Just recently an article listed on the Drudge Report caught my eye. Here are some excerpts from the article:

A major airline is under fire from environmentalists for flying an aircraft across the Atlantic with only five passengers on board.

The flight from Chicago to London meant that the plane, a Boeing 777, used 22,000 gallons of fuel.

It led to American Airlines being accused of reckless behaviour by green lobby groups.

The latest “eco-scandal” flight took place on February 9 after American was forced to cancel one of its four daily services from Chicago to London.

While it was able to find places for nearly all the passengers on the fully-booked flight, five still had to be accommodated. Those who did fly were upgraded to the business class cabin.

But while they enjoyed lavish hospitality, the airline was accused of an “obscene waste of fuel” by Friends of the Earth.

Ooo! It’s an “eco-scandal,” so be afraid! *cue ominous music* OK, so I’m not all that eco-impressed by their eco-moaning, and I believe there is only one proper response to them: “Shove off, ya wankers!” Anything more than that grants them more of a sense of dignity and moral authority than they deserve or have earned.

The article goes on to whine about the amount of CO2 that each passenger is now guilty of adding to the atmosphere, but even if the airline could have placed all five people onto other flights, that plane was still needed for a return flight from London. Would the eco-dorks have been happier if American Airlines had flown the plane over completely empty? I don’t think so.

The article ends with this lovely vision into their eco-minds as the news really bunches up their collective unbleached hemp undies:

Richard Dyer, Friends of the Earth’s transport campaigner said: “Flying virtually empty planes is an obscene waste of fuel. Through no fault of their own, each passenger’s carbon footprint for this flight is about 45 times what it would have been if the plane had been full.

“Governments must stop granting the aviation industry the unfair privileges that allow this to happen by taxing aviation fuel and including emissions from aviation in international agreements to tackle climate change.”

Governments “must”? No, governments have no reason why they “must” bow to eco-crackpot theories. I do not accept their eco-blather about carbon footprints and climate change. What I do accept is just how much these eco-whiners hate the idea of technology benefitting others. I’m convinced they would not have complained if they were among the five people enjoying a free upgrade to business class on a trans-oceanic flight.

Eco-goobers.

There is a building cult of personality surrounding Senator Obama. Currently making the rounds of the Internet is a slickly-produced plea for Obama to ride in and save us all. (hat tip American Digest)

Yes, all that they want will be theirs when Obama becomes President, merely because he will be President. Curiously, the “we are the ones” theme carried echoes of something I’d seen before. Maybe you have seen it, too. Yes, we can do it! We can succeed! We are the ones we’ve been waiting for! Tomorrow belongs to me!

Any way I try to see it, there will be a bunch of angry and disappointed Democrats in the near future. On the one hand, there is Senator Clinton, and on the other hand there is Senator Obama. And since liberals view everything through the prism of group identity instead of individuals, that means the fight for the Democrat presidential nomination is between someone who is a woman, and someone who is black.

Of course there is far more to these candidates than their sex and race, but to liberals who have made sex and race identity so important, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have become visible embodiments of sex and race. And this can be a problem for liberals when group identities collide. Are liberals meant to vote for Clinton because she could be the first woman President, even though she is white; or should they vote for Obama to become the first black President, even though he is male?

You can see this conflict in the way liberal groups are handling the sex/race conflict of Clinton and Obama. When Oprah Winfrey announced that she was supporting Obama, she was labeled a traitor for choosing race over sex. But that’s assuming Obama’s race was more important to Oprah than Clinton’s sex. Could she have chosen to support him for other reasons? That’s not an option if you view everything through the lens of race or sex. Fortunately, not everyone will “vote their race” or “vote their gender,” as some CNN readers have stated.

I’ll say it again — if you vote for Obama primarily because he is black, you are racist. If you vote for Clinton primarily because she is a woman, you are sexist. And if you vote for McCain because he’s a white male, you’re… unusual. (Conservatives tend to focus on issues over identity politics, so I don’t see this as being as much of a concern for conservatives as it is for liberals, but let’s cover all the bases for the sake of equity.)

The race between Clinton and Obama is close, but as I write this, Obama has slightly more delegates than Clinton and appears to have the momentum. But since Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island all have primaries today, the race isn’t over for the two contenders.

Since there can only be one winner in this race (and no, I don’t believe that either candidate would deign to become the other’s VP), half of the Democrat voters in the primaries will be pissed off at the result. Those who view sex as being the most important will be disappointed and angry if yet another man is nominated. Those who view race as being the most important will be disappointed and angry if yet another white is nominated.

Regardless of who gets the nomination, I see a time of anger and resentment for Democrats when the primaries are over. I just don’t see their anger preventing them from finally rallying behind the Democrat nominee when it comes to the national vote in November. On the other hand, I see many conservatives who are still angry about Senator McCain becoming the Republican nominee, and I don’t believe they will rally in numbers to vote for the party’s choice this year. And that means we will likely have a Democrat President come 2009.