Gore sets the bar higher.

[Andrew Mayer]

An excellent speech (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/08/08/gore_speech/index.html) by someone who understands the stakes, and what the job of a politician and government really is.


Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.

Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.

Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the rule of reason as the best way to establish the truth.

The Bush administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agendas.

[Sharpe]

I thought this was a pretty strong speech overall. His criticism of the Bush administration's systematic disregard for facts that don't fit with their ideological or religious preconceptions was right on. I've felt for a couple of years now that the big problem with this administration was more than standard political disagreement with my positions: they are some convinced of their opinions, in an absolutist fashion, that objective reality means very little, unless it meets their expectations. It may be overly simplistic to blame this on talk radio but I've heard a trend over the last few years of talk radio hosts simply slamming out their message regardless of reality and using continuous repetition, bombastic assertions of being right, and calling anyone who disagrees with them biased, to get their message across, regardless of the facts.

(The left is not blameless either, I feel that the over-use of the race card, over emphasis on identity politics and scare politics, labeling anyone who disagrees a racist or oppressor have all undermined the credibility of the left as well).

We seem to be heading towards a situation where key debates are not about policy or the logical consequnces of actions - instead we are debating the core facts. It's like our political system has gotten so polarized we cannot even agree on the basic facts that underlie the debate. On many issues from the environment (global warming), war with Iraq, tax policy and so on, our debates have not been about the policies and their effects but instead the basic facts that should be established and agreed on.

I don't have a solution but I strongly feel the Bush admin is part of the problem.

Dan

[Jason McCullough]

Oh lord, "the race card and scare politics" again.

[Brad Grenz]

Oh Lord, Jason McCullough's incredulity again.

[bmulligan]

I don't have a solution but I strongly feel the Bush admin is part of the problem.



-The Democratic Party Motto

[TimElhajj]

Similar to the ever popular Republican refrain of "I don't know the answer but let's blow stuff up and see if that helps any."

[bmulligan]

"I don't know the answer but let's blow stuff up and see if that helps any

-Bill Clinton, after the cruise missle bombing of an asprin factory in Afganistan during the Monica Lewinski testimony to a grand jury.

[TimElhajj]

Bill knew the answer, dude.

[bmulligan]

Yeah, I guess he did....It was all over the dress. And Clinton lied just enough to the grand jury to get disbarred, but that was only about sex anyway.

All of these powermongers have their agendas and they are all lying to us, all the time. Republican, Democrat, whatever. Everything that comes out of their mouths is pure calculation, except for Bush which sometimes borders on idiocy, but mostly on ineptitude.

I don't know what Gore's agenda is except to get some more recognition since he's basically been out of the spotlight for 3 years now. He needs some action in case he wants to run for Senator again or get a good appointment in a democratic administration next time around. Reading that speech I can just imagine that slow subdued tennessee drawl...
It brings tears to my eyes, from uncontrollable laughter.

[Peter Frazier]

Whatever Clinton's excesses were, he didn't wrap it up in the flag and pretend that his lies were for the greater good of the country. I'd prefer that politicans were at least abashed about their dishonesty.

[ElRavager]

I'm not a big fan of Gore, but that speech is right on the money. thumbs up to the speech-writers! :mrgreen:

[bmulligan]

yeah, I agree with the speech's argument, but coming form the mouth of a liar, it loses its effect. If someone more respected said it(not a politician with an agenda), then perhaps it would hold more weight.


Whatever Clinton's excesses were, he didn't wrap it up in the flag and pretend that his lies were for the greater good of the country.

ok, yeah, sure, he didn't wrap his lies in a flag, just a dark blue dress. Keep in mind at the same time this was going on in 1998, Clinton and the state department were making the rounds trying to drum up support for an attack on Iraq. We were being told of the dangers of their nuclear program and chemical weapons stockpiles. Were those flag wrapped lies or are the Republicans the only ones who lie through the stars and stripes?

[voltaic]

Whatever Clinton's excesses were, he didn't wrap it up in the flag and pretend that his lies were for the greater good of the country. I'd prefer that politicans were at least abashed about their dishonesty.
George Carlin said it best: Bill Clinton told the people right up front, "I'm completely full of shit and how do ya like that?" And the people said "Well, at least he's honest."

[Andrew Mayer]

yeah, I agree with the speech's argument, but coming form the mouth of a liar, it loses its effect. If someone more respected said it(not a politician with an agenda), then perhaps it would hold more weight.

More “disenfranchised chic” BS. Everyone has an agenda, even you. Saying “all politicians are stupid” makes you sound weak and helpless, not smart and cool. There are politicians who do more for the common good, and others do less. It only takes a little time and effort to discover the difference.


ok, yeah, sure, he didn't wrap his lies in a flag, just a dark blue dress. Keep in mind at the same time this was going on in 1998, Clinton and the state department were making the rounds trying to drum up support for an attack on Iraq.

Any attributions, or are you just parroting information you get from “fair and balanced” pundits?


We were being told of the dangers of their nuclear program and chemical weapons stockpiles. Were those flag wrapped lies or are the Republicans the only ones who lie through the stars and stripes?


If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people.

