Comments Posted By Eric Florack
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 27 Comments
LIBERAL AUTHORITARIANISM AND EARTH HOUR
We did not harm anyone by doing that.
No, but you furthered an idea that decidedly does. Isn't it interesting that the enviro-whackjob left, and alQuieda share a common goal? That being, to return us to the 14th century.
You see, in both cases, by controlling who gets to use technology, they both get to chose who advances, and who ends up on the dust heap of history.If you can point out where I say you are not entitled to turn off your lights,
Oh, that's the goal and make no mistake. Who would ahve thought the federal government could reach into GM's board room and hire and fire it's members? YOu may notice it happened over the weekend. That level of power didn't happen quickly, but advanced slowly over time. The boiled frog.
Of course you think I'm stretching this stuff. I'm not. Witness David Owen in the NEw Yorker the other day:
The popular answer—switch to hybrids—leaves the fundamental problem unaddressed. Increasing the fuel efficiency of a car is mathematically indistinguishable from lowering the price of its fuel; it’s just fiddling with the other side of the equation. If doubling the cost of gas gives drivers an environmentally valuable incentive to drive less—the recent oil-price spike pushed down consumption and vehicle miles travelled, stimulated investment in renewable energy, increased public transit ridership, and killed the Hummer—then doubling the efficiency of cars makes that incentive disappear. Getting more miles to the gallon is of no benefit to the environment if it leads to an increase in driving—and the response of drivers to decreases in the cost of driving is to drive more. Increases in fuel efficiency could be bad for the environment unless they’re accompanied by powerful disincentives that force drivers to find alternatives to hundred-mile commutes. And a national carbon policy, if it’s to have a real impact, will almost certainly need to bring American fuel prices back to at least where they were at their peak in the summer of 2008. Electric cars are not the panacea they are sometimes claimed to be, not only because the electricity they run on has to be generated somewhere but also because making driving less expensive does nothing to discourage people from sprawling across the face of the planet, promoting forms of development that are inherently and catastrophically wasteful.
One beneficial consequence of the ongoing global economic crisis is that it has put a little time back on the carbon clock. Because the climate damage done by greenhouse gases is cumulative, the emissions decrease attributable to the recession has given the world a bit more room to devise a plan that might actually work. The prospects for a meaningful worldwide climate agreement probably improved last November, with the election of Barack Obama, but his commitments to economic recovery and carbon reduction—to bringing the country out of recession while also reducing U.S. greenhouse emissions to seventeen per cent of their 2005 level by 2050—don’t pull in the same direction. Creating “green jobs,” a key component of the agenda, is different from creating new jobs, since green jobs, if they’re truly green, displace non-green jobs—wind-turbine mechanics instead of oil-rig roughnecks—probably a zero-sum game, as far as employment is concerned. The ultimate success or failure of Obama’s program, and of the measures that will be introduced in Copenhagen this year, will depend on our willingness, once the global economy is no longer teetering, to accept policies that will seem to be nudging us back toward the abyss.
All of this is based on the Gorebot relgion of global warming, the evidence for which is suspect at least and in truth, a monumental construct of lies and disinformation. The very basis of our freedoms, and our economy… our mobility and our technology…is being challanged here, by a myth. And the spreading of this movement is facilitated by things like 'earth hour'.
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 30.03.2009 @ 05:40
The budget proposal did much damage to the GOP’s credibility.
Among whom, particularly?
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 29.03.2009 @ 18:48
Hit the button too early;
These are the bedrock talking points of the GOP, and have been for years.
No, that's precisely the point , they have not been the talking points for years. Specifically for the last eight years, we've been steadily moving away from those talking points, and the values underneath those talking points. That's exactly the point that this thing was supposed to begin to address. You I can discuss whether or not that was an effective move, but the logic behind it is sound.
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 28.03.2009 @ 20:37
Was there anybody in America that didn’t know that already?
A reasonable question. But a declaration of values is seldom worthless, particularly in the realm of politics.
