The city is one of more than 2,600 communities in roughly 80 countries that'll [sic] participate in the movement. By turning off lights from 8:30-9:30 p.m., the effort aims to conserve energy and curb global warming.
But for skeptics of global warming, or the theory that humans caused it, Earth Hour is sham. And Tupelo's participation irks them.
-- "Critics blast Earth Hour, but support conservation" BY EMILY LE COZ [Northeastern Mississippi Daily Journal]
A few things can be said about this news story, including how even among conservative (an interesting word in this context) sorts certain things can be agreed upon. It also is a lesson in how different communities see things. The short mention in the NY Daily News did not feel a need to reference "skeptics of global warming" or such. This underlines how useful it is to somehow, even if if seems hard [see also, comments], we need to keep an eye (and maybe even talk to!) others outside our milieu. The fact a quick Google News search led me to find this article by chance underlines the power of the Internet.
I cheer those bloggers who actually do this on a regular basis and don't all become Keith Olbermann in the process. One such person, who at times even debates them, is Glenn Greenwald. Deep down, he is a libertarian sort, something that comes up from time to time, such as his recent efforts on drug criminalization. GG thus is logically impressed at Senator Webb tackling our prison problem, including the signicant drug criminalization aspect of the whole thing. There has been some positive local developments in this area.
As GG cites Andrew Sullivan noting, Obama only goes so far in this area, though his administration's policy of not targeting medicinal marijuana use in states that do not have state policies against it underlines some positives. All the same, when legalization (and its positive fiscal consequences) was brought up in an online Q&A session, Obama was unsurprisingly uncomfortable with the whole thing. This underlines the limits of our discourse (Andrew Sullivan):
The chuckle suggests a man of his generation. The dismissiveness toward the question of ending Prohibition as both a good in itself and a form of tax revenue is, however, depressing. His answer was a non-answer. I'm tired of having the Prohibition issue treated as if it's trivial or a joke. It is neither. It is about freedom and it's deadly serious. As for your online audience, Mr president, have you forgotten who got you elected?
As GG notes, the role of true leaders is to change the conversation, even if it does not seem "pragmatic" to do so:
Actual leaders, by definition, confront majoritarian views when they are misguided and seek to change them, and politicians have far more ability to affect and change public opinion than they want the public to believe they have. ...
Parties, by pushing for things, make them part of the sphere of debate. Important and visible people can question consensus, and all of a sudden expand it. These spheres are malleable; if the conversation of democracy is alive and if you make your leaders talk about things, it becomes valid to talk about them.
Changing the conversation, making certain subjects or issues sound reasonable, is quite important, even if it does not immediately directly affect policy. And, often, even if you are on some level on the right side of an issue, framing can be problematic. William Saletan, who I simply stopped reading (another Slate boob), is a favorite whipping boy underlines the point. I'd add, why do people insist on saying "fetus" when talking about the first trimester? That is an "embryo," which is much lower in the stage of development, and sending a much different image. So many language pratfalls in that area.
It can be tiresome to worry about language when discussing issues, trying to be all politically correct, in this context meaning not giving the other side fodder. And, this includes not speaking out on controversial issues for fear of political backlash. But, that is what true leaders do. Drug policy, which threatens liberty and skewers rational discourse in any number of ways, surely needs more of them.