Changes

So I was listening to Tony Blankley today on KCRW's Left Right and Center (via truthdig.com).  The topic swings around to BP's oil spill in the gulf and the other commentators are bitchin' about how awful it is, and Blankley says (I'm paraphrasing), "hey, it's bad, but if we don't drill for oil here, we'll have to ship it in, and there're more spills with shipping than with drilling, and we'll be sending more of our money to foreigners - so just think how much worse it'll be if we DON'T keep drilling..."  And I just flashed on something - these guys are always using that specious bullshit argument about some totally unprovable hypothetical that sounds really scary and all too often closes the debate.  We have to stop going along with that shit.

First, we can challenge these guys on the simple fact that they're often so totally assbackwards on their predictions.

Secondly, because our imagination is unlimited, we can conjure up all manner of horrible outcomes - every event COULD BE much worse.

But here's the point: Instead of accepting that kind of argument (which is so often delivered in a condescending and dismissive tone), we need to turn it around on itself.

THEY SAY: "...so it could've been a lot worse, and the next time it WILL be worse if we don't just go along with (insert crappy policy that produced shitty outcome here)"

I SAY: Stick it right back in your ditty bag, Sparky.  Maybe we should start thinking about how much BETTER it could all be if we had some real regulatory guidance; and if some of these asshole companies like BP and Goldman Sachs and Halliburton started following the fucking rules.