Bluster and bullshit go hand-in-hand: Reportedly, there’s some kind of big game this weekend, don’t know myself, but a lot of hype out there about it — Sunday’s a good day to get some good sleep, though.
Of course, there’s so much chatter about that particular sporting event, but not much on really what’s happening in our country and the world — the future looks dumb: “Do you know the vice president of the United States?” Austin asks. “I don’t know who it it’s, it’s, it’s somebody….Bin Ladin,” one student responds.
Only gets worse as the days, months and years of tomorrow will only bring problems no amount of education can handle (with bad English).
(Illustration found here).
Despite the education, or maybe because of it, President Obama’s view of the earth’s environment has been toned down to the point even a Republican could understand — the words are less frightful and easier to swallow like a nice pat on the head.
In Obama’s state of the union last week, ‘climate change‘ was mentioned just once (not at all in 2011).
One must remember, the White House switched from ‘global warming,’ to ‘global climate disruption‘ because it’s much, much easier to pass on to the ignorant masses in the search for more politically palatable ways to put horrible news in a happy context.
From the Washington Post:
When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington, saying, â€œThe differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.â€
By contrast, Obama used the terms â€œenergyâ€ and â€œclean energyâ€ nearly two dozen times.
That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet.
A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administrationâ€™s language and found that mentions of â€œclimate changeâ€ have been replaced by calls for â€œclean energyâ€ and â€œenergy independence.â€
Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: â€œThe phrases â€˜climate changeâ€™ and â€˜global warmingâ€™ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.â€
There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well.
In 2002, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz issued a widely cited memo advising that the Bush administration should shift its rhetoric on the climate.
â€œItâ€™s time for us to start talking about â€˜climate changeâ€™ instead of global warming. .â€‰.â€‰. â€˜Climate changeâ€™ is less frightening than â€˜global warming,â€™â€‰â€ the memo said.
And the GOP is into fear, but only in the fear itself, not the root cause.
A good view of the most-immediate future lies in the past.
The Green blog at the New York Times on the so-called “Little Ice Age,” which started at the end of the 13th century and lasted well into the 19th century and how this small speck makes a huge wad.
Bette Otto-Bliesner, a co-author of the study and a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, suggested that the study has important implications for the modern-day climate change discussion.
â€œI think people might look at the Little Ice Age and think that all we need to save us from rising temperatures are some volcanic eruptions or the geo-engineering equivalent,â€ she said.
â€œBut when you see what happened when global temperatures dropped by just one degree and you look at current predictions of six or seven degree increases for the future, you realize how precarious things are for life as we know it.â€
â€œI donâ€™t see a lot of hope that we can somehow compensate for the climate trajectory weâ€™re on,â€ she said.
(h/t The Oil Drum).
On that big game, my store is way-looking forward to it — more booze!
In contrast, supposedly, or at least theoretically, every alcohol-drinking US person will consume at least seven beers on Sunday.
As we slowly die, we scream, ‘Drink Up!’