2.16.14: Slapshots and Concussions

At the top of an entertaining Meet The Press, the discussion to this column's delight, began with the subject of ice hockey, and since we're big fans of the sport, we must comment.  (If you're not a fan, skip down to the fourth full paragraph.) First of all, yes, as Americans writing this column, we're happy that the U.S. won the game, but not for the reasons the round table guests stupidly stated.  Nicole Wallace talked about the players having a sense of the politics of the moment, a 'sixth sense' of the competitors.  Chuck Todd talked about the political tension and with Putin in the audience, the players wanting to stick it to him.

Yeah, maybe very little of that is present, but for the most part, they were all proverbially talking out of their butts. Of course there is national pride because it's about where you are from - that small town where very few make it out or that large city where you're plucked from one in a million - and somehow you make it to the top level with the opportunity to represent your country.  The U.S. players were happy to win the game not because Putin was in the audience or for some political reason like the round table was saying that harkens back to 1980 Lake Placid.  They were happy to win because the Russian team is a great team with great players, and they beat them.  One of those Russian players, arguably one of the the top two in the world - Alexander Ovechkin, is the captain of the team that plays in our nation's capital, and is a guy that you want to route for.

The motivation is national pride but not at the expense of the other, competitive bragging rights, not political. And if you're a true hockey fan, you have to admit that you'll take the win if you're a U.S. fan, but Russia got robbed of a goal late that could have won the game for them.  Shoot outs can go either way, and remember that was an NHL skater, T.J. Oshi of the St. Louis Blues shooting on an NHL goaltender, Sergei Bobrovsky of Columbus.

The round table needed a slap shot, figuratively, comes its way to the head, so there it is.

However, it was a few of the guests who in their answers sounded a little concussed.

First off, Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 and head of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City Mitt Romney said that the $50 billion price tag to prepare Sochi for the games was excessive and that instead of spending all that money for TV appearances, it should be used to help the poor and fight disease.  He sounded more like Governor Romney of Massachusetts in that moment than Mr. Romney, presidential cabinet.  It was unexpected, which made us wonder if he was O.K.

Also, when asked about Senator Rand Paul's attacks on Hillary Clinton by using Bill Clinton's indiscretions as the basis, Mr. Romney backed away from all of that  - he's not a personal character assassination type of politician - and said that there was plenty of her own record on which she can be judged.  Isn't much more interesting to hear answers from political individuals who aren't beholden to some one else with an agenda?

Who we know is not O.K. is Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  She's got her climate change denying talking points down pat, but at this point in the global discussion that is climate change and the consensus that it is real, they sound quite naive and, in fact, sad.  It sounds like last ditch denial - perhaps too addicted to the contributions of big energy money to admit to the problem. 

Chuck Todd explained that politicians need to get past whether or not it's more man made versus naturally happening and focus on the fact that it exists.  We agree but to give an answer on that debate, the cause it both.  We naturally procreate which results in more and more humans beings on the planet that hence naturally produce more carbon dioxide, and because of our living habits, how we use energy, we exacerbate and speed up that effect. That's the rudimentary [read: dumb], but reasonable answer.

However, there are many Republican political leaders, and some Democrats, who think like Mrs. Blackburn and look for any statement to refute what we all know.  Bill Nye, the science guy, isn't much of a debater, that's for sure, and seemingly isn't very good with using visuals, but the fact that he displayed on the iPad is that there is significantly less ice in the Arctic than there was 30 years ago.  Less ice translates into more water and that's why you saw those pictures of towns in Great Britain flooded.  The water level is rising, it's simple cause and effect.  It's the new normal that for a good part of the year, San Marco Square in Venice is flooded out.  Mr. Nye also said what needed to be said which was that to doubt an aspect of the scientific findings and then equate it to the overall validity of scientific consensus on climate change is completely wrong.

Mrs. Blackburn explained that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million was very slight and that sound laws can not be made on hypotheses.  Fair enough on the second part, if you believe in the first part of her explanation.  However, we agree with Mr. Nye, making a good debate recovery here, that a 30 percent increase over the last few decades is not slight.  

Republican strategist Nicole Wallace, who you could tell is a skeptic but not one wanting to sound as silly as Mrs. Blackburn, said that many Republican politicians feel that even if the U.S. did everything that it could to limit its carbon emissions and it still wouldn't make a difference so what's the point of trying.  Democratic strategist David Axelrod kind of backed up the point saying that we have an economy that is unable to handle short term sacrifice for long term stability in terms of paying more for cleaner energy now so that we have a cleaner planet later.

Both of those explanations sound defeatist, don't they?  They both seem to acknowledge a hopeless situation and that we can not do anything about it.  Surprising that neither strategist picked up the ball that Mr. Nye left for them and said that this was the ideal time for the U.S. to act and be the innovator for the future, 'build the better battery.'

As we said, shoot outs can go either way, a 50-50... But climate change is no shoot out, it's happening.

(Sixty-five degrees at the Winter Olympics)


Round Table: NBC News' Chuck Todd, Republican Strategist and former White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace, Associated Press Chief White House Correspondent Julie Pace, and Democratic Strategist and former Senior Adviser to President Obama David Axelrod.