Thursday, June 8, 2017

(Redacted) (Redacted) (Redacted)! Also, Fuck!


My upcoming newspaper column:
There’s a housing development under construction. Comes a fast-approaching forest fire, certain to incinerate it. Recognizing impending catastrophe, local authorities order evacuation. How should we describe someone who countermanded the order, “to protect jobs” of the builders, or because packing up is too expensive? Sensible and forward-thinking, or clueless and incompetent? Or, maybe, a tool of big firehose?  
When I consider the arrogant mendacity of Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accords, my acclaimed civility eludes me. To be printable, I’ll do a little self-censorship. 
Some say I’ve been unfair to Trump. (Redacted)!! I’ve been too (redacted) kind. Trump, his cabinet, and the fully Foxified can spew whatever (redacted) they want. It won’t change reality. Climate change is observable. Evidence is everywhere, and, as with good science, confirmation comes from multiple sources. By now, denial of the danger we face isn’t ignorance. It’s (redacted) evil. 
Not satisfied with the environmental carnage he’s already initiated, Trump, spouting nonsense, lumbers on. I wish I could understand what motivates him. I doubt even he does. Maybe his impulses are buried so deep in his (redacted) wounded psyche that it’s just a (redacted) morass of uncontrolled reflexes. But his pig-headed climate actions amount to premeditated internecion. Same with his (redacted) apologists. Too costly? To avert disaster? (Redacted!) 
We’ll always have flat-earthers and fakers; likewise, people with something to gain, financial or otherwise, by rejecting the evidence of climate change. They’re welcome to their (redacted), but they’re the last ones who should be making decisions for the rest of us. Not when our grandkids’ quality of life is at stake. Republican lawmakers claim climate science is “unsettled.” (Redacted)! Such people, unable to evaluate data or discern propaganda, or resist jobbery, deserve no place at the negotiating table. Not coincidentally, those (redacter-redacting) Trump-excusing legislators have received millions from the fossil fuel industry. Yes: evil.  
But what of their (redacted) supporters? What’s their excuse for bequeathing to their descendants an inhospitable planet? What need in their (redacted) brains calls them to dismiss the obvious? Conditioned tribalism? Greed? Participatory gullibility? I don’t (redacted) know. But it’s (redacted) disturbing. 
It’s not okay, by which I mean it’s (redacted) (redacted), willfully to ignore reality. If it’s normal for Republicans to cling to tax cut mythology, for example (Wait! What?), it’s (redacted) abnormal that science has become a partisan issue. Respect for facts is now predictable by political affiliation. 
Every (redacted) week we see letters regurgitating Foxolimjonesian (redacted): Hillary’s State Department misplaced billions of dollars; she gave twenty-percent of our uranium to Russia; illegal voting is rampant; climate change is merely a natural cycle. Will no amount of debunkage unwash their (redacted) brains? 
Among Trump’s (redacted) justifications for abandoning the accords was they’d made America a laughing stock. This he said while affirming that America no longer cares about science, brazenly lying about (or showing he has no idea) what the agreement entails, and making clear that we’ve relinquished our role as a world leader in anything but (redacted). Could there have been a more ironic argument? Even Vladimir Putin is all but laughing in Trump’s face. It’s not America the world finds comical, Mr. Trump. It’s you. And your superficial understanding of complex issues. And your (redacted) embarrassing, fact-free tweets.  
Why did he do it? Spite for Obama? Grievance over perceived slights? Whatever the reasons, his words prove it wasn’t based on thoughtful consideration. Or truth. With Trump, a lifelong bully, cheat, and seeker of revenge upon those who refuse to (redact) his (redacted), who can know? But there’s more than climate at risk from his tantrums.  
Within hours of Trump’s disgraceful performance, American governors, mayors, and industry leaders announced they’ll adhere to the Paris agreement, as did remaining Paris participants, who’ll work directly with states. The world has declared the president irrelevant! How’s that for “great”? Unchecked, Trump is (redacted) dangerous, even beyond his repressive attacks on Constitutional bulwarks against tyranny. 
Abandoning Paris is anti-truth. It’s anti-grandchildren. He assumes his supporters are (redacted) buffoons. Is he right? It’s time to stop (redacted)-footing around the (redacting) (redacted) that he is; time for his enablers to wake the (redact) up and stop excusing the inexcusable. 
On every level, what Trump did is unconscionable. (Redacted)!
[Image source]

11 comments:

blogsnooper said...

(Redacted) brilliant!!

Pieter B said...

"Arrogant mendacity" is a (redacted) lovely turn of phrase.

Dr Strangelove said...

This will definitely be received as a kick by our local hornets nest. Does that help?

Sidney Schwab said...

I look forward to hearing from the usual suspects. Have fun online, Doc.

Fonzirelli said...

Thanks to (redacted) Dumph, the U.S. is now in the same category as Nicaraqua and Syria as the only other nation-states not to sign into the program. (Redacted), really! This (Redacted) stupid moron is humiliating the U.S. Agreed, he is a (Redacted), (Redacted) Dumb(Redacted).

Mukman Mukilteo said...

A great expression of my sentiments even if I'm not as strident when making my point. Like you and others among our generation, the future of our planet, especially looking out to grandchildren and beyond, is absolute tablestakes for our species. Perhaps I've always known it or late in life it has become even more compelling. Thank you for your cogent expression on this . Only a (Redacted) blind, deaf and dumb leader of the Free World would miss the obvious.

Oh, wait, he (Redacted) has!

Smoothtooperate said...

Always good to see you Fonzi.

These days, I'm glad to be seen anywhere.

Ed said...

Global warming or climate change. Which is it? Until you take a stand you look like someone trying to turn a mole hill into a mountain.
Why do so many insist that "government" solve the alleged problem? Do you enjoy seeing the "government" point guns at people? If you are really that concerned, get off of your dead asses and find a solution that doesn't involve shooting people who disagree with you. It's no wonder that "liberals/progressives" have a reputation as violent government addicts.
One more thing. How is it that the large majority of "liberals/progressive" blogs/websites moderate the comments? It makes you look like nothing more than propagandists.

Sidney Schwab said...

Boy, lots of hard-hitting logic to chew on there, Ed.

While I try to digest it all, how 'bout you tell me which is it: a car, or an automobile? The ocean or the sea? Blue or cyan? If you can't take a stand, what will you drive to work? Or swim in? Or paint your face with at the game?

Or maybe this: which is it, falling to the ground or bumping your head? Because, see, one causes the other. It's not actually that hard a concept, now, is it?

But you do have a point: While I'm off my ass not shooting people, maybe you can tell your friends not to do this: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/18/1673005/-Muslim-teen-kidnapped-and-beaten-to-death-in-Virginia-after-leaving-a-mosque

Moderating is sorta like cutting off someone's mike, like Bill and Sean. or Rush. And, hey, it's their show so they can run it how they like. Freedom. Who doesn't love that?

Smoothtooperate said...

"Global warming or climate change. Which is it? Until you take a stand you look like someone trying to turn a mole hill into a mountain."

Ummmm...Wow

How about this...Are you sitting down?

The globe is warming due to...Wait for it, wait for it...CLIMATE CHANGE!

Holy crap...Take my advice...Dude, take your common senseless crap somewhere else and pick on someone alot more ignorant than this kid.

OH!...and one more thing...

"One more thing. How is it that the large majority of "liberals/progressive" blogs/websites moderate the comments? It makes you look like nothing more than propagandists."

Look in the mirror dude.

Saying a false equivalent is to be treated as equally factual is a pathetic argument that, once again, is completely devoid of common sense.

If you want "equal" representation? Then 97 anti pollution etc. should be debating 3 people. Why? Because 97% of scientists agree with me and 3% do not. You being part of the 3% of course.

Propagandists do not allow reasoned thinking. They spew bullshit and never let anything else see the light of day, and certainly not side by side the propagandists bullshit. The fact your comment is side by side with everyone else means what? You are being censored? Oh Paleez!

Ed, you need to rethink it. Your arguments are a kin to sieve that leaks bullshit. Attacking me and everyone else who knows the facts does not lift your argument into the same stratosphere. Remember, equal on this issue is 97% on one side, and 3% on the other.

Dr Strangelove said...

Hi, Smooth —

Good response!

If one counts scientists who actually "disagree", then one needs to take a closer look at the numbers to undestand how they were determined.

There have been a number of surveys in recent years, all slightly different. One consistency is that nearly all sample actual *climate* scientists who are actively researching climate and publishing scientific papers in peer-reviewed publications. They don't survey astronomers, chemists, botanists, paleontologists, etc. Some surveys look for opinions in the published papers; others query the scientists directly.

This is what those surveys report -
1. The consensus has been found to be within 90% to 100%.
2. The consensus is growing over time, with more recent results much closer to 100%.
3. As the climate expertise of the scientists increase, the consensus approaches 100%.

Here's a paper published that reports on global warming surveys of scientists:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

From that same paper, here's a graph showing that the consensus approaches 100% as the expertise of survey respondents increases:

http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/11/4/048002/Full/erlaa1c48f1_lr.jpg

Popular posts