What in the world is this slideshow?
What is trying to be accomplished?
One criticism of the Left I agree with is that too often the Left just points out atrocities against man or nature, and doesn't move beyond that. The atrocity is obvious, the anger towards it is easy, but actually stating a case as to why it's horrible, scary, sad, etc, that's the hard part. Lately, especially in news outlets, the notion of actually proving a point or case beyond pulling a heartstring is dismissed.
I noticed a few weeks ago, the LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) Tanker that was brought into Boston Harbor and docked there, with unprecedented security, really threw people into a fit. I don't think it was a Liberal/Conservative thing – it was bipartisan fake outrage at this boat being docked in Boston. Here is what I know about the reaction to this:
1. People were mad, scared, angry, and upset with this tanker being here, propagated mostly by Menino and his fear tactics, without actually know what the risk/damage would be if something happened.
2. Very few people, Menino included, but most egregiously the news, actually told us what the upside of having this LNG tanker dock in Boston was. As a matter of fact, I don't know what the upside was.
I am not outraged, I am the opposite. I don't care that a tanker parked in Chelsea. I wouldn't care if it parked in Newton. I am not going to live my life in fear that a terrorist is looking to blow up a LNG tanker off the coast of Boston. I don't think it's a real threat, I may be naïve, but I like being naïve in this case. I don't want to live fearfully.
The news wants me to live that way, and they proved it by running stories about the fear, the danger, and the negatives of having this tanker here. I really don't even know what LNG does, but let's erroneously pretend it makes gas $10/gallon cheaper in Massachusetts to have this tanker parked in Beantown for a bit. Would you hate it then? What if it is providing cheaper Natural Gas for cooking and heating – is there not a case to be made that the risk could be less than the reward?
That case is rarely explained to its fullest potential in things that the public deems dangerous, or, in the case of the logging slideshow, anti-Green. In the 8 or so page on that slideshow, they barely even allude to scientific data or reasoning. Look at the last slide, its hilarious. Hurley says, "Hurley and her husband, Michael Hurley, hiked up to the area that leads to the clear cut. Hurley said the logs were dragged down this incline and created ruts on the ground."
OH NO! RUTS! We are talking about trees making marks in the earth. How does that even make a difference? Don't get me wrong, cutting down all the trees in the universe is bad. You could even (easily) convince me that cutting down these trees at the Quabbin is bad. But you cannot convince me of those things by telling me that there are RUTS in the ground. How the in world does that matter?
I guess my real issue isn't a larger political story, when I think about it, but more that I cannot imagine what editor approved this – what writer thought this was brilliant? They keep painting the loggers out to be clumsy and horrible, and again, maybe they are, but there is no evidence aside from confirmed internal disciplinary action that was taken. We know there are diseased trees that need to be cut down. We know that cutting down trees is sad. Are those two things mutually exclusive? No.
Put a stop to clear cuts, I'll donate to the cause, but at least write about it in a mature way, instead of showing pictures of people walking around on clear cut area, without giving us any indication if that particular area needed to be cut or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment