One of this week's "Daily Show" outrage clip packages referenced duplicity in Congress, quoting solons (about 5 minutes in) complaining on how unfair some rule is and then showing how they defended the same rule years before, when their party ruled.

I didn't see it until after I read the summary of the Waxman/Markey climate bill introduced on Tuesday, but I think it helps explain, at least in a spiritual sense, why I haven't been able to muster much enthusiasm for what appears to be a very good starting point.

The bill has four sections, focusing on clean energy, energy efficiency, global climate change, and the transition away from current practices, and I like what it tries to accomplish, despite the sham funds for coal-related carbon capture and sequestration, which is just pouring money down a dry hole, as far as I'm concerned.

I know it's about pluralism, and understand that that money is going to buy the support of coal-state representatives. At least the nuclear lobby is less powerful, and less geo-centric, so they didn't need to pander to them, too; the bill doesn't even mention the word.

So why don't I love it? I think it's bullshit fatigue. 

Even as it seems everything is on fire, the legislative crap continues to flow, so why invest in what our leaders will guy anyway? Here's Nancy Pelosi, at her weekly press conference (reported by CQ Politics) yesterday:

“I will work to see that whatever we do does not increase the burden on our rate payers and also has mitigation for business so we can be competitive.” 

Can I just get a little truth here? The "burden on our rate payers" is the fact that the planet is in danger, directly as a result of the un-burden carried by "our rate payers" (that's you and me) for more than a century.

Meanwhile, consider this story by Keith Bradsher on the front of the Times yesterday: 

TIANJIN, China — Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars and buses after that. The goal, which radiates from the very top of the Chinese government, suggests that Detroit’s Big Three, already struggling to stay alive, will face even stiffer foreign competition on the next field of automotive technology than they do today. “China is well positioned to lead in this,” said David Tulauskas, director of China government policy at General Motors.

While even those who agree there's a problem are focused on protecting the old way of doing things, on not being too hasty, our competitors in the world economy — directed by the highest levels of government — are moving expeditiously to control the next battlegrounds.

The opposition, meanwhile, has its head vastly further up its ass, having called efforts to put a higher price on carbon "a light-switch tax." Yes, that's exactly what it is. Yes! Now, are you capable of going the next step, about whether such a levy would be a good idea? Would we get more out doing it than not doing it, rather than just hearing "tax" and taking all measures to avoid hearing anything else.

John Boehner, in the same CQ Politics story, said, "“There’s no compromise. In the middle of a recession you can’t throw a wet blanket on the economy. You will smother it.”

This man, and his colleagues, apparently, thinks the right thing to do is rebuild the broken old system before we change it.