There are no plans for any kind of ground invasion or ground activity. There's no thought of anything like that. I will say that we have supported the Iraq Liberation Act passed by the Congress. We would like to see a different kind of regime in Iraq. We've said that plenty of times. But this action is focussed specifically and precisely on preventing him or degrading his ability to get weapons of mass destruction or to threaten his neighbors and we're going to continue it until we achieve that objective.
---Al Gore, Dec. 16, 1998


See the difference?

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, he thought Saddam had to go, but pussed out on actually putting enough force behind an action to remove him. Isn't lobbing laser guided missles from hudreds of mile away considered inhumane by a lot of liberals?

[Tyjenks]

I heard it on Friday and I thought hearing him deliver the speech was agonizing. To me, it was like he was fed the high points that needed to be hit, he hit them in his normal sleep-inducing tone, and there was much rejoicing by all those who heard exactly what they wanted to hear.

[bmulligan]

There are politicians who do more for the common good, and others do less. It only takes a little time and effort to discover the difference.

Never have I said they are stupid, quite the contrary, it is the populace that are stupid and so eager to believe. Politicians are calculating and precise in the words and rhetoric they choose. I simply find it amusing that the left leaners will latch on to what any liberal says without question, just as the eileen rightly crowd does for their own. Oh, and there is only one common good, but I'm curious to know what your investigational effort has produced......some type of government program or some other 'politically correct nouveau chic' idea?



If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people.

There are no plans for any kind of ground invasion or ground activity. There's no thought of anything like that. I will say that we have supported the Iraq Liberation Act passed by the Congress. We would like to see a different kind of regime in Iraq. We've said that plenty of times. But this action is focussed specifically and precisely on preventing him or degrading his ability to get weapons of mass destruction or to threaten his neighbors and we're going to continue it until we achieve that objective.

now tell me the difference between this and what was said by the bush administration?

I didn't realize that some consider it necessary to google some speech quotes evey time someone puts forth a tidbit of historical analysis. Thanks for helping me out by validating my memories of the events 5 years ago.

[Jason McCullough]

I imagine democracy's a rather bad idea if everyone's an idiot, right?

[Dirt]

"I imagine democracy's a rather bad idea if everyone's an idiot, right?"

The Founding Fathers thought so. It's why we have the electoral college.

[graller]

There are no plans for any kind of ground invasion or ground activity. There's no thought of anything like that. I will say that we have supported the Iraq Liberation Act passed by the Congress. We would like to see a different kind of regime in Iraq.

now tell me the difference between this and what was said by the bush administration?

Ummm - We invaded Iraq? I think that's a pretty major difference between the stated intention of this quote.

[Jason McCullough]

"I imagine democracy's a rather bad idea if everyone's an idiot, right?"

The Founding Fathers thought so. It's why we have the electoral college.

Don't give me that republic/democracy shit. :D

[bmulligan]

Ummm - We invaded Iraq? I think that's a pretty major difference between the stated intention of this quote.

Why won't people like you capitulate that Saddam was in violation of UN resolution 1441? Shouldn't there be consequences for kicking out weapons inspectors after you lose a war? Just think how WWII could have been avoided if the europeans had some 'backbone' and made sure that Hitler wasn't rebuilding the german army. 1441 had to be enforced. Unfortunately, we had to be the ones to stand up and say 'enough' because the cow-towing cronies in france, germany, and russia were going to let it slide, invalidating any consequences to any of Saddams actions, or any other terrorist harboring dictator for that matter.

I'll grant you that the US apparantly didn't have a good strategy for the aftermath, but goddamnit, somebody had to do something instead of kicking back and armchairing like the rest of the world and all of us here. Sometimes, someone has to lead by making a decision and following through.

[quatoria]

Maybe that something that somebody had to do could have waited until there was actually a plan for the aftermath to prevent people from starving to death and having no water or medical supplies or having a functioning civil infrastructure? Since, you know, there was no imminent threat of any kind?

[Rywill]

Unfortunately, we had to be the ones to stand up and say 'enough' because the cow-towing cronies in france, germany, and russia were going to let it slide
I think you mean "kowtowing." Although maybe they were towing cows while they did it. Wouldn't surprise me, the bastards. :D

[Tom Chick]

Where were the cows being towed? Had they been illegally parked? Or had they just broken down?

BTW, Ryan, you get bmulligan on your side. Ha ha!

-Tom

[Xaroc]

Ummm - We invaded Iraq? I think that's a pretty major difference between the stated intention of this quote.

Why won't people like you capitulate that Saddam was in violation of UN resolution 1441? Shouldn't there be consequences for kicking out weapons inspectors after you lose a war? Just think how WWII could have been avoided if the europeans had some 'backbone' and made sure that Hitler wasn't rebuilding the german army. 1441 had to be enforced. Unfortunately, we had to be the ones to stand up and say 'enough' because the cow-towing cronies in france, germany, and russia were going to let it slide, invalidating any consequences to any of Saddams actions, or any other terrorist harboring dictator for that matter.


Yeah we had to invade because Saddam, much like Hitler, was only months away from invading Western Europe ... err other Middle Eastern countries ... um the Quicky Mart?

He posed zero threat to us or even really to surrounding countries. There were no WMDs, no link to al Queda, no buying of uranium from Niger, etc. We invaded and got U.S. troops killed all because Bush lied about every reason for the war. Plus I am of the opinion we are going to create more terrorists with this action.

