Tuesday, November 03, 2009

It's Always About The Money With Them

Nevermind that the long term costs of global warming are staggering. Nevermind that even the short term costs of global warming are staggeringly high.

No, it's all about the pennies we might save by doing nothing:
WASHINGTON — Republicans boycotted the start of committee debate Tuesday on a bill to curb greenhouse gases, protesting that the bill's costs have not been fully examined. The action put a spotlight on the difficulties Democratic leaders face in moving climate legislation this year.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio attended the session for 15 minutes to explain the GOP's argument for staying away. He insisted the tactic "is not a ruse" to block the bill, but concern that its widespread impact on the country has not been made clear.

But Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the panel's chairman, argued the EPA already has provided "a full blown economic analysis" and that Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised further studies when the bill is merged with other legislation. She insisted "we're not rushing we are taking our time."


Reid, Pelosi, and Boxer ought to just run roughshod over the Republicans in Congress, just the way the Republicans ran roughshod over the Democrats under the Bush administration.

Eff em, if they can't take a joke. Elections have consequences, deficits don't matter (Cheney), and Go Fuck Yourself (Cheney redux).

Progress cannot come from cons, neo or otherwise. They aren't "pro", they're "con" for a reason.

Probably because the future is now, for them. Today matters more than tomorrow, except when it's a Democrat buying the drinks.

Then somehow yesterday matters more than today, but not as much as tomorrow, which matters less than today anyway.

Re-read that again. It made sense when I put on my Republican hat.

There's this weird dynamic in the Republican party that it seems one can never get a cogent answer on any issue they disagree with. It's one thing to be the loyal opposition, to oppose things on principle, to say that this is wrong because it specifically opposes a parameter that is generally believed to be good for the nation.

It's another thing to throw a five year old's tantrum and say "No! No! No!"

When I was in college, serving on the student council, I made arguably the stupidest speech of my entire life. I said, in effect, "this is wrong because I think it's wrong," with respect to a proposal offered up by the minority party.

Now, I'm a wise man, brilliant at times, but even as the words left my mouth, I realized how stupid it was for me to say that and not have a very specific objection. It made me look stupid, but worse, it made opposition to the proposal look stupid.

You can see where I'm going with this: to knee-jerk reactively say that even discussing solutions to global warming is wrong simply because they might cost us a few bucks makes any legitimate concerns about the solutions involved seem petty.

Say they'll be ineffective (be specific) and you might have my ear. Say they'll be inefficient, and you'll have my ear.

Tell me they'll cost too much, and I'll tune you out nearly as fast as I tune out climate change deniers.

Republicans have become Johnny One-Notes, and they're taking up the kazoo.