Speedkill

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.

Jeff Environment, The Left

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.

Jeff Iran, The Right

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?

Jeff General

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.

Jeff Domestic Policy, Obama, The Left

So Prop 8 is ok, but the 18,000 gay couples already married can stay that way.

Some might say that the 18,000 existing gay marriages are a loss for the religious right. I say it’s an opportunity. For what? Gay marriage cap and trade.

What better way to show you have some new ideas and aren’t all “gay marriage will lead to people marrying hamsters” than to riff on the hip new emissions cap and trade policy that’s making waves in Washington (or will, anyway).

You’ve already got a cap: 18,000. You need a rate of decrease. You don’t want to seem strident, so you go with 2,000 a year. You shouldn’t have any problems getting that from the number of divorces. That gives you almost a decade to wipe out gay marriage. Long time? Maybe, but you remember that California is well and truly fucked anyway. You probably don’t use “fucked,” though.

Now, let’s say that in any given year, half the marriages end in divorce. So maybe after the first year you have 7,000 (16,000 minus 9,000, keep up) licenses to auction off. What do you get for those marriages? How much would you have paid to marry your wife? One thousand? Two thousand? Ten thousand? In any case, you’re talking millions per year in new revenue (and you didn’t even factor in the death rate!). Now, it’s not enough to cover the $8 billion budget shortfall (unless you’re going to ask $1 million plus per marriage at the outset), but you’ll be doing your part to help California.

There are fringe benefits, too. The new gay marriage loan industry? Just what the struggling mortgage industry needs!

Why are you all looking at me like that?

Jeff Religion, Silliness

I’m a couple days late, but this is still worth mocking:

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

Harry Reid is so hardcore that even releasing accused terrorists so they could be moved is not acceptable. In transit they won’t be in prison, so that counts as released.

I guess.

Jeff Congress

The number of movies I’ve seen based on Philip K. Dick books makes it difficult to find an unsullied PKD reading experience.

On the plus side, the A Scanner Darkly movie made little sense to me, so maybe that’s the way to go.

I heard Obama gave a speech at Notre Dame. How’d that go?

I’m going on vacation tomorrow to the land of the wood paneled K-Mart. I will hopefully have a report on the continuing struggle of the immigrant proletariat against the bourgeoisie’s corrupt tourist economy.

Needless to say, serious thoughts are scarce.

Jeff Culture

You knew that, but this is still strange, even for them. In response to Joystiq’s request for their thoughts about a seal-clubbing minigame for Overlord II, they said this:

In real life, seals don’t have helmets and can’t fight back, but perhaps you’ll soon see PETA-made helmets for baby seals in Canada.

I think PETA have finally reached the pinnacle of absurdity: a statement so ridiculous that it can’t be mocked. It’s almost a perfect representation of their lunacy, only missing their trademark offensiveness (holocaust on a plate, anyone?).

Bravo, PETA.

Jeff Culture, Silliness

I’m not much of a Star Trek guy. I’ve seen a few of the more recent movies (First Contact being the good one I’ve seen) and a smattering of TNG and DS9 episodes. This is due mostly to laziness, not any dislike of the universe. With that out of the way, the movie was fantastic. It’s not particularly deep (which I’ve seen complaints about), but it was thoroughly entertaining. There’s very little in the way of plot (we must stop evil bad guy from reaching Earth!), so it’s essentially a story about the characters. It’s amazing to me how much I know about these characters simply from pop culture. I’ve seen just a part of one episode of TOS and I rarely felt lost when the ST fans in the audience laughed or applauded the references to the series.

Now that they’ve started things off with a bang, I’m looking forward to where they go next (assuming sequels).

Other assorted thoughts: Nokia! Dr. Cameron is Kirk’s mom! Carson Beckett somehow managed to sneak into Starfleet’s barracks. Sticking Scotty in some kind of water tube contraption was dumb.

Jeff Culture

Michael Gerson has written a column about religion that doesn’t make me want to throw things.

At a recent conference of journalists organized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Putnam outlined the conclusions of “American Grace,” based on research still being sifted and refined. Against the expectations of hard-core secularists, Putnam asserts, “religious Americans are nicer, happier and better citizens.” They are more generous with their time and money, not only in giving to religious causes but to secular ones. They join more voluntary associations, attend more public meetings, even let people cut in line in front of them more readily. Religious Americans are three to four times more socially engaged than the unaffiliated. Ned Flanders is a better neighbor.

Against the expectations of many religious believers, this dynamic has little to do with the content of belief. Theology is not the predictor of civic behavior; being part of a community is. People become social joiners and contributors when they have friends who pierce their isolation and invite their participation. And religious friends, says Putnam, are “more powerful, supercharged friends.”

Notwithstanding my hard-core secularism, this is more or less the conclusion at which I’ve arrived. Religion is a powerful social construct here. Europe is different and I haven’t quite reconciled that in my mind yet (their generally more extensive social programs replace some of religion’s functions here?).

I dislike the conclusion, but what can you do? It’s still a bit much to say our society would collapse without religion. A lot would change, but why couldn’t we follow a path similar to some European countries?

Jeff Religion