Global Warming Hysteria Bankruptcy

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Global warming fearmonger and self-proclaimed "artist", Jimmy Wright of Vancouver Island, Canada, has, in the form of a crucified Santa Claus on his front lawn, essentialized the environmentalist movement.

A Vancouver Island artist has put an effigy of a crucified Santa Claus on his front lawn, causing some neighbours to complain it's traumatizing their children.

Jimmy Wright said the figure is intended to be a comment on society's growing appetite for consumer goods.

"I don't know how it came into my mind but I thought I'm going to take Santa Claus and I'm going to crucify him."

Wright said his latest work is not for sale.

"I think it's an evil way," one woman said. "Kids see things like that and children -- they see that on the front page -- I think that's terrible."

Others are also wondering what motivates someone to crucify Santa.

"All I wanted to do was to promote a dialogue," Wright said.

"Global warming is consumption-driven so there's the argument. We have to come to terms with our hang-up on consumption. We're in a consumptive orgy, I feel."

Critics are concerned the effigy will spoil the magic of Christmas for children.

"If that magic is Santa and if that magic is 'oh boy lots of stuff,' well then that kid needs the message right away and so does the parent," Wright said. [bold added]
To deliberately set out traumatizing children in an effort to start a "dialogue" is as close to actually going into a courthouse and filing for intellectual bankruptcy as one can possibly get.

What the hell kind of dialogue is leaving psychological scars in children supposed to promote? Oh. That's right. Children are neither intellectually developed enough nor knowledgeable enough to discuss a topic as complicated as global warming or whether anything should be done about it (i.e., the proper role of government). This leaves the parents of these children as those with whom this sickening person would hope to initiate a "dialogue".

Leaving aside the question of whether one should engage in conversation someone who has just deliberately attacked the innocence of one's own child, how would one hold an actual dialogue with Wright when he has offered nothing but assertions, including that his heart is in the right place: "I feel." It is impossible to have an intellectual debate with someone who appeals to arbitrary emotions (and recklessly acts on same), rather than facts and logic. But then it should be clear that an attack on children is probably designed to remove reason and self-control from the equation, to be replaced by panic and ill-considered responses to a "crisis".

Jimmy Wright is not attempting to start a dialogue. He is engaging in psychological warfare, and targeting children at that. But then he is merely the most shocking example of what is going on daily in public schools across the industrialized West.

In related news, the government has just made available a 64-page "Skeptic's Guide to Global Warming" which features, among other things: speeches by Senator James Inhofe, commentary on media "reporting" on global warming, and articles from major media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily.

-- CAV


Adrian Hester said...

Yo, Gus, you quote said artsy-fartsyist, "I don't know how it came into my mind but I thought I'm going to take Santa Claus and I'm going to crucify him." There are many things about that to make one steam, but there are a few sad things too. One, he's not even original; he's ripping off Robert Cenedella. Two, the same story is told of a Japanese department store that was unclear on the concept of Western Christmas. That one seems to be untrue, but some of the other Christmas customs the Japanese have devised are great fun--in Japan it's a thoroughly secular, commercial holiday. (See the second link above.)

Gus Van Horn said...

Interesting, but somehow, not too surprising that this guy is that thoroughly second-handed.

D.J.R. said...

It's so strange to see the idea that seems to be taken "most seriously" (global warming) always assumes it's the minority and no one takes it seriously. Critical Thinking never seems to have anything to do with examining premises anymore.

In my experience at school the only thing my biology teachers (yes all of them, through my entire school career) would ever talk about is enviromentalism and how we're polluting and destroying the world and what I think about it. Needless to say I was a little kid, I had no idea what to think about it I had no idea what premises were or how arguments or concepts are constructed so I think the best I could do on the critical thinking exercises was " warming bad? Bad human popluation!" which would get an A. Virtually everyone I see in college thinks i'm a nutbag for even questioning global warming.

I don't nurture any special hatred for this man, at least his display had the shock value necessary for people to ask "is this right?" when in school they're doing the exact same thing without the shock value. Ohh and on the "as close to actually going into a courthouse and filing for intellectual bankruptcy as one can possibly get." am I the only one who said "ZING!" in my head?

Gus Van Horn said...

Thank you for the compliments.

Your point about the shock value of this inane display presenting an opportunity to show what's wrong with global warming hysteria is a good one. The fact that the woman who was quoted as calling what the "artist" did "evil" was only complaining about the means, and not the ends demonstrates that it will be up to -- ahem -- the more philosopically astute to take advantage of it.