Defining a poor winner

That would be one David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker.

With all the graciousness of an eight-year-old imitating one of those victory dances that NFL players do in the end zone, Remnick spouts this about President Barack Obama's re-election:

Finally, bid a fond farewell to some of the gargoyles who have haunted your sleep in these many months of incessant cable-gazing, Web-cruising, and poll-checking. See ya later, Brothers KochShalom, Sheldon Adelson! Get a new slide rule, George Gallup and Scott RasmussenHasta la vista, Tea Party! Ciao for now, Donald Trump! Feel better? Good, because the celebration is officially over.

Barack Obama can take pride in having fought off a formidable array of deep-pocketed revanchists.

It's his way of saying that the real test is yet to come: global warming...err, climate change, because not everything he says is evidence of warming. But never mind. Global warming is a bigger threat than the approach fiscal cliff, Romnick says, calling out Obama for not ending the rising seas. He then makes a surprising comparison:

Meanwhile, the paltry attempts to reduce global warming are being overtaken elsewhere by the attempt to raise hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. Advances in living standards in China, India, and Africa will radically increase the demand for cars, televisions, air-conditioners, washing machines—in short, the demand for power and the burning of fossil fuels. There will be time to deal with climate change, politicians have persuaded themselves. But there will not be a better time. There will only be worse times.

The implications are profound: Put off attempts to "raise hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty," put on hold programs to improve quality of life. Extended to its logical extreme, providing better education for the masses will only speed up the planet's destruction. Better that those millions live in poverty so they don't demand cars, TVs, air conditioners and washing machines.

Seems to me that advocates of extreme measures to accomplish the god-like aims of eliminating climate change in favor a climate stasis already have enough opponents. Remnick also seems determined to put progressives who see a dire need to improve the lot of humanity in the same opposition as those wooly climate deniers he hates.



Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    Leave it to the French to screw up our language and people like Remnick to seek to convince us of their higher intellect through use of artful and clever (read petty) speech. The only revanching I am aware of in the campaign was Obama's specific charge to his constituents to vote for revenge. What is more inane than the pot calling the kettle black? (Uhoh, apologies for the racist slur. I must remember to be more politically correct). We certainly need to address clean energy and all ramifications of continued reliance on fossil fuels. We need to continue to find ways to increase quantity, quality and nutritional value of food supplies. We need to improve life quality of our plants and animals, of course, inclusive of humans. What about these needs is mutually exclusive. Remnick should be more careful or the revanchists who own the New Yorker may take umbrage.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: