A New Fruit-Based Insult Emerges: The Watermelon

BOSTON, Mass. – We’re all familiar with the insult construction that takes the following form: "You’re a (insert fruit)! You know, because you’re (insert color) on the outside, but (insert color) on the inside." It actually has a nasty racial history, but there are lighter-hearted variations too, like the one Dale Jamieson, an NYU professor, […]

Watermelon
BOSTON, Mass. - We're all familiar with the insult construction that takes the following form: "You're a (insert fruit)! You know, because you're (insert color) on the outside, but (insert color) on the inside." It actually has a nasty racial history, but there are lighter-hearted variations too, like the one Dale Jamieson, an NYU professor, offered during his talk on the ethics of geoengineering here at the AAAS annual meeting.

In an effort to explain that he was not opposed to markets as mechanisms for combating climate change he said:

"I'm not a watermelon," he said. The crowd murmured, expecting the joke's punchline, which Jamieson provided. "You know, someone who is green on the outside and red on the inside."

If you're not familiar with the old color scheme of left wing politics, the reds are, of course, the Communists. It's a silly insult, but one that seems to be gaining some traction. It even has made the Wikipedia entry for watermelon, in which they note that the insult is of Australian extraction.

In fact, given my generally pro-government orientation, I'm surprised that none of you erstwhile Al Gore haters has felt the need to call me one.
(Side question: when did it go out on the right-wing wire that Gore must be called Goresky? Is that considered effective rhetoric? I don't think many people tremble at the thought of Leon Trotsky anymore. I mean: Russia is filled with hypercapitalists now.)

As for Jamieson's actual talk, he began by noting that he first covered the topic of intentionally changing the climate back in 1992 at the AAAS annual meeting of that year, and he doesn't think much has changed, ethically.

While he said that the risks of geoengineering are exaggerated, he concluded, "We should not undertake geoengineering except as part of a coherent package that includes rigorous mitigation and adaptation policies. That's because geoengineering remains a "moral hazard"
because "if you promise a solution to the problem of emissions, you encourage people to continue emitting."

Image: flickr/Aaron_M