-- Xaroc

[quatoria]

From all availible evidence, it appears that Bush rushed the invasion, despite objections that there was neither the quantity of troops or material needed to sustain a prolonged occupation, because he was trying to beat the inevitable turn of public opinion. Charming.

[Jack]

I'm sick of the freakin' Hitler comparison. It was just political bullshit, as if this is new in politics. How about this: Hitler had the necessary weapons to attack Europe. Saddam barely had enough to defend himself. The fact that we soundly thrashed Iraq clearly states that we were beating up on the retarded kid on the block.

In case someone pipes up about us stopping the atrocities against the Iraqi people: The Iraqis seem lukewarm on the whole atrocity thing. Saddam killing thousands or the US killing thousands doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff. Apparently, they don't know we were destroying them to save them. What fools.

As for the statement that Bush rushed it.... I'm not sure that's true. If you think back, there was a general concensus of "shit or get off the pot" directed at Bush this past winter. I think it's more a problem of the Bush administration saying "We want to invade Iraq. Tell us why we should."

The administration did a wonderful mind-trick by making a multiple-choice war. Collectively, we can no longer remember why we went because they threw so many reasons at us. The conservatives remember the reasons that have since been proven to be true (Saddam is a Bad Dude) and the liberals remember the reasons that are not true (WMD). It's classic political smoke and mirrors.

Unfortunately, Tony Blair is the one who's going to be taken to task for this, moreso than our president. He spoke to Europe in complete sentences and used proper English to give legitimacy to Bush's desires. Now, his head is on the block as Bush points an accusing finger at British Intelligence for faulty information and Europe shakes its collective head at what an ass Blair was for believing in Cowboy Bush.

The long and short of it is, the next president is going to have a hell of a mess to clean up.

[Dirt]

But at least Halliburton got paid!

[Andrew Mayer]

Why won't people like you capitulate that Saddam was in violation of UN resolution 1441? Shouldn't there be consequences for kicking out weapons inspectors after you lose a war?

Yeah. Too bad that's not exactly what happened. The inspectors were withdrawn by the UN on the advice of the US prior to the 1998 Desert Fox bombing campaign for "non-cooperation"

“A few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

Source: ‘Missile Blitz on Iraq’, Julian Borger and Ian MacAskill – 17/12/1998 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,209995,00.html)

Inspections and sanctions were doing there job, even if they weren't as sexy as tanks and flight suits.

It's clear that the (non faith-based) intelligence was correct, and Saddam was contained, and not harboring Al-Queda.

So we're left with no clear mission, and not enough troops. But that's par for the course with this administration. As long as Bechtel and Halliburton are getting fed we're doing great, even if the troops aren't getting enough water.

[Jason McCullough]

They were also spying for the CIA, which wasn't exactly in good faith.

[bmulligan]

yeah, I love the spy mission hypothesis used to expell inspectors. Isn't spying on them the whole point, whether they are for the CIA or not? The point was to verify all previously catalogued weapons had been destroyed. If you lose a war, you're an open book for your enemies to scrutinize until they have deemed you incapapble of rearming.

I'm not crazy about how the US has executed this 'war' either, I think it's ridiculous. The seeming lack of prior proper planning produced piss poor performance of the 'rebuilding'. Bush has also done a marvelous job of ruining his and his entire administrations credibility in the world community and the US population by obviously stretching the truth to the point of transparancy.


The administration did a wonderful mind-trick by making a multiple-choice war. Collectively, we can no longer remember why we went because they threw so many reasons at us.

I agree, the calculated progression of rationales to war was an overt attemt to illicitly engender support. If only we had a president who could articulate a rational argument like Blair in one of his many speeches on the subject, instead of a president who attempts a foot-in-mouth soundbyte every few days. If only we had a population that could understand reason, and not be tempted so easily by rhetoric and misdirection.

But someone had to enforce the unanimous UN resolution, otherwise why have a UN in the first place? If they pass all these resolutions without any consequences then why would anyone abide by any rules at all? It's like a teacher losing control of the classroom. When little Billy starts acting up in class, she sends him to the principles office. When there's do discipline handed out, Billy knows he has a license to keep acting up in class. Then all the other troublemakers know they can act up too without getting punnished. And so follows the macrocosm of the world community. Don't you think the North Korea would be standing a bit prouder had we backed down from the threat of enforcement? I think they and every other 'rogue' nation know we mean business. Unfortunately, the business is being run like Enron.[/quote]

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, I love the spy mission hypothesis used to expell inspectors. Isn't spying on them the whole point, whether they are for the CIA or not?

I know this may be difficult to imagine, but having the agents of a foreign power's intelligence service running around the country trying to overthrow the government is not the logical equivalent of "UN weapons inspectors."


But someone had to enforce the unanimous UN resolution, otherwise why have a UN in the first place?

Yes, that must be why the UN was so hellfired for us to enforce it, huh? Why have a UN if you can't make up their opinions for them?

To continue your "sending Billy to the office" analogy, lets say the teacher tried to discipline Billy by sending him to the office. He kept acting up from time to time, though, and some of the faculty suspected he might be incorrigible. One of the faculty then decided that he'd never amount to a thing and had him expelled. The initial judgement didn't even remotely match the final punishment, and the person making the decision didn't have the authority in the first place.

The US doesn't get to decide the expressed will of the UN; the UN does. It's just a craven attempt to wrap yourself in the happy touchy-feely legitimacy of international consensus without bothering to actually *have* a consensus agreeing with you.

[Brad Grenz]

I know this may be difficult to imagine, but having the agents of a foreign power's intelligence service running around the country trying to overthrow the government is not the logical equivalent of "UN weapons inspectors."

Except that's not what was happening. It was UN Weapons inspectors essencially gathering signals intelligence and passing it on to the CIA. This wasn't cloak and dagger coup stuff, this was we think they're conspiring to hide weapons from the inspectors so we're going to eavesdrop on their communications to find out what they're up to.

[bmulligan]

The US doesn't get to decide the expressed will of the UN; the UN does. It's just a craven attempt to wrap yourself in the happy touchy-feely legitimacy of international consensus without bothering to actually *have* a consensus agreeing with you.

you're right, jason, you have just illustrated the entire concept of the United Nations and why it is insignificant, indecisive, and incapable of admisistering justice in the world community. The UN has no intention of enforcing any of its decisions. The fact that they would back down from their own resolutions invalidates the organization entirely. It should exist only as an international aid organization and have no influence or opinion in world political decisions as an authoritative body.

But, they did pass resolutions with an ultimatum, 1441 and 687




Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,



Breach of the resolution invalidates the terms of the ceasefire and allows a millitary enforcement to commence, at any time.

You continue to avoid the crux of this war at all costs: Saddam could have retained all his wealth and power by allowing "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA", but he did not. If he were truly disarmed, as it appears, then why didn't he comply ?

[Jason McCullough]

"The UN is incapable of insignificant, indecisive, and incapable of admisistering justice in the world community" isn't compatible in human logic with "but someone had to enforce the unanimous UN resolution, otherwise why have a UN in the first place." Is your official position really that the UN is worthless, but we should enforce their worthless dictates anyway?


It was UN Weapons inspectors essencially gathering signals intelligence and passing it on to the CIA.

Doesn't matter; UN inspectors aren't supposed to be spying for a foreign power. There's no way to make it look good.

[Brad Grenz]

But the reality was far different than:


having the agents of a foreign power's intelligence service running around the country trying to overthrow the government

as you put it.

[bmulligan]

Doesn't matter; UN inspectors aren't supposed to be spying for a foreign power. There's no way to make it look good.

yes, but the CIA's job is to spy, isn't it? And isn't the insn't the very nature of the inspecting and reporting to the UN 'foreign' power the exact same thing? Give me a freaking break, the CIA is going to be there whether UNSCOM is there or not.

And my position on the UN really has no bearing on what should be done. However, our adherence to the terms and conditions of the original cease fire is linked with Iraq's willingness to adhere to the same document. Our enforcement of it is the only thing that is keeping the UN from being totally insignificant in world affairs. It shows that we stand by our commitments made within UN resolutions, and other nations don't.[/quote]

[Jason McCullough]

"Yes, but the CIA's job is to spy, isn't it? And isn't the insn't the very nature of the inspecting and reporting to the UN 'foreign' power the exact same thing? Give me a freaking break, the CIA is going to be there whether UNSCOM is there or not."

Are you really unable to differentiate between the UN - an international organization for mediating disputes in a (mostly) fair manner - spying for the CIA, and the CIA itself? The world isn't divided into "US" and "not US", you know.

[Andrew Mayer]

Our enforcement of it is the only thing that is keeping the UN from being totally insignificant in world affairs. It shows that we stand by our commitments made within UN resolutions, and other nations don't.

I think you may have a stunted sense of ordor and society. The idea of a governing body is that the body itself gets to determine the nature of it's rulings. You can always trump that with force, but the job of a body like the UN isn't constantly proving the "validity" of its own existence through exercise of arms. The fact is that the UN has done a fairly impressive job of bringing disparate elements together in a single room and making them determine a policy and a relationship. It's imperfect and fragile, but there's a good deal of history that's shown it's precisely these kinds of systems that move humanity forward in the long term.

Having America stand in the back with a smirk and a hammer doesn't make that system work better.

It's hard to discuss this with you though, because you've displayed a tendency for self-justifying logic and (from what I've seen here) a massively overblown sense of the quality of your ideas as an individual versus laws and concepts that have been built and tested over time. But you have the solace of knowing that you're not alone...

[Peter Frazier]

It's like a teacher losing control of the classroom.
Fuck, I'd love to send for the Marines when a class gets out of hand.

(Walks away dreaming).

[quatoria]

It's like a teacher losing control of the classroom.
Fuck, I'd love to send for the Marines when a class gets out of hand.

(Walks away dreaming).

However, to carry that analogy further, how quickly would the love affair end when their means of restoring order was tossing a grenade into the classroom, running out, and locking you in it?

[Machfive]

It's like a teacher losing control of the classroom.
Fuck, I'd love to send for the Marines when a class gets out of hand.

(Walks away dreaming).

However, to carry that analogy further, how quickly would the love affair end when their means of restoring order was tossing a grenade into the classroom, running out, and locking you in it?

I guess the question is, is he willing to become a sacrificial lamb in order to set a REALLY scary example for all the other classrooms that might be considering becoming unruly?

"You wouldn't wanna end up like Professor Frazier's class. Settle down now."

[bmulligan]

I think you may have a stunted sense of ordor and society. The idea of a governing body is that the body itself gets to determine the nature of it's rulings.

