Associated Press
Rising sea levels threaten to swallow inhabited Virginia islands.
Paul Krugman recently picked up on a trend that's quietly becoming more common: "right-wing political correctness." As Krugman explained it, the goal is "to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order."
There is, alas, a growing number of examples, but Rebecca Leber flagged a new one: we're not supposed to say "sea level rise."
State Del. Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who insisted on changing the "sea level rise" study in the General Assembly to one on "recurrent flooding," said he wants to get political speech out of the mix altogether.
He said "sea level rise" is a "left-wing term" that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?
"What people care about is the floodwater coming through their door," Stolle said. "Let's focus on that. Let's study that. So that's what I wanted us to call it."
So, "sea level rise" might give people the impression that climate change is dangerous -- in other words, it might convey accurate information -- which necessarily makes the phrase inconvenient to those who deny climate change.
In this case, Virginia, like North Carolina, wants to know what's likely to happen to its ocean coast line as sea levels inch higher, but the study couldn't progress unless phrases like "climate change" and "sea level rise" were carefully excluded, and "recurrent flooding" was embraced.
I like the old version of political correctness better. The right-wing version is kind of weird.
Leave a Comment:
"He said "sea level rise" is a "left-wing term" that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?"
Alas, Delegate Stolle, lying in the "equation" just make you look like an idiot.
Obfuscation of reality IS political speech(by definition). "Sea level rise," is a statement of fact.
We're turning into a nanny state, bending over backward to accomodate the over sensitive right wingers and their delicate sensibilities.
It's better for all involved if we just go ahead and call a spade a spade and quit dancing arounfd the issues, or allow those on the right to continually dictate the terms of discussion.
Oh, good grief! Let's call it what it really is, a natural disaster that's happening for many different reasons. It may be flooding to those who are having water in their homes but it's a rising sea level that's causing that flooding. We're losing the big battles while we fight these stupid skirmishes over words. Call a spade a spade and damn how it makes anyone feel. Ignorance doesn't solve problems and it doesn't stop those problems from happening in the first place. Grab your big boy pants, put them on, and deal with it, for crying out loud.
The trouble is, this isn't a _natural— disaster.
"Recurrent flooding," implies things that are just happening at random. It's like blaming evil spirits for an illness.
When we begin to understand the situation using science, then we see our responsibility. As long as we can pretend that we are powerless before forces we can not influence or understand, then there is no imperative to act against them. When we recognize that this, "recurrent flooding is the result of human action and could be mitigated by reducing that action as much as possible, it becomes our ethical responsibility to try to fix the damage we have done. That is difficult and involves sacrifices.
Republicans are terrified of the difficult and prefer that sacrifice be something others do. So long as cowardice holds their reins, the Republicans will hide their heads in the sand and believe, to paraphrase their patron saint, "A != A."
Calling sea-level rise (the problem) by "recurrent flooding" (a symptom) is myopic & dangerous--dangerous because it leads to treating symptoms instead of underlying disease, a disease which will kill the host if left untreated.
If a doctor called a brain tumor (the problem) "recurrent headaches" (a symptom), it would be malpractice.
Here here!
Psst! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
No one appreciates a nit pick, but I'll assume you're just trying to be helpful... so, thanks! Now I know for the next time I use the same commonly misspelled expression. :)
It's okay. There, there!
;-)
Haha. Hey, I see what you did there! :D
What is the Republic of the Maldives supposed to call it, when their islands are starting to go all underwater (semi-) permanently. What does Kiribati say when people ask why they're trying to lease land in Fiji because they're losing land their people live on? What about the Marshall Islands, who are considering putting up an offshore drilling platform so there will be something left of their country when the atolls disappear?
These right-wing idiots are complete . . . idiots. A shame their capitol cities can't (semi-) permanently go underwater so they can see in their own state what's happening world-wide. (No harm meant to the good people who live in those cities.)
But when his house goes underwater you can bet he'll be the first in line for Federal Disaster Relief funds!
If Dems allow this ridiculous new phrase then they need to use their Cadillac health care to find their back bone. Why have dems lost their fight and allow the right to walk all over us. Sad, really sad.
The Right continues to charge rightward, dragging the kicking and screaming moderates and liberals along behind them. Instead of resigning to defeat, The Left needs to call Republicans out on their bull@!$%# and stand their ground. Democrats have caved again and again on key issues for fear of political consequences and rejection by moderates and independents- it's time to cast those doubts aside and stand up for the American People. The results of The Left growing a spine will be a victory for Democrats and America as a whole.
