Let's get stupid: Fun with the National Review Online
Item One: Jonah Goldberg talks global warming.
I think this is actually a fascinating thought experiment. What if science could prove 100% that the earth was warming dangerously but that this was 100% natural (i.e. from sunspots or some such)? I suspect this would scatter the current environmental coalitions and antagonists in all sorts of interesting and unexpected ways.
Now that's a daring question-- if humans had no impact on global warming, would there be opposition to humans' impact on global warming? Probably not, but considering the rabid conservative opposition to the non-existent "War on Christmas," you never know. The important difference is that global warming is about hard science, making "thought experiments" an irrelevant waste of time. One thing we do know is that in the face of a concensus by the world's scientists and a whole lot of physical evidence, right-wingers are still more than happy to deny reality.
Item Two: I realize this was probably just a throwaway gag by the author, but in a way it's the very nonchalance of saying something this stupid that makes it so funny.
In today's "reportage" of the World Cup semifinal between Italy and Germany, the (lefty) Washington Post reported that the game-winning goal was scored on a left-footed kick, while the (righty) Washington Times reported it was scored on a right-footed kick. The Post account was correct, but don't you find it mysteriously symbolic of something or other?
Whew. Aside from the disdain for "reportage," Michael Ledeen is so eager to take a potshot at the "lefty" Post that he failed to process his own observation-- the (righty) Times made a mistake. Nothing here is symbolic of anything, but it serves as a nice example of the brainpower behind the National Review.
I think this is actually a fascinating thought experiment. What if science could prove 100% that the earth was warming dangerously but that this was 100% natural (i.e. from sunspots or some such)? I suspect this would scatter the current environmental coalitions and antagonists in all sorts of interesting and unexpected ways.
Now that's a daring question-- if humans had no impact on global warming, would there be opposition to humans' impact on global warming? Probably not, but considering the rabid conservative opposition to the non-existent "War on Christmas," you never know. The important difference is that global warming is about hard science, making "thought experiments" an irrelevant waste of time. One thing we do know is that in the face of a concensus by the world's scientists and a whole lot of physical evidence, right-wingers are still more than happy to deny reality.
Item Two: I realize this was probably just a throwaway gag by the author, but in a way it's the very nonchalance of saying something this stupid that makes it so funny.
In today's "reportage" of the World Cup semifinal between Italy and Germany, the (lefty) Washington Post reported that the game-winning goal was scored on a left-footed kick, while the (righty) Washington Times reported it was scored on a right-footed kick. The Post account was correct, but don't you find it mysteriously symbolic of something or other?
Whew. Aside from the disdain for "reportage," Michael Ledeen is so eager to take a potshot at the "lefty" Post that he failed to process his own observation-- the (righty) Times made a mistake. Nothing here is symbolic of anything, but it serves as a nice example of the brainpower behind the National Review.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 2:44 PM
<< Home