Climate change, US impeachment, nominative determinism, where the money goes

14 February 2021

No response from Chuck Schumer yet, not even an acknowledgement. 

At least the White House replied when I was emailing the last president even though they sent an identical reply to my first two (different) emails.

However, I did get a reply from the writer of frequent letters to the local paper written by a far-right climate change denier.  A few weeks ago, his letter saying “child poverty and climate change are woke concepts, used to describe parental poverty and nice warm weather” inspired me to ‘explain’ that because the volume of ice is greater than the volume of liquid water, if all the polar sea ice melts, sea levels will fall not rise.  On Friday another of his letters was published thanking me for pointing out “the anomalous expansion of water” and disagreeing with another correspondent who’d attempted to correct one of his misapprehensions about the climate crisis.

I was disappointed (but unsurprised) by his immediate acceptance of my claim without first checking the volumes of water in polar sea ice in relation to the volume of water in all the world’s oceans while he went to some lengths to explain why somebody else wasn’t up to date with the meaning of ‘woke’ and that his own earlier claim about the adverse effects of burning hydrogen had been misunderstood.

I now feel I must write to apologise for having teased him (Oh what a tangled web we weave …)

But isn’t it fascinating to see how extremists will unquestioningly accept a claim that appears to support them, however daft it is, while they attempt to counter the arguments of scientists and other experts.

This week’s entertainment has been provided by the evidence presented to the US Senate hearing on the impeachment of The Man With A Mouth Like A Dog’s Bottom*.  The prosecution presented a detailed and illustrated case containing some frightening new footage from security cameras.  

The defence made only a token effort, knowing that Republican senators from states whose voters supported Dog’s Bottom feared they might not be re-elected if they didn’t vote to acquit him.  They produced some carefully edited and misleading videos taking historical clips of Democrats using the word “fight” out of context, slotted them between clips of the violence and produced the punchline that, if a president tells a crowd to “fight like hell”, “No thinking person could seriously believe that [this] was in any way an incitement to violence or insurrection”.  Absolutely right, old chap, how could any sensible person possibly think that.

I actually thought of a much better case for the defence which would have left enough doubt in people’s minds to make the decision much harder (for obvious reasons, I’m not going to tell anybody what it is until we know if he’s going to face criminal charges).

In the event, only 7 Republican senators had the courage of their convictions, not enough to give the required 70% support, and he was acquitted by 57 votes to 43.  Let’s hope that the weak senators’ support for Dog’s Bottom will continue to taint their reputations (see how I resisted saying ‘dog their days’) until the next elections in 2022.

(A friend suggested the vote would be fairer if it were taken my secret ballot – what a great idea!  That can be the 29th amendment.)

After the acquittal, Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, said the former president’s conduct amounted to a “disgraceful dereliction of duty” and he was “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day”.  He added “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he’s in office.  He didn’t get away with anything yet.”

And Nancy Pelosi reminded people that the mob had chanted “Hang Mike Pence” after he’d refused to support Dog’s Bottom’s claim that the election had been rigged.  “They just dismissed that,” she said. “Why? Because maybe they can’t get another job.”

The invasion of the Capitol building did produce a wonderful example of nominative determinism.  A police officer, already hailed as a hero for saying “Don’t do it” to the rioters as he led them in the wrong direction, away from the Senate door and the chamber, is now known also to have warned Republican senator Mitt Romney that the invasion was heading his way and turned him round.  His name?  Eugene Goodman.

Despite (or perhaps because of) all this, the latest newsletter from investment managers Charles Stanley has just said “Despite global economic growth entering another pandemic-driven soft patch, we are constructive on equities over the next few months.”  Apart from providing a great start if you’re playing BS Bingo, all this means is that they’re hoping markets will hold up despite all the bad news around at the moment, but you must remember that their firm’s existence depends on people giving them money to invest instead of buying gold bars, Bitcoin or tulip futures for themselves, so they’ve a vested interest in being bullish.

While 2 million people died and tens of millions lost their jobs and the rest of us just had to stay at home in 2020, the world’s 15 most active hedge fund managers (all of them men surprise surprise) made about £17 billion (that’s £17,000,000,000) between them.

There’s something wrong somewhere.

What happened to kindness, caring, being nice to each other, sharing, and helping those less fortunate than ourselves?

*          Not only is there an unmistakable physical likeness but identical material issues from both orifices.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s