That’s the title of Bill McKibbon’s article in the new Rolling Stone, the one with Justin Bieber on the cover. I mention Justin Bieber being on the cover because the contrast between the terrifying urgency of global warming and the ascendency of yet another pop star is emblematic of the problem.
As long as they keep putting new pop stars on the cover of the magazine, no one will believe that we really need to pay attention to the boring article about numbers and politics. No one will think we really need to make changes to our lifestyle and culture and values. As long as the left is more worked up about Chick-fil-A than they are about AGW, no one will think global warming is more important than a gay wedding, which isn’t really very important in the scheme of things, now is it? But as long as the Left is so tied up in blatant contradiction about what matters, then the Right can feel justified fueling up their powerboats and running their air conditioners as much as they want. These aren’t unrelated things, gay literally means “carefree” and gay culture is notoriously consumption-oriented (maybe there are more green vegan gays and lesbians these days than there used to be, but the image is still more Queer Eye For The Straight Guy and disco and decadence than farming and walking instead of hailing a taxi.)
Another way AGW and SSM are related is the Koch Brothers and other big Libertarian PACs. The people supporting gay marriage on the left need to think about why they are in the same bed as the Koch Brothers and danfromwaltham and Eric Dondero. That’s a lot of gross dudes in your bed.
If we are serious about global warming, we have to prove it by making some major political concessions and lifestyle concessions, before expecting anyone who doesn’t even care about Global Warming to make any.
mike_cote says
This post makes no sense. The fact that a music industry magazine puts a popular “Musician” on the cover to maximize sales (its called Capitalism) somehow undermines the Global Warming argument. Further, you expect people to not support Marriage Equality simply to hold a position other than some alleged “Big Libertarian PACs”. OMG is this insipid.
mike_cote says
Did you know your link has nothing whatsoever to do with the Koch Brothers or Big Libertarian PACs. Its a story about how some Rethuglicans support Gay Marriage. Wow. I don’t think I learned anything from this that I did not already learn from an episode of American Dad, the one where the Log Cabin GOP wants Stan to give a speech at the RNC convention. Even following your links, this post makes no sense.
dont-get-cute says
There are other stories about the American Unity PAC started by Billionaire “vulture capitalist” Paul Singer, but that one is in the reputable New York Times so I figured it would be more appreciated here than a newsmax story or something.
danfromwaltham says
Rolling Stone had a great article on the financial meltdown, around 2009 or so. Showed how all the friends who were politically connected got bailed. I think Goldman Sachs had hundreds of millions into AIG, so AIG was saved, but Lehman Bros. not.
I get your point about having a serious discussion about climate change that is being sold with a cover of Bieber on the front. Thanks for the article, finally ampost not made up of the words racist, dumb, homophobe, racist, dumb, Palin, homophobe, bigot, taxes, taxes, and did I forget, homophobe.
theloquaciousliberal says
What you’re saying is that we liberalls all need to be less “gay” if we are really serious about the issue of global warming?
What a bunch of utter nonesense this post is.
dont-get-cute says
Liberals need to throw gay rights activists (who are Libertarians, remember) off the bus. There is no room for Libertarianism on this planet, especially in the party that’s supposedly serious about AGW. Otherwise, no one will think it’s serious.
mike_cote says
Let met get this straight (pun intended): The way to deal with global warming is to round up all the gay men and women and expel them from the Democratic Party, so anyone who isn’t already a democrat, will take Democrats seriously. That is to unbelievably stupid I am at a loss for words. The next time I run for office and ask for volunteers, please just stay home and keep the window shades drawn.
kbusch says
likes to sit safely outside the reach of reason and this insane argument is difficult to refute because it requires space travel: one must first find the planet on which it is logically coherent.
dont-get-cute says
The point is there is such a thing as political capital, and deals get made by trading goals. You dont’ need to “round up” any one, or expel anyone from the party, but you do need to decide what is more important, gay marriage and LGBT rights, or global warming. Global warming is a lot more important than gay rights, it just is. If you disagree, then don’t blame the other party for inaction on global warming, the problem is your priorities.
I know you think, we can do both, but that’s not true. By spending political capital on gay marriage, it not only uses it up, but the mere fact that you are doing it is evidence that you aren’t serious about global warming.
Really, just imagine how things would change if the Democrats said, let’s just settle on Civil Unions and stop fighting for equal marriage rights (and sexual liberty and pornography), and put all our political capital into reducing global warming.
whosmindingdemint says
There just isn’t enough freedom to go around, so I must have less because someone else has more.
Same with money – if you tax the rich, that means everyone else has more, and that ain’t right.
So it is with LGBT/ Climate change: The more rights gays have, the hotter the planet gets.
OK, so now imagine what it would be like if republicans said, you know, we can work with democrats on global warming and LGBT rights and job creation and getting those who have benefited the most to contribute the most. Naw
dont-get-cute says
These gay guys are Republicans:Why is the Democratic party so concerned with giving them equal marriage rights, it makes no sense.
