So Paul Krugman wrote a column calling climate change-deniers treasonous:
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
Krugman’s statement is stupid and hyperbolic (though he has good reason to be angry). John Cole has the correct reaction, so I don’t have much to say on that.
However, Jay over at LitW said this about Krugman’s column:
Of course, not quite understanding that Krugman was turning the right-wingers’ use of the word “treason” against them – pointing out the hypocrisy of an earlier, hyperbolic use of the term for a threat that wasn’t quite all that it was made out to be, by contrasting it with the same folks’ laconic attitude towards an all-too real and present catastrophic threat – naturally the usual people went completely bath*t.
You know, this is pure bullshit. Yes, maybe we can look at some who are in an uproar and go “Ha! You’re reaping what you’ve sown.” Fuck that. Krugman knows better. And liberals should know better than to defend him with sophistry. Treason should actually mean something and not be an empty political insult the way fascism is now.
People who aspire to be more than political hacks should be able to restrain themselves.
It’s been buried in an avalanche of inanity since yesterday, but this post at The Corner was a real gem:
Four years from now, Mitt Romney will be president of the United States. … Point Two: The Republicans always nominate for president the candidate who’s next in line, even if that person is deeply unpopular (e.g., the GOP base’s hatred for John McCain did not prevent him from being nominated; he was the guy who lost to Bush in 2000, ergo…). In 2008, the runner-up was Romney.
You know, you would think Republicans who are so attached to the “we always nominate the next guy in line” thing would know which guy was the runner up last year. It was Huckabee.
Now that that’s out of the way, you can go back to reading about Iran on some other blog. Apparently they had some sort of election. I’m so glad McCain isn’t president right now.
I still have a blog! I forgot! My writing energy keeps getting focused elsewhere.
I heard a Christian shot up a place associated with Judaism because of Muslims.
This is like one of those brain teasers, isn’t it? Some kind of riddle?
The Uighurs are going to Palau. I hadn’t heard of that place until yesterday. But it’s not Cuba and it’s not China so, yay?
You can almost hear this blog dying, can’t you?
Anyway, I was thinking about this post by Mark, which is post 93 in his long running anti-hope series.
Progressives like to claim the public is supportive of their agenda based on single issue polling. It seems to me that once public opinion collides with an opposition campaign, things look different. Public opinion is also contradictory. People like more services and they like lower taxes. They can’t have both. California is trying it and it’s not working. Opinion polls show that if you pay income taxes, you think you’re paying too much. So despite the fact that polls also show people will trade taxes for services, they don’t think they’re getting a good deal. That’s ripe territory for conservatives. And if we’re talking about single-payer, it’s hard to see how anything gets past “the government is taking away your health care for some brand new thing that sucks for various reasons.” Even if the various reasons themselves suck, losing your health care is scary.
That’s all obvious, isn’t it?
So single-payer organizing is pointless right now. If we get a public plan, that changes. Are we going to get a public plan? Beats me.