The New York Times supported global heating denialism by equating the Green New Deal with the bullshitter's border wall.

The difference is that one fights a real and moral danger, while the other fights only a scapegoat.

A Green Party senator in Australia has been castigated for comparing the planet-roaster politicians "arsonists".

In general, someone else's supporting a policy which you believe will have result X is not in general morally equivalent to per personally supporting or doing X. Person might honestly believe that the policy won't cause X, and even if perse turns out to be mistaken about that, it is still a mistake rather than an intentional choice. Anyone can make a mistake.

However, in the issue of global heating and climate disaster, the relation between fossil fuels and wildfires has been so fully established, for so long, and so widely explained, that we have gone past the point where a politician can be excused for disregarding science on this question. Promoting fossil fuel use today is indeed equivalent to fomenting arson.

A network of Nazis around the US planned defacement of synagogues in two states.

US college student newspapers face relentless pressure from activist students to become overtly partisan.

I support the campaign to abolish the US deportation thug department,

ICE, and I would have joined in protesting Sessions' visit to Northwestern if I had been there. But it is important for newspapers (not just those of students) to cover these protests in a nonpartisan way. One of our deep political problems (not new) is that our journalism is too politicized. This makes it hard to determine what really happened — so how can we decide where to stand on an issue?

The Situation Room, October 2039: the president and vice president, and other high civil and military officials are following the damage from Hurricane Monica, Hurricane Nicholas, and Hurricane Ophelia, as well as Southern California where "millions of people are under mandatory evacuation orders with essentially nowhere to go because of a maelstrom of raging wildfires."

Fortunately, the US no longer needs to worry greatly about Russian and China, which have been hit by their own human-caused climate disasters.

In 2019, important US military bases have already been ruined by storms and threatened by wildfires.

Civilian life will be in constant danger from these events, too. It will not be easy to grow as much food as we produce today.

The soundest policy would be for the US, China and Russia to join together now and force all countries to join them in rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is foolish to wait until the disaster makes it impossible to delay any longer.