June 08, 2010 11:37am
I’m currently moving to a new and better comment system, which means all the site’s comments (from the last year) are now migrating to the new place.
But it’s taking a little while. All comments will reappear within the next half hour or so.
I hope this makes for more readable threads.
**UPDATE** All comments are there, but I’m curious to hear from anyone who has difficulties using the new system. Please do share and I’ll make all necessary tweaks by tonight.
Sphere: Related Content
Category:
Uncategorized
February 24, 2010 08:44pm
Goes to this post on McCain’s killer campaign ad. Yeah, he’s been running away from cap and trade, but that doesn’t take away from the head.
Sphere: Related Content
Category:
Uncategorized
February 01, 2010 04:25pm
It starts. I’m convinced that Joe Romm will not go down without a fight. He will, to paraphrase a famous term from a far more socially divisive chapter in American history, destroy the climate debate to save it.
You think I exaggerate? Check out his post today, in which Romm finally acknowledges that enviros are wavering on cap & trade. But in patented Rommian style, he’s mounting a counter-offensive that should be stylistically familiar to anyone who has drawn the ire of Romm. (I speak from experience.) Be sure to read the polite response by Bill McKibben, who urges Romm ever so delicately not to use divisive rhetoric.
You could practically hear Romm scoff, when he replies:
I’m told the bill is mostly a source of division right now. I think I’ve made my views clear…
You sure have, Joe. You should be selling tickets to the spectacle that’s about to unfold.
Everyone else should get their popcorn, sit back and watch with awe as the nation’s most famous take-no-prisoners climate blogger goes rogue in the coming weeks and months. Rummy would be proud, if he was overseeing this battle, to see a true cap & trade dead-ender fight to the finish.
Sphere: Related Content
Category:
Uncategorized
October 21, 2009 09:12am
Population has long been the third rail of environmental discourse. So while a lot of people are rightly incredulous at Rush Limbaugh’s ugly rant against Andy Revkin’s suggestion that people should perhaps be rewarded for having less children, I can’t say that I’m all that shocked by it. Really.
First of all, this is Limbaugh being Limbaugh. He’s addicted to being outlandish and offensive. In the same segment he suggested that Revkin help reduce population on the planet by committing suicide, Limbaugh also offered this gem on Obama and his team:
Can you think of any other administration in this country where a president or a communications specialist or anybody else would run around and start praising Mao Zedong as a role model, as a philosopher to follow?
But more to the point, millions of religious conservatives have a gag reflex to this hypothetical idea by Revkin:
Should you get credit — if we’re going to become carbon-centric — for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three.
Revkin is to be lauded for being willing to pose this “thought experiment.” As a long-time environmental journalist, he’s surely aware of the inflamed passions–from both the left and right side of the political spectrum– that often seems to overtake any discussion on population issues.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to soft pedal what Limbaugh said. It was despicable. In fact, I thought Tom Yulsman captures the disgust felt by many, myself included, with this post.
On a related note, I should say that I find myself in agreement with Joe Romm on the supposed connection between climate change and overpopulation–which he believes is a misdirection. And I think he’s right on that score. I also happen to think that George Monbiot got it mostly right with this recent piece on the issue.
Sphere: Related Content
Category:
Uncategorized
October 05, 2009 08:32am
So let’s say you’re in jail for a crime you never committed. After six years of incarceration, a judge hears your case and decides you’re innocent. But the prison warden objects. He says maybe you were innocent once, but after rubbing elbows 24/7 with hardened criminals behind bars, maybe it’s best you stay put.
As reported in yesterday’s NYT, that’s the chilling logic the Obama Administration entertained in this Gitmo case:
Even if Mr. Ahmed was not dangerous in 2002, they said, Guantánamo itself might have radicalized him, exposing him to militants and embittering him against the United States. If he returned to his troubled homeland of Yemen, the officials feared, he might fall in with the growing contingent of Al Queda, there, one more Guantánamo survivor to star in their propaganda videotapes.
Sphere: Related Content
Category:
Uncategorized
