If you thought his idea that animals and pets should have legal standing to take you to court, and have a right to appointed human counsel...that's actually not the weirdest thing he's come up with.
Apparently, this wise thinker, at least at one time, thought TREES ought to have equal rights too. By which I don't mean he made some weird reference to it in some long forgotten speech, or conversation...I mean he thought it through enough to publish the idea in a book.
Holdren, who is the new director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and President Obama’s top science advisor, made the comments in the 1977 book “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.”I know you think I'm making this up. Because, well, it's impossible that the Science Czar at the White House, in the halls of power, should be this off-planet, right.
You'd be wrong. Check it out.
The Gunslinger
The bottom line,the motive behind these "insanities",is to employ attorneys as fully as possible,and to increase the power of State-sanctioned jackals in our lives,NOT to serve the concept of Justice and the Law.Period.That's the basis for "class action lawsuits",as well."I speak for the trees,I speak for the dis-enfranchised creatures we label 'pets'..."...Reminds me of John Carradine's bullshit speechifyin' near the end of the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"."State-sanctioned Jackals" is a loverly phrase...
ReplyDeleteYou're a nut. The facts show that Holdren does NOT support these ideas, but I guess you're counting on no one actually reading his writings. Probably a safe bet. You probably still don't believe in evolution, or climate change, or a round earth.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I don't know even know HOW to read.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right, I don't believe in evolution in all cases. You, for example.
As for "climate change", what exactly does that mean? Do you mean man-made higher temperatures? If you do, SAY SO. If you mean amorphous "change" like your hero, I'd say you haven't yet learned to think beyond broad, meaningless generalities, which indicates a weak or lazy mind. I'll let you decide which. If it's not too complicated a concept.
Clicked on "John Q",went to science site...2nd time recently.These blog-d#ckers don't have the courage to leave a trace,just insults instead of making any point.Must be kin to "Yes We Did"...Like their idol BHO,as you say,"broad,meaningless generalities".They have nothing else to say,Gunny.
ReplyDelete