I'm starting to get a little pissed off at the New York Times. They always want to be oh so polite and reasonable, but I think we're out of time for that sort of thing when it comes to climate change. While their news articles have been very informative, a lot of their opinion on the matter has been what they'd call "moderate and rational" and what I call "sticking my daughter with the problem so they can maintain their wonderful upper-crust New York lifestyle for as long as they can while tut-tutting about climate change."
Their Dot Earth column yesterday scolded a panel chairman for making jokes and not being "policy neutral." The author's main point was that "there is an unavoidable and counterproductive blurriness to the line between his personal advocacy for climate action — which is his right as an individual — and his stature as the leader of the panel, which was established in 1988 as 'a policy relevant but policy neutral organization.'"
I've really had it with their "don't rock the boat (even though the boat is sinking)" mentality, so I wrote this (http://goo.gl/QXc4x):
Their Dot Earth column yesterday scolded a panel chairman for making jokes and not being "policy neutral." The author's main point was that "there is an unavoidable and counterproductive blurriness to the line between his personal advocacy for climate action — which is his right as an individual — and his stature as the leader of the panel, which was established in 1988 as 'a policy relevant but policy neutral organization.'"
I've really had it with their "don't rock the boat (even though the boat is sinking)" mentality, so I wrote this (http://goo.gl/QXc4x):
"And patrons of the theater should refrain from yelling 'Fire!' until intermission so as not to disturb the performance.
"Honestly, I wonder if people at The Times understand what they're printing in their own newspaper. What I read in your paper tells me that we are hurtling toward a global catastrophe caused by all the CO2 we've put in the atmosphere. Yet an editorial the other day called for a 'balanced approach' to new oil exploration (just a little more CO2, and then we'll really quit this time, we promise), and this piece implies that you prefer polite role-playing to someone who is actually attempting to avert this disaster.
Institutions like yours are supposed to provide leadership when we face grave threats. So far, the institutions have failed us, and, when the earth becomes crippled in its ability to sustain its inhabitants, future generations (if any) will surely damn our memory because of the passivity and timidity we've displayed."
But Jerry Brown's comment below mine was better.
Am I allowed to post a comment on my own blog? Well, just this once…
ReplyDeleteA good friend chimed in:
I don't read the Times closely enough to know what they have been advocating, but the "reasonable and balanced" approach definitely won't cut it. Just one more bacon double cheeseburger and then I'll start my diet, I swear.
The other thing I really hate is the whole idea that "It's easy to be green!" Just switch to compact florescent bulbs, recycle your plastic, reduce your driving (but not so much that it involves inconvenience of any kind) and -- badda boom badda bing! -- you're saving the earth. What fun!