Monday, August 11, 2008

James Wigderson and his critics, continued

Emily Mills asks who gave me a column?

I mean, he's a blogger after all. It's generally good policy to just keep us relegated to our own personal web space. Especially if we birth such abortions of grammar, common sense, and logic such as can be found in James Widgerson's {sic} latest column at

Widgerson {sic} is bemoaning the recent report, Wisconsin's Strategy for Reducing Global Warming, and its apparently audacious assumption that global climate change is a real threat and that we ought to take steps to combat it.

After that, she was just plain mean. Seriously, I think she was trying to be funny, or maybe not, but it's hard to take the criticisms to heart when she can't even spell my name right. As for why do I have a column? Probably because of my political background (easily Googled if you spell my name correctly), sharp wit, handsome picture, and the great job I do washing Bill Yorth's car each week.

But back to my critic. The report's audacious assumption is that if global warming exists, Wisconsin's economic self-destruction will be the means by which the Earth is saved. She offers no intelligence to support the claim, nor does the report.

It's worth noting that she is definitely up to date on global warming, adopting the new euphemism "global climate change." As Dad29 points out in the comments, whether or not we are in a period of global cooling is a matter for discussion (and I was agnostic on this point in my column). The fact is, we don't know, nor do we know what part man plays in the whole process. We even don't know if global warming would be bad.

What we do know is that the solutions proposed by the governor's task force are wonderfully (for lack of a better word) totalitarian in nature. There is not one aspect of human activity in Wisconsin that would not be affected if the recommendations are implemented. Aside from the total economic and human costs, none of which are calculated in the report, the loss of freedom resulting from the report's implementation could not possibly justify whatever possible positive benefits one might divine.

One might expect a response to the points I raised, but instead we're given an almost religious justification for the effort as if the task's force report were a revelation along the light rail system to Damascus. A couple of class-warfare snipes to appease her audience are hardly worth the response.

I deserve a better critic. Who gave her a blog?