The UN is not a "governing" body. please tell me what territory or people the UN has 'authority' over?


The fact is that the UN has done a fairly impressive job of bringing disparate elements together in a single room and making them determine a policy and a relationship. It's imperfect and fragile, but there's a good deal of history that's shown it's precisely these kinds of systems that move humanity forward in the long term.



Thank god there is peace and harmony in the world now that the UN is getting people to talk to one another. Please tell me you don't actually believe that there is less conflict in the world in the last 50 years becuse of the UN. The fact that people can come together to discuss policy and negociate doen't negate their individual existence and autonomy to action. Nor should they subjugate autonomy thereby making existence impossible.


It's hard to discuss this with you though, because you've displayed a tendency for self-justifying logic and (from what I've seen here) a massively overblown sense of the quality of your ideas as an individual versus laws and concepts that have been built and tested over time. But you have the solace of knowing that you're not alone...

whose overblown? I love people who atempt to degrade others in order to inflate there own sense of importance and self justify their own logic. Thanks for being the pot that calls the kettle..............

[quatoria]

whose overblown? I love people who atempt to degrade others in order to inflate there own sense of importance and self justify their own logic. Thanks for being the pot that calls the kettle..............

Why, Mulligan? Kindred spirits?

[cyborg]

They are actually the same person.

[Andrew Mayer]

It's hard to discuss this with you though, because you've displayed a tendency for self-justifying logic and (from what I've seen here) a massively overblown sense of the quality of your ideas as an individual versus laws and concepts that have been built and tested over time. But you have the solace of knowing that you're not alone...


whose overblown? I love people who atempt to degrade others in order to inflate there own sense of importance and self justify their own logic. Thanks for being the pot that calls the kettle..............

You just love that circular reasoning... Do you have any other rhetorical tricks in your bag, or do you think you can just say "I'm not you are!" over and over again?

From what I've seen here you never bother doing any research, or backing up anything with actual information. You accused me of "doing a google search" as if presenting facts was some kind of crime.

Your opinions are not facts. And without anything to back them up but hot air they're not much use as opinions either. You'll move through this world in a much more pleasant manner when you stop trying to make it fit your mold and start paying attention to what's actually going on around you.

[bmulligan]

nice boldface. glad to know that you are the first in the world to look upon it with open eyes, oh enlightened one, majesty of all knowledge and ultimate judgement.
well, you did do the google search, didn't you? (That's rhetorical, you don't have to answer it)

Get a freaking life Mayer, you opine your facts just as much as anyone else on this board. If you can't stand the heat, then piss off.
Talk about circular logic. Your entire post was just a long"i know you are but what am i" response. If you want a rise out of me then just say so. I'll live a much more plesant life through this world if weenies like you just shut up and argue instead of whine like crybabies. At leat McCullough has balls, unlike those two flaps of skin between your thighs that you call testicles.

you must be right, I haven't read UN resolutions 1441 or 1284, or 686, or 678 or any others nor quoted from any of them or done any reading or research whatsoever. Now tell me who is misrepresenting the truth? Go back to your liberal huddle and pat all your fellas' backsides before your next offensive assault, ok?

[Jason McCullough]

Hey everyone, I HAVE BALLS!!!!!

[bmulligan]

stop playing with them, jason.

[hermyhermit]

Hey everyone, I HAVE BALLS!!!!!


I would like to disagree with this revelation in the very strongest of terms based upon several examples from past threads.... :D

[Brandon Clements]

stop playing with them, jason.
Play with them, but never talk to them :lol:

[Andrew Mayer]

Get a freaking life Mayer, you opine your facts just as much as anyone else on this board. If you can't stand the heat, then piss off.
Talk about circular logic. Your entire post was just a long"i know you are but what am i" response. If you want a rise out of me then just say so. I'll live a much more plesant life through this world if weenies like you just shut up and argue instead of whine like crybabies. At leat McCullough has balls, unlike those two flaps of skin between your thighs that you call testicles.


And now we discover just how thin your skin really is...

You'll discover that you're far closer to enlightenment when you don't need to rely on the actions of others to determine your state

You may have the facts, but you haven't used them here. You haven't "argued" a single point, or done anything to show me that you have any ability to reason besides bombast and personal attacks. It's a great shame you can't parse the difference between an attack on your method of discourse and attack on you personally.

For the record;
I didn't use google.

[bmulligan]

jesus christ, mayer, let it die already.

I'll continue if you insist:

"I know you are but what am I?"

There, now it's your turn. Sorry to pull you from the lotus, enlightenment and ultimate truth again. Climb down from the tree for a minute and get a whiff of ozone free air so you can fabricate another thought provoking anaylsis on my method of discourse. Yes, my skin is thin to liberal well-wishers like you who squat in an ivory tower, conveniently labeling anyone critical of our government as "disenfranchised chic", like we're copying the latest fashon trend. Oh, excuse me, maybe that's only for the Democrat haters. Let's not forget accusing anyone of disagreeing with you as playing "rhetorical games". You'll find it much easier to go through life without your holier-than-thou point of view, and come down to earth with the rest of the sinners. Your own undeveloped arguments and baseless opinions are the hanging chads of your vacuous philosophy.

