NYT: But enough about nuclear incineration threats to Guam. Let's talk about global warming
In Guam, the civil defense instructions were clear and direct:
"Do not look at the flash or fireball – It can blind you," it said. "Take cover behind anything that might offer protection."
"Remove your clothing to keep radioactive material from spreading. Removing the outer layer of clothing can remove up to 90% of radioactive material," read the guidelines of what to do if caught outside.
Meanwhile, in San Diego, where I live, the local news stations have interviewed Guamanians living here, where there is a large community, and not surprisingly, the Guamanians say they are worried. They are even planning a Roman Catholic Mass to pray for the deliverance of their island from the nuclear threat it is facing now.
Guam has taken the most specific threat, but four other U.S. places have been threatened as well: San Diego; Austin; Washington, D.C.; and the Hawaiian islands.
The U.K.'s Daily Star has made a map of the threats.
So what is it about these very specific existential threats to large parts of the U.S. that brings out the worst out in media and political activists?
The New York Times made a fool of itself Friday by, instead of focusing on Guam and its existential threat, using it as an opportunity to bring up global warming. Look at the idiocy of its headline: "North Korea Aside, Guam Faces Another Threat: Climate Change."
As if those two issues were anywhere near the same league. North Korea aside? Sorry, pal, but that's the news today. There's no putting North Korea "aside." It goes to show what the Times' real priority is: global warming, as if to relive those golden days of the Obama administration, which had rated global warming more dangerous than nuclear warfare. The bombs could be raining down on Guam or even Manhattan, and those guys would still be banging on the nonexistent drum of global warming. It's embarrassing.
Sadly, it's not very different from some of the irresponsible statements seen from the right. On my Facebook page, one of my "friends" wrote about what a fine thing it would be for San Diego to be taken out by the North Koreans. Presumably, it would mean fewer Democratic voters, ignoring the reality that the one California city under threat, San Diego, is a military city and the last red major city in the entire U.S., but never mind.
A National Rifle Association television host, one Grant Stinchfield, posted similar sentiments and was roundly scolded on Twitter. Both the Facebook friend and the NRA TV host apologized, and there was no reason not to believe them – because if they really did want all Democratic voter redoubts bombed, they would have been cheering 9/11 in New York and the Orlando spray-shooting terror attack on the gay club, both of which hit a lot of Democratic voters, which they were not. They just failed to recognize the reality of the new threat.
The Times, though, isn't apologizing. Its editors really do think global warming is major threat, as major as that of nuclear warfare, and as worthy of column inches in its finite newspaper. There is nothing like a pet cause that can be sidled into whatever the issue of the day is. Someone out there really is shutting out the real threats being faced out there – and desperately living in the past.