Another "epiphany" story for me and hopefully for you, this one from Paul Krugman on why there is such opposition to trying to get anything done about climate change. The reasons are partly economic, partly self interest but mostly the philosophy of the right wing mind.....really interesting, and now you see it in print, so true.....
It explains the anger, the rage of the deniers.....
There are three things we know about man-made global warming. First, the consequences will be terrible if we don’t take quick action to limit carbon emissions. Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much. Third, the politics of action are nonetheless very difficult.
But why is it so hard to act? Is it the power of vested interests?
I’ve been looking into that issue and have come to the somewhat surprising conclusion that it’s not mainly about the vested interests. They do, of course, exist and play an important role; funding from fossil-fuel interests has played a crucial role in sustaining the illusion that climate science is less settled than it is. But the monetary stakes aren’t nearly as big as you might think. What makes rational action on climate so hard is something else — a toxic mix of ideology and anti-intellectualism.
Before I get to that, however, an aside on the economics.
I’ve noted in earlier columns that every even halfway serious study of the economic impact of carbon reductions — including the recent study paid for by the anti-environmental U.S. Chamber of Commerce — finds at most modest costs. Practical experience points in the same direction. Back in the 1980s conservatives claimed that any attempt to limit acid rain would have devastating economic effects; in reality, the cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide was highly successful at minimal cost. The Northeastern states have had a cap-and-trade arrangement for carbon since 2009, and so far have seen emissions drop sharply while their economies grew faster than the rest of the country. Environmentalism is not the enemy of economic growth.
A clip from "Britain's Got Talent", and a really shy young lady [Alice Fredenham] sings one of the most difficult songs there is, "My Funny Valentine", with it's multiple octave changes.
Some off notes, but overall a powerful, sultry performance that actually got Simon Cowell to his feet.....song is the first four minutes, the judges being supernice another four.....
This lady has pipes.....
Good TV
Tonight [Monday] on TNT there is a new show from Steven Bochco [Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law] called "Murder In The First", which got a great review in the Times.....remember we are in the summer TV desert, so we need to treasure these occasional decent shows.
Set yer DVR's.....but if you miss it tonight don't despair - I'm sure TNT will repeat this through the week....
When a series follows one murder investigation for an entire season, the conceit can sometimes look like a European refinement. “Broadchurch,” “Spiral” and “The Fall” are just a notable few of the many imported shows that proved so broodingly intense that it sometimes seemed as if networks and basic cable here could never catch up.
“Murder in the First,” a new TNT series that begins Monday, might therefore seem like a belated imitation. But this 10-episode series is actually a direct descendant of “Murder One,” a 1995 ABC show by Steven Bochco that was a beloved breakthrough, even though it lasted only two seasons.
And while this new show is not as innovative as its predecessor, it is, in its own way, similarly well paced and compelling. There aren’t a lot of smart, occult-free crime thrillers this summer, and that makes “Murder in the First” all the more enjoyable.
The differences from “Murder One” are distinctive, though, and quite revealing about how television has advanced — and regressed — over two decades. It’s startling to see how very few African-American characters were on the 1995 show — Vanessa Williams had a small part. The lead characters on “Murder in the First” are of all races and ethnicities; more women are in top positions.
But when it comes to storytelling, “Murder One” in many ways seems more modern: The camera work was more ambitious and artful, and its hero was a bulky, bald and somewhat charmless defense attorney, Teddy Hoffman (Daniel Benzali), whose family life unfolded elliptically, over time. (Patricia Clarkson played his wife in a cast that included Stanley Tucci and Mary McCormack.)
“Murder in the First” doesn’t really find its groove until the second episode. The pilot wastes a lot of time establishing the somewhat trite bona fides of its leads, two San Francisco detectives who are assigned to a high-priority homicide.
Todays Jewish joke
raised in Mexico ?"Abe replies, "I don't know, let's ask our waiter."When the waiter arrives, Abe asks, "Are there any Mexican Jews?"The waiter says, "I don't know senor, I ask the cooks."" He returns from the kitchen after a few minutes and says,
"No senor, the cook say no Mexican Jews."Abe isn't satisfied and asks, "Are you absolutely sure?"The waiter, realizing he is dealing with "Gringos" replies,
"I check once again, senor," and goes back into the kitchen.While the waiter is away, Sid says,
"I find it hard to believe that there are no Jews in Mexico ...
Our people are scattered everywhere."The waiter returns and says,
"Senor, the head cook Manuel, he say there is no Mexican Jews.""Are you certain?" Abe asks again. "I just can't believe there are no
Mexican Jews!""Senor, I ask EVERYONE," replies the exasperated waiter.
"All we have is Orange Jews, Grape Jews, Prune Jews, Tomato Jews and Apple
Jews, but no Mexican Jews."
No comments:
Post a Comment