More Political Than Usual

So, thought I'd mention a few things I noticed in politics of late. I tend to be center-right in practice—in theory I'm simply skeptical of any political movement not grounded in solid philosophy, which is to say all of them. Though I try to give any serious position a fair consideration, I admit I'm less charitably inclined to the left.

Anyway.

1. The recent snowstorms (real bad here in northern Arizona) have given people cause to question "global warming", and point out about "global cooling". It is obviously manifest nonsense when people say, "the recent much cooler temperatures are a sign of global warming"; language either tells you what it means, or it doesn't, and screw Derrida.
   
   Why don't they say, "'Global warming' was a bit of a misnomer; it really means 'an increase in the extremity of global temperature, in both directions, caused by changes in atmospheric composition (among other factors)."? That actually is what "global warming" really means, folks, and always meant, only unfortunately the name is wrong—because "global warming" and "melting polar icecaps" made for good political theater, to literally scare up support for the desired environmental policies. Incidentally, the Northern icecap's melting, but the Southern one's getting thicker; the asymmetry could cause any number of problems of its own, but that too is much too complex to be politically useful.
   
   I am entirely agnostic on the question of anthropogenesis, vis-a-vis climate change. I merely offer the remarks that Mars' temperatures are changing too; and that correlation does not imply causation, but that fact does not mean we can rule causation out.


2. A recent difficulty in the school district where my father teaches, brought the people's grotesque ignorance of economics to my notice. A parent wrote to him, angry that he advocated closing one of the schools because of budget shortfalls (it's the only way, Arizona's education policies have left the district finances ill-prepared for recession). She accused him and the teachers' union of trying to protect, in essence, their own posteriors at the expense of all else.
   
   It's not really relevant, but bears remarking, that Arizona teachers' unions are anemic little creatures, too weak to do much good, let alone harm—they are not the kind of bloated monsters they have in say New York. This policy was agreed by teachers and district alike, as the only way.
   
   Anyway, though, she mentioned in the course of the message that she is a realtor. That is, she's a member of a profession whose associations make the Bar look toothless and meek: she's a member of a guild. More power to her and hers, but there is a certain lack of largess in a professional—a burgher, as it were—complaining when those in a proletarian condition attempt to protect their livelihood. The serfs may not be pretty when they rally in their rude village assemblies, but they haven't got a guild to protect their economic interests, madam.


3. So, Roger Ebert has been making himself unpleasant about the Tea Party movement. I have little sympathy with the movement's knee-jerk libertarianism, but neither have I much for the economic policies they are protesting. But Ebert and others have crossed a line, by dubbing them Teabaggers. It's not even a very good insult, considering it can also be the sign of having pwned their opponents, but you're pretty much out of bounds when you call a huge swath of your countrymen a name that derives from, well, that.
   
   But then Ebert—who, you'll recall, not only thinks Darwin proved vampires are impossible but doesn't know when Darwin lived—had a little quiz on his Twitter...thing (I don't know the terminology of Twitter, having a soul and all), about civics, trying to show Tea Partiers how ignorant and stupid they are.
   
   Only they're all either opinion or trivia. For instance,

   What party would Abraham Lincoln join today?

   Opinion, idiot.

   Was Nelson Rockefeller a vice-president of the United States?

   Does it even remotely matter who any vice-president is, unless they become president?

   Spell the names of any five "red states" in the 2008 presidential election.

   Because as we all know, people who are bad at spelling are subhuman. Then again Ebert doesn't know "recommend" has two Ms.

   Did George Washington sign the Declaration of Independence?

   Did he really have wooden teeth? Who gives a tinker's damn?
   
   Here's some questions for you, Ebert: How is authorial control surrendered in a Final Fantasy or Legend of Zelda game?
   
   Name one film more intellectually exacting than Xenosaga.
   
   Who the hell uses "serious literature" unironically?
   
   Is anyone interested in the opinions of a chubby pompous red eunuch on anything other than film, considering he's simplistic and illiterate on that, too, most of the time?
   
   When you lose an argument to Clive Barker, do you have to kill yourself, or is it merely "good form?"