Does it matter if a liberal website inadvertently exposes the self-loathing at the heart of the environmentalist movement? Nope. Someone needs to give Funny or Die writers a pat on the back (or just plant a tree in their honor) for this one.

A lot of people have been talking about Funny or Die’s new Captain Planet spoof featuring Don Cheadle, but no one has really analyzed why it’s funny.

As with almost all good comedy, there has to be an element of truth to it. The reason why something makes us laugh is because there’s usually truth at the heart of what the comedian is trying to say.

Given Funny or Die’s liberal reputation, it’s astonishing that someone would call out the green movement on its bizarre self-loathing and hatred for humanity. When Captain Planet goes from turning “evil” businessmen into trees, and instead aims at the guy walking his dog or the mom pushing a stroller, the writer highlights what conservatives know to be true: To environmentalists, humans are the problem.

Conservatives don’t hate the environment. They just look at human ingenuity and creativity as the main tool needed to care for the earth. Liberals want smaller “footprints” (i.e., less humans doing less of everything that gives life meaning).

Conservatives see the need for more space and get to work on taller skyscrapers. Running out of food? Get better bio-engineering that yields more crop on less land.

The planet was here for billions of years. It existed before us, and it will be here long after we’re gone. To think humans are able to permanently scar the earth requires an incredible amount of hubris, and until monkeys start ruminating on the meaning on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness let’s just agree that the earth and its raw materials are here for us to use as we see fit.

In the Captain Planet skit the “Planeteers” have a moment a truth, where they realize that a planet of trees—with no humans around to appreciate them—is a pretty useless thing. Absent us, the earth is just another big rock whirling around in space, suspended and maintained by the awesome laws of physics created by the ultimate mathematician; I usually call him God.

Is it possible that the Funny or Die writer who penned the script was so dumb that his only motivation was to have Captain Planet go off the deep end? Sure. But even if a dumb writer doesn’t realize where the road of environmentalist logic leads, it doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t read a map.

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

11 comments

  1. “Conservatives see the need more space and get to work on taller skyscrapers. Running out of food? Get better bio-engineering that yields more crop on less land.”

    That has to be one the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.

    Skyscrapers weren’t born out *conservatives* trying to solve environmental problems. Engineers designed skyscrapers because there was nowhere left to buy to build out in expensive real estate markets, so they build up. That’s economics.

    There’s no shortage of farm land, so I’m going to go with big food corporations wanting to up the profit per acre on their investment. That’s economics too.

    Permanently scar the Earth? Nobody thinks that. Making it unlivable for the 5+ billion species, now that’s a real possibility. And the raw materials classification means corporations, not your neighbors, will chose profit over the health of streams, rivers, bodies of water, public land, etc. in their grab for profits. Corporations aren’t bad, per se, but unchecked (by that big old scary EPA) they will act like a virus acting on a mandate of ever-increasing marketshare and profit at the expense of all else.

    P.S. God doesn’t agree with your 5 billion year age of the earth. Chop a few zeros off and forget about the dinosaurs and you’d be in line with the bible.

  2. I’ve read the Bible. Just because you choose to latch on to one group’s interpretation of it (the interpretation that makes them look like morons), it doesn’t mean they’re right.

    Time to God isn’t like time to humans. God is perfect—we’re not. Hence, our language isn’t perfect, either. So you have imperfect beings with an imperfect language trying to explain something that is perfect. What can go wrong? Something tells me there’s going to be some disagreements along the way…

  3. You swung at the softball lobbed in the postscript. What about the rest?

    And god is perfect? I rebut with an argument almost as older than Jesus.

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?”

    Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

  4. “What about the rest?” I have a job and a life outside this blog. While I’m happy you comment (hopefully it will spark discussion with others), I don’t have the time or the inclination to respond to every post. I’m perfectly fine letting the readers look at both points of view and coming to their own conclusion.

    The rest I might get to, but seeing as I’ve been in a car or plane trying to get from Atlanta to DC all day…it’s not happening tonight.

  5. Unfortunately, your readers are unlikely to. Those who come here to enjoy liberal bashing like it’s their college home team versus another town’s home team aren’t likely to be swayed by any actual thinking.

    1. Ah yes, because of course you are the one “actually thinking,” while everyone else just happens to be college meat heads toying around with politics like monkeys toy around with their own feces. That’s how my professors tried to make conservatives feel when I was an undergrad, and then again in grad school. It’s why a kid who considered himself a liberal by default ended up looking into conservatism…and liking what he found.

      As I said before, please continue to comment. I hate when conservatives avoid liberal talk shows or tune out of debates, because the best promotion for conservatism is a liberal who’s willing to openly talk about what he believes.

  6. Colorful analogy, but try not to label me one way or the other. I don’t believe your readers are college meatheads or monkeys, but I stand by what I wrote.

    Anyone who equates liberal = bad and conservative = good is going to lap up that “liberal media” nonsense and root for their conservative pundit, politician, and talking head no matter what they say. That blind allegiance is folly, and that’s my point–though I will give it to you that my comment was too acerbic in tone. My apologies.

    While I’m at it, I’m sorry that your professors were liberal kooks and turned you permanently off from thinking that some liberal ideas were actually good ones. College accepts free thinking and tend to hire professors who think awfully free, but the good thing about college is that free thinking leads in many directions. You’re a testament to that, right?

    I don’t label myself as a liberal or conservative so your thinly-veiled aspersions don’t apply to me. I find neither “liberal” or “conservative” a bad word. I find myself liking quite parts of both platforms, but ascribing strictly to neither.

    What concerns me is the my home-team versus your home team attitude. What happened to civility? Are all of your conservative icons so perfect that they’ll never find critique on your blog? The name-calling and mud-slinging is tiring and distracting from getting an important job done–fixing this country.

    1. You do realize that a conservatives tend to be Republicans, but Republicans are often NOT conservative, right? I’ve called out conservative elitists on this very blog, multiple times. I’ve written about how horribly conservatives do when it comes to relating to young people. The idea that I blindly follow anyone is laughable. In another thread you blame me for going after liberal Hollywood when, umm, that’s kind of what this blog is about. Conservatives have generally ceded popular culture to Hollywood. “Stars” say what they want and no one challenges them. Give me five prominent conservatives who do a good job talking pop culture and politics? I can’t find many. So I made that my “thing.” I’m sorry that I couldn’t become a missile defense expert and blog on that for you.

      In regards to civility, I’m extremely civil. I respond in kind. If someone is an idiot, I’ll treat them the way they want to be treated. If they’re civil, I’ll be civil. Notice any profanity? Didn’t think so. It’s rare. And if you want to see regular critiques of conservative icons you’ll have to go…to a liberal blog. Why would go out of my way to criticize my own when there are people who get paid to do that? No thanks.

  7. Good point. That is the topic of your blog. But there are PLENTY of known conservative stars in Hollywood. Google “conservative movie stars.” You’ve got Chuck Norris on your side. That’s gotta be worth at least 10,000 Leonardo DiCaprio’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s