Ya wanna know what Government Waste really looks like?
Here it is.
The wrangling over Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's investigation of a climate scientist continues...
After indicating last week that it would comply with a subpoena sent by the AG, demanding documents relating to the work of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann, the university is now equivocating. "Our intention is to comply but we are looking at some options," a UVA spokeswoman told theWashington Post yesterday.
May 11, 2010
May 9, 2010
AGW Denial Fallout
Climate Change resistance seems to be all about a political agenda that intends to create inaction. "Conservatives" and Repubs (mostly) are always blocking movement toward anything they think disrupts the status quo (ie: threatens their positions of power). There may be some legitimate reasons for it - eg: the economic disruptions of moving away from oil will likely be pretty major, and the trouble we can't predict is always what hurts the most.
While I can understand the reasoning, I dislike intensely the conflict that arises from the way people go about trying to put their policies into effect. The tactic is to paint the AGW proponents as being in service of a Leftist Political slant intent on destroying capitalism, which is of course always portrayed as being "the very essence of all things American".
"Lefties" often do the same kind of painting, but right now, I think the view from "The Left" is more accurate. My assessment of the ebb and flow of political sensibility is that we're shifting to the left again. It may well be that the way to "save capitalism" is to take it away from the assholes who claim to be its defenders.
In the case of AGW, the really odd thing for me is that what's driving the shift in sensibility is an adherence to the traditions of science, and that's forcing the opposition to attack the facts themselves, and to defend a position based on uninformed / misinformed / disinformed disbelief.
So we end up arguing about the process instead of debating solutions for the real problems.
Some interesting stuff over at Little Green Footballs.
While I can understand the reasoning, I dislike intensely the conflict that arises from the way people go about trying to put their policies into effect. The tactic is to paint the AGW proponents as being in service of a Leftist Political slant intent on destroying capitalism, which is of course always portrayed as being "the very essence of all things American".
"Lefties" often do the same kind of painting, but right now, I think the view from "The Left" is more accurate. My assessment of the ebb and flow of political sensibility is that we're shifting to the left again. It may well be that the way to "save capitalism" is to take it away from the assholes who claim to be its defenders.
In the case of AGW, the really odd thing for me is that what's driving the shift in sensibility is an adherence to the traditions of science, and that's forcing the opposition to attack the facts themselves, and to defend a position based on uninformed / misinformed / disinformed disbelief.
So we end up arguing about the process instead of debating solutions for the real problems.
Some interesting stuff over at Little Green Footballs.
May 8, 2010
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.
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.
May 7, 2010
Calling Names
Some teabaggers are upset because they say the term "teabagger" is insensitive and insulting. Cluster Fox ran a longish segment with Monica and Megyn rippin' Obama for using the term.
At first blush: tough shit, girls. Get a helmet. Nobody likes it and nobody should do it, but y'know, if you're gonna bitch about being called names...fuck it. Never mind.
At first blush: tough shit, girls. Get a helmet. Nobody likes it and nobody should do it, but y'know, if you're gonna bitch about being called names...fuck it. Never mind.
Moron Arizona
Meanwhile, get a load of some of these polling results:
Fer Agin Ain't Sure
All 53 36 11
Dems 12 79 9
Repubs 89 7 4
Indies 46 28 26
White 63 26 11
Hispanic 15 76 9
Black 8 80 12
Ever get the feeling that white people really shouldn't be in charge of this joint?
If we ever get a chance at reworking the school system, I think the first thing is to make Civics a part of the core curriculum.
May 6, 2010
Confluence
I love it when aspects of different and unrelated stories or events come together and link up to illustrate a point.
First, there's the problem with Arizona's (SB 1070) Papers Please law. Opponents hate it for a variety of (I think) good reasons, but mainly because it turns Hispanics into 2nd Class citizens by reinforcing our silly notion that while profiling is kind of unpleasant; and we certainly wouldn't want it done to us; we need to make some exceptions because after all, we're practically under attack here, and really - if you look at all those illegals, the thing that stands out is that almost all of 'em are brown...
Second, months ago, an Afghani civilian who was supposed to be "on our side" attacked and killed a group of US Military and CIA, killing a bunch of them. This was a big surprise because while the guy was suspected of being a double agent, they didn't expect him to go all Jihadi because he was in his 30's, he was married, he had a couple of kids...BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FIT THE FUCKING PROFILE!
The brilliance of the guys who put this country together is reaffirmed. It's like they knew that whatever else happened, we weren't gonna make it unless we understood that we have to treat people like people. We have to be willing to do the hard work of dealing with each other as individuals and as equals.
First, there's the problem with Arizona's (SB 1070) Papers Please law. Opponents hate it for a variety of (I think) good reasons, but mainly because it turns Hispanics into 2nd Class citizens by reinforcing our silly notion that while profiling is kind of unpleasant; and we certainly wouldn't want it done to us; we need to make some exceptions because after all, we're practically under attack here, and really - if you look at all those illegals, the thing that stands out is that almost all of 'em are brown...
Second, months ago, an Afghani civilian who was supposed to be "on our side" attacked and killed a group of US Military and CIA, killing a bunch of them. This was a big surprise because while the guy was suspected of being a double agent, they didn't expect him to go all Jihadi because he was in his 30's, he was married, he had a couple of kids...BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FIT THE FUCKING PROFILE!
The brilliance of the guys who put this country together is reaffirmed. It's like they knew that whatever else happened, we weren't gonna make it unless we understood that we have to treat people like people. We have to be willing to do the hard work of dealing with each other as individuals and as equals.
May 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)