cutting back a little won't solve the problem.

And even if Americans cut back drastically (and they won't -- not even extreme environmentalists are ready to give up our easy lifestyle and plentiful entertainment), what about the vast hordes of the developing world? Are they going to give up these luxuries before they even get them?

I don't think environmentalists can imagine what it's like to live in harmony with nature. And most of us would have to die first, because the planet can't support us all as hunter-gatherers.

I am not trying to spread hopelessness. I just mean that the environmentalists are just as smug and out of touch with reality as the global warming deniers.

karen

I think there definitely neeeds to be a balance between *don't touch/off limits* and*slash and burn/it'm mine&you can't tell me what to do* philosophies.

Forests. Harvesting sustainably-not commercially, would cut out deadwood, prevent disease and destruction of pests and probably prevent forest fires. Saying it should be left to nature and not aknowledging the nature of fire is idiotic. Who should get to take care of these forests? Not necessarily big business that doesn't treat the forests w/respect, but not either, the team of horses and hacksaws of the past. Just an opinion.

Another idea is that of the Hollywood Liberals (take dirty or clean, as you wish)how they speak green, but waste huge amts of resources on filming and sets created, only to be left or destroyed; not recycled. A friend works for these movie sets and told me of this waste. And the amt of $$$ spent on dresses and parties, not to mention food, could feed a small country.

I'm sure the concrete,glass and tar that's covering this Earth's surface, to reflect heat back into the atmosphere and not allow it to be naturally absorbed has quite a bit to do w/warming- or maybe the depletion of aquifers and rivers due to overuse of a finite resource should be considered. Or, how about the destruction of the rain forest- the lungs of the Earth?

I agree w/all of these things as possible aggregants to our warming problems, but for the Left to scream it's W's fault is very childish.

The article's name was ~Climate of Fear~ by Richard Lindzen and i found it in WSJ.com- Opinion Journal.

I'm a Conservative Catholic that was told ten years ago i needed to learn to think outside the *box* and learn new paradigms. We are organic dairy farmers, shipping our milk to CROPP- our milk goes to Stoneyfield yogurt. The person who gave me the thoughtful advice still sits safely w/in his box and touts the Progressive policies of greatness. So much for an open mind- LOL. No, Spud- it wasn't you, in case you read this :0).

amba

realpc: you're right, BUT.

Even liberals are not going to give up the comforts and conveniences of a modern lifestyle. However, there's quite a lot that technological innovation can do to make that lifestyle less impactful. The oil industry has a death grip on our economy and ecology that it is not eager to give up, because alternative energy sources are not as centralized or profit-intensive.

Read my recent post on Iran and the article it's based on. See how exultantly aware the Islamists are of having their hand on the carotid artery of the West's lifeblood. We will be forced to innovate in order not to be at the mercy of our enemies.

amba

Planck's Constant: jeez, it sounds like the guy's being tortured!

But if I could just find one like that with a loud, long burp, I'd go for it. Hmm, lemme try Google . . . (Wait, there's my brother . . . )

realpc

amba,

We are addicted to oil, as the president recently said. Maybe the oil companies prevented us from developing alternative energy when there was still time. I don't know. Or maybe no one ever came up with a good enough alternative.

I read Kunstler's Long Emergency, and he doesn't think there is anything that can replace oil, and that our civilization practically owes its existence to cheap and plentiful oil. It's just his opinion, but he does seem pretty rational.

Environmentalist/progressive types like to blame evil Big Business -- they prevented the development of alternative energy and cared more about increasing their own profits than saving the world from disaster. This gives the progressives a reason to be hopeful -- the alternative technologies can save us if only we can get Big Oil out of the way.

But what if the oil companies are not entirely to blame? What if, as Kunstler believes, it's just a giant dilemma? Maybe nothing but petroleum can support these enormous populations with their extravagant lifestyles.

Kunstler may turn out to be wrong, but it's worth reading and considering. It's also important to keep in mind the desperate blind faith progressives have in technology. They could very possibly be kidding themselves.

reader_iam

Keep in mind that most scientists are Democrats with no great love for business.

Evidence for this, please?

This is a premise I just can't accept otherwise.

Also--actually, first--define "scientist." What disciplines/professions are included and excluded, and why? Don't forget the various flavors of engineers, for example ... and the maths ... and the hybrids.

realpc, I'm sorry to call you out, because I not only enjoy but look forward to your comments anywhere and on whatever subject. However, I cannot accept this just on its face.

realpc

reader_jam,

Most scientists have academic (non-business) positions, and the majority of academics are Democrats. There could be many reasons. Academics have chosen not to work in commercial business, maybe because they have no great love for it. The Republican party tends to be pro-business, so maybe that's one reason academics tend to be Democrats.

It's a well-known fact that academics are much more likely to be liberal than conservative -- there are many possible explanations for this. And, as I said, most scientific researchers work for universities.

Engineers would not count in this category, since they often work for private business. I don't know what percentage of engineers are liberal or Democrats.

The result would be that climate researchers, in analyzing complex and ambiguous data, might not interpret it objectively.

amba

Real,

More and more scientists are plunging into business with abandon, either being wooed away from academia by pharmaceutical companies and the like, or staying in academe but filing for lucrative patents on their work. Your characterization of scientists as anti-business is a decade, if not a century, out of date.

realpc

"Your characterization of scientists as anti-business is a decade, if not a century, out of date."

Well it's true that academics are mostly liberal, and it's true that most or many scientists are academics. I don't know if being anti-business is still a factor in the liberalism of scientists. Maybe scientists who work in business are less likely to be "liberal."
I don't really mean liberal, but can't figure out which word to use. People who compete in the commercial world tend towards libertarianism, which used to be the same thing as liberalism. But liberals have joined forces with socialists. Anyway, you know what I mean. Business people and socialists are usually at odds to some degree.

Scientists are much more likely to be Democrat than Republican, and much less likely to be religious. There are probably many reasons.

amba

I read one study that showed that 40 percent of scientists believe in God.

realpc

As opposed to about 90% of non-scientists. Is it because scientists know something the rest of us don't? Or because we know something they have been taught to ignore?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004