I wonder if the GOP will ever apologize for being horribly wrong on climate change for decades, pushing anti-scientific denialism & delaying any policy, to the tune of billions in unnecessary damages & loss of life in the US.
Supposedly they're not denying any more, right? They have a plan of their own, which means they concede the problem is real. So then, if they realize the problem is real, they should realize what a horrific crime they've committed for the last 20 years. Right?
Also, denialism isn't taken seriously any more in the media, right? Which means journalists also know that GOP denialism of the last 20 years was horrifically wrong & destructive. Not an opinion -- just the plain implication of the facts. Will they include that in their stories?
None of this involves "bias" or opinion. The GOP *itself* now concedes climate change is real. So they, at least implicitly, acknowledge that they've been spreading lies about it. Journos don't have to "judge" the GOP, they just have to point out those simple facts.
This is just an extended comedy routine of course. One of the fundamental rules of US politics is that conservatives are never, ever held accountable. They pivot & dance from one vicious lie to another, never looking back, never pausing, never apologizing. It's costless for them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good comments from Jay & Joy & good discussion under here. One thing I'd add: in US politics & media, "bipartisanship" is always see through the filter of Murc's Law, which says that only Dems have agency. If Ds refuse to cooperate w/ Rs, they've failed bipartisanship. Whereas...
...if Rs refuse to cooperate with Ds ... Ds have failed bipartisanship. If Rs go crazy, get racist, filibuster everything, make utterly ludicrous demands, fail to budge on anything meaningful, it's because Ds were mean to them, or asked them wrong, or didn't schmooze them enough.
When VSPs call on Ds to be bipartisan, they're calling on Ds to *make Rs behave less crazy*. Rs are not responsible adults making their own choices, they are mere effects of D actions, mere reactors. Only Ds have volition. They're the adults, responsible for themselves AND Rs.
Because I excel at time management, I've just been spending some time in a NextDoor thread about a petition that would upzone my neighborhood to allow for dense low-income house. Naturally, the neighbors are in a total panic. What about parking?!
I dropped in to say, "Please support upzoning. Seattle desperately needs new housing."
The very first response -- I'm not making this up -- was from Linda: "Not if Seattle would be more selective in new residents."
Golly. What do you suppose she means?
More Linda: "I was not being unkind, David. I just don't think it is right that so many move to Seattle from other areas because they know they can get so many freebies in Seattle that we end up paying for. Seattle used to be a beautiful city, it is not anymore."
All the people who think there was some noble, credible US conservatism that has "fallen," or been "taken over" by Trumpism, tell me: why was it so weak? Why did it offer so little resistance? Why did it devolve so *easily* into reactionary madness? Doesn't it make you wonder?
Pizza's cooking, so: my theory of conservatism. Basically, in any society, there's a group/class/demographic that has power & privileges, sometimes economic, sometimes relating to race or caste. And every such group has a story about why their place at the top is justified.
For royalty it was the divine right of kings. For oligarchs or nobles is often some kind of "natural law" that makes them more refined/smart/wise than subaltern classes.
I have no daughters, so I have no idea what might be wrong with a grown man preying on underage girls. Can someone with daughters sketch out exactly what's going on here?
For the record: Obama used to say this all the time, and it was bullshit when he said it too.
For the record, what's wrong with this approach -- "empathy for those with whom I have direct experience" -- is that many of humanity's most pressing problems involve victims that are very far away from the perpetrators, in time/geography/social class.
"Biden admin officials say [Trump's tax cut] increased incentives for companies to shift profits to lower-tax countries, while reducing corporate tax receipts in the US to match their lowest levels as a share of the economy since WWII." Are these not facts that can be verified?
Seems like the fact that it's true is more relevant than the fact that Bidenites say it. nytimes.com/2021/04/07/bus…
"Members of the Business Roundtable, which represents corporate chief executives in Washington, said this week that Mr. Biden’s plan for a global minimum tax 'threatens to subject the U.S. to a major competitive disadvantage.'" 🙄
Just going to enjoy a moment of uncomplicated pleasure in @ezraklein telling me that the Democratic Party has more or less conceded that I'm right about everything. nytimes.com/2021/04/08/opi…
Sure, others were right too. You can go to their feeds if you want to hear about that.
"They view the idea that a carbon tax is the essential answer to the problem of climate change as being so divorced from political reality as to be actively dangerous."