I mean, look, somebody could logically asked the same question about the democrats. Is there any question that they're going to be for higher taxes last offense and more government control on every possible discussion that comes up?
Yet, I don't see anybody complaining about the number of times and what they restate their position. There's a reason that they do that of course; it is to reinforce their base. Seems to me, that's where the republicans fell down in the last election ; their base simply wasn't with them.
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 28.03.2009 @ 20:36
Sorry, Rick; I'm going to side with Jen Rubin on this one:
Republicans are aiming not to win the budget battle, but to re-establish the differentiation between the parties. Having lost their image of fiscal sobriety during the Bush years, Republicans now are struggling to re-establish their brand. At the very least they are offering a choice: free market health care vs. government-run, nationalized care; bailouts vs. getting failing companies off the dole; and higher vs. lower taxes. Without the necessity of rounding up votes they have the luxury of painting the stark differences in political philosophy between the two parties.
Will it “work”? Well, it is not going to pass, of course. But that is not its aim. In a sense the Republican budget plan “works” by existing, by reminding voters that massive taxing and spending is not the only alternative. Provided the Republicans oppose the Obama budget en masse (which is highly likely), they will be positioned to argue in the years ahead, and most clearly in 2010, that Obama “owns” the budget and our fiscal outlook.
The fact is, there would have been no difference whatsoever if they came in with a fully dressed budget ready to go. Even if they thought the Democrats were going to take any Republican budget proposal seriously, which you and I both know they will not, Consider that the democrats don't even bother reading the bills that they know are going to get passed into law. What indication do we have that any of them would have read a proposal that would have had no chance whatsoever of passage?
Jennifer is right on this one. Ryan's alternative, such as it is, or such as that might have been, regardless, is already irrelevant. At least, irrelevant in terms of actually becoming law.
Now, becoming a positional document going forward, that's a whole 'nother matter.
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 28.03.2009 @ 13:07
ALZHEIMER'S: THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL
Second pass:
@Rick;
The political is almost invariably personal. So it should be.
As I told Margolis recently; Politics isn't a game until itself. Politics at the individual level, ideally, is merely a reflection of our most personal value structure, and our personal moral fibre. Politics is merely a tool to represent those values to and advance those values in, whatever 'community' we happen to be in. There's a lot of implication, there, that attaches itself to this and so many other issues precisely because of that relationship.
If nothing else, your post brings home to me that we often get so wrapped up in the political game that we forget there are people's values, and peoples lives that are at stake.
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 26.03.2009 @ 09:18
@Rick:
(Nod in respect)@Shaun;
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 26.03.2009 @ 09:10
It's an interesting point, but I hasten to add that they're finding adult cells are often as or more effective.
IS OUR NATIONAL WILL 'WILTING AWAY?'
I don't see us wimping out any more than we have previously. It's just that the wimps are increasingly vocal. Consider Vietnam. Korea and WWII are examples also where not everyone was on board with our actions. Idiots, probably. Naieve, certainly. But there it is; What Andy's seeing is nothing new. Worth dealing with and worth eliminating to the degree possible by the sheer force of logic... but hardly new.
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 24.03.2009 @ 10:26
I HAVE COME NOT TO PRAISE CAPITALISM BUT TO BURY IT
Surprise, surprise. Is Obama doing anything he didn’t say he would do during the campaign?
Kinda hard to say. Most of what he said was so insubstantial, tying what he said then to what he's doing now is like trying to nail fog to a tree.
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 24.03.2009 @ 10:16
Scrapiron;
If I owned a company of any size that could be moved it would be on the moving van.
But to where? I don't think you understand the scope of the failure here. America was the best and brightest hope because of its dedication to capitalism free markets and free people. We have been the example to the rest of the world for generations. How will the rest of these places be in a very short period of time, given the condition of that example?
I submit to you that very shortly there will be no place for you to go.
Comment Posted By Eric Florack On 22.03.2009 @ 11:18
