"The United States is committed to a new chapter of international cooperation..."Who doesn't like health care reform? The American Institute for Cancer Research, among others. E. J. Dionne has the story here...
David Brooks writes that the issues in Afghanistan are complicated, difficult, and inescapable. Brooks' conclusions, though, follow from his assumption that "...since 1979, we have been involved in a long, complex conflict against Islamic extremism." The significance of 1979 is, presumably, the Iran hostage crisis, which itself was set in motion by historical forces created in large part by the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup that installed the Shah of Iran on the Peacock Throne. Brooks' conflict also has roots is Western exploitation of Middle East oil resources and in the historical Western support of oppressive regimes in the Middle East. This doesn't even touch upon our role in the Israel-Palestinian crisis.
It seems to me that the proper American response to all of this is to quit treating all of this as a war between civilized Judeo-Christianity and backward Islamic fundamentalism. And at bottom, what's the difference between that and the rationalization for the Crusades?...
You think the debate on health care reached lows for intellectual dishonesty? Wait until climate change takes the stage, writes Paul Krugman...
Speaking of green living...
Shake yer claw, ye scurvy buccaneer. Aarrhh.
Posts
4 comments:
I've been hearing the dark side of the climate change argument already on Gather.com. One of my connections there is an expert, and he writes great, informative articles on the subject. Naturally, the mouth-breather types are all over him in no time. Krugman says the attempts to deny the obvious are wearing thin; not so on Gather. Gather's home-grown climate change deniers are running strong and in full voice. You have to wonder if it's deliberate or if they were born a few chromosomes short of a full strand.
I laughed at the parrot intro; I thought you were talking about "Talk Like a Pirate Day", but that was last Saturday (or was it the Saturday before that?). But I clicked the link and saw the parrot. Hey, I'd shake that cute little bugger's hand!
Re climate change, the flat earthers are a declining but loud minority. My guess is that the substantive argument opposing legislation will run along these lines:
1. The science is still out. (Never mind that it isn't.)
2. Even if the science isn't out, the problem lies with India and China. (Never mind the grossly disproportionate U.S. energy consumption.)
3. If they won't do anything, why should we? (Never mind global leadership.)
4. After all, this legislation will kill us economically, raise prices, cost millions of jobs, etc. etc. (Never mind that [a.] it won't and [b.] climate change itself will not only kill us economically, it will threaten our national security in ways that will make 9/11 look trivial.)
The frustrating thing is -- like health care -- the refusal to recognize a problem and try to do something about it. The next most frustrating thing will be the media's portrayal, which will be of "both sides" without recognizing that one side is responsible and the other side is irresponsible.
The immigration discussion is coming early next year.
In Minneapolis, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman, spoke before >1,000 at the University of MN.
I saw a screening of the new Michael Moore movie, with MM in attendance.
The right scrapes the bottom of the barrel with its obsession with immigration. It's habit of laying fault at the feet of society's most disenfranchised members -- immigrants, minorities, gays, women -- shows how despicable it is at root.
Post a Comment