In his column today, Paul Krugman goes nuts over the Waxman-Markey vote and equates voting against Waxman-Markey with being a "climate denier" and with committing "treason." In a spectacular display of intellectual incoherence, Krugman at once conflates views on science with views on politics (and vice versa) and fails to consider the possibility that there are many perfectly sound reasons to think that Waxman-Markey is a stinker of a bill.
Makes me think that I'd hate to see his reaction if the bill had lost.
Popular Posts
-
After a little over a week since 48 players exchanged numbers with their teams, and according to my research 13 players have signed if you i...
-
This is my opening post on my blog. This blog is going to be about the Media/ Sports/Music/Politicans. I hope ya'all find it interestin...
-
I am going ahead with the idea of facilitating barter exchanges between readers, chosing the old-school method in the interest of simplicit... -
Male porn stars are famous for their above average endowments. Ron Jeremy is measured at 9.75 inches. Another famous porn star was John Holm... -
I take what I call a journalistic interest in a variety of sports. If I didn't write, I wouldn't waste my time learning about them. ... -
Paula Radcliffe is a distance runner who hails from Britain. She is the first woman to ever go below 2:20 for the marathon redefining what w... -
Just wanted to thank everyone who has been apart, visited or entered our contests on this blog and help us get to 30,000. It's not quite...
-
Today's FT has a special report on Nigeria, and has a very interesting discussion of energy access : Despite average cash injections of...
0 comments:
Post a Comment