[Andrew Mayer]

There, now it's your turn. Sorry to pull you from the lotus, enlightenment and ultimate truth again. Climb down from the tree for a minute and get a whiff of ozone free air so you can fabricate another thought provoking anaylsis on my method of discourse.

Are you pulling me or am I climbing down? Am I getting up from the Lotus or coming down from the tree?

I'm not sure the word "fabricate" means quite what you think it does. But I'll take "thought provoking" as a compliment.


Yes, my skin is thin to liberal well-wishers like you who squat in an ivory tower, conveniently labeling anyone critical of our government as "disenfranchised chic", like we're copying the latest fashon trend.

No trend follower you:


Your own undeveloped arguments and baseless opinions are the hanging chads of your vacuous philosophy.

Between that and the sad "ivory tower" crack you're proved yourself perfectly willing to hang onto a trend long after it's turned into a cliche....

The point here is this:
I'm aware that you think I'm a liberal this or that with paper-thin testicles sitting in my white lotus tree tower.

My experience of you is that you rely on pre-conceived notions and a few basic rhetorical tricks to the point where you don't seem to actually be able to enter into a discourse that doesn't consist of you trying to prove to everyone just how great you are because you are an "Angry Outsider"(tm). So we end up in a circular discussion of methodology instead of discussing issues.

But either way I'm done. I'll see you in another thread sometime.

[Lizard_King]

Not to interrupt the the festivities, but re: Al Gore...He could make a million speeches that sound marvelous (this one doesn't seem all that special), and it would not undo the fact that he has his name on this (http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/Earth_in_the_Balance_Al_Gore.htm).

[Jason McCullough]

What the hell's so bad about that page of excerpts?

[Lizard_King]

What the hell's so bad about that page of excerpts?
It's the book as a whole that's a problem. The sort of man who thinks central planning and self-impoverishment are the path to the future should not be a US president, or even a serious candidate.

[Lizard_King]

---double post---

[Lizard_King]

What the hell's so bad about that page of excerpts?
It's the implications of the book as a whole that concern me...those teasers are only the tip of the iceberg. No one who thinks coerced impoverishment of the American economy is a good thing and subscribes to every scientific fad of the moment should be a US president, especially if we are warned in advance.

[Andrew Mayer]

What the hell's so bad about that page of excerpts?
It's the implications of the book as a whole that concern me...those teasers are only the tip of the iceberg. No one who thinks coerced impoverishment of the American economy is a good thing and subscribes to every scientific fad of the moment should be a US president, especially if we are warned in advance.

I think a president who totally ignores any scientific evidence, and follows religious fads is far less qualified.

I'm not sure what the term "coerced impoverishment" even means. Do you have a less loaded way of describing what it is you're talking about?

I was worried about a Gore presidency. If he was weak on anything it was the strength of his convinctions, and that's a dangerous way to become a leader.

But honestly, I doubt there are many men who "should" be president. The truth is that, once elected, they either grow in stature to become the man worthy of the office of they don't

[Jason McCullough]

What the hell's so bad about that page of excerpts?
It's the implications of the book as a whole that concern me...those teasers are only the tip of the iceberg. No one who thinks coerced impoverishment of the American economy is a good thing and subscribes to every scientific fad of the moment should be a US president, especially if we are warned in advance.

You shouldn't read RNC blast-faxes, you know. The book doesn't contain any calls for "forced improverishment and central planning"; I've got it right here.

[Lizard_King]

You shouldn't read RNC blast-faxes, you know. The book doesn't contain any calls for "forced improverishment and central planning"; I've got it right here.
You shouldn't brand disagreement with your views as the product of propaganda right off the bat.

The bit about Kyoto, for instance. All that nonsense about a new Marshall Plan, just for starters. x10 thanks to the apocalyptic imagery, used by every environmental crisis monger since The Population Bomb.


I'm not sure what the term "coerced impoverishment" even means. Do you have a less loaded way of describing what it is you're talking about?
Probably not, but at least I can clarify what I mean by it. Essentially, people that write about environmental issues without placing economic growth (especially) first and how best to accomodate it, since there is a clear relationship between people reaching a certain standard of living and then selecting a cleaner environment as an affordable luxury. The amount of attention I pay them decreases proportionally to how closely they tie their arguments to the crippling of the first world (eg Kyoto protocol).

Mind you, you both may very well think those sort of approaches wonderful, and therefore have even more reason to like Gore. I was just explaining why I don't.


But honestly, I doubt there are many men who "should" be president. The truth is that, once elected, they either grow in stature to become the man worthy of the office of they don't

True, true. But it doesn't hurt to start with some solid raw material.

[Jason McCullough]

Have you read the book?

[Andrew Mayer]

Essentially, people that write about environmental issues without placing economic growth (especially) first and how best to accomodate it, since there is a clear relationship between people reaching a certain standard of living and then selecting a cleaner environment as an affordable luxury. The amount of attention I pay them decreases proportionally to how closely they tie their arguments to the crippling of the first world (eg Kyoto protocol).

So, in your mind, is there any limits that can and should be placed on enconomic growth in the name of sustainability of resources and the good of the commons?

[Jason McCullough]

There's no reason at all to think that carbon-trading would make humanity worse off, either. Unless you think either that air quality has zero economic value, that is.

[Lizard_King]

Have you read the book?
Do you think I'd be knocking it exclusively on the basis of other people's thoughts on it? (Short answer to your question: Yes). I just used the quotes to provide context for those unfamiliar with it, and because they oddly focused on much the same things I did, albeit from a wholly different perspective.