Yeah, they should take their minority in the state legislature and just stop it from happening, even if there's nothing in the rules that allows them to! Otherwise, they have no backbone!
Give me a break.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the tone of what you're trying to say, but if I'm not mistaken, your words bite with sarcasm. In which case- seriously, dude? Obviously the Democrats are the minority, and things would be different if they weren't. In order for them to gain the majority they're gonna needs votes- and it's in my humble opinion that they'll get a lot more of those if they take a strong stance against what Republicans are doing and flood the airwaves with it. Unfortunately, you're right in regards to Democrats being unable to "just stop" everything that Republicans are doing. I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's their lack of accomplishment in that field that deems Democrats without backbone, especially considering the impossibility of the task. I'll even meet you half way- perhaps "spineless" was a bit extreme. (Weak-kneed might be more appropriate.) All joking aside, there's no denying that American's are frustrated, and while a large majority of that frustration is aimed at Republicans for methodically and intentionally sabotaging our recovery, Democrats who don't loudly and clearly denounce The Right's antics are going to bear the brunt of some of that anger too. The Left doesn't need to win every fight, but they need to at least be in the game and put all of their heart and soul into it. Here's to hoping that they're more aggressive against Romney than they were against Scott Walker. (Thanks for dropping the ball, DNC.)
That being said, I'm a proud Liberal and back up my positions with my vote. I'm not the first and surely won't be the last. I just wish the Democrats in charge had as much passion and fire in their bellies as their supporters.
So how about ya give me (And everyone else) a break- from your unnecessary and unwarranted sarcasm.
I am also a liberal. It seems, at the present, the only control that democrats have is a presidential veto or what the pres can accomplish through executive order. I think, starting with the tea party, that the republicans are trying to take over the federal government and state governments and then put all their ideologies throughout the country. This is anarchy.
It's not "recurrent flooding".
It's just really really high humidity.
I love it! knee-high humidity.
Next up: change "greenhouse gases" to "atmospheric enhancements."
in Other News, Red States remove thermometers from all government buildings, due to increased temperatures displayed by the "newfangled devices".
(Is Celsius wasn't a European Socialist plot, they could simply use that scale- 100F=38C)
You mean left wing devices, don't you?
Wingnuts accuse lefties of "political correctness" all the time. As is the case for anyone incapable of insight into their own behavior, it's always projection.
This purposeful and partisan dismissal of scientific fact is outrageous and outs the lives and economic well-being of millions of Americans at risk. Do these people understand what idiots they are in labeling "sea level rise" a "left-wing term"? Have these people any brains? Whether you believe the 99% of scientists that say humans are directly causing global warming or not, the effects of climate change are indisputable. To paper them over with some right=wing hack job in state legislatures, truly believing that they can simply wave away the inexorable path of nature, is insanity. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
I'm sure that the vast majority of the climate change deniers know that their propaganda is full of it, but they don't care. They obviously figure that thir propaganda will be acceptd by the sheeple, and their devil-take-the-hindmost, short-term political advantage at all costs attitudes, means that they do not care at all about the disastrous consequences of their obstructionism.
While we're lying let's just call it - higher high water.....
Can these Sheeple be deported?
This isn't righty political correctness, it's just pushback to lefty political correctness. In any event most people don't believe the claptrap issued by the left in the "crisis du jour".
There was a post here recently about NC and the claim of 39" ocean rise in 100 years. So what? the ocean rises and falls more than that every 12 hours. Beaches build and dissolve, islands form and disappear. Even if true, nobody on the coast cares about that the ocean might rise a third of an inch per year, much less will spend money on dubious plans to curtail "climate change."
In an era where jobs are scarce, money hard to come by, and where the fuiture seems bleak, this kind of BS isn't going to get traction. There are more pressing problems to attend to.
Sure -- go ahead and stick your head in the sand. When sea level rises enough for you to sputter, you might want to change your mind.
$6 million in road repairs is not a big deal , this from the people who complain constantly about food stamps feeding hungry kids and educating them , but this is not a big deal , hypocrites
Unbelievable stupidity from 242. I don't even know where to begin. But 39" would be added to everything, low to high. Good god, man, insert brain before you get out of bed.
Using your data input, the equation would be:
WRONG + WRONG = RIGHT (pun intended)
What I find most interesting (and presumptuous) about this post from you are your assumptions about other people. Such as: "most people don't believe the claptrap" and "Even if true, nobody on the coast cares".
I had to deconstruct your post mostly due to your "So what?" statement. My apologies for its length or if you choose to say TL;DR, since I will not prohibit your right of choice.
