How does New York Times columnist and member in good standing of the Church of Global Warming Thomas Friedman live his message of global warming alarmism?
I can’t say, exactly, but it apparently requires a humongous house with a huge pool spread out on lots of cleared land. And his buildings all have slate-grey roofs!
I really don’t care if Friedman has a house so big that, if you turned on all the lights, half the Eastern seaboard would go dim. I do care that he wants the rest of us to live by rules he’s more than happy to lay on us but isn’t willing to live under himself. His hypocrisy is nothing more than garden variety smiley-face fascism and, like the progressive who came before him, he’s trying to twist the language to suit his purposes. Here’s what he had to say about what he wants to do from an interview a couple of months ago:
One of the problems with the term “green” is that the definition was imposed by its opponents, by the Rush Limbaugh crowd. They named green [as] liberal, tree-hugging, sissy, girlie-man, unpatriotic, vaguely European. What I’ve been trying to do in this book is to rename green as geopolitical, geostrategic, geo-economic, capitalistic, patriotic.
I guess patriotism ends where Friedman’s driveway begins.