<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Watch at your own risk]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Adam Stern http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/ Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:46:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/1 Shields and Brooks

I couldn't agree with you more, David. And I say this as someone who on most days likes the informative dialogue between Mark Shields and David Brooks on the PBS News Hour. In yesterday's unfortunate segment, both commentators said that environmentalists should have welcomed President Bush to the side of reason, despite the fact that Bush's plan offers no mandatory emission reduction targets, and doesn't even support business-friendly mechanisms like cap-and-trade to get there. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has instructed the EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and 22 major U.S. corporations have called for 60-80 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. While scientists overwhelmingly tell us that we have all the evidence we need to act on global warming, media pundits like Shields and Brooks give Bush cover by making it seem like we can afford to dither around for the remaining 18 months of this Administration.      

]]> Shields and Brooks

I couldn't agree with you more, David. And I say this as someone who on most days likes the informative dialogue between Mark Shields and David Brooks on the PBS News Hour. In yesterday's unfortunate segment, both commentators said that environmentalists should have welcomed President Bush to the side of reason, despite the fact that Bush's plan offers no mandatory emission reduction targets, and doesn't even support business-friendly mechanisms like cap-and-trade to get there. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has instructed the EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and 22 major U.S. corporations have called for 60-80 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. While scientists overwhelmingly tell us that we have all the evidence we need to act on global warming, media pundits like Shields and Brooks give Bush cover by making it seem like we can afford to dither around for the remaining 18 months of this Administration.      

]]> Comment #2 by inel http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/ Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:41:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/2 smokescreen and vaporware

Shields has the answer at the end of that piece: "The political downside is if it's exposed as a fraud ... whatever you said about Bush, at least you believed him: now you don't believe him ... that's why I think it's authentic." which is a convoluted way of saying we should believe Bush because otherwise all our previous beliefs in him come crashing down around us.

Anyway, Bush is sitting pretty because he did not commit to anything in his speech the other day, and has proposed a process that will prevent any commitments being made for the foreseeable future.  Yes, they do think we are stupid.

]]> smokescreen and vaporware

Shields has the answer at the end of that piece: "The political downside is if it's exposed as a fraud ... whatever you said about Bush, at least you believed him: now you don't believe him ... that's why I think it's authentic." which is a convoluted way of saying we should believe Bush because otherwise all our previous beliefs in him come crashing down around us.

Anyway, Bush is sitting pretty because he did not commit to anything in his speech the other day, and has proposed a process that will prevent any commitments being made for the foreseeable future.  Yes, they do think we are stupid.

]]> Comment #3 by tico89 http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/ Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:47:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/3 All may not be lost...

Oh well, at least it looks as if Britain and Germany may actually be going to stand up to Bush on his revolutionary new world-saving climate strategy. Then again, it may just be hot air.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

]]> All may not be lost...

Oh well, at least it looks as if Britain and Germany may actually be going to stand up to Bush on his revolutionary new world-saving climate strategy. Then again, it may just be hot air.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

]]> Comment #4 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/ Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:51:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/4 "Feh"?

The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer is my favorite TV show by far, and the Friday show, with Shields and Brooks, is never missed in this household.  And of course we hang around for our girlfriend Gwen Ifil and her gang on Washington Week.

So of course I cannot sympathize much with DR's barfing episode.  However, his violently ill reaction is not uninteresting.

(Tough, you Orwellian stylists.  The "not un-..." construction, which George Orwell deplored in an essay recently referred to in Gristmill, is called in classical rhetoric litotes, and can add some helpful shading to a complicated matter.  Of course it should be used sparingly.  Orwell made the charmingly naive mistake of believing that the purpose of language is to communicate; but as we all very well know, that is not its purpose at all.)

A distinction needs to be made.  These three men, Lehrer, Shields and Brooks, are plainly very intelligent, and know a great deal about how power is won or lost in DC.  Shields and Brooks occasionally have something to say about "the merits" of what was done or said by so-and-so, but always their primary interest is in the power relationships: the White House and Congress, the members of the two parties amongst themselves, the politicians and their bases, the candidates and the electorate, and so forth.

But that is by no means all the news, it is by no means exhaustive of the issues, and it is not intended to be so.  It is foolish to listen to Shields and Brooks in order to understand "the merits" of anything in itself.  The point of listening to them is to enjoy their verbal genius, and to get a sense of the contrary partisan interpretations of what has been happening in our republic's capital.

Mark Shields, on the left, is a hero of mine, a true liberal Catholic in the best sense of the term.  He is not perfect, but almost everything he says is interesting.  And that includes his curious suggestion that George W. Bush was doubly sincere this past week.  It is worth thinking about, even if we may not agree.