So, in your mind, is there any limits that can and should be placed on enconomic growth
Absolutely. But most of them come from greater, not less, investment in a resource (ie don't order factories to stop polluting , but provide them with positive incentives to do so, and adjustable, scaled penalties that take into account the cost/benefits of the company's model), and almost none of them come from regulating consumerism to some mythical level of sustainability.


in the name of sustainability of resources and the good of the commons?
Again, that would depend on the specifics, since those are not universal terms. One man's greater good is another's Soviet gulag. Or, to put it in a manner slightly less offensive, you have to weigh a lot of long term factors before making such decisions. Suggest something, if you have a particular in mind.

[Jason McCullough]

Do you think I'd be knocking it exclusively on the basis of other people's thoughts on it?

Based on your statements, of course I did; they were wildly at odds with my reading of it. I don't remember him calling for everyone to be poorer to stop pollution.

Andrew, we discussed "sustainability of resources" a while back. Robert Sharp's (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4678&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60) post started it off.

[Lizard_King]

There's no reason at all to think that carbon-trading would make humanity worse off, either. Unless you think either that air quality has zero economic value, that is.
It depends on how the issue is approached. If it is based around caps and central planning (who "should" have more), then it is a problem. If you're talking about an open system where it is a matter of degree and negotiation rather than a GOSPLAN-like redistricting of air supplies, then we are talking about a workable proposal, important especially for its implications in helping to preserve third world rainforests and the like.


Based on your statements, of course I did; they were wildly at odds with my reading of it. I don't remember him calling for everyone to be poorer to stop pollution.
"Of course?" Whatever.

Anyway, unless it is purely literal accuracy that you are arguing, I was (obviously) talking about what I see as the likely consequences of the schemes Gore promotes in his book. Kyoto, for instance, explicitly calls for a stagnant US economy, otherwise known as choosing to enter a world depression indefinately.

[Jason McCullough]

Dude, "caps" are part of a carbon emissions trading program, which is what every economist favors to deal with 'em. You set a cap per country, the country's government assigns a price per ton of carbon emissions, and assigns them however to start off. The market that then develops will allocate the pollution production quite efficiently, minimizing the cost of reducing pollution. You then drop the caps a little bit every year. You maximize the gains from reducing pollution while minimizing the costs, the same as any other market out there.

Have you read Kyoto? Here's the actual agreement (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html), which is remarkably free of specifics when it comes to how the reduction is achieved. It does *not* call for a "stagnant economy"; there's a bunch of ways to reduce carbon output without blowing up growth. I don't even see any enforcement in there.

It's not perfect, but it's a start.

[Lizard_King]

Dude, "caps" are part of a carbon emissions trading program, which is what every economist favors to deal with 'em. You set a cap per country, the country's government assigns a price per ton of carbon emissions, and assigns them however to start off. The market that then develops will allocate the pollution production quite efficiently, minimizing the cost of reducing pollution. You then drop the caps a little bit every year. You maximize the gains from reducing pollution while minimizing the costs, the same as any other market out there.
Obviously, I failed to go into sufficient detail. But the difference is who is dictating the caps and what the numbers are based on. You can have positive incentive based systems that reward good environmental behaviour without significantly damaging the economy. There exist "caps" of a sort in that format, but not as set limiting factors; rather, they are flexible, adjusted with cost-benefit analyses to provide incentives for cleaner work. You cannot cap the emissions level from the top down without serious consequences, especially when it is based around the basically disingenuous use of statistics that drives global warming arguments and the like.


Have you read Kyoto? Here's the actual agreement (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html), which is remarkably free of specifics when it comes to how the reduction is achieved. It does *not* call for a "stagnant economy"; there's a bunch of ways to reduce carbon output without blowing up growth. I don't even see any enforcement in there.

It's not perfect, but it's a start.
Of course, like any other UN-esque resolution, it is mostly rhetoric, hot air, and inscrutable bureacralegalisms. My problem is that anyone who would adopt it as a cause celebre either has little to lose (or so they think) by putting a check on the US economy or is a pseudoscience aficionado like Algore. Neither is calculating in the long term, especially when the short term benefits of their "reforms" come to fruition and are factored in...The latter in a position of power can do serious harm. If any of those recommendations cited in the Kyoto protocol were put in place as a federal mandate, the result would be crippling. Unless, of course, your position is that Algore's support of Kyoto is purely symbolic pandering, and thus not to be taken literally in any way.
The most effective way to deal with environmental questions is to solve economic problems FIRST; as people raise their standard of living their concern over their environs rises exponentially, along with all the fringe benefits like fewer children with more of an investment made in each.

In any case, so long as we are talking about good books on the environment, this (http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm) would be my recommendation. I don't share all of his conclusions, but the information he provides as a source is invaluable to anyone that cares about the material state of the environment as opposed to seeking justifications for preconceived ideological notions. Also, his analysis of the statistical gymnastics that drive many of the most popular arguments these days is fascinating in and of itself.

[Jason McCullough]

Just so I'm following:

1) Global warming is bad.
2) To stop global warming, you need to decrease carbon emissions.
3) However, actually decreasing carbon emissions is bad. The proper solution is to slow the rate of growth.

