There's an old Monty Python routine in which a man pays to have an argument. Each time the customer says something the man at the desk says "no it's not" or "no you didn't". The customer feels cheated. He claims that an argument is a "series of statements to establish a point" not "the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says". Welcome to Republican politics circa 2009. The "Party of Ideas" appears reduced to one...President Obama (may his drives forever find the fairway) is wrong.
This contradiction opposition was again in evidence this week. In a tragic effort to somehow halt the Obama juggernaut, the GOP's brightest lights were in full-throated response regarding the President's initiative on climate change. Seemingly oblivious to the mood of the country, Republican members of the House and Senate appear determined to make almost laughable statements to Congress and the media. In the process, these distinguished members reinforced the notion that 1) they are none of them rocket scientists and, 2) dumb is as dumb does.
Attempting to prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas announced that "CO2 can't be harmful. It's in your Dr. Pepper". Well, who could argue with that kind of science? He further stated that "no one ever checked into a hospital suffering from CO2 poisoning." Pointing out to Mr. Barton that bananas contain potassium which is good in moderation but deadly in excess, would be a waste of CO2. Presumably, Rep. Barton feels that nuclear fission is great provided you have the right bait.
Joining the chorus is everybody's favorite mixed-race Representative from Ohio, John Boehner. Rep. Boehner opined that "the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen..is laughable". Agreed. However, no one in science ever suggested that CO2 causes cancer... except Mr. Boehner (The color of Rep. Boehner's skin suggests that he may soon discover a real carcinogen...tanning beds.)
In another statement of scientific fancy, John Shimkus (R-Ill) warned that reducing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere might deprive plants of needed food. (Picture, if you will, Mr. Shimkus administering mouth-to-leaf to his starving rhododendron.) Seriously, no one expects our elected officials to be scientists. What we do expect is that they try not to pontificate on issues that are out of their scope of expertise. Pronouncements like these just make Congresspeople look foolish/more foolish. Welcome to "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader Congressional Edition".
Climate change isn't settled science in the same way as evolution. (Memo to Mike Huckabee:This is not a "controversy". Neither is the earth's orbit around the sun.) It does, however, have an impressive body of evidence to suggest that the temperature of the earth is being adversely effected by human action. Will someone please explain to me and the Republicans where the downside to Obama's plan resides? Even without the threat of climate change, why is it a bad thing to build more fuel efficient cars? Even if we are not harming the planet, wouldn't less pollution be a good thing? Even if India and China don't sign on right away, shouldn't America lead the movement to do the right thing? From a nationalistic prospective, wouldn't it be great to tell those Arab sheiks where to stuff their oil?
Sadly, the GOP is so mired in shooting spitballs at Nancy Pelosi, they can't craft a credible response to any administration initiatives. Michael Steele (and it really must suck to be Michael Steele) has proclaimed that the days of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is over. Great! However if your idea of looking forward is to vote to rebrand the Democrats as the Democratic Socialists, no one will, or should, take you seriously.
The Republicans must do more than automatically nay-say everything the other party says. If not, the next Python sketch they emulate will be the dead parrot.
No comments:
Post a Comment