When people in the future look back at this period in history when we knew about AGW, they will ask why didn’t we do something, they will say “what the heck were you doing?” and they’ll see that our top priority was sexual liberation and gay marriage, and they will find gay people very easy to blame for the mess they’re in. But it doesn’t need to be that way, they could see gay people as the heroes who put the future ahead of their own immediate self-interest and gratification, and set an example for everyone else, leading the way.
kbusch says
This is absurd. Yes, this is a famously wealthy and privileged couple, but they are not representative. Isn’t the doggy cute?
Oh! Cute!
That’s what got you! The cute doggy!
dont-get-cute says
I’m just trying to get the point across that full marriage equality is a luxury rich people want, it’s not a right and not necessary for a just society. I’m not saying most gays are rich, just that most rich libertarians support gay rights. They aren’t all Republicans like those two, most are Democrats, but still Libertarian and still ho-hum about AGW. Most of the reason the Democratic party is so focused on gay issues is because that’s where so much of their donations come from.
dont-get-cute says
There are two schools of thought, two visions of the future. One is like the Georgia Guidestones, the Planned Parenthood Eugenic Geo-Engineering school, which is opposed to the naturalist, pro-natal, human dignity and equal rights school, because they think that the main problem to be solved for long-term sustainability of humanity is all the breeders thinking they have a right to procreate too many unintelligent, unfit offspring. They think we should take control of reproduction, like the Guidestones say:
But that solution to GW, though taking it very seriously indeed, infringes on basic human rights. We all have a right to marry and have fertile sex and procreate with our spouse, even if that means more people than if we contracepted and sterilized everyone and made people in Bokanovsky Groups. It doesn’t necessarily mean more consumption and more warming, because creating the Bokanovsky Process (metaphorically) is itself consumption and resource intensive. I think there is a way to preserve human rights and yet still reduce consumption and still guide reproduction wisely, through restoring a marriage culture that expects chastity and responsibility for children, instead of turning children into products themselves.
kbusch says
Your assertions just float about. “Not necessary for a just society” doesn’t make sense; the opposite is true. Perhaps this is a diary entry that has no intention of convincing anyone of anything. It’s a statement of how you string together your random thoughts to form a lovely necklace of elegant nonsense.
Or stated differently, this is about as convincing to a liberal as pig grunts.
dont-get-cute says
Equal marriage rights for same-sex couples is not necessary for a just society because there is no right to reproduce with someone of the same sex. You assert that there is a right to reproduce with someone of the same sex, or to reproduce as the other sex? Where does this right come from? Rights are found in nature, they are things that humans have a historic and natural claim to be allowed to do. Reproducing with the same sex is not something anyone has ever done or considered possible before, and it can’t be done in nature, so it is not a right. In contrast, reproducing using our natural ability to reproduce with someone of the other sex IS a right and preserving that right for everyone IS necessary for a just society.
whosmindingdemint says
You assume marriage is based on some reproductive right, or imperative, dictated by the Bible, which is a work of culture, not nature.
Mr. Lynne says
I almost don’t want people to discourage him. The meme-salad is funnier than Friday Joke Review. If bigots are going to speak, let them speak like this – in all their mockably incoherent and thought-challenged glory.
OTH maybe the pleasure I take from this thread is a little ghoulish, like watching a car crash.
kbusch says
First off, the once banned J. Howard does not have the reputation of being an expert on matters of justice or social organization. Instead, he has a reputation for being, well, a kook. (I make no claims as to whether he is or is not in fact a kook, just that, in this social context, that’s his standing.)
Given that he’s starting with a handicap like that, we might expect a carefully argued response that justifies all its conclusions and works them meticulously from beginning to end. His views are not the default here. No one’s going to believe mere assertions.
Instead, what we get is mere assertions.
Mr. Lynne says
n/t
petr says
Of all the trade-offs, deals, compromises and accomodations to be considered there is no plausible connection between climate change legislation and gay rights. The reasons to couple these two issues is bigotry on the one hand and blackmail on the other.
You are a small person who is attempting to use bigotry to rationalize blackmail. If it was up to me you would be banned from this blog as a poison upon the commumnity
whosmindingdemint says
…
mike_cote says
Did you know that Nova Science Now is underwritten by David H. Koch? Does this mean if I watch Nova Science Now: that I am in bed with David H. Koch? To show I am serious about Global Instability, does this mean that I should boycott Nova Science Now in the same way that I will never each a Chick-F-whatever? Can I at least snuggle in bed until the Mars Rover stuff is over? Does this make me a Koch-Adict?
Hello:
My name is Mike
And I watch Nova Science Now?
mike_cote says
I will never each a Chick-F-Whatever?
I will never EAT at Chck-F-Whatever?
While I appreciate the new spell checker, it doesn’t do the “grammar check”, which I also need, desperately!