Fraught
Be sure to keep the causes of climate change a secret so that the causes can continue to cause.
Business and agricultural groups sued California on Tuesday over the most sweeping climate disclosure mandates in the nation, arguing the policies signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year overstep on the federal government’s authority to regulate emissions nationwide.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, California Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau Federation and other groups filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They argue the new rules go too far in part because they apply to companies headquartered outside of California as long as they do business in the state. The groups also allege the laws infringe upon the First Amendment by requiring companies to comment on what the lawsuit calls a “politically fraught” topic — climate change.
Here’s the thing: the “topic” can be as politically fraught as you want but that doesn’t change the reality of climate change and what it’s going to do to the children of all these Chamber of Commerce and Farm Bureau litigators. Climate change doesn’t care about your political; it just does what it does.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco who authored the law, called the lawsuit “straight up climate denial.”
“The Chamber is taking this extremist legal action because many large corporations — particularly fossil fuel corporations and large banks — are absolutely terrified that if they have to tell the public how dramatically they’re fueling climate change, they’ll no longer be able to mislead the public and investors,” he said in a statement.
But hey he’s a D so he would say that, while the people who are R say the other thing. Meanwhile, climate change continues, in complete indifference to the D and the R.
Politically fraught topics:
Climate change
Evolution
Gender ideology
Women’s rights
Racism
Isn’t it interesting how many of these politically fraught topics are based on denials of science?
Well that’s why they’re politically fraught of course. If people just argued about how to interpret facts, or what policy would be the best response to facts, things might be contentious at times, but would more usually (he said naively) be constructive. When one side is constantly trying to deny facts, usurp, remove, or withhold rights based on bullshit, well, that’s a shit fight. Especially when the arseholes start playing the ‘you can’t call me deplorable just because I want black people to rot in slums or return to slavery’ card.
Rob, so true.
It all comes down to the way everything is now observed from two competing towers. The First Tower makes a case, therefore the Second Tower has no choice but to oppose.
It is why Climate Change is a huge issue for those in the Left Tower, while The Right Tower must ignore the science and denigrate those pushing for action. When it comes to the Gender Agenda, The Left Tower is all in while the Right Tower, in a rare acceptance of science, leads the charge for rational debate and sensible rules.
And those of us living in the valleys between the two Towers are assigned a Tower and we must always face toward it when looking for guidance. The Tower knows all. The penalties for changing Tower allegiance are severe, including loss of friends, family, and possibly even employment, so we bit our tongues and chant the Mantra of Our Tower, even when we know they are wrong.
We are all Big Endiens or Little Endians and never consider why the hen’s egg is designed that way.