"the ocean rises and falls more than that every 12 hours" - This is called Lunar Tidal Forces. It can also be attributed to Solar Tidal Forces. These Tidal Forces are becoming more destructive every year by INCREASED SEA LEVELS and CLIMATE CHANGE . By the way, it is possible to harness energy from these predictable "tidal forces". But, you're RIGHT (pun intended), why spend money on dubious plans to create jobs, since money is hard to come by and the future seems bleak.
"Beaches build and dissolve" and "Islands form and disappear" - Beach Erosion is a natural, cyclical phenomenon, but not at its current rate in history. The increase can be attributed to SEA LEVEL RISE and CLIMATE CHANGE . Some of my information was gathered from "The History of the Beach Erosion Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1930 - 1963". a USGS presentation on Global Climate Change, Relative Sea-Level Rise and Potential Affects on Louisiana - 2007, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EC 1165-2-211 WATER RESOURCE POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES INCORPORATING SEA-LEVEL CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS IN CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMS 2009.
Even in 1930's and before, Beach Erosion and Sea Level Rise were being studied. As a side note, in 1935, a letter was written by the Governor of Maine to President Roosevelt that included the statement, "it will be a tremendous factor in solving our unemployment situation" regarding the appropriation of monies for a public works project (this was during the Great Depression). But, you're RIGHT (pun intended), why spend money on dubious plans to create jobs, since money is hard to come by and the future seems bleak.
Suffice it to say, I do not agree with you.
It's actually fascinating to read some of your posts and rebuttals. It feels like you're just tossing out lines directly from the RNC and (in honor of the upcoming Olympics) performing their nimble dive of a reverse double somersault half twist tuck of switching the original topic to "jobs are scarce and the future seems bleak".
Good post. I have to agree with uncited assumptions of other people's perception. I'll work on that.
Meanwhile, I have lived on the coast most of my life, and still own bayfront property in Florida and South Carolina. I'm not worried about the horrors of sea level rises of a few mm/year. The property faces greater threats from politicians and hurricanes.
But let me put this is a slightly different way... who better to pay for rising sea levels, the general public or the rich guys who own waterfront property?
Thank you for your reply.
I used to question anyone's rationale for building in any area prone to "nature's wrath". However, is there any place that does not incur "nature's wrath"? People who live in Tornado Alley? The same with people who build their homes on property prone to brush fires or property prone to flooding (like on the Delta), property prone to hurricanes or property prone to earthquakes? You see, where does it end?
You asked, "Who pays for the rising sea levels?" It's the same people who pay for those I stated above (that would include you / hurricanes - and me / California, earthquakes). The rising sea levels also affect Oregon and Washington, along with California, and not just the Gulf Coast states and East Coast. It's a world-wide problem. What needs to be looked at now is severity and immediacy, and not just contemplating whether or not it's happening or word choice.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Will there be those that take advantage (meaning the rich guys who own waterfront property)? Yes, there will always be vultures. But, as part of the general public, I would rather do something about the problem (even if costs me something) than waste time thinking up some childish synonym; or worse, do nothing at all.
I think back to watching the tsunami in Japan. Did the rising sea level affect the severity of the surge? Do you think all of that property was owned by rich guys? I watched in horror as I saw people die on television. Nothing stopped the sea water, not a single thing. Japan was more prepared than any other country in the world. Admittedly, they were not prepared for an earthquake of that magnitude nor for a tsunami of that size; however, the defenses that were in place for a tsunami didn't even hinder the sea water at all.
I bring this up because it's all part of the same problem. You said you weren't worried about the horrors of sea level rises of a few mm/year. I am, and I don't live on the East Coast or the Gulf Coast, but I have friends who do. It could be something as simple as the difference in the size of a storm surge or a flood. A few millimeters in sea level could be a few feet or yards on land. It could mean the difference in the severity of a hurricane. Basically, the Climate Domino Effect, as I like to refer to it. Climate change leads to rising sea levels leads to larger and stronger storm surges... It's just an observation of mine and an unproven theory. So, as for your question "Who pays for it?" (given your two choices), I would choose the general public.
First, you have to convince the problem there is a problem at all. Considering all the revelations about fraud, faulty research, and faux outrage, while proponents of climate change jet about with no concerns... most people put it on the back burner.
Second, rising sea level is not a tsunami. New building codes require construction to be done on piers many feet above high tide. That puts the responsibility for sea levels on the shoulders of those that are affected by it. I think that's appropriate.
Third, what precisely do you expect the general public to pay for? We've seen the demise of taxpayer funded green companies, carbon tax failure, etc etc etc. Frankly, it all seems remote, insubstantial, and all political. We have more concrete tangible problems to worry about, this instant.
This is just ridiculous. Like denying the words means it's not really happening. Whether or not climate change is occurring due to humans, we can't deny that the sea levels are rising, or the air temperatures are rising, or the ice shelf is disappearing. This stuff is observable by people everywhere... especially those on the coasts who see the water getting closer and closer to their homes. Observations aren't even considered scientific, for goodness sakes.
Taking a cue from Bill Maher, New Rule: If you deny sea level rising or any other scientific or visual clue that the climate is changing, they you are not entitled to federal funding when your house goes underwater, literally. After all, you shouldn't get funds for a problem you deny is occurring... you have no problem.
WTF'ery Files ~ Not political correctness but amazing collegiate BS. Let's spin phrases like the proverbial college student who needs to write a 7 - 10 page paper that is due in the next 24 hours shall we. Those phrase shifts are going to FLY, fast and furiously. The GOP wants to focus on changing the language to change the overall psychological perception of their party from How-could-they? to Oh-that's-not-so-bad-at-all. What-was-the-big-deal?.
If one focus' on changing the language of the question/topic, one does not have to answer to and/or for the question/topic. And therein, lay the path to destruction. Before you start changing stuff around, just for laughs and giggles, answer the original question. Address the original topic. Then once there we are satisfied and have no further questions in that regard, you go ahead and change what you like. We asked what we wanted to.
Personally, I kinda hate it when people change my words around or put words in my mouth. Maybe that's just me.
They find these words offensive , along with the truth , the gop today
Anyone who doesn't believe science should be turned away from doctors and not allowed to use prescription medicine.
I say if it pisses of people of the opposite political persuasion, it would be WISE not to use it. If there is anything I have learned in the last 18-or-so months is that certain words, certain actions, and even certain controversial truths can cause some people to stubbornly double-down on their original positions unnecessarily. I've seen this happen on both sides. Democrats in particular have been shooting themselves in the foot by taunting Republicans. It seems the Democratic arguments are less persuasive and more aggressive (whether factually accurate, well reasoned or not). Nobody is willing to compromise if they initially feel attacked -- whether the attack is legitimate or manufactured in the minds of the opposition. If a subtle change in vocabulary can help to GET SOMETHING DONE AROUND HERE then take advantage of the opportunity. There is little that can be done regarding those that reject global warming, so quit using global warming as an argument. It's like telling an atheist that gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so. If your opposition (politically or otherwise) doesn't believe in your "thing" then you can't base your argument on that thing.
Musicteacher what the subtle change in vocabulary is intended to do is to allow the problem to be ignored. As things progress the "recurrent flooding" areas will be permanently underwater.
I for one am sick and tired of giving in to right wingers and their fairy tales. I went to college and studied science. I am reasonably sure it provides a better more complete description of how things happen than the biblical mythology that right wingers believe is literally an accurate description of how things happen. Having also studied the bible, I am reasonably sure it was intended by its authors to impart religious, moral and ethical "truth" not explain how things work. I am sick to death of religious leaders (Christian, and Muslim) twisting the words of their religious documents in a manner never intended by the original authors.
I don't think it's that Democrats have been shooting themselves in the foot. When I watched Rachel on Meet the Press with the two Republicans, Alex Castellanos and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, it was what Rachel said that makes the most sense.
"Wow. OK. Well, we're working from different facts."
Calling it what it is "sea level rising" would be embracing science, and once you have embraced THAT one might believe that the universe and mankind is more than 5,000 years old. Can't have that now!
Also, if we were to acknowledge that this is not going away, folks might start selling their oceanfront property and moving to higher ground.
Calling something other than what it actually is creates problems because folks don't pay close enough attention and or read only the "headline" or the first 140 characters, e.g., calling the Heathcare Affordability Act simply "healthcare" does not get across that it is INSURANCE that is being discussed - ya know? So the rightwingnutzzzz are free to scare everyone with "social medicine."
We have to insist that politicians call "it" what it really is or start getting mightily "offended" and letting them know how offended we are when they don't!
Um, the right wing is insane.. Enough said, please euthanize!
This kind of thing just makes me want to bang my head on my desk. If you live in an area where flooding is now "recurrent," and are looking for a solution, I am sorry to break it to you but the solution is to pack up your sh*t and MOVE. Arguing about the terminology of "sea level rise" is pure foolishness.
