We just ordered the complete collection of Ed Wood’s films, Manos the Hands of Fate, and Ed Wood starring Johny Depp from Amazon.com. We haven’t become masochists. Kris heard about the worst movies ever made on the radio last night and after we watched clips on YouTube, we decided it would be hilarious to watch them.
Here is a peaceful protest against those horrible Tea Partiers.
Yes, I am being sarcastic.
I went to Rio in 1992 for the environmental summit, the disastrous meeting that focused the world’s attention on the first giant misstep of the climate change movement: the misbegotten Kyoto Protocol that consumed two decades of green political energy around the world, alienated the United States from its European allies and at great cost achieved absolutely nothing worthwhile. Global warming was not slowed, greenhouse gas emissions were essentially unaffected, green credibility took the first in a series of crippling hits, and opposition in the US to the global green agenda hardened.
That’s what happens when green Malthusian panic meets the political system. At Rio back in 1992 I first began to dimly suspect what now seems sadly clear: that green political activists are afflicted with a kind of reverse Midas curse. Whatever they touch turns to — compost.
In the twenty years I’ve been tracking the global green movement since the Rio summit, the scientific evidence for climate change, still controversial and incomplete, became more convincing — even as the evidence that the environmental movement is headless and clueless became overwhelming. There is far more evidence that environmentalists in general have no idea how to address climate change than there is that the climate is actually changing. Between the greenhouse gasses emitted by green activists globetrotting to international conferences and the unexpected side effects of green policy fiascoes (like the ethanol from corn program in the US), the environmental movement as a whole may well be responsible for a modest net increase in greenhouse gas production over the last twenty years. The planet, in other words, might be slightly cooler if the greens had all just shut up and stayed home. Certainly the world’s taxpayers would be better off.
We would also likely be closer to some kind of reasonable policy mix if the green activists had spent more time perfecting their home composting techniques and less time pushing a hopelessly unworkable global agenda. (It’s not the fault of the greens that environmental problems don’t have easy and simple solutions, by the way. I don’t blame greens for giving us magically easy and popular solutions. But green ideas tend to be the opposite: greens habitually propose clumsy, expensive and unwieldy programs that won’t work and will ultimately go down in flames.)
Mead is not a conservative and is broadly sympathetic to the environmentalists’ goals. He is not, however sympathetic to the kind of cluelessness and panic that leads the Greens to propose solutions that have no chance of being enacted. To put it bluntly, no sane politician is going to support policies that will lead to a drastic reduction in their constituents standard of living. Not even the Chinese are going to do that, at least not since they’ve abandoned the “let’s kill people by the millions” brand of Communism in favor of a more humane “let’s get everybody rich and hope they don’t notice they have no freedom” type of Neo-Fascism. The Greens should listen to people like Mead.
Of course the problem is that too many people in the environmentalist movement are either political activists, more interested in imposing Socialism, than in saving the earth, or adolescents, who would rather feel good than take effective action.
Michael Barone thinks political columnists and reporters should be banned from using the words “squabble” or “bicker” to describe the debates of politicians.
Reporters who use the verbs “bicker” and “squabble” seem to believe that it is silly for opposing parties to waste their time negotiating — they should just split the difference at the beginning. You can see something like this feeling in the polls showing majorities of voters “disgusted” with politicians.
But the truth is:
The Constitution establishes not a single united government but an arena for conflict. The Founders expected the House, the Senate, the president and the courts to disagree, and they hoped the net result of those conflicts would be good governance.
What we’re watching is not children bickering but adults with sharply different ideas trying to shape public policy as much as they can. It’s not squabbling, it’s democracy.
He’s right, of course. One thing that irritates me is this notion that differences between politicians are due to “partisanship” and it everyone will just put it aside and work together, they can come up with simple commonsense solutions to all of our problems. The problem is that even people with the best will in the world are going to have very different ideas about problems are important and what the best solutions are. People have different experiences and different principles, so there is always going to be some debate and squabbling in government. This is a good and healthy thing as long as it doesn’t get out of hand
One thing though, I would like to ban comparing American politicians to dictators. There is no one in American politics even remotely like Hitler, Stalin, Mubarrak, or Castro. Not only is this kind of rhetoric ridiculous hyperbole, but it insults all of the people who have suffered under real dictatorships.
I love it.