To the Editor:
Does anyone suppose that if the jury were still out re the global warming scare (which, please bear in mind, includes every apocalyptic asseveration, every fizzled prophecy, and every bohemian proposal of every geothermal doomster), you’d hear about it from Ms. Sterbentz and her chosen authorities? I’m open to correction, but isn’t this precisely when you’d expect to hear, louder than ever, what you’ve always heard from those quarters — that the “debate” is over and was not decided in your favor? Ladies and gentlemen, when were you ever made privy to all sides of the “debate” in question, and through what impartial instrument of the mass media? Confined to those, by what means could you hope to know, first-hand, when or if it was called to a halt, by whom, and from what discernible motive?
As fond as Ms. S. is of exposing the rotten fruit of lessons missed by geese and men, maybe she’ll still find time to reschedule herself for this fine old analect of Confucius that I just made up:
He who not let self know mettle of foe is huge asset to foe, huge ass to friend; might as well switch side.
On our way back from the pagodas of Old Cathay, we might as well intercept a surprise gift from the horse’s own mouth. We duly note that in Ms. Sterbentz’s perfect world, the price of gasoline would be fixed so high by federal edict that nobody could afford to offend her nose with it, and the price of bananas so low that no sanely “greedy” grocer would evert bother to stock them again.
Any of you ladies and gentlemen not prefer the merely imperfect world we live in, where bananas do fluctuate in price but remain within reach of all hominoids, and persons are found alive and well who love the smell of diesel in combustion more than the scent of roses in bloom? (Aye, mea culpa, my dear.)