Anybody living in a known and/or obvious floodplain (and this includes those people who keep rebuilding in the Mississippi River's flood zone) needs to suck it up and MOVE. I'm all for the government helping with relocation - for a limited time. We have lots of empty space.
And I know people don't want to leave their beautiful, expensive oceanfront property, but IMO it'll be a lot more beautiful with no structures on it.
As much as I want to /facepalm with you, I can't. I used to think as you do. Why the heck don't these people move? Every. Single. Year. These people go through the same garbage with the "recurrent" problem of: hurricanes, flooding, tornadoes, wildfires, etc. What, now we have rising sea levels?
I could not say to these people who live on the coasts (and about 100 miles inland) of Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina to just give up their homes and move. I know that hurricanes happen every year without fail and are just getting stronger and more frequent (sorry, forgot about the states: Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut - which are currently in their interval 57 year recurrent cycle). And then, there's the recent spate of wildfires in New Mexico and Arizona. They've become a recent, yearly occurrence due to drought (I'll throw in California and Nevada too). You've covered flooding on the Mississippi Delta, which would include Mississippi and Louisiana as the main focus.
Should we tell all of those people in known areas of known natural calamities to suck it up and move? How about we all go to Kansas? Nope, can't move there (not that I would really want to with their crazy laws). Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas have this recurrent thing called tornadoes.
"If you live in an area where _______— is now "recurrent," and are looking for a solution, I am sorry to break it to you but the solution is to pack up your sh*t and MOVE. "
Human civilizations adapt and invent to solve problems or die out and disappear. I am hoping for adapting and inventing solutions (Germany is coming up with some fascinating research. They have coastline sea level problems similar to the East Coast). I hope that your solution is the last option.
To me 'political correctness' has always been right wing: the censorship of adequate discussion of ideas began by appearing to be on the left -- but even at the beginning I considered it simply one way of controlling and limiting open discussion of ideas. It paved the way for the right wing to pounce on single terms, usually out of context, to demonize and destroy their meaning.
I'll trade you a sea level rise for a job creators, and I'll thrown in a couple socialist plot. eh?
Isn't Newspeak a grand new language. For the right, 1984 wasn't a cautionary tale. It was a text book.
Well, "Global Warming" is now "Climate Change", since well, "Global Warming" was pretty much debunked. Climate change is just a dumb replacement, because well climate always changes.....reply with turn off Fox news in 5....4...3....2...
"Global Warming" was debunked? Who knew?
turn off Fox news!
Not sure why I'm bothering but here goes ... global warming was not debunked by anyone who isn't on the reich-wing payroll. It is now referred to as climate change in part because cement-heads on the right purposely misinterpreted the "title" so that every time the weather dipped under 20 degrees some idiot said "hey, what ever happened to global WARMING. Hyuk".
It was also changed in part because as science evolves and we learn and understand more, it is sometimes appropriate to rename the entity to which we're referring. As has happened in every scientific sphere out there. As one example: what we used to call "manic-depressive" is now called "bi-polar" (and may change again). Now I recognize that using other scientific examples isn't likely to do much to illuminate the issue for you, but there it is.
Plus, how long and how many times must it be explained that climate and weather aren't the same thing? I'll type this slowly so you can understand: just because it's cold in your town doesn't mean the globe itself is getting cold. When it's cold where you are, it's hot somewhere else. The globe is getting hotter overall ... which changes air and sea currents. So, when it's unusually cold or hot for your area, that's because of the changes in air & sea currents brought about by the globe getting warmer overall. 'kay?
They have to know the difference, but they don't care as long as they can get mileage out of their deceitful propaganda.
But actually, other than Fox news, where have you seen that it's been "pretty much debunked," because all I've seen is people going back and confirming the original reports, I've seen the "debunking" proved to be wrong, I've seen new studies that confirming the warming... so, yea, turn off Fox, I guess.
You're thinking weather always changes, climate doesn't. It takes thousands of years for climate to change, the earth has never risen multiple degrees within decades before, like we have in the last 100 years.
I don't know how you look at all the facts and decide that they aren't real.
Unless you reject every basis of science, we'll assume you don't, you know what causes temperature to rise, you know that now we make more CO2 than we would have thousands of years ago, you know we have less O making trees than we used to. It all seems like simple math: we are making more bad stuff, and we have less good stuff to counter-balance... so?
Do you want to say 2+2=4 is debunked?
Siamesse...,
If they thought they could derive some sort of political advantage from saying that 2+2=4 has been "debunked", they would not hesitate to say it.