One day, out of the blue, a temporal wormhole appeared on my balcony from which, every now and then, I receive things from the future. Some of them are rather unappealing and, in any case, I have been vividly and convincingly invited by the government not to tell you anything about them. But, occasionally, something interesting comes up, like this column from the fall 2350 issue of the Guardian that I am happy to share with you. It is, of all things, about the energy crisis.

Here it is:

Last year’s gas price increase, which, for the first time, made it past the psychological threshold of $10 per gallon, offered the usual excuse for all so-called environmentalists to come up-in-arms and start chanting once again their old litany about saving energy and so on.

Following the extremely liberal bias of the paper (should I mention that — alone in San Diego — the Guardian took a position against the death penalty for parking violations by illegal immigrants, ignoring how serious the parking problem in San Diego has become), two or three opinion columns in the Guardian in past months tried to make the following points: 1.) The energy crisis is caused mainly by the fact that America alone is using up 80 percent of the world’s oil supply, and that consumption is increasing, and 2.) This increase has already caused serious environmental changes, and many more will arise in the future.

The old mantra of environmental damages is recited by resourceless liberals every time progress is threatening their comfortable cocoon, a mantra that is usually dotted with lies. Research carried out at the traditionally liberal public universities, for instance, has recently tried to convince us that 300 years ago, Alaska was covered with forests, and the destruction of these forests was in large part a consequence of oil drilling. They even showed us alleged pictures of the Alaskan forests, as if it weren’t easy to take a picture of any forest in, say, New Mexico and put it in the background of a photograph of Anchorage.

If forests were so common in Alaska only 300 years ago, how come researchers of the Chrysler University and the Exxon University consistently failed to find evidence of their existence?

Evidently, the liberal, public universities have a hidden agenda. They should stop relying on legends like that of the mythical sunny weather of San Diego centuries ago, or the even more mythical ancient neighborhood named Pacific Beach on the site of the current Pacific Beach bay.

Stop relying on fantasies, and look at the hard figures, like those released last week from the Ford research institute: There is simply no evidence that harmful environmental effects have occurred in the past or are occurring now as a result of oil consumption.

I don’t care if the socialist Europeans are using electric cars and public transportation: I am an American, and if I want to buy a new eight-wheel-drive Ford Exaggerate just to go from home to work, I have the right to do so, and no whining about energy or the environment is going to change my mind.

If we need more oil, we should continue the successful neo-colonial policy of the last two centuries: let’s just bomb another middle-eastern country, and use its oil. What we need is more money for the military (which, since military spending dropped to 92 percent of the federal spending, is woefully under-equipped and unprepared), not more money for useless alternative sources research.

If liberals are so worried about oil consumption, why did they fight so hard against the constitutional amendment that required proof of citizenship for buying a car that was passed half a century ago?

Most of the environmentalist ideas are the anachronistic remains of a long-gone era, and these liberals should adapt to the realities of the new economy. I have heard a group say, for instance, that we could save a lot of energy if houses and workplaces had windows, thereby dramatically reducing the need for air conditioning. For those not familiar with the concept: In the old days, windows were holes covered with glass drilled in the walls of most buildings. Windows could have been a good idea 200 years ago, before the introduction of the effective-time work week.

But now, windows would only be a way of distracting workers on the job. Distractions that, being revealed by their thought-monitoring skull implant, would cost workers dear money at the end of the month.

Or, listen to this one from one of last week’s articles: “”These days, most residential apartments prohibit clotheslines, forcing their residents to use dryers that, in addition to being energy inefficient, are very harmful for your clothes.””

This statement shows a complete ignorance of our basic social and economic principles. Socially, this country is based on individualism, and that makes it absolutely necessary that all the apartments in our residential areas will look good and, most importantly, all the same. What will happen if we allowed people to put whatever they wanted in their backyards? We would sink into anarchy!

Economically, liberals talk as if an early destruction of clothes were something negative, while it is absolutely necessary in order to keep our major department stores — one of the most important forces of our economy — solvent, and to foster the development of the highly profitable loans-for-clothes business.

Liberals are using provably false arguments to defend positions that deny the basic principles on which our great country was founded.

I would have a lot more to say on the argument, but the usual July thunderstorms have once again risen the sea level to the height of my apartment in the Mission Hills, and I have to go bail out water. If only, instead of listening to the incessant liberal whining, Congress would once and for all repeal the minimum wage so I could at least afford to have somebody do it for me!