And as I recall, Shields did indeed refer to Bush's campaign promise, in 2000, to seek to control carbon emissions, and reminded us that Bush broke that promise.

David Brooks, on the right, is also someone whom I admire: he generally reasons carefully, and he is ingratiatingly articulate.  While he can be critical of the Republicans, in a sensible way, and can give some sensible criticisms of liberals, he is unfortunately too often an unquestioning defender of George W. Bush.

Very few of these highly placed DC journalists know much (yet) about climate science and global warming.  So far as most of those in the news business are concerned, the issue only recently appeared, thanks to the spectacular career of Al Gore.  They will have to get up to speed, but of course will need to be only a couple of pages ahead of the general electorate.  It seems unfair to criticize Shields and Brooks for not doing something that they are neither interested in nor they consider their job.

You want to throw up about that?  Well OK, so throw up.  But that is why we need Grist, no?

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

]]> "Feh"?

The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer is my favorite TV show by far, and the Friday show, with Shields and Brooks, is never missed in this household.  And of course we hang around for our girlfriend Gwen Ifil and her gang on Washington Week.

So of course I cannot sympathize much with DR's barfing episode.  However, his violently ill reaction is not uninteresting.

(Tough, you Orwellian stylists.  The "not un-..." construction, which George Orwell deplored in an essay recently referred to in Gristmill, is called in classical rhetoric litotes, and can add some helpful shading to a complicated matter.  Of course it should be used sparingly.  Orwell made the charmingly naive mistake of believing that the purpose of language is to communicate; but as we all very well know, that is not its purpose at all.)

A distinction needs to be made.  These three men, Lehrer, Shields and Brooks, are plainly very intelligent, and know a great deal about how power is won or lost in DC.  Shields and Brooks occasionally have something to say about "the merits" of what was done or said by so-and-so, but always their primary interest is in the power relationships: the White House and Congress, the members of the two parties amongst themselves, the politicians and their bases, the candidates and the electorate, and so forth.

But that is by no means all the news, it is by no means exhaustive of the issues, and it is not intended to be so.  It is foolish to listen to Shields and Brooks in order to understand "the merits" of anything in itself.  The point of listening to them is to enjoy their verbal genius, and to get a sense of the contrary partisan interpretations of what has been happening in our republic's capital.

Mark Shields, on the left, is a hero of mine, a true liberal Catholic in the best sense of the term.  He is not perfect, but almost everything he says is interesting.  And that includes his curious suggestion that George W. Bush was doubly sincere this past week.  It is worth thinking about, even if we may not agree.

And as I recall, Shields did indeed refer to Bush's campaign promise, in 2000, to seek to control carbon emissions, and reminded us that Bush broke that promise.

David Brooks, on the right, is also someone whom I admire: he generally reasons carefully, and he is ingratiatingly articulate.  While he can be critical of the Republicans, in a sensible way, and can give some sensible criticisms of liberals, he is unfortunately too often an unquestioning defender of George W. Bush.

Very few of these highly placed DC journalists know much (yet) about climate science and global warming.  So far as most of those in the news business are concerned, the issue only recently appeared, thanks to the spectacular career of Al Gore.  They will have to get up to speed, but of course will need to be only a couple of pages ahead of the general electorate.  It seems unfair to criticize Shields and Brooks for not doing something that they are neither interested in nor they consider their job.

You want to throw up about that?  Well OK, so throw up.  But that is why we need Grist, no?

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

]]> Comment #5 by inel http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/ Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:51:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/5 Track Merkel, not Blair

Hot air it is not from Merkel and the rest of the EU.

Merkel is the person to watch now.  (Blair's influence is pretty much over, just like Bush's, though Blair can be a great cheer leader for any glimmer of hope of positive immediate action to combat climate change.)

]]> Track Merkel, not Blair

Hot air it is not from Merkel and the rest of the EU.

Merkel is the person to watch now.  (Blair's influence is pretty much over, just like Bush's, though Blair can be a great cheer leader for any glimmer of hope of positive immediate action to combat climate change.)

]]> Comment #6 by ebaerren http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/ Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:52:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/brooks-and-shields-act-out-the-bankruptcy-of-elite-beltway-opinion/6 The problem...

Is that this isn't actually anything new.  It's all stuff he's said previously, before trotting out some toothless proposal for action.

]]> The problem...

Is that this isn't actually anything new.  It's all stuff he's said previously, before trotting out some toothless proposal for action.

]]>