05 June 2006
Neo-con Talking Point: "Even the proponents of Kyoto think it's inadequate."
It fucking pisses me off to no end when people oppose half-measures in favour of no-measures-at-all simply because they are "inadequate". Pinheads in BC opposed the Single Transferrable Vote because it didn't provide adequate representation for constituents. Well, "First Past the Post" provides even less representation and isn't proportional at all. Not meeting the requirements of Kyoto will provide even less environmental protection.
People accept this sort of dog-fucking* spin, because it sounds reasonable. It's one of many ways one can frame an argument to undermine an opponent without needing to support one's own claims: to incessantly focus on one minor, niggling and sometimes irrelevant negative in the opponent's stance to draw attention away from everything else.
Listen to debates about Kyoto between the Liberals, Cocks and NDP. You'll hear both the Cocks and NDP harp on the Liberals about how little they did to meet the Kyoto targets. The NDP gain nothing in this tactic except to smear the Liberals in order to get more seats in the next election. The Cocks support their base by using this sort of smear to draw attention away from the damage they intend to do to environmental legislation. The Liberals are dog-paddling. Unfortunately, they squandered the power they had to do anything about it with petty partisan power struggles and corruption. They did do little to meet the targets, but the Cocks will inevitably do even less.
So, the argument is lopsided. Kyoto is inadequate. But the unstated reality is that doing nothing is even worse. What, pray tell could the danger be in accepting a half-measure that can easily and will likely be replaced with something better? I propose that any measure, half or othewise, poses a threat to economic libertarians who require a dearth of regulation to increase their obscene wealth.
What can you do? Learn about how propaganda works. Look for this sort of argument. Distrust anyone who uses it. And don't fall prey to the spin. If you can only go half-way toward improving a situation, don't oppose it on those grounds. Get the half-measure through and work toward bringing in a comprehensive solution at a later date.
*Dog-fucking, boondoggling, lollygagging, jerking off: all terms meaning to appear to be at work when not. I won't apologize for my use of profanity. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it's used in the proper context. Children should learn this at a young age. People with delicate sensibilities should get off of the fucking god crack and enjoy the robustness of the English language.
People accept this sort of dog-fucking* spin, because it sounds reasonable. It's one of many ways one can frame an argument to undermine an opponent without needing to support one's own claims: to incessantly focus on one minor, niggling and sometimes irrelevant negative in the opponent's stance to draw attention away from everything else.
Listen to debates about Kyoto between the Liberals, Cocks and NDP. You'll hear both the Cocks and NDP harp on the Liberals about how little they did to meet the Kyoto targets. The NDP gain nothing in this tactic except to smear the Liberals in order to get more seats in the next election. The Cocks support their base by using this sort of smear to draw attention away from the damage they intend to do to environmental legislation. The Liberals are dog-paddling. Unfortunately, they squandered the power they had to do anything about it with petty partisan power struggles and corruption. They did do little to meet the targets, but the Cocks will inevitably do even less.
So, the argument is lopsided. Kyoto is inadequate. But the unstated reality is that doing nothing is even worse. What, pray tell could the danger be in accepting a half-measure that can easily and will likely be replaced with something better? I propose that any measure, half or othewise, poses a threat to economic libertarians who require a dearth of regulation to increase their obscene wealth.
What can you do? Learn about how propaganda works. Look for this sort of argument. Distrust anyone who uses it. And don't fall prey to the spin. If you can only go half-way toward improving a situation, don't oppose it on those grounds. Get the half-measure through and work toward bringing in a comprehensive solution at a later date.
*Dog-fucking, boondoggling, lollygagging, jerking off: all terms meaning to appear to be at work when not. I won't apologize for my use of profanity. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it's used in the proper context. Children should learn this at a young age. People with delicate sensibilities should get off of the fucking god crack and enjoy the robustness of the English language.
Labels: AGW, neocon bunk
// posted by Parge @ 2:47 PM
