Doesn't Anyone from Either Party Have Any Perspective?
Jason P
Posts: 19,158
This is an excerpt from an ESPN.com writer Greg Esterbrook that you may find interesting:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=5468752&type=Story&imagesPrint=off
Doesn't Anyone from Either Party Have Any Perspective?
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) declared that expecting BP to pay for the oil spill represents "a tragedy of the first proportion." If money subtracted from corporate profits is a "tragedy," what words are left for genuine sorrow? President Barack Obama called the spill, which killed 11 people and damaged wetlands and fisheries, "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced." Really? Less than five years ago, at least 1,836 people were killed by Hurricane Katrina, while much of New Orleans was depopulated. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 killed about 8,000 people. Hurricane Andrew in 1992 killed 26 and did $42 billion in damage (in today's dollars). The Dust Bowl reduced millions of people to years of extreme poverty. The Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 killed 57 people and leveled several hundred square miles of land.
That Republicans and Democrats both reflexively claim events are worse than they actually are betrays some of the least-appealing aspects of modern opinion-making. One is that pessimistic or negative interpretations are embraced by editorialists and television bookers, while bringing in historical perspective -- by almost any measure, Americans today live much better than previous generations -- is frowned upon. Politicians emphasize the most negative view, because if the general public is frightened, people will agree to more money and power for government. The two parties may employ different rhetoric, but both want money and power.
Here, Kate Kelland of Reuters reports that since oil biodegrades in water and sunlight, it might have been better to do nothing with the spilled crude, rather than burn what was on the surface while tossing huge volumes of toxic "dispersants" into the Gulf of Mexico. After all, oil leaks into oceans naturally, and goes away on its own. A sense of perspective would have led political and media leaders to say, "This spill is a big problem but wait-and-see may be preferable to panicky responses." Instead, the panicky response -- burning and use of toxic chemicals -- was endorsed, since the spill was the worst calamity in the history of the known universe!
end.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=5468752&type=Story&imagesPrint=off
Doesn't Anyone from Either Party Have Any Perspective?
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) declared that expecting BP to pay for the oil spill represents "a tragedy of the first proportion." If money subtracted from corporate profits is a "tragedy," what words are left for genuine sorrow? President Barack Obama called the spill, which killed 11 people and damaged wetlands and fisheries, "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced." Really? Less than five years ago, at least 1,836 people were killed by Hurricane Katrina, while much of New Orleans was depopulated. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 killed about 8,000 people. Hurricane Andrew in 1992 killed 26 and did $42 billion in damage (in today's dollars). The Dust Bowl reduced millions of people to years of extreme poverty. The Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 killed 57 people and leveled several hundred square miles of land.
That Republicans and Democrats both reflexively claim events are worse than they actually are betrays some of the least-appealing aspects of modern opinion-making. One is that pessimistic or negative interpretations are embraced by editorialists and television bookers, while bringing in historical perspective -- by almost any measure, Americans today live much better than previous generations -- is frowned upon. Politicians emphasize the most negative view, because if the general public is frightened, people will agree to more money and power for government. The two parties may employ different rhetoric, but both want money and power.
Here, Kate Kelland of Reuters reports that since oil biodegrades in water and sunlight, it might have been better to do nothing with the spilled crude, rather than burn what was on the surface while tossing huge volumes of toxic "dispersants" into the Gulf of Mexico. After all, oil leaks into oceans naturally, and goes away on its own. A sense of perspective would have led political and media leaders to say, "This spill is a big problem but wait-and-see may be preferable to panicky responses." Instead, the panicky response -- burning and use of toxic chemicals -- was endorsed, since the spill was the worst calamity in the history of the known universe!
end.
Be Excellent To Each Other
Party On, Dudes!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I agree that the two party system is bullshit and that politicians (and people who shape political opinion) are prone to hyperbole, but I think this part of the article is inaccurate. Environmental disasters are caused by people. Natural disasters are caused by nature. Hurricanes are natural disasters, not environmental disasters, and therefore can't be compared to the oil spill when ranking environmental disasters. That's a basic concept that anyone who writes for the public should be sure to understand. (And we wonder how so much misinformation gets into the public mind. People talk all kinds of shit about stuff they don't even understand - and it gets published! :( )
Anyway, does an ESPN columnist have any credibility? Professional sports are part of the problem today. I, reluctantly and unfortunately, am done with the MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL (never really was a hockey fan).
That being said, it seems as if both parties are out of touch with the public, and whichever one proves that they are working for US, will be the one to hold control of D.C. However, will either party come to this realization? For the time being, I will say no.