Lomborg's a hack.

[Lizard_King]

Just so I'm following:

1) Global warming is bad.
2) To stop global warming, you need to decrease carbon emissions.
3) However, actually decreasing carbon emissions is bad. The proper solution is to slow the rate of growth.

Lomborg's a hack.

To which I must reply, have you read the Skeptical Environmentalist? There is no possible way to derive your three points from it. Perhaps you are confused, or using ideological criteria exclusively.

[Jason McCullough]

The three points were a criticism of your reasoning. The Lomberg line was just a throwaway.

[bmulligan]

McCullough's criticism:


1) Global warming is bad.
2) To stop global warming, you need to decrease carbon emissions.
3) However, actually decreasing carbon emissions is bad. The proper solution is to slow the rate of growth.

And his own conclusions of Kyoto:


1. You set a cap per country, the country's government assigns a price per ton of carbon emissions, and assigns them however to start off.

2 The market that then develops will allocate the pollution production quite efficiently, minimizing the cost of reducing pollution.

3. You then drop the caps a little bit every year.



They both sound remarkably similar.

I'm curious, Jason, isn't a country who overproduces carbon obligated to purchase "equivalent units" from the underproducing countries? Isn't that basically bribery by contract? Or is it extortion? or is it just hushmoney?

And how does one limit carbon production and reduce it every year by decree without mandating new technologies and limiting production ?
Any and every amount of energy used creates carbon. Limiting carbon production by law equals limiting the economy de facto, regardless of your "maximizing gains from reducing pollution" theory.

[Machfive]

You know, if we'd be able to erect a couple hundred IFR's to replace aging coal plants, we'd cut out a disgusting level of carbon emissions. We can then allocate all that coal towards usage in TDP's, thus utterly eliminating that pesky 15% dependence on foreign oil that we have.

And while we're at it, can we get the Cape Cod wind generators online yet, or are the same greens that want clean power not finished blowing copious amounts of hot air about how awful we treat the environment, while they sit there and protest against ruining a "pristine" and "beautiful" landscape with nasty, ugly, clean-power generating wind silos?

[Jason McCullough]

They both sound remarkably similar.

No; one's a bad-old command and control method - Thou Shalt Not Produce More Than This - the other creates a market, creating a strong incentive for people to figure out how to make stuff with less pollution/carbon emissions.

Seriously, most of the economists who've looked at this say we could have large gains with little or no costs.


I'm curious, Jason, isn't a country who overproduces carbon obligated to purchase "equivalent units" from the underproducing countries? Isn't that basically bribery by contract? Or is it extortion? or is it just hushmoney?

I think the technical term is "business." The government just assigns a price to pollution (which does have a price, unless you think a clean environment has no value whatsoever), "charges" for each unit produced, and then gets out of the way.

They used something along these lines to deal with acid rain back in the 1980s and it worked far better than anyone predicted.

[Gav]

And while we're at it, can we get the Cape Cod wind generators online yet, or are the same greens that want clean power not finished blowing copious amounts of hot air about how awful we treat the environment, while they sit there and protest against ruining a "pristine" and "beautiful" landscape with nasty, ugly, clean-power generating wind silos?

The Sierra Club, at least, is in favor of them (I heard their president on the radio the other day). I'm not sure which greens you're so angry at--most of the people against the generators are people who live in Cape Cod and are worried about property values (unless "greens" now equals "people who worry about their property values.")

Gav

[Machfive]

The Sierra Club, at least, is in favor of them (I heard their president on the radio the other day). I'm not sure which greens you're so angry at--most of the people against the generators are people who live in Cape Cod and are worried about property values (unless "greens" now equals "people who worry about their property values.")

Gav

To it's credit, I wouldn't consider the Sierra Club greens. They're fairly reasonable environmentalists.

When I use greens, I imply being unreasonable or fanatical. Someone who believe "conservation" is the end-all, be-all to the energy problem.

[Jason McCullough]

Dude, if the Sierra club isn't "greens" then the term has no meaning.

[Lizard_King]

The three points were a criticism of your reasoning. The Lomberg line was just a throwaway.
Well, then you are doubly wrong. Global warming would be a problem, if any of the long-term data supported the histrionics its advocates put forth. Unfortunately for them, only very selective use of metereological data can be used to support their case, broadly speaking.

Now, pollution is a problem, in specific cases like CFC's, and in general because it is unpleasant and creates health hazards, as well as compromising food supplies. That's why I am in favour of reducing it, but that's also why I think it is an issue that has to be dealt with reasonably, over time, with reference to solid economic growth first, not as OHNOS!EARTHISMELTING emergency action, since it is that very rise in the standard of living that is a result of economic growth that can most directly lead to a better envirionment.

Unless, of course, you are an advocate of zero-sum economics, in which case I give you leave to ignore me and return to Das Kapital.


Dude, if the Sierra club isn't "greens" then the term has no meaning.
I have to agree with you there. That said, it doesn't mean that they are always wrong, as this windpower issue demonstrates. But I think Mach might have been referring to folks like Ted Kennedy and the Democratic representative for the area, who say shit like "I am in favour of windpower, just not there". The classic schizophrenia that afflicts that sort of person when their own summer palaces are involved...

Perhaps the lesson to be drawn is that while the Greens may not always be wrong, the Democrats are much more consistent. (ducks for flames)