![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunI know, I know. I shouldn't let right-wing pundits get to me the way they all too often do. But every now and then one of these chair-warmers lets loose with such a howler of an untruth that this old lefty just has to say something. It's Washington Postie Charles Krauthammer again this time, in his latest column my local paper reprinted: "The New Socialism Wears An EPA Cap." His thesis is that the left here and abroad has replaced socialism as its primary tool for browbeating others into living better with environmentalism.
Leaving aside the usual use of the term "socialism" as one of the conservative's favorite epithets (as if there were something inherently evil and/or foolish about such a philosophy), he asserts, without any mention of a basis for such assertion, that this was necessary because "socialism is dead" and has "failed...spectacularly." Even a cursory reading of Wikipedia's page on the subject would have let Chuckie Boy know that a good many governments around the world, most notably in Latin America, Europe and Africa, are still run at least nominally on the socialist model. With the exception of Zimbabwe, I haven't heard of any of these nations suddenly collapsing socially or economically in the recent past...have you? (Conservatives and/or libertarians among my readership—and yes, I know there are one or two lurking out there—are heartily invited to post any examples of such "spectacular failures" besides the Mugabe régime of which they can provide documentation.) Argentina, f'r'instance, seems to be doing fairly well under socialist leadership, albeit with huge deposits of oil to underwrite it.
Particularly in the wake of the recent e-mail leakage indicating alleged massaging of climate data by one (note that: one) international lab, the right has inveighed against the movement to remediate man's impact on the environment as driven by secular zealotry, mistaken and even intentional misinterpretation of available data and a deep-seated need to boss other folks around. But even if you accept the notion that the whole damn worldwide consensus of reputable scientists is a sham and a con job, wouldn't it still be a good thing for us to, y'know, pollute the air, water and land around us less than we do? Especially those of us in the industrialized West, long documented as the biggest polluters (though China and India are doing their damnedest to catch up)?
Dr. K may (I emphasize, may) have a legitimate beef about the policy changes being made by executive fiat rather than congressional vote, but that still doesn't excuse blatant, out-and-out lies...or at a minimum, misguided, ideology-driven claims about a philosophy still in such wide use throughout the world without a scintilla of evidence to back it up.
Leaving aside the usual use of the term "socialism" as one of the conservative's favorite epithets (as if there were something inherently evil and/or foolish about such a philosophy), he asserts, without any mention of a basis for such assertion, that this was necessary because "socialism is dead" and has "failed...spectacularly." Even a cursory reading of Wikipedia's page on the subject would have let Chuckie Boy know that a good many governments around the world, most notably in Latin America, Europe and Africa, are still run at least nominally on the socialist model. With the exception of Zimbabwe, I haven't heard of any of these nations suddenly collapsing socially or economically in the recent past...have you? (Conservatives and/or libertarians among my readership—and yes, I know there are one or two lurking out there—are heartily invited to post any examples of such "spectacular failures" besides the Mugabe régime of which they can provide documentation.) Argentina, f'r'instance, seems to be doing fairly well under socialist leadership, albeit with huge deposits of oil to underwrite it.
Particularly in the wake of the recent e-mail leakage indicating alleged massaging of climate data by one (note that: one) international lab, the right has inveighed against the movement to remediate man's impact on the environment as driven by secular zealotry, mistaken and even intentional misinterpretation of available data and a deep-seated need to boss other folks around. But even if you accept the notion that the whole damn worldwide consensus of reputable scientists is a sham and a con job, wouldn't it still be a good thing for us to, y'know, pollute the air, water and land around us less than we do? Especially those of us in the industrialized West, long documented as the biggest polluters (though China and India are doing their damnedest to catch up)?
Dr. K may (I emphasize, may) have a legitimate beef about the policy changes being made by executive fiat rather than congressional vote, but that still doesn't excuse blatant, out-and-out lies...or at a minimum, misguided, ideology-driven claims about a philosophy still in such wide use throughout the world without a scintilla of evidence to back it up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-12 02:59 am (UTC)This is the thing that boggles me about those who deny the human causes of climate change. I mean, okay (I think to myself), your friend Fred Fonebone may be naturally inarticulate and dazed, he may have perfectly valid reasons for walking around cross-eyed and bumping into things, but even if that's true, why not try not walloping him on the head with a two-by-four every time you see him? You never know, it might make some kind of a difference--and at least you'd save wear and tear on the two-by-four.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-12 07:12 am (UTC)